HomeMy WebLinkAbout072302 CC Agenda
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 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 IIJ
AGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
A REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
JULY 23, 2002 - 7:00 P.M.
At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items
can be considered and acted upon prior to 11 :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 11 :00 P.M.
5:30 P.M. - Closed Session of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency pursuant to
Government Code Sections:
1. Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8 regarding real property acquisition negotiations of a 7.7 acre
parcel located on the corner of Santiago and Ynez (APN No. 0922-140-010-1).
Under. negotiation is the price and terms of the real property interests. The City
negotiators are Shawn Nelson and Jim O'Grady.
2. Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(b)(1) with respect to two matters of potential litigation. With
respect to such matter, the City Attorney has determined that a point has been
reached where there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City based
on existing facts and circumstances and the City will decide whether to initiate
litigation.
3. Conference with City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Sections 54957 and
54957.6 with respect to City Manager's Evaluation.
Public Information concerning existing litigation between the City and various parties
may be acquired by reviewing the public documents held by the City Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER:
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 2002-04
Resolution: No. 2002-64
Mayor Ron Roberts
Prelude Music:
Invocation:
Matthew Fagan
Pastor David Shirley of Church On The Rock
Flag Salute:
Cub Scout Pack 911
ROLL CALL:
Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts
R:\AgendaI072302
~
PRESENT A TIONS/PROCLAMA TIONS
National Kids Dav Proclamation
Paramedic Assessment Squad Presentation
EaQle Scout - Aaron Shaw
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Council on
items that appear within the Consent Calendar or ones that are not listed on the agenda.
Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on
an item which is listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a
pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all Public Hearing or Council Business matters on the agenda, a "Request to
Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Council addressing that item.
There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made
at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will
be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
Members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent
Calendar for separate action.
1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the
agenda.
2 Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of June 11, 2002.
R:\AgendaI072302
2
3 Resolution Approvino List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 02-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
4 City Treasurer's Statement of Investment Policy
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt the Treasurer's Statement of Investment Policy as proposed by staff which
provides safety, liquidity and yield for City funds.
5 Consideration of Cost-Sharinq Aqreement with Save Southwest Riverside County (SSRC)
for ConsultinQ Services
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Approve a Cost-Sharing Agreement with Save Southwest Riverside County (SSRC)
for Consulting Services in a matter of the Application of the San Diego Gas &
Electric Company for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the
Valley-Rainbow 500 KV Interconnect Project, in an amount not-to-exceed $25,000.
6 Sister City Monument Dedication In Honor of September 11
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Approve the Temecula Duck Pond as the permanent installation location of our
Sister City monument "Singing In The Rain" to commemorate the tragedies of
September 11, 2001.
7 Parcel Map No. 30178, located on the east side of Orsmby Road and north of Santiaqo
Road
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Approve Parcel Map 30178 in conformance with the conditions of approval;
7.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement;
7.3 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Faithful
Performance Bond, Labor and Material Bond and Monument Bond as security for
the agreements.
R:\AgendaI072302
3
8 Approval of Cooperative AQreement with the Temecula Redevelopment Aoency for
Construction and FundinQ of the Mercantile BuildinQ Seismic Retrofit (Community
Theater) - Proiect PW01-20
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Approve an Agreement entitled "Cooperative Agreement" between the City of
Temecula and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula for construction
and funding of the Mercantile Building Seismic Retrofit (Community Theatre) -
Project No. PW01-20;
8.2 Authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City in substantially
the form attached to the Agenda Report.
9 Annual Professional Service AQreements for Real Estate Appraisal Services for various
Capital Improvement Proiects for FY 2002-2003
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Approve an agreement with Robert Shea Perdue Real Estate Appraisal in an
amount not to exceed $30,000 to provide as needed real estate appraisal services;
9.2 Approve an agreement with Mason & Mason Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants
in an amount not to exceed $30,000 to provide as needed real estate appraisal
services;
9.3 Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreements.
10 Annual Professional Service Aqreements for Geotechnical and Material Testino Services
for various Capital Improvement Proiects for FY 2002-2003
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1 Approve an agreement with EnGEN Public Works Services, LLC in an amount not
to exceed $60,000 to provide as needed geotechnical and materials testing
services;
10.2 Approve an agreement with Kleinfelder, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $60,000 to
provide as needed geotechnical and materials testing services;
10.3 Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreements.
11 Annual Professional Service AQreements for EnoineerinQ and Construction Survey
Services for various Capital Improvement Projects for FY 2002-2003
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 Approve the annual agreement with Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc in an amount
not to exceed $60,000 to provide as needed engineering and construction survey
services;
11.2 Approve the annual agreement with Project Design Consultants in an amount not to
exceed $60,000 to provide as needed engineering and construction survey services;
R\Agendal072302
4
11.3 Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreements.
12 Amendment NO.5 to Professional Services AQreement - DMJM+HARRIS PechanQa
Parkway (formerly known as Pala Road) Improvements - Phase II, Project No. PW99-11
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 Approve Amendment NO.5 to the Professional Services Agreement with
DMJM+HARRIS in the amount of $20,103.75 to provide additional project
management and field surveying services, and authorize the Mayor to execute the
amendment;
12.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders above the original 1 0%
contingency approved by City Council on November 16, 1.999 by an additional 5%
(or $28,980.00).
13 Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Solicit Construction Bids for
Citywide asphalt Concrete Repairs for FY2002-2003, Project No. PW02-04
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of
Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Citywide Asphalt Concrete Repairs
for FY2002-2003, Project No. PW02-04.
14 Resolution of support for the passaQe of Measure A on the November, 2002 ballot
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 02-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE PASSAGE OF MEASURE A
ON THE NOVEMBER, 2002 BALLOT
15 Morqan Hill Project Mitiqation AQreement. Approval of Joint Community Facilities
AQreement
15.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 02-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT
ENTITLED JOINT COMMUNITY FACILITIES AGREEMENT
AMONG EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT AND CITY
OF TEMECULA AND MCMILLIN MORGAN HILL, LLC
R:\Agenda1072302
5
16 Second ReadinQ of Ordinance No. 02-03
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 02-03
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY
COUNCIL CITY OF TEMECULA
********************
RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF
THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
AND
THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
********
R\Agendal072302
6
**************************************************************************************************************
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING
*****************************************************************************************************************
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. CSD 2002-01
Resolution: No. CSD 2002-08
CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Stone
ROLL CALL:
DIRECTORS:
Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Board of
Directors on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar.
Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of
Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to
Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk
Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit
for individual speakers.
Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink
"Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please
come forward and state your name and address for the record.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDATION
1.1 Approve the minutes of June 25 and July 9, 2002.
DISTRICT BUSINESS
2 NaminQ of Vail Ranch Park Sites A. Band C
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve names for the Vail Ranch Park Sites located in the Vail Ranch
development as follows: Park Site A - Vail Ranch Park; Park Site B -
Nighthawk Park and Park Site C - Pablo Apis Park as recommended by the
Community Services Commission.
R\Agendal072302
7
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Tuesday, August 13, 2002, 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
R:\Agenda1072302
8
*****************************************************************************************************************
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
*****************************************************************************************************************
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. RDA 2002-01
Resolution: No. RDA 2002-09
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Jeff Comerchero
ROLL CALL
AGENCY MEMBERS:
Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts, Comerchero
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the
Redevelopment Agency on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent
Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the
Board of Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk
Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit
for individual speakers.
Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink
"Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please
come forward and state your name and address for the record.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of June 25 and July 9, 2002.
2 Approval of Cooperative AQreement with the Temecula Redevelopment AQency for
Construction and FundinQ of the Mercantile BuildinQ Seismic Retrofit (Community
Theater) - Project PW01-20
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve an Agreement entitled "Cooperative Agreement" between the City of
Temecula and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula for
construction and funding of the Mercantile Building Seismic Retrofit (Community
Theatre) - Project No. PW01-20;
2.2 Authorize the Chairperson to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Agency in
substantially the form attached to the Agenda Report;
R:\AgendaI072302
9
2.3 Authorize the budgeted expenditure of $287,500.00 for the RDA's share of the
Mercantile Building Seismic Retrofit project costs incurred, as approved by the
City or the RDA.
3 First Amendment to Lease of AQency Property - 27500 Jefferson Avenue
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Approve a first amendment to the lease agreement with the Donna L. Reeves
Trust UTD 7/25/90 for Agency property located at 27500 Jefferson Avenue to
provide a one-year extension to this lease for an amount of $15,000 per month;
3.2 Approve a first amendment to the sublease agreement between the Donna L.
Reeves Trust and Temecula Valley Automotive, d/b/a Temecula Valley
Mitsubishi and authorize the City Manager to sign the consent agreement.
4 Revision of Facade Improvement ProQram
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Approve the recommended revisions to the Facade Improvement Program,
extending the list of eligible improvements to include hardscape and landscaping.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Tuesday, August 13, 2002, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, California.
R\Agendal072302
10
RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public Hearing or
may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the Approval of the project(s)
at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any of the project(s) in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or
in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing.
17 Remove a Condition of Approval on Amendment NO.7 of the Paloma del Sol Specific
Plan (PlanninQ Application No. 02-0299) - Continued from the meeting of July 9, 2002
RECOMMENDATION:
17.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 02-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA REMOVING A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR
AMENDMENT NO. 7 OF THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC
PLAN, ALSO KNOWN AS PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-
0285 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0299)
COUNCIL BUSINESS
18 Consideration of FundinQ Mechanism for the Acquisition of Open Space
(Placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Naggar.)
RECOMMENDATION:
18.1 Discuss this matter and provide direction to Staff.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
City of Temecula/City of Murrieta Joint Workshop: July 30, 2002 at 6:00 P.M., City Council
Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Next regular meeting: City Council, Tuesday, August 13, 2002, at 7:00 P.M., City Council
Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
R:\Agenda1072302
11
PRESENTATIONS /
PROCLAMA TIONS
"0 <1.l
8 m <1.l '01)
~ -B ~ .m
..., "0 <1.l .~ ~ <1.l<1.l"O
:;::l 8 m 'Cd "0"";
;:l ~ (\j ~ ...... 1; -B <1.l 8
.D ..c: <1.l <1.l U ..9 ..c:"Oa -c
... -;:: s 0 ~
m ill m .... @ ~
.~ ...... .9 ... <1.l <1.l 0., <1.l'@ :;s U
m (\j ...... ..c:2: E <1.l m
0 ;:l ...... ;:l <1.l
m '01) :tl ... 0 >, riJ .0
<1.l "0 o > (\j.D
u ... <1.l (\j ~ ~ . U 0 t: .~
U 8 m "0 ]; <1.l (;0, ... <1.l U
~ <1.l .~ ..c: ~ O"O(\j .D rj
t: > ~8"5c-.i &
<1.l .~ ~ 'S ..ci :;s
0 ...
.... .~ "0 -oi38
E S m <1.l '1:: ;:l ;:l ~ U
0 .... ~ ~ U S ~]~~ &
..a .~ 0., "0 a riJ
.... '01) (\j 8 [j ~
;:l .S 0., ...... 0 ~ >,...... ;:l 0
0 ..c: ..9 ~ o U "0 SO":l ":l
..c: U <1.l m"O ...... 8 rn .0......
U (\j [j ~"O '38 0 ~....~ 0 :i
.~ ~ g 8 .0 ~ <1.lU >,
~ "0
~ ...... m .~ m <1.l (\j 8
.8 5 U .. U <1.l U "0 E-<O..c:"O
- ~ S .... ~t:: !l .~ <1.l m ~....., ..j..I"Cl m
= 0 -0 <1.l <1.l .!:1 -B ;E ~...... 'M ;:l
~ <1.l :a .s S "' ... ;:lOC'l C/)
~Z -B o ~ ...... "' ~cam
0 @ g- o ~ ~
.~ U ~ .!:1 li!: <1.l <1.l'~
QJO ... 0
(\j "0 '01) <1.l...... :;::l .....c:C/)-B I
8.... "0 '@ ~ >,<1.l m <1.l U ~ ~
~ .~ ..c: [j s-B S
QJ~ ;:l .s .& u"O o:l (\j rIl ;!;l'
~< <2 <1.l (\j 0 "0
m ..c: <1.l .!:1 '0 '> U ..c:
<1.l "0 ~ ...
~~ -B ~ ~ ~~ "O-B .0 .~
.~
<1.l ~ ;:l .....
0 < <1.l '1:: m .~ U - .~
@ "'" <1.l m 0 '1:: 0 d
~...;l ...... (\j'" ~
0 >,
"0 .... ...... s'O = ...
.......u (\j 8 ca ~ 8 Q
...... ...... .0
....c 0 ;:l o m 0 ....
... ~t: ..... ~
U~ u ~ '> u ~ ~ d
~ "0 0 . 0
0 ~ caS <1.l .~ ?: ;:l
Q.l ~ ... ~~ 0-
~ ......"0 <1.l -
~8 ...... ...... .D .s
,.Q ...... a U m ;::I
0 <1.l .~ ~..c: ~
~ <1.l .. o.,~ -0
.0 riJ :0 0,) m <1.l ~ 0 ~
.~ 'S U ~<1.l riJ <1.l
U ... (\j ....
~ ;:l 5 m:9 Q : t: 0.,
<1.l <1.l ~} ...... ...... <1.l m
..c: @ ~'5 m <1.l .D ......
... -o..c: 0
...... 0., ~~ &
0 Q..c: <1.l
~ ~ U 0 ... ca~ ~ ~
<1.l "0 U ~ .~
<1.l <1.l o .
.... m 8'0 ~ <1.l ~... 0:: ~ t:
"0 ~ o .
:;::l ca] .~ m 0
m <1.l ... ~ ......C'I
..c: ~ 1 ~ (\j 0 .0 .~
U "0 ~ m Z+:l ~?:l
<1.l :;::l . <1.l 0 <1.l (\j
m .~ >,
..c: ..c: ... <1.l ~ .~ o . <1.l
... U (\j (\j..c: -B
4'<."0 (;0,...
~ ~ z... ~~
~ 8 . <1.l ~f <1.l
~~ .~
I ~~ ~~ m
(\j
~ E-<'O ..c:
~E ~..a S
~ ~~ !i~ <1.l
<1.l .~ 0"0 "0
.D li!:~ 8
... C")
...... a ;:l
0 0 <1.l
>, ..c:
...
0) rn
~;.8 >>'E .....
{lC') 0 ~
. l=i .....M >> .....
..., ...... <lJ C/l ~ ~
5.:.:: ..c:;E u
<lJ .... '" >>
(.) (.) ;:.- ....
.... .~
w. ;j ro ro ..... U
....... ..c: & <lJ
0),->-< ...... - .g u'
'bbo ro P<: :::8
, .~
.... u
oj ..., 0::5 i:: u
r.il rn 0
<+-< OJ "'" 0 P<: '"
!:.:i"O <lJ
rfl 0...0 "'" i:: @
"'(j "d .:.:: OJ ::r:: ro ......
~ l=i...l:l ;!:"OM ~
~ (]) oj""
S rfli::O i::
~ .... S VlroO
..c:M cO
~ ~ S 0) ...... ",">>' ;g
- 0 ...l:l...l:l ZE~ Vl
=:s < u ""...l:l E-< ;:l
......... ....."0......
ro 0 b.Orn ;!:<lJ"'"
U ,......, l=i ...... >< 0
QJ 04-1 ;j ..... ':;' ~ Z ~ >>
~ u ~ 8 "'" cO
S (]) (]) ...... 0) .....cO"O
0)
QJ S S (.) ~
QJ S ~ 0)
~ ~ ...."C
~ QJ Q) ~ l=i l=i
ail 0 oj
'-+-I :> Cf) s "C~
0 QJ c~ ...... ....
~.~ ...... ...cl oj
04-1"= ugp ~ b.O~
Q) ...... .s <t:
.~ U ,..c:"d a
U < ..... ~ ~ ..., rn
"'" ro oj ......
o ..... ~ ..........l:l
QJ - rfl ;j ...,
,......, .....
~ '0 ;j ...,
..= ~ oj...l:l
.~ @ ~ .... ...,
~ U b.O ......
QJ o,..c: l=i ~
p.. u..... 0 l=i
(.) 0
rJ'J C l=i ....
...... ...... oj
u "1<<t:
~ Cf':)...,
O'l l=i
[-; ==It: 0)
o..rn
o 0)
....
00..'
.... rn
~ 0 ....
...l:l ..., 0
...,"C>>
...... 0) oj
~ ..., 0)
rn~]
l=i ...... 0)
...... .......
o 0) 0)
''-' "C ....
"'d 0) ;::l
l=i .... ...,
oj oj <2
ITEM 1
ITEM 2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
JUNE 11, 2002
After the Closed Session that convened at 5:30 P.M., the City Council convened in Open
Session at 7:01 P.M., on Tuesday, June 11, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula
City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Present:
Councilmembers:
Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, and Stone
Absent:
Councilmember:
Roberts
PRELUDE MUSIC
The prelude music was provided by Micah and Jacob Putnam.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Reverend Howard Brown of Winchester Community United
Methodist Church.
ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Mayor Pro Tem Stone.
PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
Amateur Radio Proclamations
With gratitude, Mr. Harm Wijma accepted the Amateur Radio Proclamation which designated the
week of June 17-23, 2002 as Amateur Radio Week; and provided additional information regarding
the 24-hour event which would be held from June 22 to June 23 whereupon antennas would be
raised in efforts to communicate with as many amateur operators as feasible throughout the United
States, Canada, and South America, noting that the event would be held at Fire Station No. 28
which was located in Sage.
Special Olvmpics Certificates
Offering thanks to the City Council for their help and support, Ms. Judy Bell, Area Director of the
Special Olympics, accepted the certificates, advising that on the weekend of June 14th there
would be State competitions held in Long Beach.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Rob Bolles, 44526 Leona Court, Redhawk, relayed thanks to the City Council for the
offering of a cost-sharing program to the County of Riverside which would heighten the
emergency medical response to the unincorporated areas, noting hopes that the City would
continue communications with the County regarding this issue; and offered additional thanks to
Fire Chief Windsor and the crew at Station No. 92 for their assistance in assessing Redhawk's
southern slopes for fire danger.
In response, Mayor Pro Tem Stone advised that efforts would continue with the County
regarding the cost-sharing program for emergency medical response.
RIMinutesl061102
Councilman Naggar noted that following the lead of Temecula (at Mayor Pro Tem Stone's
recommendation) the County paramedics were now equipped to implement cricothyroidotomies,
an emergency procedure that opened the breathing airway.
Mr. Will Rodgers, 32124 Corte Carmona, recommended that there be consideration to construct
a hospital in the City of Temecula which was a much-needed facility.
In response, Councilman Comerchero noted that discussions were taking place at this time
regarding the future development of a hospital, providing assurance that there would be a
hospital in the City ofTemecula at a future point.
Ms. Melissa Donaldson, 32153 Corte Carmona, representing Safe Alternatives for Everyone
(SAFE), thanked the City Council for its support, advising that the purpose of this non-profit
organization was to serve families at risk of abuse and violence, or who have already
experienced some type of violence; noted that while the doors just opened June 3"', numerous
phone calls and clients have already been received; and invited the City Council to SAFE's
Open House which would be held on June 21st.
Ms. Michelle Anderson, 43797 Barletta, representing Citizens First for Temecula Valley (CFTV),
noted that packets had been distributed to the City Council regarding a "Hyper" Wal-Mart store
being proposed in the County which would include a grocery component, dry cleaners, banking
services, etc., would have 2400 parking spaces, and would be located on Highway 79 (South)
between Meadows Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road; and urged the City Council to address
this matter with the County due to the significant negative impacts this particular development
would generate in the City of Temecula.
For Ms. Anderson, Councilman Comerchero noted that since she had relayed to him the
negative impacts regarding overnight RV parking at Wal-Mart uses, there has been an added
condition by the County on the Wal-Mart Agreement restricting all night RV parking.
Mr. Otto Baron, 28681 Pujol Street, with respect to Code Enforcement, recommended that there
be a differentiation clarified between worn-out, non-running dilapidated yehicles, and classic
antiques which were reminders of our automobile heritage, elaborating on the difficulties he has
been experiencing with Code Enforcement.
For Mayor Pro Tem Stone, City Manager Nelson relayed that staff would follow-up regarding the
Code Enforcement matter.
Ms. Kay Williams, PO Box 435, representing the Temecula Town Association offered thanks to
the City Council for its support of the 6th Annual Frontier Days Rodeo which was a tremendous
success, additionally noting thanks to the community sponsors and City staff; and presented an
award to the City Council in honor of its support, an award to Councilman Naggar as Celebrity
Team Penner, and a commemorative T-shirt to each Councilmember.
Ms. Adrienne Potter, 30816 Medinah Way, representing Kids in Danger (KID), relayed that she
has been a child safety activist for the past 15 years in five cities; noted her concern regarding
the congestion around the schools, in particular the location of the high school on Winchester
Road; recommended that Public Works Department's budget be increased in order to fund
much-needed signals; and submitted data to the City Clerk which revealed that the number one
killer of kids was car accidents.
R:IMinutes1061102
2
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Relaying kudos, Councilman Naggar recognized the Board of Directors and the
numerous volunteers who participated in the Balloon & Wine Festival, and in particular
commended the emergency personnel.
B. Councilman Pratt requested that the Congestion Management Plan be agendized for the
June 25, 2002, City Council meeting, and that a report be presented regarding recent
progress.
C. Councilman Pratt read a sentimental poem into the record regarding Old Friends.
D. Providing an update, Councilman Comerchero noted that SB 910 (the Dunn Senate Bill),
which would impose severe penalties for cities who do not have their Housing Elements
approved by the State, and which the City of Temecula was opposed to, had made it
through the Local Government Committee in Sacramento.
E. Commenting on the City's opposition to the Valley Rainbow Interconnect Project, the
SDG&E Transmission Line Project, Councilman Comerchero relayed that within
approximately a week, the City's website will have additional information (i.e., a form, or
a form letter) regarding contacting the Governor with respect to this issue.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the
agenda.
2 Aooroval of Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of April 23, 2002;
2.2 Approve the minutes of May 7, 2002;
2.3 Approve the minutes of May 14, 2002.
3 Resolution ApprovinQ List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 02-42
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
R:IMinutes1061102
3
4 Citv Treasurer's Report
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of April 30, 2002.
5 Records Destruction Aporoval
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Approve the scheduled destruction of certain City records in accordance with the
City ofTemecula approved Records Retention Policy.
6 Second Amendment to Professional Services AQreement between the City of Temecula and
Kelley Display, Inc. - City Banner ProQram
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Approve the Second Amendment in the amount of $1,557.00 to the Professional
Services Agreement with Kelley Display, Inc. for the not to exceed amount of
$52,057.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment.
7 Adoption of a Resolution extendinQ the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement ProQram
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 02-43
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AUTHORIZING THE EXTENSION OF THE
SERVICE FEE COLLECTED ON BEHALF OF THE RIVERSIDE
COUNTY ABANDONED VEHICLE ABATEMENT SERVICE
AUTHORITY UNTIL MAY 2014
8 Substitute Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bonds for Public Improvements in
Tract Map No. 25892 (located on the south side of Pauba Road between Ynez Road and
MarQarita Road and across from the Fire Station)
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Accept the Substitute Faithful Performance and Labor and Material Bonds for public
improvements in Tract Map No. 25892;
8.2 Authorize the release of the existing Faithful Performance and Labor and Material
Bonds for Tract Map No. 25892;
8.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety.
R:IMinutes1061102
4
9 Authorize Temporary Street Closures for Street PaintinQ Festival and Great Race Event in
Old Town (located at Old Town Front Street. between Second Street and Fifth Street and
Third Street between Murrieta Creek and Mercedes Street)
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 02-44
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING STREET
CLOSURES FOR THE STREET PAINTING FESTIVAL AND
GREAT RACE EVENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
ENGINEER TO ISSUE A PERMIT FOR THESE SPECIFIC
SPECIAL EVENTS
It is noted that Mayor Pro Tem Stone abstained with regard to this item.
10 All-Way Stop SiQn Installation - Overland Drive at Commerce Center Drive
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 02-45
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AN ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL
AT THE INTERSECTION OF OVERLAND DRIVE AND
COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE
11 Professional Services AQreement for John Warner/SantiaQo Road Assessment District
Improvement Proiect - HydroloQY Study - Proiect No. PW02-07
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 Approve Professional Services Agreement with Engineering Resources of Southern
California, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $55,400.00 to provide design services for
the John Warner/Santiago Road Assessment District Improvement Project -
Hydrology Study - Project No. PW02-07 - and authorize the Mayor to execute the
agreement;
11.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve amendments/change orders not to exceed
the contingency amount of $5,540.00 which is equal to 10% of the agreement.
It is noted that Mayor Pro Tem Stone abstained with regard to this item.
R:IMinutes1061102
5
12 Acquisition AQreement between the City and Claim Jumper Restaurant
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 Approve and execute, in substantially the form attached hereto, the Purchase and
Sale Agreement and Escrow Instructions between City of Temecula and Claim
Jumper-Temecula for the acquisition of certain real property in the amount of
$50,000.00;
12.2 Authorize the City Clerk to record the document.
13 California EnerQV Commission Grant Applications - Battery Back-up Systems for Traffic
SiQnals
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Authorize City staff to apply for grant funding from the California Energy
Commission to partially offset the costs of installing new and existing Battery Back-
up Systems (BBS) for traffic signals at critical intersections;
13.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 02-46
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING AN APPLICATION TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION FOR GRANT FUNDS
SUPPORTING THE INSTALLATION OF NEW BATTERY BACK-
UP SYSTEMS DESIGNED FOR INTERSECTIONS WITH LIGHT
EMITTING DIODE (LED) TRAFFIC SIGNALS
13.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 02-47
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING AN APPLICATION TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION FOR GRANT FUNDS
SUPPORTING THE INSTALLATION OF EXISTING BATTERY
BACK-UP SYSTEMS DESIGNED FOR INTERSECTIONS WITH
LIGHT EMITTING DIODE (LED) TRAFFIC SIGNALS
14 Implementation of Special Tax - Measure C
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RIMinutesl061102
6
RESOLUTION NO. 02-48
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE AMOUNT OF THE SPECIAL
TAX LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 TO PROVIDE FOR
RECREATION AND HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS AND THE
OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND SERVICING OF PUBLIC
PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, MEDIAN
LANDSCAPING, AND ARTERIAL STREET LIGHTS AND
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
15 Cooperation AQreement for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for Fiscal
Years 2003-04.2004-05,2005-06
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1 Authorize the City Manager to execute the Cooperation Agreement for Community
Development Block Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06.
16 Librarv Grant Application
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 02-49
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE TEMECULA PUBLIC LIBRARY
PROJECT BUDGET, LOCAL FUNDING COMMITMENT, AND
SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS AS REQUIRED UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA READING AND LITERACY IMPROVEMENTS
AND LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION BOND
ACT OF 2000
16.2 Approve the grant application for the California Reading and Literacy Improvement
and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2000 and authorize
staff to submit the application to the Bond Act Board.
17 Financial Statements for the nine months ended March 31, 2002
RECOMMENDATION:
17.1 Receive and file the Financial Statements for the nine months ended March 31,
2002 and approve the following:
1) An appropriation of $150,000.00 in the City Attorney line item in the General
Fund;
2) An appropriation of $50,000.00 in the Internal Service Fund Insurance Fund.
R:IMinutes1061102
7
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 -17. The
motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception Mayor Roberts who was absent and Mayor Pro Tem Stone who abstained with regard
to Item Nos. 9 and 11.
For clarification, Councilman Comerchero relayed that with approval of Consent Calendar Item
No. 12 the City would not be acquiring the Claim Jumper Restaurant, but would be acquiring a
small piece of property for a road improvement.
At 7:36 PM., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the
Temecula Redevelopment Agency. The City Council Meeting resumed at 8:56 P.M.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
18 Review and Adoption of the FY 2002-03 Annual OperatinQ BudQet
RECOMMENDATION:
18.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 02-50
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ADOPTING THE FY 2002-03 ANNUAL
OPERATING BUDGET AND ESTABLISHING CONTROLS ON
CHANGES IN APPROPRIATIONS
18.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 02-51
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA REVISING THE SCHEDULE OF AUTHORIZED
POSITIONS
18.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 02-52
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT
FOR FY 2002-03
Advising that the proposed operating budget for fiscal year 2002-2003 would not only be
balanced but would also allow for a significant investment into the City's Capital Improvement
Program, City Manager Nelson provided a broad overview of the staff report (of record),
highlighting the nine percent (9%) increase in projected revenues, the seven-poi nt-one percent
(7.1%) increase in projected expenditures, the establishment of an undesignated General
Fund Reserve of $10 million, the establishment of a policy that a minimum of $500,000 be set
aside annually for the purchase of Open Space, the target goal of three percent (3%) of the total
expenditure budget to be utilized for Open Space acquisitions (after consideration of retiree,
health, and other City needs), and the establishment of a separate fund to pay for future retiree
health benefits; and recognized the outstanding efforts of the Finance Department, and in
particular Director of Finance Roberts, Assistant Finance Director Jester, Fiscal Services
R:IMinutes1061102
8
Manager Papagolos, Senior Accountant Brown, Accountant Ruddell, and Administrative
Secretary Caravelli with regard to the budget.
Mayor Pro Tem Stone relayed appreciation to staff for their diligent efforts regarding the
proposed budget.
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Pratt and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception
of Mayor Roberts who was absent.
In response to Councilman Naggar's request, City Manager Nelson relayed that staff would
investigate, and report back to the City Council (via agendizing the matter) regarding all the
mechanisms available to purchase Open Space in approximately 30-45 days.
19 Review and adoption of the FY 2003-07 Capital Improvement ProQram
RECOMMENDATION:
19.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 02-53
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM FOR FY 2003-07 AND ADOPTING THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR FY 2002-03
Via a PowerPoint presentation, City Manager Nelson presented the proposed Capital
Improvement Program (CIP)for fiscal years 2003-2007, noting the 112 projects included in the
CIP, the total projected cost of $409 million for the five-year program, the earmarked $160
million in funded CIP projects within the next five years (60% of which has been allocated for
traffic improvement projects), and the identified $160 million in potential funding sources.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Stone, City Manager Nelson confirmed that the GIS system has
been installed in the City's emergency vehicles; confirmed that $30,000 was added to the CIP
for overall City beautification every two years; confirmed, for Councilman Naggar, that the City
of Temecula would be stepping up to the plate in efforts to improve regional improvements
which will benefit all southwest Riverside County, in particular the $10 million in funding
allocated for the southbound offramp for the French Valley Parkway, $6 million of which would
for acquisition of right-of-way.
Mr. Larry Markham, representing Rainbow Canyon Development LLC, referencing pages 97
and 98 of the proposed CIP, noted the Planning Commission's recommendation to move up to a
Priority I level the State Route 79 Median Project; and concurred with the Planning
Commission's recommendation, relaying that Caltrans had committed 750,000 in funding (if
matched), recommending that this project be pursued within AD No. 159.
For Mr. Markham, Director of Public Works Hughes noted that the proposed CFD which would
be utilized as the funding source for the median project was being discussed at this time, but
had not yet been determined; and for Mayor Pro Tem Stone, noted that although the funding
had not yet been identified, staff was working with developments in the community which were
proposing to bring these funds forward.
R:IMinutes1061102
9
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Stone, City Manager Nelson recommended that this particular
project (the Highway 79 Median Project) not be identified at a Priority I Project without
designated funding, reiterating that there was a developer who was moving forward with the
potential formation of a new CFD which was being analyzed by staff, advising that within the
next six months there would be additional information regarding this item.
As a matter of record, Councilman Pratt noted his opposition to the circulation improvements
portion of the CIP due to the plan not addressing the impact of the County or the changing
conditions in traffic; recommended the pursuit of the implementation of a light rail system; read
into the record a report he had written regarding this proposed budget, recommending the
implementation of alternate transit options (i.e., an inter-urban transit system, a monorail
system); and noted that the comments he had relayed at the budget workshop had not been
incorporated into the budget.
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the
exception of Mayor Roberts who was absent and Councilman Pratt who abstained from the
circulation portion of the CIP.
20 Consideration of preliminary steps to explore the feasibility of a City Municipal Electric Utility
(Placed on the agenda at the request of Council members Naggar and Comerchero.)
RECOMMENDATION:
20.1 Consider the approval of additional staff time to explore the feasibility of a City
Municipal Electric Utility.
Councilman Naggar presented the staff report (of record), relaying the request for approval of
additional staff time to investigate the feasibility of implementing a City electric utility; and
highlighted potential benefits if the City provided electrical utility services.
Councilman Comerchero noted the prudence of further exploring this matter.
Mr. Robert Lopez, 26100 Menifee Road, representing Southern California Edison (SCE),
concurred that the City of Temecula was well within its rights in conducting this investigation;
referencing statements from a Chino Hills 2002 City report, quoted the following: 'The
generation market remains volatile and uncertain. Because of this the Chino Hill City Council
decided not to go forward until there was more stability in the wholesale market place;" and
provided other specified areas that the City should explore during the investigative process.
For Mayor Pro Tem Stone, Mr. Lopez provided additional information regarding the "Energy
decade" whereupon the PUC regulated the amount for which SCE could sell electricity, and
SCE ultimately had to pay more for the electricity than they were selling it to the consumers for,
elaborating on the potential situation if the City was acting as a separate utility at that time; and
noted that he knew of no municipalities of this City's size that have formed their own utility in the
last ten years.
Prior to committing the additional 40 hours of staff time, Mayor Pro Tem Stone recommended
that the City Council obtain a copy of the Chino Hills report regarding this matter.
Councilman Naggar specified the cities which had formed their own utilities, advising that if
anticipated future growth was not expected, the formation of a City utility would not be logical;
and for Mr. Lopez, clarified that in the study process the City would not consider taking over
existing SCE lines, but future dedicated lines.
R:IMinutes1061102
10
For Councilman Naggar, Mr. Lopez advised that SCE has approximately forty percent (40%) of
their own generated electricity currently available, twenty to thirty percent (20%-30%) in
contracts, and a bulk of the electricity was purchased via the open market; provided information
regarding the cost of electricity; relayed that at this time SCE was prohibited from entering into
new long-term contracts; and noted that the City would be able to enter into long-term contracts.
Councilman Naggar thanked Mr. Lopez for his continued assistance with the City of Temecula.
Councilman Pratt relayed that he could support the concept of the City forming its own utility as
long as it was a revenue source with security.
In light of the two large Specific Plans recently approved within the City, Councilman Naggar
noted that in order for this concept to be feasible it would be vital for the program to be
implemented within the next 12-18 months (I.e., prior to the development of the Specific Plans).
Due to the fact that buying a small amount of electricity for a municipality would most likely be
vastly more costly than electricity purchased in bulk, Mayor Pro Tem Stone relayed that there
could be pitfalls associated with this concept; reiterated that prior to supporting the approval of
additional staff hours it would be his desire to review the Chino Hills document regarding this
matter; and in response to Councilman Naggar, concurred that it would be beneficial to obtain
studies from other cities on this issue, as well.
Councilman Comerchero clarified that the requirement for additional staff time was to allow time
for staff to obtain the studies from the other cities and distribute the documents to Council.
Providing additional information, Councilman Naggar noted that one or two of the third party
providers offered to provide a financial model after receiving the City's build-out information,
advising that obtaining this free data would necessitate the use of staff time for providing the
third party providers with the necessary data.
Councilman Comerchero recommended that the City Council authorize staff to provide the data
to the third party entities for the no-cost financial models, and that when that information was
received along with the reports from other cities, that this item be re-agendized, advising that it
was not the specific 40 hours that the Committee was requesting but for adequate time for staff
to obtain and distribute the referenced data.
Councilman Naggar recommended that the third party entities present their financial modeling to
the City Council in order for the Committee to gain input from the Council as well as SCE.
Mr. Perez provided additional information regarding the Cities of Hemet's and Moreno Valley's
determination to create a utility within their municipalities.
MOTION: Councilman Comerchero moved to direct staff to accomplish the following tasks, and
as such, authorize additional staff time: 1) to obtain information from alternate cities which have
analysis regarding the formation of a utility, 2) to provide the third party providers with the
necessary information to create a no-cost financial modeling, 3) to provide all collected data to
the City Council and to SCE, 4) to agendize the matter within 60 days, and 5) to have Mr. Perez
(representative of SCE), and a third party provider representative present when the matter was
agendized. The motion was seconded by Councilman Naggar and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval with the exception of Mayor Roberts who was absent.
R:IMinutes1061102
11
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
No additional comments.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Manager Nelson advised that staff would be hand-carrying the City's Library Grant
application to Sacramento on Thursday, June 13th, relaying that staff was hopeful regarding the
City being a recipient of this particular grant.
For Mayor Pro Tem Stone, Director of Community Services Parker relayed that although no
date had been provided regarding the expected notification of the Library Grant recipients, staff
anticipated having notification by year's end.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
City Attorney Thorson advised that under the Brown Act, there were no reportable actions to
report.
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:00 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to the next regular CC meeting
on Wednesday, June 25, 2002, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business
Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Ron Roberts, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
RIMinutesl061102
12
ITEM 3
RESOLUTION NO. 02-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS
SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND
ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the
Office of the City Clerk, have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby
allowed in the amount of $3,615,659.60.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 23rd day of July, 2002.
Ron Roberts, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
R:/Resos2002/Resos 02-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 02-_ was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Temecula on the 23rd day of July, 2002 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
R:/Resos2002/Resos 02-
2
CITY OF TEMECULA
I LIST OF DEMANDS
07/02102 TOTAL CHECK RUN: $ 2,212,868.22
07111/02 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 1,128,450.34
07/03102 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 274,341.04
TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 07/23102 COUNCIL MEETING: $ 3,615,659.60
DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND:
CHECKS:
001 GENERAL FUND $ 893,784.29
165 RDA-LOWIMOD INCOME HOUSING 11,915.53
190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 160,549.08
192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 37.29
193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 48,085.60
194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 1,519,694.72
210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ. FUND 633,159.87
280 RDA-REOEVELOPMENT 6,633.66
300 INSURANCE 15,505.58
320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 27,942.07
330 SUPPORT SERVICES 3,190.82
340 FACILITIES 20,820.05
I $ 3,341,318.56
001 GENERAL FUNO $ 175,490.36
165 RDA-LOWIMOD INCOME HOUSING 4,481.67
190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 72,558.34
192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 54.27
193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 4,190.11
194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 525.32
280 RDA-REDEVELOPMENT 2,044.85
300 INSURANCE 815.96
320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 6,936.32
330 SUPPORT SERVICES 2,543.89
340 FACILITIES 4,699.95 274,341.04
TOTAL BY FUND: $ 3,615,659.60
PREPARED BY RETA WESTON, ACCOUNTING SPECIALIST
, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
ANCE DIRECTOR
I
SHAWN NELSON, CITY MANAGER
. HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
I
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1
07/0212002 5:26:04PM City of Temecula
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
11 07/03/2002 000642 TEMECULA CITY FLEXIBLE Employee contribution to flex 5,364.36 5,364.36
12 07/03/2002 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIREME Employees state retirement 38,555.92 38,555.92
13 07/03/2002 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PREMIU Em ployees health insurance 32,397.04 32,397.04
14 07/03/2002 000444 INSTATAX (EDO) Employees fed pr taxes 10,124.50 10,124.50
15 07/03/2002 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) Employees fed pr taxes 47,361.85 47,361.85
77840 06/28/2002 004456 T & M CONSTRUCTION Joint Check Agreement 2,972.00 2,972.00
77841 06/28/2002 004456 T & M CONSTRUCTION Joint Check Agreement 3,155.93 3,155.93
77842 06/28/2002 004456 T & M CONSTRUCTION Joint Check Agreement 7,065.64 7,065.64
77843 07/02/2002 000724 A & R CUSTOM SCREEN PRINTI T-shirts for SMART prgm 798.26 798.26
77844 07/02/2002 003552 AFLAC Supplemental std & cancer insurance 1,539.56 1,539.56
77845 07/02/2002 005049 AT ASTE OF TEMECULA Medium salsa for Eco Dev baskets 35.56
Medium salsa for Eco Dev baskets 35.56
Medium salsa for Eco Dev baskets 35.56
Medium salsa for Eco Dev baskets 35.56 142.24
77846 07/02/2002 004054 ADKISON ENGINEERS INC Surveying Svcs: Winchester Rd Widen 2,440.00 2,440.00
77847 07/02/2002 005068 ADKISSON-FLOHR. CANDICE Reimb for Del Mar Sr Ctr Excursion 78.00 78.00
77848 07/02/2002 004901 ADVENTURES IN TEAM ESTEE Team bldg for planning 3,220.00 3,220.00
77849 07/02/2002 000747 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCI Membership:Stephen Brown 048646 387.00 387.00
77850 07/02/2002 000936 AMERICAN RED CROSS aquatic supplies:TCSD 70.00 70.00
77851 07/0212002 004446 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL Membership: Steve Charette 205.00
Membership: Amer Attar 175.00 380.00
77852 07/02/2002 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. Temp help w/e 06/15 Acosta 1,182.00
Temp help w/e 06/15 Verano 32.50 1,214.50
77853 07/02/2002 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGERA Install outlets @ Rancho Vista Prk 325.00
Reprgm timer for old towne st lights 52.00 377.00
77854 07/02/2002 002541 BECKER CONSTRUCTION SRV construct 2 pilasters @ Sam Hicks Pr1< 2,735.00 2,735.00
77855 07/02/2002 004176 BROADWING TELECOMMUNICA Long distance & internet svcs 845.00 845.00
Page:1
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2
07/0212002 5:26:04PM City of Temecula
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
77856 0710212002 004081 BUSINESS FURNITURE GROUP Furniture for city hall & mnte fac 2,225.27 2,225.27
77857 0710212002 005071 CALIF ASSOC OF PARKS Membership:5 TCSD Commissioners 165.00 165.00
77858 0710212002 004248 CALIF DEPT OF JUSTICEIACCT drug/alcohol screening: police 455.00
Credit:Billed wrong city -35.00 420.00
77859 0710212002 000152 CALIF PARKS & RECREATION S Membership dues:Parker 019942 415.00
Membership dues:Crowe-Pelletier 01 130.00
Membership dues:Harrington 024449 125.00 670.00
77860 0710212002 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE CO Life insurance premium 1,100.50 1,100.50
77861 0710212002 004977 COASTLINE CONSTRUCTION awning for res trailer @ stn 92 3,576.47 3,576.47
77862 0710212002 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARI Employees Charities contributions 141.50 141.50
77863 0710212002 004414 COMMUNITY WORKS DESIGN G Ldscp design: Diaz Rd Re-alignment 5,766.69 5,766.69
77864 0710212002 004811 COMPAQ COMPUTER CORPOR I Paq PC Card exp Jacket for inf sys 206.88
Micro Keyboard for int sys 159.47 366.35
77865 0710212002 000447 COMTRONIX OF HEMET Install sigtronics equip:Fire 2,602.28 2,602.28
77866 0710212002 004123 D L PHARES & ASSOCIATES July Rental pmtpolice storefront 1,849.64 1,849.64
77867 0710212002 005069 DOMAIN REGISTRY OF AMERI domain name 5 yr renewal 85.00
domain name 5 yr renewal 85.00 170.00
77868 0710212002 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELI Fuel for city vehicles 22.94 22.94
77869 0710212002 002981 DYNA MED Medical supplies for TCSD pools 287.69
Medical supplies for TCSD pool 86.12
Medical supplies for TCSD pools 16.16 389.97
77870 0710212002 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVICES I Temp help wle 06114 Naaseh-Shahry 6,236.00
Temp help wle 06/14 Cammarota 332.71 6,568.71
77871 07/0212002 002528 GLASS BLASTERS INC glass gifts w/city seal for sister city 726.24
City mugs for new hires 51.72 777.96
77872 07102/2002 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS Misc. office supplies:TCSD 4,291.67 4,291.67
77873 0710212002 004910 GLOBAL EQUIPMENT COMPAN Conf table for bldg & Safety 740.86 740.86
77874 0710212002 004053 HABITAT WEST INC Mntc svcs: Pala road Bridge PW97-15E 1,174.98 1,174.98
77875 0710212002 000116 HEALTH NET DENTAL AND VI Premium for ee vision plan 920.51 920.51
77876 0710212002 002107 HIGH MARK INC City life ins policy premium 512.50 512.50
Page:2
apChkLst Final Check list Page: 3
07/0212002 5:26:04PM City of Temecula
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
77877 07/02/2002 001158 HOLIDAY INN HtI:CAM conf:7/26-28:0ttlAllen 1,060.64 1,060.64
77878 07/02/2002 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUST 45 Retirement contributions 10,094.22 10,094.22
77879 07/02/2002 001123 INDUSTRIAL OISTRIBUTION GR Supplies for stencil truck 43.85 43.85
77880 07/02/2002 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY I Pool sanitizing chemicals 356.01
Pool sanitizing chemicals 356.01 712.02
77881 07/02/2002 004603 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS Caterpillar for PW mntc crew 4.426.99 4.426.99
77882 07/02/2002 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICES Temp help w/e 6/18 Fudge 842.48 842.48
77883 07/02/2002 003986 KEVIN COZAD & ASSOCIATES I Desi9n svcs:Pala Rd PW99-11 12,330.00
Design svc:Pala Rd PW99-11SW 9,260.00
Plot easements:library site 2,320.00 23,910.00
77864 07/0212002 004481 KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES I Design svcs: Diaz Road Ext PWOO-10 4,841.00 4,641.00
77885 07/0212002 000206 KINKOS INC Stationery paper/mise supplies 104.31 104.31
77886 07/0212002 004062 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC Smart computer sales kit 3,252.50 3,252.50
77887 07/02/2002 001865 MCI Jun xxx-1603 City Hall 39.50
Jun xxx-1708 Skate Park 39.50
Jun xxx-1588 eRe 39.50
Jun xxx-1540 O.T. Parking Lot 23.70 142.20
77888 07/02/2002 005070 MADRIGAL, BEATRIZ Refund:Sec. OepositMS02-0889 100.00 100.00
77889 07/02/2002 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SER Temp Helpw/e 06/16 Novotny 535.35 535.35
77890 07/02/2002 004986 MAPTECH INC USGS Tapa Map Software:Fire Dept 209.90 209.90
77891 07/02/2002 003448 MELODYS AO WORKS Reimb expenses:St. Painting Fest. 744.30
Reimb expenses:St. Painting Fest. 160.01 904.31
77892 07/02/2002 003076 MET LIFE INSURANCE COMPAN City dental insurance 5,825.33 5,825.33
77893 07/02/2002 004534 MOBILE SATELLITE VENTURES Jun EGC Satellite Stn Phone Svcs 69.00 69.00
77894 07/02/2002 000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING Channel Cleaning 3,000.00 3,000.00
77895 07/02/2002 004522 MULLlGANS FAMILY FUN CENT Day camp excursion:6/27/02 1,213.40 1,213.40
77896 07/0212002 003039 MURRIETA VALLEY HIGH SCH Transportation exp:4th of July Parade 250.00 250.00
77897 07/02/2002 001007 N P G CORPORATION Slurry, Seal & Re-Stripe:City Hall 2,860.00 2,860.00
Page3
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4
07/0212002 5:26:04PM City of Temecula
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
77898 07/02/2002 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS Office Supplies for Planning 182.92
Office Supplies:Finance 72.62
Credit Items Retumed:Planning -64.00
Credit Items Returned -182.92 8.62
77899 07/02/2002 004074 PARTY CITY OF TEMECULA IN Ree Supplies for Tee 106.25 106.25
77900 07/0212002 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PROG Employee benefits 83.99 83.99
77901 07/0212002 000249 PETTY CASH Petty cash reimbursement 547.08
Petty cash reimbursement 12.00 559.08
77902 07/02/2002 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN May various HR recruitment ads 4,452.91 4,452.91
77903 07/02/2002 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN Renew Annual Subscription:TCSD 286.00 286.00
77904 07/02/2002 004519 PYRO SPECTACULARS INC 4th of July fireworks display 12,500.00 12,500.00
77905 07/02/2002 004457 R J NOBLE COMPANY Prgs Pmt #2:Pala Rd Imprv:99-11 274,219.65
Credit Item # 25:Pala Rd Imprv -10,017.00 264,202.65
77906 07/02/2002 002176 RANCHO CALIF BUS PARK ASS Jul-Sept bus. park assoc. dues:Diaz 1,813.72
Jul-Sept bus. park assoc. dues:City Ha 1,319.07 3,132.79
77907 07/02/2002 000526 REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF C FY 02/03 Connect Membership 1,000.00 1.000.00
77908 07/02/2002 001365 RIVERSIDE CO ENVIRONMENT! Renew Annual PermitK.H. Park 73.00
Renew Annual PermitS.H. Park 73.00
Renew Annual PermitPala Park 73.00 219.00
77909 07/02/2002 000955 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFF SW ST Dee Bike Patrol/High Visibility 28.733.84 28,733.84
77910 07/02/2002 003544 ROBERT SHEA PEROUE REAL E Appraisal Fee:Oiaz Realignment 4,800.00 4,800.00
77911 07/02/2002 000873 ROBERTS, RONALD H. Reimb:Trans.Steering Comm:6/13-16/( 4.95 4.95
77912 07/02/2002 001309 RUSE, PHYLLIS Reimb:Submit Lib. Grant6/13/02 44.00
Reimb:Library Grant Mtg:6/04/02 12.00 56.00
77913 07/02/2002 001942 S C SIGNS Jun Public Ntc Signs:City Clerk 260.00 260.00
77914 07/02/2002 002864 SEA WORLD OF CALIFORNIA Day camp excursion - 07/11/02 3,000.00 3,000.00
77915 07/0212002 004814 SIMON WONG ENGINEERING I May Dsgn Svcs:8arrier Rail 11,870.50 11,870.50
77916 07/02/2002 003297 SKATE CITY Day camp excursion - 06/20/2002 392.00 392.00
77917 07/02/2002 000824 SO CALIF ASSN OF GOVERNME FY 02/03 Mem bership Dues 4,452.00 4,452.00
Page:4
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5
07/0212002 5:26:04PM City of Temecula
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
77918 07/02/2002 000537 SO CALIF EOISON Jun 2-00-397-5042 City Hall 7,390.33
Jun 2-00-397-5067 Various Mtrs 801.00
Jun 2-22-496-3439 Winchester 42.93 8,234.26
77919 07/02/2002 004496 SPARKS EXHIBITS & ENVIRON~ C/O #2 PmtChildren's Museum 13,200.00 13,200.00
77920 07/02/2002 004420 STATE COMP INSURANCE FUN Jun workers' comp premium 15,989.48 15,989.48
77921 07/02/2002 003599 T Y L1N INTERNATIONAL May Dsgn Svcs:R.C. Bridge Widening 4,975.94 4,975.94
77922 07/02/2002 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 Employee's union 2,145.00 2,145.00
77923 07/02/2002 003673 TECH 101 ARCUS INC Computer Supplies:lnfo Sys 578.69 578.69
77924 07/02/2002 004919 TECH KNOWLEDGE INC Prof Consulting Svcs:lnfo Tech 4,820.12 4,820.12
77925 07/02/2002 001035 TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL Jan-Jun trash hauling services 1,515,508.20 1,515,508.20
77926 07/02/2002 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPAN EE Recogn: K. Beal 61.63 61.63
77927 07/02/2002 004274 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY' Maint Fac Locksmith SVC5 1,634.32 1,634.32
77928 07/02/2002 001065 use M WEST (OEF COMP) Employee def comp plan 14,696.88 14,696.88
77929 07/02/2002 000389 use M WEST (OBRA) PfT EE Retirement Pmt 4,397.16 4,397.16
77930 07/02/2002 002702 US POSTAL SERVICE Postage meter deposit 4,054.45 4,054.45
77931 07/02/2002 000325 UNITED WAY Employee contributions 255.80 255.80
77932 07/02/2002 004819 UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERI Employee group health pmt 5,560.41 5,560.41
77933 07/02/2002 004794 VALLEY WINDS COMMUNITY B Transportation exp:4th of July Parade 250.00 250.00
77934 07/02/2002 004279 VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC. Release Claims Agreement Pmt 15,000.00 15,000.00
77935 07/02/2002 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC Var Parks Janitorial supplies 410.20 410.20
77936 07/0212002 004935 WOOO, GARY A. Seismic Retrofit Comm Theater 900.00 900.00
Sub total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: 2,212,868.22
Page:5
apChkLst
07/0212002 5:26:04PM
Final Check List
City of Temecula
Page: 6
102 checks in this report.
Grand Total All Checks:
2,212,868.22
Pages
apChkLsl
07/0212002
5:26:04PM
Final Check List
City of Temecula
Page: 7
Void Checks
Bank code: union
(none)
Page:7
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1
07/11/2002 2:55:25PM City of Temecula
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
77937 07/11/2002 001700 A PLUS TEACHING MATERIALS Mise supplies-Tiny Tots/Day Camp 37.14 37.14
77938 07/11/2002 004840 ADVANCED OFFICE SOLUTIO Office equip repairs:police dept 183.19 183.19
77939 07/11/2002 003568 ADVANTAGE BUSINESS EQUI Check signer svcs:Finance dept 419.00 419.00
77940 07/11/2002 005105 ALEGRIA, GERALD EE computer purchase prgm 894.29 894.29
77941 07/11/2002 004547 ALLEN INSTRUMENTS & SUPPL GIS computer supplies 720.25 720.25
77942 07/11/2002 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. Temp help wle 06122 Acosta 1,182.00
Temp help wle 06108 Seng 572.00
Temp help wle 06115 Seng 422.50
Temp help wle 06115 Hardin 402.68
Temp help wle 06122 Steward 84.50 2,663.68
77943 07/11/2002 001561 ARCH 6120-9/19/02 paging/rental svcs 893.65 893.65
77944 07/11/2002 001323 ARROWHEAD WATER INC Bottled water s8rvs:Smart Prgm 325.52
Bottled water servs:CRC 145.38
Bottled water servs:City Hall 140.08
Bottled water servs:Museum 39.73 650.71
77945 07/11/2002 003376 ARTS COUNCIL, THE Arts Council Camm Grant Agnnnt 10,000.00 10,000.00
77946 07/11/2002 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGERA Electrical svcs repairs:CRC 1,185.00
Electrical repairs: City Hall 162.00 1,347.00
77947 07/11/2002 003466 BASKET & BALLOONS TOO! City promotional baskets 550.00 550.00
77948 07/11/2002 005096 BENSON,ANNE Refund: level 1 swim lessons 22.00 22.00
77949 07/11/2002 004778 BERRYMAN & HENIGAR INC Design svcs:pavement mgmt PW01-2 6,800.00 6,800.00
77950 07/11/2002 004828 BEVERLEY SIMMONS & ASSOC Devellibrary Bond Application for city 12,000.00 12,000.00
77951 07/11/2002 003126 BOOMGAARDEN, DENNIS TCSD instructor earnings 295.20 295.20
77952 07/11/2002 005103 BUCKLEY, TIM Mileage reimb to fire fighters assoc 77.37 77.37
77953 07/11/2002 004580 CALIF COMMERCIAL PooLS,lN CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR C 238,075.50 238,075.50
77954 07/11/2002 004248 CALIF DEPT OF JUSTICElACCT Drugs I Blood analysis:Police 875.00
Credit: incorrect charges -105.00 770.00
77955 07/11/2002 005095 CALIF LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOO Refund: Security deposit 100.00 100.00
77956 07/11/2002 005116 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF CO Confirmation of taxes remitted 100.00 100.00
Page1
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2
07/11/2002 2:55:25PM City 01 Temecula
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
77957 07111/2002 004228 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY Helium tanks refill:TCSD 25.70 25.70
77958 07/11/2002 004093 CARDIO CARE PLUS TCSD instructor earnings 1,180.00
TCSD instructor earnings 660.00
TCSD instructor earnings 441.60 2,281.60
77959 07/11/2002 002534 CATERERS CAFE Refshmnts: GTE mtg 81.06 81.06
77960 07111/2002 005079 CENTURION CAPITAL MGMT, L Refund: Security Deposit 100.00
Refund: Security deposit 5.00 105.00
77961 07111/2002 003047 CHAPARRAL HIGH SCHooL.P Band Transportation to parade 250.00 250.00
77962 07111/2002 001193 COMP U SA INC 17 - 256MB RAM:lnfo Sys 1,135.69 1,135.69
77963 07111/2002 004811 COMPAQ COMPUTER CORPOR Computer equip for inf sys 575.39 575.39
77964 07111/2002 002147 COMPLIMENTS COMPLAINTS & Deposit for Summer Concert Series 500.00 500.00
77965 07/11/2002 004250 CUSTOM GATE Annual svcs:Gate Operators 310.00 310.00
77966 07/11/2002 001009 DB X INC Replace Trffc loops:Front St @ R.C. 4,060.00 4,060.00
77967 07111/2002 005083 DE LUZ RANCHOS ASSOC. Refund: Security deposit 100.00 100.00
77968 07111/2002 005089 DENTON, RONNA Refund: Security Deposit 100.00 100.00
77969 07111/2002 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELI Fuel for city vehicles: PW 736.42
Fuel for city vehicles:TCSD 694.14
Fuel for city vehicles:Planning 402.79
Fuel for city vehicles: PW 355.38
Fuel for city vehicles:B&S 161.67
Fuel for city vehicles: PW 118.73
Fuel for city vehicles: PW 65.47 2,534.60
77970 07/11/2002 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERYICES Hansen, D temp help w/e 06114 2,503.42 2,503.42
77971 07111/2002 005093 EAGLE'S PEAK CHARTER SCH Refund: Security deposit 100.00 100.00
Page2
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3
07/1112002 2:55:25PM City of Temecula
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
77972 0711112002 000161 EDEN SYSTEMS INC Inforum gold upgrade:software support 3,091.03
Inforum gold upgrade:Data Conversio 1,875.00
Inforum gold upgrade:Exp Reimb 1,158.14
Inforum geld upgrade:P~t mgmt 625.00
Inforum gold upgrade:P~t Mgmt 500.00
Inforum gold upgrade:Exp Reimb 339.50
Inforum gold upgrade:P~t Mgmt 281.25
Inforum gold upgrade:expense reimb 266.50
Inforum gold upgrade:forms setup 250.00
Inforum gold upgrade:Data Conversio 187.50
Inforum gold upgrade:data conversion 62.50 8,636.42
77973 07/11/2002 005086 ESTRADA, HORTENCIA Refund: Security deposit 100.00 100.00
77974 07/11/2002 001056 EXCELLANOSCAPE June Jdscp impr:ViIlages 11,780.00
June Idscp impr:Duck Pond 10,100.00
June Idscp impr:Winchester Creek 5,078.23
June Idscp impr: Sam Hicks Park 3,056.20
June Idscp impr:Winchester Creek 2,597.37
June Idscp impr:Winchester Creek 2,405.64
June Idscp impr:Nada Lane Channel 1,500.00
June Idscp repairs:Winchester Creek 752.91
June Idscp impr:Corte 611.80
June Idscp impr:Temeku Hills Park 525.00
June Idscp impr:Temeku Hills 525.00
June Idscp impr: Nicolas Rd Prk 500.00
June Idscp impr: Old Twn Strscp 316.80
June Idscp impr:Tuscany Ridge 175.00
June Idscp impr:Veterans Parks 90.00
June Idscp impr:Ridgeview 70.00 40,083.95
77975 0711112002 000478 FAST SIGNS Signs for SMART prgm 958.05 958.05
77976 07111/2002 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC Express mail services 218.41
Express mail services 175.04 393.45
77977 07111/2002 002832 FENCE BUILDERS Install Fencing @ R.Calif sport prk 2,564.00 2,584.00
77978 07/11/2002 003347 FI RST BANKCARD CENTER xx-6165 Yates: Lobby/Prof Mtgs 1,217.00
xx-1405 Ubnoske: conf expenses 381.32
xx-0432 Elmo:Schlffmayer Plastic 69.21
xx-1143 Parker:Daves & Busters 30.00 1,697.53
77979 07111/2002 005097 FIRTH, ALISON Refund: Parent & Me swim lessons 22.00 22.00
77980 07111/2002 004178 FREEDOM SIGNS Sign prgm:San Diego Co. Credit Unio 1,505.00 1,505.00
77981 07111/2002 005094 GALLAGHER, IRMA Refund: Security deposit 100.00 100.00
Page3
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4
07/1112002 2:55:25PM City 01 Temecula
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
77982 07111/2002 005087 GETTY, DEBORAH Refund: Security depos~ 100.00 100.00
77983 07111/2002 005050 GONZALEZ, MANUAL, S. Performance:chalk art event 100.00 100.00
77984 07/11/2002 000711 GRAPHICS UNLIMITED L1THOG Cut pre-printed covers to 8.5 x 11 122.84 122.84
77985 07/11/2002 005081 GRIDIRON, CURTIS Refund: Security deposit 100.00 100.00
77986 07111/2002 002174 GROUP 1 PRODUCTIONS City/Chamber tourism CD 5,000.00 5,000.00
77987 07111/2002 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC Hardware supplies. Parks 2,711.26
Hardware supplies. Smart Prgm 446.83
Hardware supplies - PW St Mntc 438.23
Hardware supplies - eRe 372.40
Hardware supplies. Recreation Suppl 368.45
Hardware supplies. Childrens Museu 299.29
Hardware supplies -Aquatics 128.97
Hardware supplies - Bdlg & Safety 118.42
Hardware supplies. Inf sys 113.83
Hardware supplies - Old Twn PW 108.92
Hardware supplies - City Hail/eRe 79.40
Hardware supplies - Mnte Fae 29.62
Hardware supplies - Museum 5.27 5,220.69
77988 07/11/2002 005098 HANNA, BILL Refund: Level 2 swim lessons 22.00 22.00
77989 07111/2002 005077 HARRIS, TYCINE M Refund: Security deposit 100.00 100.00
77990 07/11/2002 004946 HEADLINER BARBERSHOP FO Entertainment:Tem Jazz Festival 5/11 400.00 400.00
77991 07/11/2002 002906 HEMET FENCE COMPANY Res Impr Prgm:Kinsley, Frank 2,305.00 2,305.00
77992 07/11/2002 001013 HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS & AS Contract svcs:2nd Qtr 2,823.92
Contract svcs 15t atr 2,739.87 5,563.79
77993 07111/2002 005076 IGLESIA BAUTISTA DEL VALLE I Refund: En9 dept 28839 Pujol St. 995.00 995.00
77994 07/11/2002 004911 IMBSEN & ASSOCIATES INC Feasibility Study: Pedestrian Crossing 9,996.29 9,996.29
77995 07/11/2002 002166 INGRAM ELECTRIC Vail Ranch: Install 5 alee meters for 19,600.00 19,600.00
77996 07/11/2002 001517 INTEGRATED INSIGHTS DBA: H Employee assistance prgm 570.57 570.57
77997 07111/2002 005092 JOHNSON, OEBRA BURROWS Refund: Security deposit 100.00 100.00
77998 07/11/2002 005091 JULIAN CHARTER SCHOOL Refund: Security deposit 100.00 100.00
Page:4
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5
07/1112002 2:55:25PM City olTemecula
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
77999 07111/2002 003046 KFROG95.1 FMRADIO Radio broadcasting:Street Painting 384.00 384.00
78000 07111/2002 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICES Temp help w/e 06123 Harrington 1,080.00 1,080.00
78001 07111/2002 001091 KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIAT Consulting svcs:Welty Bldg Rehad 3,275.17
Consulting svcs:CBH analysis 2,631.93 5,907.10
78002 07111/2002 005099 KHOYI, SHAHRZAD Refund: Level 1 swim lessons 25.00 25.00
78003 07/11/2002 000206 KINKOS INC Stationery paper/mise supplies 248.70 248.70
78004 07/11/2002 001282 KNORR SYSTEMS INC Mise pool supplies - eRe 94.46
Mise pool supplies - ere 38.00 132.46
78005 07111/2002 004122 KRUEGER, KIMBERLEE Reimb:lmage Cast training:6125-27 61.50 61.50
78006 07111/2002 001719 L PAINe Doc revisions for State library Grant 10,599.34 10,599.34
78007 07/11/2002 005084 LABONTE, WILLIAM Relund: Security deposit 100.00 100.00
78008 07111/2002 004412 LEANDER, KERRY D. TCSD instructor earnings 400.00
TCSD instructor earnings 234.00
TCSD instructor eamings 172.00
leSD instructor earnings 156.00 962.00
78009 07/11/2002 000586 LEXISNEXIS MATTHEW BENDE Tern City Code web formatting svcs 117.70
Muni Code book eovers:City Clerk 35.20 152.90
78010 07111/2002 004905 LIEBERT, CASSIDY & WHITMOR May legal svcs: TE060 JCF 6,723.39
May legal svcs:TEO~3-012 JCF 1,033.20 7,756.59
78011 07/11/2002 002634 L1TELlNES INC Lighting for duck pond 452.55
Lighting for duck pond 350.19 802.74
78012 07111/2002 000213 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMIS longtin's Calif land Use Book 99.76 99.76
78013 07111/2002 005090 LOS RANCHITOS HOME, OWNE Refund: Security deposit 100.00 100.00
78014 07111/2002 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS Street signs replacement prgm 825.37
Street sign replacement prgm 609.00 1,434.37
78015 07111/2002 004141 MAINTEX INC Custodial Supplies:Var Parks 384.21
Custodial Supplies:Sr Ctr 312.30
Custodial Supplies:Maint Fae 312.30
Custodial Supplies:Sr etr 226.92
Custodial Supplies:Maint Fac 173.46
Custodial Supplias:City Hall 148.18
Custodial Supplies:City Hall 126.71
Custodial Supplies:Museum 108.07
Custodial Supplies:City Hall 85.38 1,877.53
78016 07111/2002 005106 MANGASER, LUZ Refund:swim lessons 25.00 25.00
Pages
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6
07/1112002 2:55:25PM City of Temecula
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
78017 07/11/2002 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SER Savage,S temp help w/e 05/12 972.48
Debitunder billed for Savage 3.63 976.11
78018 07111/2002 000217 MARGARITA OFFICIALS ASSN Referee svcs:Adult Soltballleagues 3,550.00 3,550.00
78019 07/11/2002 002693 MATROS, ANDREA leSO instructor earnings 211.20 211.20
78020 07111/2002 001924 MAXIMUS Financial consulting svcs:lnvestment 9,554.00
Financial consulting svcs:lnvestment 4,646.00 14,200.00
78021 07111/2002 005114 MCCARTHY,CATHY EE computer pgrm 2,000.00
Reimb:Cal & Pacific oonf:4/3-6 70.36 2,070.36
78022 07/11/2002 005108 MEOOR, FRITZ Refund:swim lessons 22.00 22.00
78023 07111/2002 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS Envelopes:B&S Dept. 250.11
Business ards:Basquez,Cohen,Gaskin 171.32
Business Cards:Salazar, S 42.83 464.26
78024 07/11/2002 000230 MUNIFINANCIAl TCSD public hearing notices mailings 1,169.78 1,169.78
78025 07/11/2002 005088 NEAL, LAUREN Refund:Security Deposll 100.00 100.00
78026 07/11/2002 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City vehicle repairs: PW 597.81
City vehicle repairs: PW 516.75
City vehicle repairs: PW 234.19
Labor:Vehicle Repair 228.67
Labor:Vehicle Repair 133.46
Vehicle repairs:tune-up & parts 99-045 101.98
City vehicle repairs: PW 24.87
Vehicle repairs:oil & filter 02-075 22.42
Vehicle repairs:oil & filter 96-028 19.19
DebitSales tax was billed incorrectly 1.01
CreditSales tax is incorrect -3.53 1,876.82
78027 07111/2002 003762 P M X MEDICAL Paramedic supplies 2,975.74
Paramedic supplies:MSB4 498.32
Paramedic supplies:MS84 367.n 3,841.83
78028 07111/2002 004852 PACIFIC PROFilES GROUP Prof consultant sves for staff 1,500.00 1,500.00
78029 07/11/2002 004074 PARTY CITY OF TEMECULA IN Supplies:special events 56.44
Mise supplies:4th July float 30.95 87.39
78030 07/11/2002 004538 PAULEY EQUIPMENT COMPAN New Tires:Tractor 531.74
Heavy equipment rental:Tractor 105.75
Heavy equipment tire replacement 95.55 733.04
78031 07/11/2002 005113 PEOPLES, KRISTIN Refund:swim lessons 25.00 25.00
78032 07/11/2002 000249 PETTY CASH Petty cash reimbursement 654.15
Petty cash reimbursement 46.74 700.89
78033 07/11/2002 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN May ad:Oixieland Fest. 2,354.24 2,354.24
PageS
------- ---
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7
07/11/2002 2:55:25PM City of Temecula
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
78034 07/11/2002 004627 PUBLIC SAFETY TECHNOlOGIE Radio rental:4th July 294.76 294.76
78035 07/11/2002 001416 QUICK CRETE PRODUCTS INC Sam Hicks/Museum prk sign 2,855.38 2,855.38
78036 07/11/2002 004029 R J M DESIGN GROUP INC Phase II Design:CHS Pool 1,575.63 1,575.63
78037 07/11/2002 002612 RADIO SHACK INC Phone Parts:lnfo Sys 2.42 2.42
78038 07/11/2002 003761 RANCHO METALS & SUPPLY Steel Parts:Var Parks 15.09 15.09
78039 07/11/2002 002110 RENTAL SERVICE CORPORATI Equipment rental:PW Mntc 700.79 700.79
78040 07/1112002 000266 RIGHlWAY Equip rental. Great Race Event 1,148.53
Jun/Jul equip rental - rivert 70.89 1,219.42
78041 07/1112002 005112 RIYADENEIRA, MELINDA Refund:swim lessons 22.00 22.00
78042 07/11/2002 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEP 04l4-5/01/02:lawenforcement 579,148.84
FY 01/02-:field train:new deputy 24,870.40 604,019.24
78043 07/11/2002 005119 ROCKHURST COllEGE Criticism & Discipline wkshp:Hazen 195.00 195.00
78044 07/11/2002 005111 RUDISill, COLETTE Refund:swim lessons 22.00 22.00
78045 07/11/2002 005107 RUSSELL, ELIZABETH Refund:swim lessons 22.00 22.00
78046 07/11/2002 000277 S & S ARTS & CRAFTS INC Mise craft supplies:smart pgrm 49.54
Mise craft supplies:Day Camp 47.46 97.00
78047 07/11/2002 001942 S C SIGNS Install public notice sign 455.00 455.00
78048 07/11/2002 001288 SAN DIEGO BUSINESS JOURNA Subscription:Eco Dev 89.00 89.00
78049 07/11/2002 005102 SANCHEZ,NANCY Refund:Music for toddlers 31.00 31.00
78050 07/11/2002 005100 SCHAFER OEVElOPMENT GRO Refund:Permit Overpayment 75.00 75.00
78051 07/11/2002 004562 SCHIRMER ENGINEERING COR Plan check svces: fire 1,500.00 1,500.00
78052 07/11/2002 000403 SHAWN SCOTT POOL & SPA Pool and spa svcs:TES Pool 824.80 824.80
78053 07/11/2002 004609 SHREDFORCE INC Document shred srvc:Jun 17 228.50 228.50
Page:;,
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8
07111/2002 2:55:25PM City of Temecula
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Tolal
78054 07111/2002 000537 SO CALIF EDISON July 2-02-351-5281 Rancho Visla 7,234.02
July 2-05-791-8807 Various Meters 3,439.81
Jun 2-02-502-8077 maint fac 1,908.00
July 2-10-331-2153 Pujol St. 1,205.69
July 2-22-417-8772 Rancho Vista Rd 952.15
July 2-19-683-3255 Front St Ped 642.85
June 2-19-683-3263 Front St 398.35
Jun 2-23-365-5992 Overland 392.68
Jun 2-22-575-0876 Front St 266.88
Jun 2-19-538-2262 Various Mtrs 141.79
Jun 2-19-171-6668 wed. chapel 93.78
July 2-20-798-3248 Child Museum 85.59
Jun 2-18-528-9980 Santiago Rd 50.51
2-23-548-1975 Various Meters 30.06
July 2-23-051-9399 Margarita Ped 15.78 16,857.94
78055 07/11/2002 005078 SORIA, ANDREW Refund:Security Deposit 100.00 100.00
78056 07/11/2002 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTRC Pest Control Srvcs:City Hall 56.00
Pest Control Srvcs:Museum 42.00
Pest Control Srvcs:TCC 36.00
Pest Control Srvcs:Chapel 32.00
Pest Control Srvcs:PD Caboose 29.00 195.00
78057 07/11/2002 005082 SOUTHWESTERN RIVERSIDE C Refund:Security Deposit 100.00 100.00
78058 07/11/2002 005110 SOWADSKI, LINDA Refund:swim lessons 22.00 22.00
78059 07/11/2002 005104 SPENCER, CINDY Refund:day camp 305.00 305.00
78060 07/11/2002 000574 SUPERTONER lase~et maintfinance 171.32 171.32
78061 07/11/2002 000305 TARGET STORE Mise supplles:smart pgrm 683.34
Mise supplies:day camp 41.97 725.31
78062 07/11/2002 005085 TEMECULA CITY BALLET COMP Refund:Security Deposit 100.00 100.00
78063 07/1 1/2002 000168 TEMECULA FLOWER CORRAL sunshine fund 104.41 104.41
78064 07111/2002 003677 TEMECULA MOTORSPORTS LL Motorcycle repair/maintPD kawasaki 102.40 102.40
78065 07/11/2002 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPAN Sports award trophies 90.80
Emp Badges:Lawrence/Camberos 14.01
Sports award trophy 11.85
Name tag for Eric Week 7.00 123.46
78066 07/11/2002 004274 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY, Deadbolt Lock:CRC 19.40
Duplicate Keys:Maint Facility 16.81 36.21
78067 07/11/2002 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNiFIED S Vehicle repairs for PW Mnte Division 2,945.75
Refund:Security Deposit 100.00 3,045.75
Pagel!
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9
07/t 112002 2:55:25PM City of Temecula
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
78068 07111/2002 005118 THURSTON, GWEN Reimb:CPRS conf:413-6102 129.43 129.43
78069 07111/2002 000668 TIMMY 0 PRODUCTIONS INC OJ for 4th July 11,500.00 11,500.00
78070 07111/2002 000320 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS Mise office supplies: PW Admin 387.34 387.34
78071 07/11/2002 003031 TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE I Beacon replacement on Backhoe 180.48 180.48
78072 07/11/2002 004895 TUMBLES, J.W. TCSD instructor earnings 129.80
TCSO instructor earning 129.80
TCSD instructor earning 129.80 388.80
78073 07/1112002 002065 UNISOURCE Paper Supplies:City Hall 943.89 943.89
78074 07/11/2002 004846 UNITED GREEN MARK INC Vail Ranch Irrigation Equip Upgrade 5,928.41 5,928.41
78075 07/11/2002 005080 VALLE, JOSE JUAN Refund:Security Deposit 85.00
Refund:Securlty Deposit 15.00 100.00
78076 07/11/2002 005109 VANDER EB, LISA Refund:swim lessons 27.00 27.00
78077 07/11/2002 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA Jun xxx-5029 general usage 677.54
Jun xxx-1408 PO Satellite Stn:Old Tw 413.94
Jun xxx-5840 general usage 213.80
Jun xxx-5780 general usage 212.90
Jun xxx-5509 general usage 146.12
Jun xxx-9897 general usage 89.57
Jun xxx-2629 general usage 75.59
Jun xxx-1289 general usage 40.01
Jun xxx-0049 general usage 31.59
Jun xxx-273O general usage 28.76
Jun xxx-2670 general usage 28.67 1,958.59
78078 07/11/2002 004279 VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC. Jun access-crc phone line 343.30
Jun access-rvsd co phone line 268.20 611.50
78079 07/11/2002 004848 VERIZON SELECT SERVICES I Telecommunication srvcs:IS 1,245.87 1,245.87
78080 07/11/2002 001890 VORTEX DOORS Doors repairs & installat 1,398.76 1,398.76
78081 0711112002 003730 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC Tree trimming services 1,650.80
Tree trimming services 414.50 2,065.10
78082 07/11/2002 005101 WOODSIDE HOMES-PASEO 0 Refund:Overpayment of Fees 72.00 72.00
78083 07/11/2002 003807 XPECT FIRST AID First aid supplies:smart pgnn 1,910.41 1,910.41
Sub total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: 1,128,450.34
Page:9
apChkLst
07/11/2002 2:55:25PM
Final Check List
City of Temecula
Page: 10
147 checks In this report.
Grand Total All Checks:
1,128,450.34
Page:10
ITEM 4
-
.
CITY
DIR.
CITY
APPROVAL4E
ATTORNEY
OF FINANC
MANAGER '"
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
FROM:
City Manager/City Council
y(~
Genie Roberts, Director of Finan~ ~
JUlyf2002
City Treasurer's Statement of Investment Policy
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PREPARED BY:
Polly von Richter, Management Assistant III ~
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the Treasurer's Statement of Investment
Policy as proposed by staff which provides safety, liquidity and yield for City funds.
DISCUSSION: The California legislature has passed legislation imposing a State-mandated
local program requiring the treasurer or chief fiscal officer to render an annual statement of
investment policy to the legislative body of the local agency and to render a quarterly report
containing specified information regarding investments and deposits to the chief executive officer
and the legislative body of the local agency. The attached Treasurer's Statement of Investment
Policy conforms with the requirements and guidelines established by the California Municipal
Treasurer's Association and the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers.
The City of Temecula currently invests primarily in the State of California Local Agency Investment
Fund (LAIF). This investment is consistent with the City's investment policy that prioritizes safety
and liquidity over yield. It is prohibited by state code from investing in certain derivative products
such as inverse floaters. LAIF investment policy also puts constraints on the use of reverse
repurchase agreements. Government Code Section 16429.3 states that "money placed with the
State Treasurer for deposit in LAIF by cities, counties, or special districts shall not be subject to
impoundment or seizure by any state official or state agency."
Investment in LAIF remains a viable option for the City, however, in order to generate a maximum
amount of investment income within the parameters of prudent risk management, the City's
investment portfolio should reflect greater diversity. A proactive effort at managing investments will
result in greater returns while preserving our principal objective of protecting the City's treasury.
The attached investment policy reflects the following changes from the previous policy adopted by
the City Council on July 10, 2001:
. Introduces a Broker/Dealer Questionnaire for use in identifying qualified dealers.
. Allows investment authority to be delegated to qualified officials and/or employees.
. Cites the prudent investor standard as defined in the Government Code.
. Requires City Manager approval for use of non-primary dealers.
. Includes the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and other United States
agency obligations with maturities of five years or less as authorized investments.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
ATTACHMENTS
Proposed Investment Policy
1
CITY OF TEMECULA
Investment Policy
I INTRODUCTION: I
The intent of this Investment Policy is to establish the limits within which the City's Investment
Program shall be conducted. Investment goals and objectives are defined. Authorized
investments and reporting requirements are identified. The City's Broker/Dealer Questionnaire
is included.
The monies entrusted to the City Treasurer will be referred to as the "Fund" throughout the
remainder of this document.
I OBJECTIVES: I
The investment policies and practices of the City of Temecula are based upon State law and
prudent money management. The primary goals of these policies include:
1. To orotect the orincioal monies entrusted to this office.
Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the City of Temecula. Each investment transaction
shall seek to ensure that capital losses are avoided, whether from securities default, broker-dealer
default, or erosion of market value. The City shall seek to preserve principal by mitigating the two
types of risk: credit risk and market risk.
Credit risk, defined as the risk of loss due to failure of the issuer of a security, shall be mitigated by
investing only with issuers whose financial strength and reputation can be verified to be the highest
as rated by nationally known rating agencies, and by diversifying the investment portfolio so that the
failure of anyone issuer would not unduly harm the City's cash flow.
Market risk, the risk of market value fluctuations due to overall changes in the general level of
interest rates, shall be mitigated by (a) structuring the portfolio so that securities mature earlier than
or concurrent with the timing of major cash outflows, thus eliminating the need to sell securities prior
to their maturity; (b) prohibiting the use of leverage and margin accounts; and (c) prohibiting the
taking of short positions - that is, selling securities which the City does not own. It is explicitly
recognized herein, however, that in a diversified portfolio, occasional measured losses are
inevitable, and must be considered within the context of the overall investment return.
2. To orovlde sufficient IiGuiditvto meet normal ooeratinG and unexoected exoenditures.
The portfolio will be structured with sufficient liquidity to allow the City to meet expected cash
requirements. This will be accomplished by structuring the portfolio so that securities mature
concurrent with cash needs to meet anticipated demands. Since all possible cash demands cannot
be anticipated, the portfolio will maintain a liquidity buffer and invest primarily in securities with active
secondary and resale markets.
3. To assure comoliance with all Federal. State. and Local laws GoverninG the
Investment of monies under the control of the City Treasurer.
The legal basis for the City's investment activities is the City of Temecula Municipal Code, Chapter
3.04, Revenue and Finance, Fiscal Provisions Generally and Government Code Sections 53600 to
53609 and 53630 to 53686, which include parameters for authorized investments, report of
investments and investment authority.
Da\lic:.o~' II .1\1 ?rlrl?
ICity of Temecula
INVESTMENT POLICY
Page 21
4. To Qenerate a maximum amount of investment income within the parameters of
prudent risk manaaement and consistent with the above policies,
The City's investment portfolio shall be designed to attain a market-average rate of return through
economic cycles. The market-average rate of return is defined as the average return on three-
month U.S. Treasury bills. Whenever possible, and consistent with risk limitations and prudent
investment principles, the Treasurer shall seek to augment retums above the market average rate of
return.
The policy will also address risk management because it is such an integral part of the investment
policy. To concentrate only on maximizing return would be dangerous. Therefore, policy issues will
be directed to: 1) limiting the Fund's exposure to each issue and issuer of debt, and 2) determining
a minimum credit requirement that firms must have in order to hold City rnoney.
I SCOPE:
This investment policy applies to all funds under the control of the City Treasurer, including but not
limited to the general fund, special revenue funds, enterprise funds, debt service funds, capital
improvement funds, trust funds and proceeds of bonds sale in the custody of the Treasurer and any
other funds under his control. California Government Code Section 53601 (1) permits money from
bond proceeds, obligations under a lease, installment sales or other agreements to be invested in
any security that meets the statutory provisions governing the issuance of the bond or other
agreements made by the issuing agency.
I INVESTMENT AUTHORITY: I
The City of Temecula Municipal Code delegates to the City Treasurer the authority to invest and
reinvest moneys of the city, to sell or exchange securities, and to deposit them and provide for their
safekeeping.
The City Treasurer is responsible for daily management of the investment program, including:
0/ Establishing procedures for operation consistent with the investment policy.
0/ Approving daily investment transactions.
0/ Developing projections of the City's cash requirements for operating needs.
0/ Reviewing the liquidity position of the investment portfolio.
0/ Ensuring that the City's cash position is consistent with operating requirements.
0/ Preparing appropriate investment reports.
0/ Developing, implementing and monitoring controls over investments.
0/ Developing record keeping for investment transactions.
The City Treasurer may delegate investment authority to qualified and competent officials and City
employees such as the Finance Director, Assistant Finance Director, or Revenue Manager.
All persons authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of the City are trustees of the public
funds and therefore fiduciaries subject to the following prudent investor standard as defined in
California Government Code Section 53600.3:
When investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, or managing public
funds, a trustee shall act with care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances
then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the
anticipated needs of the agency, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and
familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with
O""..:.........l. 1..1" '1/"\nl")
ICity of Temecula
INVESTMENT POLICY
Page 31
like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the agency. Within
the limitations of this section and considering individual investments as part of an overall
strategy, investments may be acquired as authorized by law.
I SAFEKEEPING OF SECURITIES: I
To protect against potential losses by collapse of indiYidual securities dealers, all securities owned
by the City, including collateral on repurchase agreements, shall be held in safekeeping by a third
party bank trust department, acting as agent for the City under the terms of a custody agreement
executed by the bank and by the City. All securities will be received and delivered using standard
delivery versus payment procedures (i.e., the City's safekeeping agent will only release payment for
a security after the security has been properly delivered). This section is intended to comply with
Government Code 53635.
I REPORTING: I
The City Treasurer shall render a monthly report to the City Manager and City Council showing the
type of investment, issuing institution, selling institution, date of maturity, par and dollar amount of
deposit, current market value for all securities, return on the City's investment portfolio expressed as
an annual percentage rate, yield to maturity, cash flow information demonstrating that the City can
meet its upcoming financial obligations, and such data as may be required by the City Council. The
report shall also state its relationship to this statement of investment policy, as directed under the
Code. The Treasurer shall annually submit a recommended updated Investment Policy to be
reviewed and approved by the City Council. The City's investment reporting policy meets or
exceeds the requirements of Section 53646 of the California Government Code.
I QUALIFIED DEALERS: I
The City shall transact investments only with banks, savings and loans, investment security dealers
and the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund. The dealers must be primary dealers
regularly reporting to the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Exceptions to this rule will be made only
after thorough research and documented confirmation of financial strength and reputation and after
approval by the City Manager. Investment staff shall investigate dealers who wish to do business
with the City in order to detenmine if they are adequately capitalized, market securities appropriate to
the City's needs, and are recommended by managers of portfolios similar to the City's. The City's
Broker/Dealer Questionnaire (Attachment A) will be used in this investigation.
The City shall at least annually send a copy of the current investment policy to all dealers approved
to do business with the City. Confirmation of receipt of this policy shall be considered as evidence
that the dealer understands the City's investment policies, and intends to show the City only
appropriate investments.
Revised: July, 2002
ICity of Temecula
INVESTMENT POLICY
Page ~
I AUTHQRIZEDINVESTMENTS: I
Investments shall be made in the context of the "prudent inyestor" rule, which states:
"Inyestments shall be made with judgment and care, under circumstances then
prevailing, which persons of prudence, discretion, and intelligence exercise in the
management of their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering
the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived."
The City is further governed by the California Government Code, Sections 53600 et seq. Within the
context of these limitations, the following investments are authorized, as further limited herein:
United States Treasury Bills. Bonds. and Notes. or those for which the full faith and
credit of the United States are pledQed for pavment of principal and interest. There is
no limitation as to the percentage of the portfolio that can be invested in this category.
Maturity is not to exceed the projected dates of the City's cash needs or five years,
whichever is less.
ObliQations issued bv the Federal Farm Credit Bank System (FFCB). the Federal Home
Loan Bank Board (FHLB). the Federal Home Loan MortQaQe Corporation (FHLMCl. the
Federal National MortQaQe Association (FNMA). and other United States aQencv
obliQations with maturities of five vears or less. Although there is no percentage
limitation on the dollar amount that can be invested in these issues, the "prudent investor"
rule shall apply for a single agency name. Maturity is not to exceed the projected dates of
the City's cash needs or five years, whichever is less.
Bills of exchanQe or time drafts drawn on and accepted bv a commercial bank.
otherwise known as banker's acceptances. Banker's acceptances purchased may not
exceed 180 days to maturity or 40% of the market value of the portfolio. No more than 10%
of the market value of the portfolio may be invested in banker's acceptances issued by any
one bank.
Commercial paper ranked "P1" bv Moodv's Investor Services and "A1 +" bv Standard
and Poor's, and issued bv a domestic corporation havinQ assets in excess of
$500.000.000 and havinQ an "A" or better ratinQ on its 10nQ.term debentures as
provided bv Moodv's or Standard and Poor's. Purchases of eligible commercial paper
may not exceed 15% of the market value of the portfolio. No more than 10% of the market
value of the portfolio may be invested in commercial paper issued by anyone corporation.
The City may invest in no more than 10% of a single corporation. The City may invest in no
more than 10% of a single corporation's commercial paper. Maturity is not to exceed 180
days.
NeQotiable certificates of deposit issued bv nationallv or state-chartered banks or
state or federal savinQs and loan associations. Negotiable certificates of deposit (NCDs)
differ from other certificates of deposit by their deposit liquidity. They are issued against
funds deposited for specified periods of time and earn specified or variable rates of interest.
NCDs are traded actively in secondary markets. When feasible, an independent trading
service will be used as part of the evaluation process. Issuers must be rated "B" or better by
Thomson Bank Watch or equivalent rating service, or rated A-1 for deposits by Standard &
Poors, or P-1 for deposits by Moodys or comparably rated by a national rating agency.
Transactions in NCDs shall not collectively exceed 30% of the total portfolio in effect
immediately after any such investment is made.
Revised: Julv. 2002
ICity of Temecula
INVESTMENT POLICY
Page 51
Repurchase Aareements. The City may invest in repurchase agreements with banks and
dealers with which the City has entered into a master repurchase agreement which specifies
terms and conditions of repurchase agreements. Transactions shall be limited to the
primary dealers and the top banking institutions according to the rating agency based on
liquidity, profitability, and financial strength. The maturity of repurchase agreements shall
not exceed 30 days. The market value of securities used as collateral for repurchase
agreements shall be monitored daily by the investment staff and will not be allowed to fall
below 102% of the value of the repurchase agreement plus the value of collateral in excess
of the value of the repurchase agreement. In order to conform with provisions of the Federal
Bankruptcy Code which provide for the liquidation of securities held as collateral for
repurchase agreements, the only securities acceptable as collateral shall be certificates of
deposit, eligible bankers' acceptances, or securities that are direct obligations of, or that are
fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by, the United States or any agency of the
United States. No more than 50% of the portfolio may be invested in repurchase
agreements, and a "perfected security interest" shall always be maintained in the securities
subject to a repurchase agreement.
Local Aaencv Investment Fund. The City may invest in the Local Agency Investment
Fund (LAIF) established by the State Treasurer for the benefit of local agencies up to the
maximum permitted by State law.
Time Deposits. The City may invest in non-negotiable time deposits collateralized in
accordance with the California Government Code, in those banks and savings and loan
associations that meet the requirements for investment in negotiable certificates of deposit.
Since time deposits are not liquid, no more than 15% of the portfolio may be invested in this
category. The issuer firm should have been in existence for at least five years. The City
may waive the first $100,000 of collateral security for such deposits if the institution is
insured pursuant to federal law. In order to secure the uninsured portions of such deposits,
an institution shall maintain at least 10% in excess of the total amount deposited. Real
estate mortgages may not be accepted as collateral. The maximum term for deposits shall
be one year. In general, the issuer must have a minimum 6% net worth to assets ratioorthe
minimum ratio established by the Comptroller of the Currency. The issuer's operation must
have been profitable during their last reporting period.
Monev Market Funds. The City may inyest in money market funds that invest solely in U.S.
Treasuries, obligations of the U.S. Treasury, and repurchase agreements relating to such
treasury obligations. To be eligible, companies selling money market funds must have an
investment advisor with not less than five years experience and that is registered with the
SEC, has the highest ranking available as evaluated by a nationally recognized rating
service, and with assets in excess of $500 million.
This list of authorized investments is intended to apply to the investment of all operating and surplus
funds. The investment of bond proceeds shall be governed by the permitted investments as
specified in the official statement for each bond issue.
I INELIGIBLE INVESTMENTS: I
Investments not described herein, including, but not limited to, reverse repurchase agreements,
mutual funds, zero coupon bonds, inverse floaters, mortgage backed securities, common stocks and
corporate notes and bonds are prohibited from use in the City's investment portfolio.
Revised: July, 2002
ICity of Temecula
INVESTMENT POLICY
Page 61
I SWAPPING OF SECURITIES: I
A swap is the movement from one security to another and may be done for a variety of reasons,
such as to increase yield, lengthen or shorten maturities, to take a profit, orto increase investment
quality. The purchase transaction and the sale transaction must each be recorded separately and
any losses or gains on the sale must be recorded.
I PORTFOLIO ADJUSTMENTS:
Should an investment percentage-of-portfolio limitation be exceeded due to an incident such as
fluctuation in portfolio size, the affected securities may be held to maturity to avoid losses. When no
loss is indicated, the Treasurer shall consider reconstructing the portfolio basing his or her decision,
in part, on the expected length of time the portfolio will be unbalanced.
I POLICY REVIEW:
This investment policy shall be reviewed at least annually to ensure its consistency with the overall
objectives of preservation of principal, liquidity, and return, and its relevance to current law and
financial and economic trends. The City Council shall be responsible for maintaining guidance over
this investment policy to ensure that the City can adapt readily to changing market conditions, and
shall approve any modification to the investment policy prior to implementation.
I ETHICS AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST: I
Officers and employees inyolyed in the inyestment process shall refrain from personal business
activity that conflicts with the proper execution of the investment program or impairs their ability to
make impartial investment decisions. Additionally, officers and staff involved in the investment of
public funds are required to annually file a Fair Political Practices Commission Statement of
Economic Interest form.
Revised: Julv. 2002
CITY OF TEMECULA
Broker/Dealer Questionnaire
~~___-~_ _ ~ ==___ l:;rJ~{;~ '1:"-~12?' -'(~I_J --- ___ _ _]
Firm Name:
Address:
Phone No: (
Firm is (select one): CJ Broker CJ Dealer
-- -- '-~--'---~--'~-'------- ~
T;;,~m'G((;!f'l2f;1,it:,IT@. "'0 ',' .
~_~~__~~~.:L
Sales Representative:
Title:
Phone No: (
Supervising Representative:
Title:
Phone No: ( )
_~rJF~~___L.~_~'~J
YES NO
Is your firm a primary dealer in U.S. Government securities? D D
If yes, for how long?
Are the following instruments regularly offered by your firm?
T-Bills D D
T-NotesIBonds . D D
Banker's Acceptances (Domestic) D D
Banker's Acceptances (Foreign) D D
Commercial Paper D D
Certificates of Deposit D D
Medium Term Notes D D
Mutual Funds (eligible for public Investment) D 0
Agencies (please specify) D D
Have any of your firm's public sector clients sustained a loss on a
securities transaction arising from a misunderstanding or
misrepresentation of the risk characteristics of a financial instrument
that was recommended by and purchased through your firm?
(If yes, please explain on a separate sheet.) D D
Have any of your firm's public sector clients claimed, in writing,
that your firm was responsible for any investment losses?
(If yes, please explain on a separate sheet.) D D
Has your firm been subject to any litigation, arbitration or regulatory
proceedings, either pending, adjudicated or settled, that involved
allegations of improper, fraudulent, disreputable or unfair activities
related to the sale of securities or to the purchase of securities from
institutional clients? (If yes, please explain on a separate sheet.) D D
Has your firm been subject to a regulatory, state or federal agency
investigation for alleged improper, fraudulent, disreputable, or
unfair activities related to the purchase or sale of securities?
(If yes, please explain on a separate sheet.) D D
What Is the net capitalization of your firm?
What are your wire and delivery Instructions?
Please identify all personnel who will be trading with or quoting levels to the City of
Temecula:
NAME:
TITLE:
PHONE:
# YRS WI FIRM
Do each of the above individuals currently hold valid licenses to
trade securities on behalf of the Institution?
YES
o
NO
o
Please Identify your most closely comparable governmental local agency clients In our
geographical area:
AGENCY:
CONTACT:
PHONE:
# YRS CLIENT
I hereby certify that I have personally read the City of Temecula's Investment Policy and the
California Government Codes pertaining to the investments of the City of Temecula, and
have implemented reasonable procedures and a system of controls designed to preclude
imprudent investment activities arising out of transactions conducted between our firm and
the City of Temecula's investment objectives, strategies and risk constraints whenever we
are so advised. We pledge to exercise due diligence in informing the City Treasurer staff of
all foreseeable risks associated with financial transactions conducted with our firm. We
further pledge not to offer the City of Temecula any types of securities not authorized by both
the City of Temec;ula's Investment Policy and California Law. I attest to the accuracy of our
responses to your questionnaire.
Additionally, all sales personnel will be routinely informed of your investment objectives,
horizon, outlook, strategies, and risk constraints whenever we are so advised. We will notify
you Immediately by telephone and In writing in the event of material adverse change in our
financial condition. The supervising officer agrees to exercise due diligence in monitoring
the activities of other officers and subordinate staff members engaged in transaction with the
City of Temecula.
SIGNED:
PRINTED NAME:
TITLE:
'-
DATED:
This section must be countersign, ld by the Managing Director or by the most senior person
in charge of the government secu rities operations sections.
SIGNED:
PRINTED NAME:
TITLE:
DATED:
ITEM 5
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY ~
DIRECTOR OF FINAN
CITY MANAGER ~
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
City Manager/City Council
Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manager~
July 23, 2002
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Consideration of Cost-Sharing Agreement with Save Southwest Riverside
County (SSRC) for Consulting Services
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve a Cost-Sharing Agreement with Save
Southwest Riverside County (SSRC) for Consulting Services in the matter of the Application of
the San Diego Gas & Electric Company for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
for the Valley-Rainbow 500 KV Interconnect Project, in an amount not-to-exceed $25,000.
BACKGROUND: Both the City of Temecula and SSRC have formally intervened in the
hearings regarding the Valley-Rainbow Transmission Line as proposed by the San Diego Gas &
Electric Company (SDGE). The City and SSRC have many common goals in this matter, and
have previously entered into an agreement for cost-sharing of certain expert witness costs.
The initial hearing phase of this project has concluded and there is now a need for further work
to present the City and SSRC's position to various State officials and agencies as the decision-
making phase proceeds. The attached agreement provides for SSRC to retain consulting
services and to share those costs with the City of Temecula, as well as the City of Murrieta and
possibly others. The agreement provides that the City of Temecula will pay up to $25,000 for
these services, and will make payments after Murrieta and possibly others have contributed to
this effort.
Staff recommends approval of the attached agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT: Approyal of the attached agreement will require an expenditure of up to
$25,000. Funds are currently available in the City's Operating Budget (Department 130-City
Attorney) for this expenditure, however it is anticipated that an adjustment of $25,000 may be
needed in the Mid-Year Budget review to cover these costs.
ATTACHMENT:
Agreement with SSRC
R:\Ogradyj\SDG&E Transmission Line\Agreemenl with SSRC Agenda Report, 7-23-o2.doc
COST -SHARING AGREEMENT
This Cost-Sharing Agreement dated this _ day of , 2002 (this
"Agreement"), is entered into by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal
corporation (the "City"), and Save Southwest Riverside County, a non-profit
organization ("SSRC"). All or one of the parties to this Agreement are referred to
herein as "Party", or collectively referred to herein as the "Parties."
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the City and SSRC are "Intervenors" in the matter of the
Application of San Diego Gas & Electric ("SDG&E") (U 902-E) for a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity ("CPCN") for the Valley-Rainbow 500 kV
Interconnect Project (the "Project") before the Public Utilities Commission of the
State of California (the "Proceedings");
WHEREAS, the Parties have already entered into a Joint Prosecution,
Cost-Sharing and Confidentiality Agreement, dated on or about February 12, 2002,
with respect to the opposition of the Project in the Proceedings;
WHEREAS, acknowledging that the Joint Prosecution, Cost-Sharing
and Confidentiality Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, the Parties also
wish to obtain consulting services to assist the Parties' opposition to the Project at
various administrative levels and agencies of the State of California ("Consulting
Services") ;
WHEREAS, SSRC has agreed to retain such Consulting Services, and
other cities have pledged to assist in retention of such Consulting Services;
WHEREAS, the City and SSRC acknowledge at the time of entering
into this Agreement, that the Parties' interests are mutually aligned in opposing the
Project, and thus, wish to coordinate their efforts to oppose the Project in a cost-
effective manner; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
agreements contained herein, the Parties hereby agree to the following cost-sharing
agreement:
1. Maximum Contribution Amount. The City agrees to pay up to a
maximum of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) towards such Consulting
Services.
2. Sequence of Contribution Payment. The payment for the
Consulting Services will be sequenced to reflect contributions from other Cities as
follows: the City of Temecula will commence payment after (1) an initial payment
- 1 -
by the City of Murrieta of fifty -two thousand dollars ($52,000), and a contribution
of the City of Hemet, if any. After such payments, Temecula and Murrieta shall
pay for the balance, if any, of such Consulting Services on a matching, i.e., dollar-
for-dollar basis, up to the maximum contribution amount set forth in Section 1
hereof.
3. Protocol For Payment. SSRC, through its Counsel of Record in
the Proceedings, shall forward a copy of billing invoices for such Consulting
Services to the City's counsel of record in the Proceedings. The billing invoices
shall reflect the total amount of the fees and costs incurred, and a calculation of
amount due and owing by the City pursuant to the sequencing and share provisions
in this Agreement. The City, through its Counsel of Record in the Proceedings, will
then remit said amount to the consultant providing such Consulting Services.
4. Entire AQreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire
understanding and agreement between the Parties, and all prior negotiations and
understandings, whether oral or written, between the Parties, have been merged
herein.
5. AQreement BindinQ on Others. This Agreement shall be binding
upon and inure the benefit of the respective officers, directors, servants, agents,
employees, attorneys, predecessors, successors, and assigns, as applicable, of
each of the Parties.
6. Other Documentation. The Parties agree to execute such other
documents, if any, as are necessary to carry out the intent of this Agreement.
7, Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original.
8. Arms-LenQth Transaction. This Agreement is a product of arms-
length negotiations. Thus, none of the Parties can claim any ambiguities to any
term of the Agreement should be construed against any of the other Parties to this
Agreement. This Agreement is also entered into without prejudice or precedential
value and is not intended to be, nor shall it be used as evidence, or in any other
manner, in any court or dispute resolution proceeding regarding any other claims
between the Parties, if any.
9. GoverninQ Law. This Agreement is governed by and shall be
interpreted according to the laws of the State of California.
10. Waiver of Breach. No waiver of any breach of any term or
provision of this Agreement shall be construed to be, or shall be, a waiver of any
other breach of this Agreement, No waiver shall be binding unless in writing and
signed by the Party waiving the breach.
- 2 -
11. Headinos. The various headings of the paragraphs of this
Agreement have been inserted for convenience of reference only and shall not
affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement or any provision hereof.
12. No Assionment. The Parties hereto, and each of them,
represent and warrant that there has been no assignment, encumbrance,
hypothecation or other transfer of any interest in any of the claims released under
this Agreement.
13. Separate Counsel. Each of the Parties represents and warrants
to each other Party hereto that it has had an opportunity to receive independent
legal advice from attorneys of its own choosing with respect to the legal effect of
this Agreement, and further represents and warrants that it has carefully reviewed
this entire Agreement and that each and every term thereof is understood and that
the terms of this Agreement are contractual and not a mere recital.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been signed by the
Parties as shown below.
Dated:
,2002
THE CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
Dated:
_, 2002
SAVE SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY
By:
- 3 -
ITEM 6
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE DIRECTOR
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
FROM:
City Council
Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services &
TO:
DATE:
July 23, 2002
SUBJECT:
Sister City Monument Dedication In Honor of September 11
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Temecula Duck Pond as the
permanent installation location of our Sister City monument "Singing In The Rain" to commemorate
the tragedies of September 11, 2001.
BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the year our Sister City, Leidschendam-
Voorburg, the Netherlands, has led a community wide fundraising effort to fund a statue that would
be donated to the City of Temecula to commemorate the United States tragedy that occurred on
September 11, 2001. The fund raising effort has been well received by the residents of
Leidschendam-Voorburg, and several thousand dollars have been raised towards this effort. Our
Sister City residents share in the grief and tragedy that occurred in New York on September 11,
2001. Our Sister City envisions this monument being installed in a prominent location in Temecula
for our residents to view.
Our Sister City has commissioned a local Voorburg artist, Franz Kokshoorn, to replicate one of his
existing works of art, a bronze statue entitled "Singing In The Rain", to be constructed and installed
here in Temecula. The statue depicts a mother and her two children riding a bike through heavy
wind and rain. Our Sister City feels this symbolizes America the American spirit to continue and
press on in good spirit, even in the face of tragedy.
The artist Franz Kokshoorn and a Voorburg representative Jan Kok, visited Temecula on June 28
and 29, 2002 and looked at various locations throughoutthe City as potential sites for the installation
of this monument. Mayor Ron Roberts, members of City staff and members of the press
accompanied the visiting representatives. At the conclusion of the day, the artist and Mayor Roberts
had selected the southeast corner of the Temecula Duck Pond walkway as the most appropriate
place for installation of this monument. It was felt that this location is highly visible within the City
and lends itself to visitation by pedestrians at the Temecula Duck Pond and provides an excellent
environment for contemplation.
The installation of the monument would include the construction of a concrete pad approximately 10
x 10, lighting, a small retaining wall, landscape irrigation modification, trees and shrubs, a seat wall
and the installation of a bronze plaque. It is staffs intent to have the statue, plaque and all
construction completed before September 11, 2002 and a small program is being planned for
R:IZIGLERG\REPORTl072402 CC September 11 Monument.doc
dedication of the monument on 9/11/2002.
FISCAL YEAR: It is estimated that the costfor installation of the monumentto include
concrete work, irrigation modifications, replanting, lighting, and the installation of the bronze plaque
will cost $28,000. Appropriate funding has been budgeted in the TCSD operating budget.
R:\ZIGLERGIREPORTl072402 CC September 11 Monument.doc
;..~ ,>I,,:~ r,-~:J-;-'~;;~ ~~~-~~":-
. -." ~, . -. . .~. -
,rt. "\""lJ;)~pe\r. '
l~, I'~--:- . ,. ,
, ~
Ad Crlremets.
. .'
, .
c" .J-'
,;."
",r '.
r' ,-,
. 'From: ~EliSabetCr!lemel'S"
-TQ:" ;' "AdCr~rrlers'!<aet:r~~rT!@'tern.ecula.cO[i1>,
, Senti"... ..MoJi(lay,'Mafch 18,2()02'tO,!l5',PM " ,'.
,Subj8ct:,lranslalion '. . ': . . -' .
. Here is the.traiJSiaiio!l of the aiticll:in:th~S oorb,lIl'gpaPer:' ..' .
.,: ,,-. ~..
.', ~,'
", ,., , ,,_', ,', ",_ _',>", ,',' __",' "':,''1:,
.' Whe!1we iNnk back to Septe!nberof1~ Year ,all o{ inm1edi~ttilYcthinlC'6f
'tJ1e 11thazl(ithel!igllimesflyiDgipto the thp W<?dd ~e(lenteriIJ..;N~Vv' ,
'York:. ..... .: . \:." ....... ;,o'..... .;;..;'....';.'.... ..,
"'--~,-- ' ':. ,~' "0.,,' . --~'. :,___~~. .-
,.., ,"".
.
,.
,
I
, . .
'. Th~.iJ:tereffeCCl"oftliistenibledeejiarestiUfe1tuiinanYpartofthe...' . .'
tJs:fhi~{s ~sothe case, fuoursister city Temecula. To show ,our frienasin: '.
. ,Tt:lUeCwa.thatwe care,.w~!ta,ves~d.ac!lIIlJl<li~toc9UeCte!\olJgb..'ffioney 'to'
'offerolll'siSter,ciiYa$tUe<..' ....... . .....: ......; ,'...
we aie'askilig,thePeople ofYoorblitg.to setld ~m eur6's;~:oUl"fUnd: ,.': "
..- ,~ .
~ .,,',./.- . , ~" -,,' ,', ~ , ,^' ,'" .. -, ' ,,':' "" -' ..' ,- "
This initiative'Was takeii'by our former mayor BasJ;:imhoorn, Ios.Tigges and
JanK.ok. J;he last tWo are part of the Wotkgroup T~,in.ecu1a)il\\Oorburg.. .
~,_ ',:. ~ . < ,_: _.' ~__': _ -' , , '^~';., _::_~",,__.;<,~ _~' _,>',<.~_1, =~'. _e. ~':. ': .~..~-> " ,": _.:', '-'f~"',,") ;__w' ; " '__'*
i_ "p:veiytin:i.evv~'haye ~ llgI'Oup.o.(VisitOrSfrO$.teiiiecj1ill,thf:Y~VearWaYS
i . ' 'sl1own great iI1!eresfiI(our stiltdes which canoe fojln'd1l119verVoorburg. ; : "
. Fora long'tim!:l;,~r~ep:n;we triedtpcome ~p,with.somc;ltliing.to ~ow
'. '. oursj~~r cjt)ipUr l:o}i1~sion, V!ekrto'iV- thR! $e SePIl, tJ;agedies havehi4s . r..
I, ','~so,l!hilnpa&tQIiOlJf sisteri:ity;,- ManY,nili~perSODn~r,te~i5!esw' :; , /: .
, : ,:' ["eineCulliian,4,llieSetnilitarypetsons,are'-nqw',away5roin.honi~,!0:help > .~ :',
. prevent furtliertrligedies,'; . . . . . '.. .' .>; ;:
i.'
i ~
pi;
"
~
. . Thirt';s why we contactedFrai1s,Ko~hoomand iiskedlilil1'ifheWas WilliIigto . . .
'-~eanexaCt ctipy 'ofthestatuethatis;,placed,owtheJnlilVlast!"eethe~ in.~; ";0. ;<
"YQorb~g;,This.i-sJbe one caned:"sw.gwgil1tJieJilinn'and.hasveiY~peciljt, - .,'
",syt!1PO!ic wellllitig :It,sl1q,,,,;a;iI1oth.~r lID.d2',clill.~ll.bit.~b~!'1ln'~~ fllil1": .' " ..
.ThtOlighthe.tain ilnil, the lleayYnead:wmd'shekeepsongoipg !md'nothingcan'
.stopher.This is also 'tljecase w..AI1iericalpldinTeinecu1.a; they !p"e. w,odcing
togethe~., @d lJ!'e;going strong. even tliJ'oughablld rnin!in4a heaV}>headwing, "
'. }Ne.are.trying,toshow.WjthtAis (jur,comp/lfisjQua:0.4;olJfppdetObe: '.
, "as'socjated With Tem~ula. / . . .' ,_ ..' ':., ',I'" : '
. · The 'Way weare Collecting these. monies are.twofoldl'otir formerrnliyor;and ..
. .... hono~citiZerionemecu1.aMr. J;lasEenhoorh, will try toget.c<irporate .
. spopsors. , . ""{~' . .. -,' , '. .: .' ,'. .
Se,condj.y.we. are ~g, the,citizens of Voorburg.to send us 9. n Eur6''( for '
. _.~ . ._ . ? < !1 ~ . '
Sep.;i1.2001 ~ ,!e feel',thqt it ii'l very iptp6rtairt we'9ff~r tljis ~e to , : ;
"Tem~ul!lfjofn. ALL ofthecitize,nofVporburg. The; ideaisto'fu1vethis ", ':
. project completedlitld deHveredby or:op Sep.l nOp2..' . . '" ... .':.,"
Thenwe alsoiJ,ave a pric;eilttiwl1~ to @~ C8qIpaign. When som.e oo;e!iepos!t.
sOme mQney totJri~ special acCOUJit,he'or;Shewill re<;eive .allllIiiis(;ll\ The..:,'.;;"
wjl)ni\r. Will~ive ~ tick.etto; /i:oto'Ternecula,t() be,part ot:the coIIl!Iiittee: ,;'. .'
';whOWilfbring .the stlitueto thepeopleof:Temeciila: We ,hl\ve.andv.ilrbelievl:
. Stiongly that All citizeIiwill plu'ticipate;intbiscollectioll, ...' .
,
,
i
f
I
I
i
,
I
\.,
,
j',
,
r~
,
-; .ftCkt~ at SkM'. ~,..Je m e~S1~:2W:f ~~; Crrj
'.
,'~
.
.~
, ". ~
~ -.< ' "
7', _,_
'-', " ,
"",'"
-fi
3/~9i20Q2
, '-':i::
:'~.'.,~L'
n",. <.i<'~)-."" ."
"\'"'T'--~' '>',~ "'~41;. 'f
. . ;';j~~i~:
". -'.
',. I
_;~,~Z,r~ '
At
m SlIIIIfDI
, , , , " ..'
VI_1Y"-'~' ".
.'r -:- '..', '_, ' , ',' " '.
~ "', - " '~, .'.." .
.' · >: .... ............ . "'N".'~.':";\'
.. .. ' . ..',," "'.. " '.: ~.' .:":-' ~,I~~:'
',.
,'0'"
'. ~ -
;;.....~
I
"f'"
..-...,",: .' ~
" -. - .
..
n"
R
ANC
H ;0
" ',j"-'"
..iI!",
'.,,:
,.,~.~
.,<.'.
".:,,,
'~'
,..
t
"t,
,,' '/
. 'P0i4o
"
.,
..
"-;,
',-';':'.
". '.~ .
. :' ~',
" ~I
.'"
':<
,
..
"
. r:~
",1:,'"
;.
'<oC- ~!
;-. .-i\.':;'.-.
. '" .'. ,,~:.~
.J. . ~},.'.,' "':!!...':V"
:-;',;'~ : :t,',:,t_~.:.;./~:/:;~~.'~~..
"<r;' .'
~ ';'r';-:
")'
".,.:.
;"':',,-,,;
,
"':-.,',
"
,cJ'
'.
f
.....
ITEM 7
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANC
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
DATE:
City Manager/City Council
~~illiam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
July 23, 2002
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Parcel Map No. 30178, Located on the East Side of Orsmby Road and North
of Santiago Road.
PREPARED BY: t/ Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works
Reza James, Assistant Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: That the City council approve 1) Parcel Map 30178 in conformance
with the conditions of approval. 2) Subdivision Improvement Agreement 3) Subdivision Monument
agreement and Accept the Faithful Performance Bond, Labor and Material Bond and Monument
bond as security for the agreements.
BACKGROUND: On February 28, 2002 the Director of Planning for the City of
Temecula approved Tentative Parcel Map 30178 subject to the conditions of approval. The
Developer has met all of the Conditions of Approval for recordation of the parcel map. The site is
currently vacant and being graded.
Parcel Map No. 30178 is a (2) parcel residential subdivision of 2.35 net acres located on the east
side of Orsmby Road and north of Santiago Road.
The final map is in conformance with the approved tentative map. The approval of a final subdivision
map, which substantially complies with the previously approved tentative map, is a mandatory
ministerial act under the State law.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
No alternatives were considered
FISCAL IMPACT: None
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Project Vicinity Map
2. Parcel Map No. 30178
3. Development Fee check list
4. Fees and securities report
R:\Agenda Report\2002\0723\PM 30178
CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT
PARCEL MAP NO. 30178
DATE: JULY 23,2002
IMPROVEMENTS FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE MATERIAL & LABOR SECURITY
SECURITY
Street and drainage $ 43,360.00 $ 43,360.00
Water $ $
Sewer $ $
TOTAL $ 43,360.00 $ 43,360.00
Monument $ 2,000. -
DEVELOPMENT FEES
City Traffic Signing and Striping Costs $ 0.00
RCFCD (ADP) Fee $ N/A
Development Impact Fee $ TBD
SERVICE FEES
Planning Fee $ 56.00
Comprehensive Transportation Plan $ 4.00
Plan Check Fee $ 790.00
Monument Inspection Fee $ 250.00
Fees Paid to Date $ 1100.00
Balance of Fees Due $ 0.00
2
R:\Agenda Report\2002\0723\PM 30178
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO. PARCEL MAP 30178
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project.
FEE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Development hnpact Fee
to be paid prior to issuance of occupancy
Quimby Fee
N/A
3
R:\Agenda Report\2002\0723\PM 30178
PARCEL MAP 30178
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
~
~
.
,
;;
~
i i ~
I ! i
~ I;
~! ~
I~ ~
. ~ -
~ .1 ~~
~ ~ lLffi ...
... .0: :<d !i ~
~
,
.
.
,
.
<i.
z
~cx:l
3l'-
l!5 ....-4
~O
tnC":)
~
~
~.. ;;
=1 ~
a, .
.go
~i ~
~~
-"
~~ ~~
..< i:
l!5~ "
~ ~ ~I~
.......:l ~h
~~ ~~~
~u ~q
~~ ;:~(I)
~ < ~~ ~
u~
'l'
~
!
w
c
13 i?
~::l...g.
a~a~
..tlU~
...~~:;;
.....a......I
.
~,c~l:i
~..
~~!!
v
~
.
~
~
I
.
d
~
~
~
,
~
~~
i~
e.
~~
.
~s
~ !~
c
~
~.
. (I~
~... . ~;@i
1Ili=!i _ ",g
~~l!i i~~;~
~~~ 'f-~
~~~ ~~~e~
"In: ~~~~~
~~!f z~... .
~~; ~;~~~~
)-~... 15........~...~
z:di. 1oJ~i!'g~-
~i'8 ~~3~.~
.Ii!~ ~ .~;~~
!i ~~ !~~...~~
~ g~ ~~I'~.
C~~ -3~.
~~o -,i..~~""
ez~~ :r~! ~
~-,. ~~!.~g
G.)-!;l!i: :z:- 0 l'-
...~ ~ ~~ ~...l'-
f~~~ ;:~ ~i:
~ . ~ ~~l'-j
:a-o~-, U1~~u C
!o;:;:iIi... ~~...i:~15
i;;:;:~ ~&:o~~.:
~c;;i ~al::;:o
j!;~~~ _g;:!i~~
~!~~i ~
l!;;~..l~... -
~ffi15~ffi ~
~~'~ffiJ' .
~f~":~ ~
Ul~~~; ~
~, ." 8
~!~~ffi
.. ~
~~ @~l;l ...
e~~~~e I
!i::i~~~~ ~
CiioUl:;l~ 5
a~~2~~ N :
...a:15......';f 0
~~c~i~ ~
)- .~:c!U1-
~~ -In
lr;!!i!t3~ .
~Ul~51~~
t~il!5;:;!
lI!...~lI'I~:: ~."
!;:!0"'~1Il~ ~
-~li~15~ 0
o
~8wlt :~ ~,~
si!;:~e~ i~1il-l~
H' .g .... -
~~~~ ~~:;li~C
-Q.!5S~ ....~i:a-~
i ...iiio...... i5e:dl!5l1'1
...~c;~. lI~...~...i
e--t!c o~z~
~.~~~~ ~~'!~~ ~
l!;;~"'lI'Ig'" ~~~...-! ~
~i~~~~ ~~~~~ ~
rw;~w~ ~)-~...~:. ~
! a: :::I ca:"'1l..l0
...c~.1I.. "'Ir!::;:cw c
~~d!W~ gG... ~~~ i
... c~:;~..~i:~ul)~ ~
~iv.!~ffi;: ,!~~~i~~
...~a:~:::I _~~~ II:!~ g
~~~~lfi~ "'g'~&~:~
ii~~~~~~;S~ ~
,~..~o ..~'
..~.-. ~"s~~.. i
!;:~~...tii... z '" ...c
"'-W':I:-'" 0,", ~ :Z:(II
(II~(II~~~ ~~~~~;~
~__"'~1Il i-~iN-~ ~
~~~~zl!5 8~G;a:~(II ~
...(11......_... ..._lL.....l(ll ~
:z: "'<II:Z: c uet:... ,:::I'"
w~~~i~ ~~iOi;~ ~
~
~
.
t
.
.
~
~s
:22
,
u!7
"N' -:~
" ~~
l:~
~~
"... ...z
~ b~
. ,~
"
..
~
~
j;:~~~~
-"'lL "'IS
~ZI/Jl!;;-z
~!~~~~
<Ill'- _Z
g........... ~...
~~..:;~ ..
l!;;~ .;i!Oci <~
~i~~~~~,,; ~~
~~il!5iffi~~ ~~
!!:E~ui~~~ ~
~i~i~~!: ~
o eGos'"
5li!iii;Sll!"'~ ~
~~~~ti~~i ..
)-e-e~j!:~o
!::!;et: ..!-i:;:
lrt3l!;;..jn:a-...1Il
~~~E~~i~
~~!i"'IlI(11~:;:
~~8ti~~a:i~ ~
!t1ll~><<II l!- c:
-~...~~l!;; :< g
.
t::E
3e
..
Jif
.~
~>
~
.
.
.
,
~~
.
~
~
~
iS~I'i"l!;;i
~~iii~ ~
_. . .~C
i"l:ioG-:a-
~il~~@~
~...-,ii1:Q.~t3
D'lao...ao...Sa:
;;l?~~~.~
...... Q.~......
~~~ ~~~
c.~ ..,,~
l;;gi:~8:.:!~
~~~g':~~
lii~~i~!;:D'I
i~~lf~;
8... ...:::Ia:S1
....Ii..
~lilj:.~~~i
j!i~"'ClU'"
iffiS~~ii
:~!~:l~
'" i-i.........
i!:15:Ct;!!i...;;:
~~~ ~EE
c Q-(IIC
tiitD~~:.~~t
~Slt;le-~!
...z:t...tcu-
et:_<II_"'_
~~",......~!;:
_/:jj!:~i!:,a:
.
..
<~
~i
~~ $
uu ~
. .
-!i:c,.
(II':5~
l!i!uC
. ~.
...
...~~~
gig~
I.~-
.-~
.0.
o
~
~
.
~
~
i~
.
~
.
t
~
~~~
.~~
~!l~
S~~ ~
.
.
.
_ -)-3'-
~~~H~~
lii~!i!i~1Il
e~~~~~
C ......-
......C ...
N ::I",OCg
g 15 "'ll<'"
N ...~~el(a
j~~~~\:1
zu~~~... i
-0 .'~ '
!::!~lui~j: !i
~ffi~~~~ <II
~~~i~~ !
... ...zg;
i .0'" ~
';Ii~~ I ~ .
~ offi.~~~ ~ ~
~ ~!e~...g ~...
&i..l~~~8 l3 ~ ~
~~e~iii~ ~ ~
.I.~~ - -
~lL m ~ Q.
...!II: e~c ~ '"
'" ~~~Hi~ ~ ~
~ ~~~~e:e' ~ [ !
...et:et:-""'i
~ ~~lt~!z !i !i ~
. .
~ ~
, ~
~ "
~~
.
~ ~
~~.
~~ ~
~~i
~t;
!::"'~it
~~c"
ui~",
~,~~
~~~~
O(......lj!:
t;~i~
~ ,~~
GU-~
w~5ti .
Qu-........
... 0...0
~ri~~!i
..~ j
...e (II...
v"'&l:"'(II
....!l!)-
Ill.,...li::...
~ l!;;a:-
~~~~~
- -(II"'i!:
~~ll.j:-.
..,
d~u...
gg~~~
m~~
~
~
.
.
~
;, ~
w .
w -.
. .'
<,.) ISffi
~~~i
.~.
~ici~
~~~i
!.1iiti...
ggl:'l~
i=~o
~~~I
~~!~.
f5_......~
~i~j!:...
f~&!l!;;~
~l5.'~ .:;:
~ 1Itt3l!i
~~~1II0
cz .-
j!:_)-"'c
zg~":;
~c8:;j...
;;~~ie
:~...!~
et:...o-o
...-' ~~
~~~~o
-0((11 ...
~llm
i5~~g:
z...iil....-
~
~
o
~
.
~
i
.
i'l
.~
,
;c
..
o
.~
i~
-:~
.~
o
~~
o
.
~
e
~
.
C~
~:i~~
g':...i...
... :r_~
w,.,
to,=,
~o~ilo(
z...... ~
iii:::el!5~
e....~ib
~~~~.
3_t3.
.c~ ...
oa:lLCc
-. .
~~~~~
u~15"'!;:
~ c~
eiii~
~~~;lS
i!~!i~:
!!i...- ...
lL~~~"',.:
~ei~~~
zS15...?;:lL
~~i~~~
0"'- ......
.....5l:;:0~
't!2{'S.t!...
~~c~ij~
~~~~t!l;;
->... ......
~o~~~~
;:~~......~
~~-~~.
~
~
<i.
~ cx:l .
3 ~
f'- ~~ 0
~....-4 i~ ~
~ 0 .~1i
~ ~ ~~ ~
~ lja
in f"'\ =~
~~ ;i!
..< i~
~::s i;
~ ~~ ~
~ ~ i! ~
.. U ~.~
C sll. I-
: I'V ;;~~
0........ ?:... If)
1:< In
u ~ :;:. <
w_ .
~ ~
~
6
alii i u
~::l 1Il
~. ~ ~~ II
E~ .....::> <l(
;I;.: z ~ ~
~~o ~ .. "
gS~ ~ ~~ ~
~_u D .
~;i ~ :~ fS
._ " ~6 ~
::::~:;: l3 ..,Ilo .lfi
~..._ .... ...:1 'I'
~~~ ~ 5t; ~
i~~ Q gg .-
-ClO ~ zit
- i
. 0 ~
e
..
.~
~ C
~~~
j!:~~
~.~
~~~
6~~
8~!:!
~i::i
"66
.-1
~;;2
6~-~
. .
ffi ~
,~,
I~~
"~.
z:...l)
i....N
~~~
."
~~;::
i~
~<;
~<
~'
ffi~
..
-0
~~
~2
:::lil
&~
~u
..
3~
c.
!t~
~.
~~
.-
f~
6
! ~~I
t ~l!l!!
E . Vi....
~e ~~i .
i\ . - ~
.- I'.'
., .
5t:l ~;~
_w )l....
~~ ~~i3
I mi
~~~~
.
~
<;
N z
'" ~
Ol
to 0 a
N ". !
0.. "'
<: ".
Ol
:l: ~
-J
UJ al
'"
rr :;;;
<: 0:
0..
~
uj :1
'" ~
rr ~~
<: "'
0.. ~~
~:::
"
:1
pto..I'l'lO':lS
_:tl
:!
.~
"'
d-
."-
.
~:::
PARG~L MAP 13'188
p.M.B. 81/83-84
pARG~L 1
No (16,"4 ."
11~.80')
N
-J
UJ
'"
rr
<:
0..
Nii
;l:l
..,5
e;j;
..~
~
:;
..
:
NOTli'03'"",104.81'
.
;;
.
.
.41
~
~
II
S
.
U19.7O'
23'i'i.1ll'l132-215')
"A"
R 0 AD
((;
(M OT47'1rt..
o R M S B Y
P. M. 8. 21/61-67
pARG~L 8
P ARC~ MAP 8607
~
~~~~
ilol~::
".~
m:~;::ci'
;:~[!il
~~..~
a n.
... a:~
.
-
N
-J
Ul
'"
'"
4:
0..
~
;;\
,;
~
-J
Ul
'"
. '"
4:
n.
~
"
g~~
,
-.
z
~I:l
..,~
:~
~
I~'
2';
.~"
S"
::::1;:0
-;~~
::g
-~~
cn~"'1-
;:.....:ll'l
"-
-<
::1i
~
Z
UlIj
-'
>,
.
~;
!!~
~~ I
..
~~~
,~.
i~~ ~
~~~~ ~ .
~~~~ ~
8~~~ ~ 8
:;;!~fS~ ~
z...~ti
I:i~
~20;~
...3uj!:
~
:1
..
-S
~.!
~..
~~
:1
-.
!!"
i!~
Ol
IDOl
ID'"
ro'
~tO
'"
n.~
4:"
~"
-JID
lU
",'
",:l:
~o:
<5
3
.....A..
~~o~
G1"'~~
d...~lll
~~.~
~ti;
...../LCD
~z:'1'!
~~~;
~olll~
...,..
(M OT"7'1e" w ..90. ,
.
~;
..
-I
o
4:
o
a::
o
CJ
4:
I-
Z
4:
(/)
0'
i~1!:
2';
dS-!l
~~<5
._il
~~g
~~2
~~~
ITEM 8
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
City Manager/City Council
~.p1william G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
July 23, 2002
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Approval of Cooperative Agreement with the Temecula Redevelopment
Agency for Construction and Funding of the Mercantile Building Seismic
Retrofit (Community Theater) - Project No. PW01-20
PREPARED BY:
Greg Butler, Senior Engineer - Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Approve an Agreement entitled "Cooperative Agreement" between the City of Temecula
(City) and the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) of the City of Temecula for construction and
funding of the Mercantile Building Seismic Retrofit (Community Theater) - Project No.
PW01-20.
2. Authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City in substantially the form
attached to the Agenda Report.
BACKGROUND: The City's Capital Improvement Program includes improvements for the
Mercantile Building Retrofit (Community Theater). This Improvement is located within the Project
Area of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency Project Area 1988-1. The RDA's planning also calls
for this Project to be funded by the RDA.
The Community Redevelopment Law, a Health and Safety Code Section 33220 authorizes and
encourages cities and redevelopment agencies to aid each other and to cooperate in the planning,
undertaking, construction, and operations of redevelopment projects. Sections 33220 (b)
specifically authorizes such cooperative agreements allowing a city and a redevelopment agency to
assist each other in the construction and installation of parks, playgrounds, community, and
educational facilities.
The Redevelopment Plan for the Temecula Redevelopment Project Area 1988-1 specifically
authorizes the expenditure of RDA funds on Community facilities within or benefiting the Project
Area.
Completion of this Project will promote the goals of the redevelopment, as it will complete
community improvements as detailed in the City's Capital Improvement Program and in the
Redevelopment Plan. The Project will also induce private investment in and promote expansion of
the commercial areas which will provide additional employment opportunities within the Project Area.
The attached "Cooperative Agreement" between the City and the RDA for construction and funding
of improvements to Mercantile Building (Community Theater); Project No. PW01-20 will implement
the funding plans of the City and the RDA.
R\AGENDA REPORTS\2002\072302\ARcoopagrmt0121 CC.doc
FISCAL IMPACT: The Mercantile Building Retrofit (Community Theater) project is funded
through RDA Capital Improvement Program budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. A total of
$287,500.00 has been budgeted for the seismic retrofit reinforcement in Administration Account No.
210-190-183-5801 and Construction Account No. 210-190-183-5804.
ATTACHMENT:
Cooperative Agreement
R:\AGENDA REPORTS\2002\072302\ARcoopagrmI0121 CC.doc
2
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
FOR THE OLD TOWN TEMECULA MERCANTILE BUILDING SEISMIC
RETROFIT (COMMUNITY THEATER) - PROJECT NO. PWOl-20
TillS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT made and effective as of July 23,2002 by and between the
City ofTemecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and the Redevelopment Agency ofthe City ofTemecula, a
public body, corporate and politic ("Agency"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and obligations set
forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
I. This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and purposes, which each party
finds and determines to be true and correct:
a. The Community Redevelopment Law at Health and Safety Code Section 33220
authorizes and encourages cities and redevelopment agencies to aid each other and to cooperate in the
planning, undertaking, construction, and operations of redevelopment projects. Sections 33220 (b) and (c)
specifically authorize such cooperative agreements between a city and a redevelopment agency to assist each
other in the restoration and safety enhancement of historically significant buildings intended for public use
within the Project Area.
b. The Redevelopment Plan for the Temecula Redevelopment Project Area 1988-1
specifically authorizes the expenditure of Agency funds on building rehabilitation within or benefiting the
Project Area.
c. The Old Town Temecula Mercantile Building Seismic Retrofit (Community Theater),
Project No. PWOI-20 is a part of the City's Capital Improvement Program and is located within the Project
Area of Temecula Redevelopment Project Area 1988-1.
d. Completion of the Project will benefit the Project Area and will assist in the
elimination of blight within the Project Area as it will restore and enhance public safety of a historically
significant building intended for public use, Community Theater, as detailed in the City's Capital Improvement
Program and in the Redevelopment Plan. The Project will induce private investment in the commercial area,
and promote expansion of employment opportunities within the commercial areas within the Project Area.
e. No other reasonable means of financing the improvements are available to the
community.
2. The City and the Agency agree to cooperate and share responsibility for the design and
construction of the Project in accordance with the terms ofthis Agreement.
3. The City shall undertake the following responsibilities with respect to the Project:
a. prepare necessary bid documents for the Project;
b. solicit bids and award construction contracts for the Project; and
c. administer the construction contracts.
4. The Agency shall pay for all Project costs, except for such costs as the City is obligated to pay
R:ICIPIPROJECTSIPW01IPW01-20CSD TheaterlMercantileRDACOOP.doc
pursuant to this Agreement. The Agency shall, however, reimburse City for its payments made for the value of
the City services provided.
5. The City Manager, upon the recommendation of the Director of Finance, shall determine the
allocation of costs between the City and Agency pursuant to this Agreement and his or her determination shall
be final.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first
written above.
CITY OF TEMECULA
BY:
Ron Roberts, Mayor
Attest:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
BY:
Jeff Comerchero, Chairperson
Attest:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, Agency Secretary
Approved As to Form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attomey/Agency General Counsel
R:ICIPIPROJECTSIPW01IPW01-20CSD TheaterlMercantileRDACOOP.doc
2
ITEM 9
" -
...
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINA
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
FROM:
City Manager/City Council
1fl4 William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
July 23, 2002
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Annual Professional Services Agreements for Real Estate Appraisal Services
for Various Capital Improvement Projects for FY 2002-2003
PREPARED BY:
Amer Attar, Senior Engineer - Capital Projects
Laura Bragg, Project Engineer - Capital Projects~
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Approve an agreement with Robert Shea Perdue Real Estate Appraisal in an amount not to
exceed $30,000 to provide as needed real estate appraisal services; and
2. Approve an agreement with Mason & Mason Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants in an
amount not to exceed $30,000 to provide as needed real estate appraisal services; and
3. Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreements.
BACKGROUND: There are various projects described in the approved Capital
Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2003 to 2007 that will require real estate appraisal services.
The attached agreements are to provide as needed services and these services will be utilized on
projects that are approved in the Capital Improvement Program or for special projects that come up
through out the year.
Once the annual agreement is executed, each service request will be negotiated separately and
may contain some or all of the following services:
. Research and/or review Title Reports.
. Prepare necessary surveys and identify existing right-of-ways.
. Prepare description of properties including, but not limited to, present use, zoning, shape
contour and elevations, utilities, etc.
. Prepare necessary legal descriptions, exhibits and any other miscellaneous services for
acquisition purposes.
. Provide assistance to the City, as necessary, to acquire right-of-way, preparation of easement
documents, permission to enter/grade letters, etc.
. Appraise properties for the purpose of estimating market value and provide appraisal reports.
The actual number of projects and costs are not known at this time. Payment will be based upon
actual time spent on tasks as directed by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. An
accumulative not to exceed limit of $30,000 has been set for each Agreement.
R:\AGENDA REPORTS\2002\072302\ANNUAl CONTRACT Appraisal.AGR.DOC
FISCAL IMPACT: The Consultant will submit a cost proposal for each service request. Once a
scope of service and a schedule offees are negotiated, funds are allocated from the corresponding
project budget. Only approved CIP projects will utilize the services under these agreements, unless
directed otherwise by the City Manager or City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Agreement with Robert Shea Perdue Real Estate Appraisal
2. Agreement with Mason & Mason Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants
2
R:\AGENDA REPORTS\2002\072302\ANNUAL CONTRACT Appraisal.AGR,DQC
CITY OF TEMECULA
ANNUAL AGREEMENT
FOR
PROFESSIONAL REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL SERVICES
FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of July23, 2002, between the City of
Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Robert Shea Perdue Real Estate Appraisal,
("Consultant"). In consideration ofthe mutual covenants and conditions setforth herein, the parties
agree as follows:
1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on July 23, 2002, and shall remain
and continue in effect until June 30, 2003, unless terminated or extended pursuant to the provisions
of this Agreement.
2. SERVICES. This is an annual contract for Real Estate Appraisal Services
on an as needed basis. Consultant can perform any of the services and tasks described and set
forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full.
When there is a need for Real Estate Appraisal Services on an as needed services,
the City will identify the specific scope of work, and request a fee schedule from the consultant. The
City will instruct the consultant to proceed with the work once the exact scope of work and the
associated fees are negotiated.
3. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to
the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant
shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons
engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its
obligations under this Agreement.
4. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the
Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of
per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft,
classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract from the Director of the
Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City Clerk. Copies may be
obtained at cost at the City Clerk's office of T emecula. Consultant shall provide a copy of prevailing
wage rates to any staff or sub-contractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a
minimum. Consultant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5,
1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code,
Consultant shall forfeit to the City, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion
thereof, each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates
for any work done under this contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the
provisions of the Contract.
5. PAYMENT.
a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates
and terms and the schedule of payment as negotiated and 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 tasks as directed by the City on an as needed basis. Any
terms in Exhibit B other than the payment rates are null and void. The total cumulative annual
amount shall not exceed Thirty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($30,000.00) for the total term of
the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement.
1
r:lagnntslmasterslannual conlract2002.03\perdue appraisal FY02-03lajp
b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection
with its performance of this Agreement unless such additional services are authorized in advance
and in writing by the City. Consultant shall be compensated for services in the amounts and in the
manner as agreed to by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and Consultant at the time City's
written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. Any additional work
in excess of the amount above 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 nondisputed fees. If the City disputes any of consultant's fees it shall give written
notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the
invoice.
6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE.
a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or
terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10)
days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all
work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates
a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the
remainder of this Agreement.
b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City
shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination,
provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement
pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 4.
7. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT.
a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall
constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this
Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work
performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice
to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work
hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of
the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default.
b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default
in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant
with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (10) days after service upon it of said
notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the
Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right,
notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further
notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under
this Agreement.
8. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS.
a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to
sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the
performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of
services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be
maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identi-
fied and readily accessible. Consultant shilll 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
2
r:lagnntslmasterslannual contract2002-03\perdue appraisal FY02-03lajp
audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and
shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this
Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained fora period of
three (3) years after receipt of final payment.
b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this
Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data
generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the
services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and
may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant.
With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make
available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software
and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files.
c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not
be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location
other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant.
9. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect
and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any
and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert
witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may
sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to
property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any
way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising
out of the negligence of the City.
10. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for
the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property
which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the
Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees.
a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
(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.
3
r:lagrmlslmasterslannual contract2002-03\perdue appraisal FY02-03lajp
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 accidentfor
bodily injury or disease.
(4) Professional Liability coverage: Two million dollars ($2,000,000) per
claim and in aggregate.
c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured
retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City
Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as
respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a
bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense
expenses.
d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability
policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
(1) The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be
covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities
performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed
operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by
the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by
the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on
the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials,
employees or volunteers.
(2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance
coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers,
officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured
maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers
shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute
with it.
(3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies
including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to
the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
(4) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to
the limits of the insurer's liability.
4
r:lagrmlslmasterslannual contract2002-Q3\perdue appraisal FY02-03lajp
(5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to
state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by
either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30)
days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested,
has been given to the City.
e. Acceotability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a
current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self
insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements.
f. Verification of Coveraqe. Consultant shall furnish the City with original
endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a
person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on
forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before
work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide
complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the
coverage required by these specifications.
11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent
contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant
shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its
officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any
of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant
shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are
in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the
power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner.
b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the
performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the
Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing
services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to
Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
12. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all
local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those
employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The
Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations.
The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure
of the Consultant to comply with this section.
13. RELEASE OF INFORMATION.
a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall
be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written
authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written
authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide
declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other
information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or
property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered
"voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
5
r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contract2002-03\perdue appraisal FY02-031ajp
b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers,
employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of
deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery
request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed
thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right,
but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar
proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to
review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review
any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said
response.
14. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other
party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (I) personal service, (Ii)
delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that
provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail,
certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as
set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be
effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following
deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above.
To City:
City of Temecula
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: City Manager
To Consultant:
Robert Shea Perdue Real Estate Appraisal
41919 Moreno Road, Suite A
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: Robert S. Perdue, MAl
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Consultant understand and agree thatthe
laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties
to this Agreement and also govem 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
judgement, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief
granted.
6
r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contract2002-03\perdue appraisal FY02-03lajp
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. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No member, officer, or employee of the City of
Temecula or of a local public body shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the contract of the
proceeds thereof during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter.
Furthermore, the contractor/consultant covenants and agrees to their
knowledge that no board member, officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest,
whether contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of
the contracting party other than the City of Temecula, and that if any such interest comes to the
knowledge of either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all such information will be
made, in writing, to the other party or parties, even if such interest would not be considered a conflict
of interest under Article 4 (commencing with Section 1090) or Article 4.6 9commencing with Section
1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California.
20. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons
executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the
authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind
Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
7
r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contract2002-03\perdue appraisal FY02-03lajp
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the
day and year first above written.
CITY OF TEMECULA
Ron Roberts, Mayor
Attest:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
Approved As to Form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
CONSULTANT
Robert Shea Perdue Real Estate Appraisal
41919 Moreno Rd, Suite A
Temecula, CA 92590
(909) 694-6904
Robert S. Perdue, MAl
By:
Name:
Title:
(Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations)
8
r:lagrmtslmaslerslannual oontract2002-03\perdue appraisal FY02-03lajp
EXHIBIT A
TASKS TO BE PERFORMED
AND
PAYMENT RATES
9
r:lagrmlslmasterslannual contract2002-Q3\perdue appraisal FY02-03lajp
ROBERT SHEA PERDUE REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL
41919 Moreno Road, Suite A, Temecnla, CA 92590
Serving The Inland Empire
Appraisal Consultants to Government, Financiul, Legal and Agricultural Industries
May 23, 2002
Mr. Amer Attar, P.E., MBA
Senior Engineer-Capital Projects
City ofTemecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Subject:
RFQ - Public Works Department
ANNUAL AGREEMENT FOR APPRAISAL SERVICES
Various-CIP Projects Approved for FY 2002-2003
Dear Mr. Attar:
Thank you for considering ROBERT SHEA PERDUE REAL ESTATE
APPRAISAL for the Temecula Annual Contract for Appraisal Services. Pursuant to your
request, we are including specific information relative to the appraisal qualifications of
ROBERT SHEA PERDUE REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL.
I have responded to each question under "General Requirements" in a question-by-
question format. Please contact me directly if you require additional information.
Sincerely,
ROBERT SHEA PERDUE REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL
0(o~'(\ py~--
Robert S. Perdue, MAl
RSP:lkm
RESPONSES TO GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1. (1) A brief description of the consulting jirm, (2) organization structure, (3)
location of principal offices, (4) number of professional personnel, and (5) other
pertinent information, including the names of all staff members who will work on
the project.
(1) ROBERT SHEA PERDUE REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL is based in
Temecula and is the largest real estate valuation firm in Riverside County.
The firm specializes in eminent domain for mostly Riverside County
municipalities.
(2) ROBERT SHEA PERDUE REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL IS a sole
proprietorship owned by Robert Shea Perdue.
(3) ROBERT SHEA PERDUE REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL
41919 Moreno Road, Suite A
Temecula, CA 92590
Phone: (909) 694-6904
Fax: (909) 694-6964
(4) Five full time; six part time
(5) Robert Shea Perdue
Mark Routh
Beverly Ortega
Lori Miller
Richard Russell
Vincent Disanza
Brenda Greengard
2. The name and relevant experience of the principal or project manager in thejirm
who will have direct and continued responsibility for the project. This person will
be the City's contact on all matters dealing with the project and will handle all
day-to-day activities through to completion.
Robert Shea Perdue directs litigation, eminent domain and agricultural
appraisals, office operations, professional ethics and quality control. Mr.
Perdue has a breadth of knowledge in agricultural, special use, eminent
domain and litigation valuation. As a 43-year resident of Inland Southern
California, he also has a distinct familiarity with the local market.
Response to RFQ - FY 2002-2003
Page 1
Mr. Perdue obtained a Bachelor of Science degree from San Diego State
University and has completed post-graduate work in Real Estate Appraisal
and Demographics. He maintains a California Real Estate Brokers license,
has been awarded the MAl designation from the Appraisal Institute, is the
past president of International Right-of-Way Association and is an active
member of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers.
Mr. Perdue's qualifications are attached.
Please contact Bob Perdue, the owner, on all matters dealing with this contract
and any projects which result from this contract. His phone number is (909)
694-6904.
3. The names of any outside consultants and/or sub-contractors to be utilized,
including a brief description of their role on the project, and an organizational
chart.
None anticipated.
4. The consultant's understanding of the purpose of the annual agreement and the
proposed approach to do the work.
Real estate appraisal services.
5. A detailed list of the items of work to be performed by the consultant.
STANDARD APPRAISAL METHODOLOGY AND REPORT
IDENTIFICATION AND SUMMARY
Cover Letter
Certificate of Appraiser
Summary of Conclusions
Narrative Report:
Item I - Owner
Item 2 - Address (or location) of Subject Property
Item 3 - Legal Description
Item 4 - Delineation of Title
Item 5 - Purpose of Appraisal and Function
Item 6 - Summary of Appraisal Problems (and Scope)
Response to RFQ - FY 2002-2003
Page 2
DESCRIPTION
1. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
2. Neighborhood Location and Description
3. Description of Subject Property
A. Present Use
B. Accessibility and Road Frontages
C. Land Contour and Elevations
D. Land Area
E. Land Shape
F. Utilities
G. Present Zoning
H. Highest and Best Use of Land if Vacant
1. Improvements
J. Specialty Items
K. Real Estate Taxes
L. Assessments
M. Existing Lease or Rental Data
N. Highest and Best Use Improved and As Vacant
4. Valuation of Property
A. Site Analysis and Evaluation
1. Cost Approach
a. Land analysis
b. Improvement analysis
2. Sales Comparison Approach
a. General Discussion
1) Relationships
2) Sales that are Comparable
b. Comparative Analysis
c. Correlation and Conclusion by Comparative
Approach
Response to RFQ - FY 2002-2003
Page 3
3. Income Approach
a. Data
b. Analysis
c. Correlation and Conclusion by Income Approach
4. Correlation and Final Conclusion
B. Approaches to Value
I. Cost Approach
a. Cost New
b. Accrued Depreciation
c. Land Value
d. Indicated Value by Cost Approach
2. Comparative [Market Data] Approach
a. General Discussion
I) Relationships
2) Sales that are Comparable
b. Comparative Analysis
I) Whole Property Comparisons
2) Comparative Units
c. Correlation and Conclusion, Comparative
[Market Data] Approach
3. Income Approach
a. Data
b. Analysis
c. Correlation and Conclusion, Income Approach
C. Correlation of Value Indications from All Approaches
The specific process of the consultant's approach to most condemnation projects is
as follows;
Response to RFQ - FY 2002-2003
Page 4
Pre-Valuation
. Meet with the client to review and discuss project overview.
. Review existing or proposed project.
. Review CEQA and other reports on proposed or existing project.
. Review proposed time frame for project completion as well as
intermediate meetings and deadlines.
. Review client concerns on proposed acquisitions (relative to property
owner's accommodations).
. Request a copy oftitle report.
. Send letters of introduction to property owners for initial property
owner contact.
Valuation
. Meet with property owner and/or representative to inspect the property
and understand the property owners concerns about acquisition and the
project's impact on the owner's property. Also, introduce any selected
consultants at this meeting for inspection and investigation of a) soils,
b) land use potential, c) engineering, d) consideration of water well
improvements, e) consideration of agricultural improvements, t)
consideration of unusual or non-conforming structural improvements.
. Identify real estate, property rights and appraisal problem.
. Commence preliminary data survey including complete inspection and
verification of all land sales, improved sales (including agricultural
improvements), and rental comparables (if applicable).
. Proceed with analysis including general data on region, city and
neighborhood as well as local and regional economic trends. Proceed
with specific data collection on subject property including review of
title report, site conditions, building conditions (review public records,
building and safety records, assessors data (if permitted) and any other
concerns relative to environmental constraints such as endangered
species, wetlands, habitat, blueline streams (Department of Fish and
Response to RFQ - FY 2002-2003
Page 5
Game, Army Corps of Engineers, and Fish and Wildlife etc.),
hazardous materials, etc.
. Estimate highest and best use as vacant and as improved.
. Valuation of the larger parcel relative to the three approaches to value.
. Reconciliation of value.
. Final estimation of value.
. If applicable - analysis and valuation of part to be acquired and
consideration of Severance Damages, General and Benefits; writing of
report.
The standard narrative appraisal report (Limited, Restricted; Complete,
Summary or Complete, Self-Contained) will be organized and formatted
according to the guidelines of USP AP, Appraisal Institute, California Code
of Civil Procedure and Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land
Acquisitions.
6. Resumes of all prime and sub-consultant personnel that will work on the annual
agreement.
Robert Shea Perdue Real Estate Appraisal personnel qualifications attached.
7. Examples of each consultant's recent relevant experience with client references.
References - Recent Public Agency and Dairy Clients
Mr. Rich Edmond
Chief Appraiser
County of Orange
300 N. Flower Street
PO Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
(714) 834-5070
1996 - Present
1991 - 1994
Valuation Assignments: Eleven dairies, one pig and sheep ranch, two alfalfa
ranches, hay lot and truck terminal, cattle auction yard, real estate brokerage office
and several large farm parcels. All partial and full acquisitions for flowage easement
interests - Prado Dam Project. Contract value - $30,000, $60,000 and $120,000.
Response to RFQ - FY 2002-2003
Page 6
Mr. A. Louis Schnepp, ASA, CRA
Appraisal Manager
County of San Bernardino
825 E. Third Street
San Bernardino, CA 92415
(909) 387-2774
1990 - Present
Valuation Assignments: Full acquisitions by the County of San Bernardino: two
horse ranches, parcels of vacant land, eight dairies, four calf ranches, flooding value
diminution study and a nudist resort. Contract value approximately $100,000.
Mr. Chuck Hale
Executive Director
So. Cal. Ag. Land Foundation
(County of San Bernardino)
13839 Bon View Avenue
Chino, CA 91710
(909) 464-0186
1990 - Present
1983 - 1987
Valuation Assignments: Various full acquisition appraisals for dairies, ranches and
vacant land. Contract value approximately $90,000.
Also completed numerous appraisal assignments for Mr. Hale when he was the
Assistant City Manager for the City of Vista (Community Development Director-
1983 to 1987). Assignments included numbered several hundred full and partial
acquisitions relative to commercial, industrial and residential properties for street
widening, utility easements and floodway channels; single and multiple partial
acquisitions. Contract value in excess of$200,000.
Ms. Janet Parks
Real Properly Agent
County of Riverside
Department of Building Services
3133 Mission Inn Avenue
Riverside, California 92507-4199
(909) 955-9275
1996 - Present
Valuation Assignments: Over one dozen eminent domain assignments including
Highway 74 (72 parcels) right-of-way project. Contract value approximately
$80,000.
Response to RFQ - FY 2002-2003
Page 7
Murrieta Water District
42290 Ivy
Murrieta, CA 92562
(909) 677-7667
1995 - Present
Valuation Assignments: Easement acquisitions for water transmission lines - partial
easement acquisition and full acquisition of well and pump. Assessment District
appraisals. Contract value approximately $40,000.
Riverside County Flood Control
1995 Market Street
Riverside, CA 92501-1719
(909) 788-9965
1996 - Present
Valuation Assignments: Commercial site in floodway, industrial lot in flood zone,
floodway acquisition through horse ranch and 83 properties in flood plain. Contract
value approximately $45,000.
Valuation Assignments - Other Clients
1991 - Present
-City of Temecula - Redevelopment Agency
-City of Murrieta - Engineering Department
-Rancho California Water District
- Internal Revenue Service
-Best, Best & Krieger, LLP
-Orange County Water District
Please refer to Robert Shea Perdue's Qualifications for additional client listings.
Valuation Assignments - Summary
Since 1978 have appraised thousand of properties in Southern California for eminent
domain acquisition and litigation. Property types range from residential and vacant
land to commercial and industrial. Partial acquisitions include street, utility, flood,
avigation and conservation easements.
8. Current hilling rate schedule.
Appraisals are quoted and billed on a lump sum case-by-case basis. Should
additional appraisers' time be required for updated estimates of value, attorney/client
conferences, deposition or expert witness testimony, this time will be billed at our
standard rates of$150 and $190 per hour, respectively.
Response to RFQ - FY 2002-2003
Page 8
9. The proposal shall be signed by an authorized official o/the consultant firm.
10. The proposal shall be valid/or a minimum o/ninety (90) days.
11. Consultant is obligated to provide evidence o/insurance liability and abide by the
City's Risk Management Procedures in accordance with Exhibit "A".
Declarations or certificates ofinsurance for our general liability , automobile liability,
worker's compensation and professional liability policies are attached.
12. Consultant will maintain required pro/essionallicenses and registration during the
life o/the Contract with the City.
Robert S. Perdue currently holds the MAl appraisal designation, is a licensed general
appraiser and is a licensed real estate broker.
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT SHEA PERDUE REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL
Robert S. Perdue, MAl
RSP:lkm
Response to RFQ - FY 2002-2003
Page 9
CITY OF TEMECULA
ANNUAL AGREEMENT
FOR
PROFESSIONAL REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL SERVICES
FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2002.2003
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of July 23, 2002, between the City of
Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Mason & Mason Real Estate Appraisers &
Consultants, ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth
herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on July 23,2002, and shall remain
and continue in effect until June 30, 2003, unless terminated or extended pursuant to the provisions
of this Agreement.
2. SERVICES. This is an annual contract for Real Estate Appraisal Services
on an as needed basis. Consultant can perform any of the services and tasks described and set
forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full.
When there is a need for Real Estate Appraisal Services on an as needed services,
the City will identify the specific scope of work, and request a fee schedule from the consultant. The
City will instruct the consultant to proceed with the work once the exact scope of work and the
associated fees are negotiated.
3. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to
the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant
shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons
engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its
obligations under this Agreement.
4. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the
Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of
per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft,
classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract from the Director of the
Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City Clerk. Copies may be
obtained at cost atthe City Clerk's office ofTemecula. Consultant shall provide a copy of prevailing
wage rates to any staff or sub-contractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a
minimum. Consultant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5,
1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code,
Consultant shall forfeit to the City, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion
thereof, each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates
for any work done under this contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the
provisions of the Contract.
5. PAYMENT.
a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates
and terms and the schedule of payment as negotiated and as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates
and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though setforth in full,
based upon actual time spent on the tasks as directed by the City on an as needed basis. Any
terms in Exhibit B other than the payment rates are null and void. The total cumulative annual
amount shall not exceed Thirty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($30,000.00) for the total term of
the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement.
1
r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contract2002-03\Mason & Mason appraisal FY02-031ajp
b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection
with its performance of this Agreement unless such additional services are authorized in advance
and in writing by the City. Consultant shall be compensated for services in the amounts and in the
manner as agreed to by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and Consultant at the time City's
written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. Any additional work
in excess of the amount above 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 nondisputed fees. If the City disputes any of consultant's fees it shall give written
notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the
invoice.
6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE.
a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or
terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10)
days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all
work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates
a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the
remainder of this Agreement.
b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section. the City
shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination,
provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement
pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 4.
7. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT.
a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions ofthis Agreement shall
constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this
Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work
performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice
to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work
hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of
the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default.
b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default
in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant
with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (10) days after service upon it of said
notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the
Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right,
notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further
notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under
this Agreement.
8. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS.
a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to
sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the
performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of
services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be
maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identi-
fied and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its
designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and
2
r:lagrmtslmaslerslannual conlrac12002.03\Mason & Mason appraisal FY02-031ajp
audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and
shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this
Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of
three (3) years after receipt of final payment.
b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this
Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data
generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the
services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and
may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant.
With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make
available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software
and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files.
c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not
be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location
other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant.
9. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect
and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any
and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attomey fees and expert
witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may
sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to
property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any
way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising
out of the negligence of the City.
10. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for
the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property
which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the
Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees.
a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
(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.
3
r:lagrmtslmasterslannual oontract2002-03\Mason & Mason appraisal FY02-031ajp
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 projecVlocation 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: Two million dollars ($2,000,000) per
claim and in aggregate.
c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured
retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City
Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as
respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a
bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense
expenses.
d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability
policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
(1) The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be
covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities
performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed
operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by
the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by
the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on
the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials,
employees or volunteers.
(2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance
coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers,
officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured
maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers
shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute
with it.
(3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies
including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to
the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
(4) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to
the limits of the insurer's liability.
4
r:\agrmts\masters\annual contract2002-03\Mason & Mason appraisal FY02-03\ajp
(5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to
state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by
either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30)
days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested,
has been given to the City.
e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a
current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self
insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements.
f. Verification of Coveraqe. Consultant shall furnish the City with original
endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a
person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on
forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before
work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide
complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the
coverage required by these specifications.
11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
a. Cons~ltant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent
contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant
shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its
officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any
of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant
shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are
in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the
power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner.
b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the
performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the
Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing
services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to
Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
12. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all
local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those
employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The
Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations.
The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure
of the Consultant to comply with this section.
13. RELEASE OF INFORMATION.
a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall
be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written
authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written
authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide
declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other
information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or
property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered
"voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
5
r:\agrmts\masters\annual contract20Q2-03\Mason & Mason appraisal FY02-03\ajp
b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers,
employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of
deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery
request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed
thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right,
but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar
proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to
review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review
any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said
response.
14. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other
party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (I) personal service, (ii)
delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that
provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail,
certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as
set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be
effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following
deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above.
To City:
City of Temecula
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: City Manager
To Consultant:
Mason & Mason Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants
2609 Honolulu Avenue, Suite 100
Montrose, California 91020-1706
Attention: Frances Wolfe Mason, MAl
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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
judgement, shall be entitled to reasonable attomey fees and litigation expenses for the relief
granted.
6
r:lagnntslmasterslannual contracl2002-03\Mason & Mason appraisal FY02-03lajp
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. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No member, officer, or employee of the City of
T emecula or of a local public body shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the contract of the
proceeds thereof during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter.
Furthermore, the contractor/consultant covenants and agrees to their
knowledge that no board member, officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest,
whether contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, orin the business of
the contracting party other than the City of Temecula, and that if any such interest comes to the
knowledge of either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all such information will be
made, in writing, to the other party or parties, even if such interest would not be considered a conflict
of interest under Article 4 (commencing with Section 1090) or Article 4.6 9commencing with Section
1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California.
20. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons
executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the
authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind
Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
7
r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contract2002-03\Mason & Mason appraisal FY02-03lajp
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the
day and year first above written.
CITY OF TEMECULA
Ron Roberts, Mayor
Attest:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
Approved As to Form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
CONSULTANT
Mason & Mason Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants
2609 Honolulu Ave., Suite 100
Montrose, CA 91020-1706
(818) 957-1881
Frances Wolfe Mason, President
Frances Wolfe Mason, Secretary/Treasurer
(Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations)
8
r:lagrmtslmasterslannual conlract2002-Q3\Mason & Mason appraisal FY02-Q31ajp
EXHIBIT A
TASKS TO BE PERFORMED
9
r:lagrmtslmaslerslannual conlract2002-03\Mason & Mason appraisal FY02-03lajp
)
MASON & MASON
Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants
2609 Honolulu Avenue, Suite 100
Montrose, California 91020-1706
Telephone (818) 957-1881
Fax (818) 957-1891
a-mail: fmason@mason2.com
Frances Wolfe Mason, MAl
David S. Mason, MAl eRE
Lisa M. Benson, MAl
Vincent G. Maher, MAl eRE
Kate C. McWatters, MAl
Bradford D. Thompson, MAl
Kendall Thurston, MAl
Victoria Valentine, RM MRED
Robert W. Waters, MAl SR/WA
May 28, 2002
)
Mr. Amer Attar, Senior Engineer
Ms. Laura E. Bragg, Project Engineer - Capital Projects
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Re:
Statement of Qualifications (RFQ)
Annual Agreement for Appraisal Services
City of Temecula
)
DearMr. Attar and Ms. Bragg:
Pursuant to your request, we are submitting the following statement of qualifications for real
property services.
IlItroductioll
The firm of Mason & Mason, Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants, established in 1926, conducts
an appraisal and consulting business in the general Southern California area. Offices have been
maintained in Glendale since April 1, 1957. While the primary geographic area served is Southern
California, assignments have been undertaken and completed throughout California and in Arizona
and Nevada. The principal office location is as follows:
)
. Mason & Mason
2609 Honolulu Avenue, Suite 100
Montrose, California 91020
Phone (818) 957-1881
Fax (818) 957-1891
We have appraised large scale multiple parcel projects, as well as individual properties, and many
ofthese have involved redevelopment and urban renewal assignments. Our redevelopment work has
included nearly 2,000 parcels for the cities of Arcadia, Ventura, Los Angeles, Anaheim, Santa
Monica, Torrance, Port Hueneme, Pasadena, Glendale, and National City. Other recent multiple
parcel appraisals have included several hundred acres for the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California for the proposed Eastside Reservoir, south of Hemet in Riverside County,
several hundreds of properties involved in numerous inverse condemnation - noise damage suits for
)
Mr. Amer Attar, Senior Engineer
Ms. Laura E. Bragg, Project Engineer - Capital Projects
City of Temecula
May 28, 2002
.,
properties within the Ontario Airport area of influence for the Department of Airports, and multiple
properties in inverse condemnation damage suits in Big Bear ( airport noise), San Bernardino County.
.,
In general, our clientele includes many cities, the State of California, and the Federal Government.
State agencies include the divisions of Beaches & Parks, Department of Transportation, General
Services, Natural Resources, Finance, and Forestry. The cities include Los Angeles, Long Beach,
Glendale, Pasadena, Santa Monica, Santa Clarita, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, Palm Desert,
Irwindale, Camarillo, San Dimas, EI Monte, and others. Assignments have also been completed for
more than 15 school districts in Los Angeles, Riverside, Ventura and Orange Counties.
)
Among our private clients have been numerous attorneys, individuals and private corporations, such
as the Coastal Corporation, Lockheed Martin Corp., Catellus Corp., Seventh Day Adventist Church,
Newhall Land & Farming, Crown Zellerbach Co., Honolulu Oil Corp., Nohl Land & Cattle Co.,
Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., Pacific Bay Homes, Standard Oil, Union Oil, Texaco, Minute Maid Corp.,
Hughes Tool Co., Southern Pacific Transportation Co., as well as many banks, savings & loan
institutions, public utilities, insurance and title companies.
,
The appraisers in this firm are all members of the Appraisal Institute, as follows:
.
Frances Wolfe Mason, MAl
David S. Mason, MAl
Lisa M. Benson, MAl
Vincent G. Maher, MAl CRE
Kate Collins McWatters, MAl SRA
. Bradford D. Thompson, MAl
. Kendall Thurston, MAl
. Victoria L. Valentine, RM
. Robert W. Waters, MAl SR/W A
.
.
.
.
Purpose
The firm of Mason & Mason understands that the purpose of the State of Qualifications is to retain
appropriate consultant's to perform appraisal services for various projects throughout the year. The
requested Statement of Qualifications is for an annual agreement to cover these services on an as
needed basis. The following scope of services include the type of activities that may be required.
Once the annual agreement is executed, each service will be negotiated separately and may contain
some or all of these services, as follows:
.
Research and/or review title reports;
Prepare necessary surveys and identify existing right-of-ways;
Prepare description of properties including, but not limited to, present use, zoning, shape,
contour, elevations, and utilities, etc.;
Prepare necessary legal descriptions, exhibits and any other miscellaneous services for
acquisition purposes;
.
.
.
MASON & MASON Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants
2
)
Mr. Amer Attar, Senior Engineer
Ms. Laura E. Bragg, Project Engineer - Capital Projects
City ofTemecula
May 28, 2002
)
. Provide assistance to the City, as necessary, to acquire right-of-way, preparation of
easement documents, permission to enter/grade letters, etc.;
. And Appraise properties for the purpose of estimating market value and provide
appraisal reports.
)
Frances H. Wolfe Mason, MAl is the Managing Partner, and coordinates the project assignments,
including primary review capacity. The principal appraisers at Mason & Mason are all members of
the Appraisal Institute, and perform individually on assignments, and foml team groups for major
projects. Pursuant to the Annual Agreement for Professional Appraisal Services, Mason & Mason
will perform assignments, as needed, or on an hourly or not to exceed proposal basis. The as needed
apprais:lI assignments will be assigned by Frances H. Wolfe Mason, MAl to Principal Appraisers
based on existing workload, expertise, and ability to perform the required assignment in a timely
manner. We have enclosed the following items to better identifY the firm's and individual
qualifications for the real estate appraisers/consultants at Mason & Mason;
)
.
Mason & Mason Organizational Chart
Summary of Key Personnel
Subcontractors List
Individual Appraiser Qualifications
Mason & Mason Major Projects List
Mason & Mason Client List
Mason & Mason 2002 Standard Fee Schedule
Insurance Certificate
City of Temecula Annual Agreement for Professional Appraisal Services
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
COllclusioll
This Statement of Qualifications is valid for a minimum of 90 days. The individual personnel at
Mason & Mason agree to maintain required professional licenses, including required continuing
education during the life of the contract with the City of Temecula. The firm of Mason & Mason
has provided evidence of insurance liability (see attached), and will abide by the City's Risk
Management procedures.
We look forward to working with you. Please call if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
MASON & MASON
Frances Wolfe Mason, MAl
Enclosures
FWM:cjf
MASON & MASON Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants
3
) .
i
...ORGANI,ZAT10NAL .CHART
II
MASON & MASON
A California Corporation
2609 Honolulu Avenue, Suite 100
Montrose, California 91020-1706
818/957-1881 818/957-1891 fax
e-mail: fmason@mason2.com
.I
FEDERAL !.D. NO. 95-4509544
'.
)
MASON & MASON
Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants
Property Management
Frances H. Wolfe Mason, MAl
Managing Partner
Appraiser
Kendall Thurston, MAl
USP AP Reviews
Principal Appraisers
Frances H. Wolfe Mason, MAl
David S. Mason, MAl CRE
Lisa M. Benson, MAl
Vincent G. Maher, MAl eRE
Kate Collins-McWatters, MAl SRA
Bradford D. Thompson, MAl
Kendall Thurston, MAl
Victoria L. Valentine, RM MRED
Robert W. Waters, MAl SR/W A
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE
10
r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contrac12002-Q3\Mason & Mason appraisal FY02-031ajp
)
MASON & MASON
Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants
2609 Honolulu Avenue, Suite 100
Montrose, California 91020-1706
Telephone (818) 957.1881
Fax (818) 957.1891
e-mail: fmason@mason2.com
Frances Wolfe Mason, MAl
David S. Mason, MAl
Lisa M. Benson, MAl
Vincent G. Maher, MAl eRE
Kate C. McWatters, MAl SRA
Bradford O. Thompson, MAl
Kendall Thurston, MAl
Victoria L. Vaientine, RM, MRED
Robert W. Waters, MAl SRlWA
)
2002 STANDARD FEE SCHEDULE
Compensation for work performed on a time-and-materials basis will be computed as follows
through December 31, 2002:
APPRAISAL SERVICES
)
. Principal Appraiser
. Associate Appraiser
. Research
$200.00 to $300.00/hour
$150.00 to $200.00/hour
$65.00 to $100.00/hour
EXPERT WITNESS SERVICES
)
- Consultation, Deposition, and Court Appearance
. Frances Wolfe Mason, MAl
. David S. Mason, MAl
. Vincent G. Maher, MAl CRE
. Lisa M. Benson, MAl
. Bradford D. Thompson, MAl
. Kate C. McWatters, MAl SRA
. Robert W. Waters, MAl, SR/WA
. Victoria L. Valentine; RM, MRED
$300.00/hour
$300.00/hour
$225.00 hour
$175.00/hour
$225.00/hour
$225.00/hour
$175.00/hour
$150.00/hour
)
Research
Court Exhibit Preparation
Minimum Charge for Deposition and Court Appearances
$65.00 to $100.00/hour
$30.00 to $65.00/hour
4 hours
USPAP REVIEWS & COMPLIANCE CONSUL TING
)
.
Kendall Thurston, MAl $300.00/hour
(Retired Director of Screening for Ethics & USPAP- Appraisal Institute)
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES
)
The following are billed at cost plus 10%:
. Subcontractor Services
. Blue Printing Services and Printing
. Court Exhibits
. Long Distance Telephone Calls, Fax, etc.
. Commercial Delivery Services
. Computer Services
. Air Transportation and Travel Expenses
. Automobile Travel @ $0.33 per mile
Revised 10/01
ITEM 1 0
.
APPROVAL t:1~,.. ..-- ~
CITY ATTORNEY 'V
DIRECTOR OF FINAN I
CITY MANAGER -F-
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
City Manager/City Council
~ William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
July 23, 2002
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Annual Professional Services Agreements for Geotechnical and Material
Testing Services for Various Capital Improvement Projects for FY 2002-2003
n
PREPARED BY:
Amer Attar, Senior Engineer - Capital Projects
Laura Bragg, Project Engineer - Capital Projects ~
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Approve the agreement with EnGEN Public Works Services, LLC. in an amount not to
exceed $60,000 to provide as needed geotechnical and materials testing services; and
2. Approve agreement with Kleinfelder, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $60,000 to provide as
needed geotechnical and material testing services; and
3. Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreements.
BACKGROUND: There are various projects described in the approved Capital
Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2003 to 2007 that will require geotechnical and material
testing services. The attached agreements are for two separate annual contracts to provide as
needed services; these services will be utilized on projects that are approved in the Capital
Improvement Program or for special projects that come up through out the year.
Two firms have been selected for annual agreements so that the City is assured that at least one
firm will be available when needed. Once the annual agreements are executed, each service
request will be negotiated separately with one of the two firms and may contain some or all of the
following services:
. Subsurface exploration and logs summarizing the conditions encountered
. Seismicity
. Geotechnical Evaluation and recommendations
. Discussion of existing pavement or site conditions
. Recommendations for removal of unsuitable material
. Soil Ferrous corrosivity and Portland Cement attack potential
. Environmental concerns/hazards
. Review of available geologic maps and reports for the region
. Discussion of the material encountered in the borings and measured engineering properties
. Preparation of field and final compaction reports
R:\AGENDA REPQRTS\2002\072302\ANNUAL CONTRACT GEOTECH.AGR.DOC
. Review of project plans & specifications with emphasis on geotechnical and laboratory materials
testing services and attend progress meetings
. Observation and Field testing services during all phases of site grading
. Field observation and testing during trench backfilling operations
. Field density testing during subgrade and base compaction
. Field sampling and testing of base and asphalt concrete
. All necessary laboratory tests to support field services and to satisfy Caltrans and other
regulatory agency requirements
. Batch plant inspections
. Structure backfill observation and testing
. Concrete sampling and testing
. Consulting services requiring corrective and/or remedial recommendations
The actual number of projects and costs are not known at this time. Payment will be based upon
actual time spent on tasks as directed by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. An
accumulative not to exceed limit of $60,000 has been set for each Agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Consultant will submit a cost proposal for each service request. Once a
scope of service and a schedule of fees are negotiated, funds are allocated from the corresponding
project budget. Only approved CIP projects will utilize the services under these agreements, unless
directed otherwise by the City Manager or City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Agreement with EnGEN Public Works Services, LLC.
2. Agreement with Kleinfelder, Inc.
2
R:\AGENDA REPORTS\2002\072302\ANNUAl CONTRACT GEOTECH.AGR.DOC
CITY OF TEMECULA
ANNUAL AGREEMENT
FOR
PROFESSIONAL GEOTECHNICAUMATERIAL TESTING SERVICES
FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of July 23, 2002, between the City of
Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and EnGEN Public Works Services, LLC,
("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions setforth herein, the parties
agree as follows:
1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on July 23, 2002, and shall remain
and continue in effect until June 30, 2003, unless terminated or extended pursuant to the
provisions of this Agreement.
2. SERVICES. This is an annual contract for geotechnical/material testing
on an as needed basis. Consultant can perform any of the services and tasks described and set
forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full.
When there is a need for geotechnical/material testing on an as needed services,
the City will identify the specific scope of work, and request a fee schedule from the consultant.
The City will instruct the consultant to proceed with the work once the exact scope of work and the
associated fees are negotiated.
3. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to
the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant
shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons
engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its
obligations under this Agreement.
4. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the
Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of
per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft,
classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract from the Director of the
Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City Clerk. Copies may be
obtained at cost at the City Clerk's office of T emecula. Consultant shall provide a copy of prevailing
wage rates to any staff or sub-contractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as
a minimum. Consultant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5,
1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code,
Consultant shall forfeit to the City, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion
thereof, each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates
for any work done under this contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the
provisions of the Contract.
5. PAYMENT.
a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates
and terms and the schedule of payment as negotiated and as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates
and Schedule, as modified on the consultant letter of June 27, 2001 attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on
the tasks as directed by the City on an as needed basis. Consultant shall not bill the City for
r:\agrmts\masters\annual contract2002-03\EnGen annual FY02-03/ajp
any travel time and expenses associated with it, nor shall he charge a set minimum number
of hours for each site visit. Any terms in Exhibit B other than the payment rates are null and void.
The total cumulative annual amount shall not exceed Sixty Thousand Dollars and No Cents
($60,000.00) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided
in this Agreement.
b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in
connection with its performance of this Agreement unless such additional services are authorized in
advance and in writing by the City. Consultant shall be compensated for services in the amounts
and in the manner as agreed to by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and Consultant atthe
time City's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. Any
additional work in excess of the amount above 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 nondisputed fees. If the City disputes any of consultant's fees it shall give written
notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the
invoice.
6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE.
a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or
terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10)
days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all
work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or
terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or
invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City
shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination,
provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement
pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 4.
7. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT.
a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions ofthis Agreement shall
constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this
Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work
performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice
to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work
hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of
the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default.
b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in
default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the
Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (10) days after service
upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the
event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the
right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without
further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity
or under this Agreement.
2
r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contract2002-03\EnGen annual FY02-03/ajp
8. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS.
a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to
sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the
performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of
services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be
maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identi-
fied and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or
its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine
and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary,
and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this
Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained fora period of
three (3) years after receipt of final payment.
b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this
Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing
data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of
providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property
of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of
the Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant
shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary
computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing
computer files.
c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not
be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location
other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant.
9. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect
and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any
and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert
witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may
sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to
property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any
way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability
arising out of the negligence of the City.
10. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for
the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property
which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the
Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees.
a. Minimum Scooe 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~wned auto endorsement to
the General Liability policy described above is acceptable.
3
r:\agrmts\masters\a.nnual contract2002-03\EnGen annual FY02-03/ajp
(3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of
California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has
no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's
compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall
execute a declaration that it has no employees.
(4) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form
providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession.
b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:
(1) General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury,
personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General
Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is
used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this
project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the
required occurrence limit.
(2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and
property damage.
(3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California;
Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident
for bodily injury or disease.
(4) Professional Liability coverage: Two million ($2,000,000) per claim
and in aggregate.
c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured
retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City
Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as
respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a
bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense
expenses.
d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability
policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
(1) The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be
covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities
performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and
completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied
or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or
borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special
limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers,
officials, employees or volunteers.
(2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance
coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its
officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-
insured maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or
volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall
not contribute with it.
4
r:\agrmts\masters\annual contract2002-03\EnGen annual FY02-03fajp
(3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the
policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage
provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
(4) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect
to the limits of the insurer's liability.
(5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to
state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by
either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30)
days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested,
has been given to the City.
e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a
current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self
insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements.
f. Verification of Coveraqe. Consultant shall furnish the City with original
endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a
person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on
forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before
work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide
complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the
coverage required by these specifications.
11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly
independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of
Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor
any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of
Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this
Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers,
employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall
not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind
City in any manner.
b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the
performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the
Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing
services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to
Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
12. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of
all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those
employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The
Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations.
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.
5
r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contracl2002-03\EnGen annual FY02-03/ajp
13. RELEASE OF INFORMATION.
a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall
be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written
authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without
written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily
provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or
other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or
property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered
"voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers,
employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of
deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery
request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed
thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right,
but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or
similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the
opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's
right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or
rewrite said response.
14. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other
party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (I) personal service, (ii)
delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that
provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail,
certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as
set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be
effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following
deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above.
To City:
City of Temecula
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: City Manager
To Consultant:
EnGEN Public Works Services, LLC
41607 Enterprise Circle North, Suite 1
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: Gina L. LeSueur
15. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this
Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of
the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for
actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise
agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant.
6
r:\agrmts\masters\annual contract2002-03\EnGen annual FY02-Q3/ajp
16. 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.
17. 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 conceming
this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior. or federal district court with geographic
jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the
other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's
judgement, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief
granted.
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 orwritten,
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. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No member, officer, or employee of the City of
Temecula or of a local public body shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the contract of the
proceeds thereof during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter.
Furthermore, the contractor/consultant covenants and agrees to their
knowledge that no board member, officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest,
whether contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of
the contracting party other than the City of Temecula, and that if any such interest comes to the
knowledge of either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all such information will be
made, in writing, to the other party or parties, even if such interest would not be considered a
conflict of interest under Article 4 (commencing with Section 1090) or Article 4.6 9commencing with
Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California.
20. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons
executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the
authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind
Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
7
r:lagrmlslmasterslannual contract2002-03\EnGen annual FY02-03/ajp
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
the day and year first above written.
CITY OF TEMECULA
Ron Roberts, Mayor
Attest:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
Approved As to Form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
CONSULTANT
EnGEN Public Works Services, LLC
41607 Enterprise Circle North, Suite 1
Temecula, CA 92590
(909) 296-2230
By:
Osbjorn Bratene, President
By:
H. Wayne Baimbridge, CEO/CFO
(Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations)
8
r:lagrrntslmasterslannual contract2002-03\EnGen annual FY02-Q3/ajp
EXHIBIT A
TASKS TO BE PERFORMED
9
r:lagnntslmasterslannual oontract2002-03\EnGen annual FY02-03/ajp
o
n
n
[]
n
J]
I]
I]
II
I]
11
1 ]
: I
II
lJ
11
I j
11
Ii
U
lJ
o
n
n
n
n
[]
1I
I]
;]
I]
I]
I]
1]
I]
!]
I]
II
U
II
I'
lJ
EnGEN Corporation appreciates the opportunity to provide this proposal for Geotechnical and
Materials Testing Services for the City of Temecula for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. EnGEN
Corporation is currently providing services under an annual contract with the City of Temecula
for fiscal year 2001-2002. It is our sincere hope to continue to provide these services for fiscal
year 2002-2003. This proposal is based on information derived from your Request for
Statement of Qualifications (RFQ) dated May 14, 2002.
INTRODUCTION
EnGEN Corporation is a professional organization specializing in geotechnical soils
engineering, geologic evaluation, engineering geology, environmental site assessment,
laboratory testing and analyses, and construction materials testing. Our professional staff is
comprised of highly qualified Engineers, Geologists and Engineering Technicians whose
combined experience provide more than 20 years of specialized earth science and materials
engineering services in the Southern California area.
EnGEN Corporation's operating philosophy is "Pride in Professionalism". We incorporate the
"common sense" approach with technical expertise to accomplish project tasks with the client's
best interest in mind. This approach, as well as our reputation as a responsive, well-organized
firm has fueled our growth and enabled us to provide excellent customer service.
EnGEN's corporate office, located in Temecula, California, houses a state-of-the-art laboratory
facility, as well as professional and administrative staff. This office and our office in Santa Ana,
California enable us to service both public and private sector clients in Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino and San Diego counties.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
It is our understanding that this contract will consist of various projects that will require
geotechnical and/or materials testing services until June, 2003. Each request for services will
be negotiated separately based on the services requested.
SCOPE OF SERVICES - COMPACTION & LABORATORY TESTING SERVICES
The scope of services for compaction and laboratory testing services shall include but not be
limited to the following:
o In-Place Moisture and Density Tests
o Laboratory Maximum Density and Optimum Moisture Tests
o Sieve Analysis Tests
DR-Value Tests
o Direct Shear Tests
o Consolidation or Collapse Tests
o Ph, Resistivity, Soluble Sulfate, and Chloride Tests
SCOPE OF SERVICES - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SERVICES
EnGEN Corporation will provide final reports that include logs of borings summarizing the
subsurface conditions encountered, results of laboratory testing, and a plan indicating the
location of the explorations. The reports will also provide seismic design criteria based on
current code requirements.
1
~
n
n
11
n
11
I]
I]
j]
!]
l]
1 ]
;]
I]
I]
U
:]
II
U
, 1
lj
Geotechnical evaluation and recommendations within EnGEN Corporation's technical reports
will include but not be limited to the following:
o Standard Grading Recommendations
o Earthwork Recommendations
o Settlement Considerations And Calculations Following Cdmg Report 117.
o Surface And Subsurface Drainage Recommendations
o Foundation, Column And Slab Recommendations
o Slope Stability
o Soil Sulfate Content Implications And Impact On Foundation Design
o Utility Trench Backfill
o Lateral Earth Pressures Used For Retaining Wall Design
o Pavement Design
o Grading And Foundation Plan Review
o Construction Monitoring
o Pile Driving <If Necessary)
o Lateral Earth Pressures
o Discussion Of The Existing Pavement Or Site Conditions
o Recommendations For Removal Of Unsuitable Material
o Soil Ferrous Corrosivity And The Portland Cement Attack Potential
o Environmental Concerns/Hazards
o Summary Of Findings And Recommendations
o Consulting Services Requiring Corrective and/or Remedial Recommendations, If
Necessary.
o Review Of Available Geologic Maps And Reports For The Region
o Discussion Of The Material Encountered In The Borings And Measured Engineering
Properties.
o Logs Of The Exploratory Borings Summarizing The Subsurface Conditions Encountered,
Results Of Laboratory Testing, And A Plan Indicating The Location Of The Explorations
o Review Of Project Plans & Specifications With Emphasis On Geotechnical And
Laboratory Materials Testing Services
o Attend Progress Meetings As Required
o Observation And Field Testing Services During All Phases Of Site Grading <Including
But Not Limited To Removal Of Unsuitable Soils, Approval Of Areas To Receive Fill And
Mass Fill Placement), Available 24 Hours Per Day
o Field Observation And Testing During Trench Backfill Operations
o Field Density Testing During Subgrade And Base Compaction
o Field Sampling & Testing Of Base And Asphalt Concrete
o All Necessary Laboratory Tests To Support Field Services And To Satisfy Caltrans And
Other Regulatory Agency Requirements
o Batch Plant Inspections
o Structure Backfill Observation And Testing
o Concrete Sampling And Testing
o '97 UBC Near Source Seismic Factors
o Dynamic Settlement Calculations
2
~
n
n
n
n
11
n
II
11
I]
l]
1 ]
I]
I]
IJ
U
U
U
, I
I:
..1
UNDERSTANDING OF PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT & SCOPE OF WORK
EnGEN Corporation understands that the City of Temecula will require a complete service
package to accommodate day-to-day requirements of the City for geotechnical consulting and
testing services. This office has been providing all of the specialized engineering services
outlined in the RFQ for over 20 years in the Temecula Valley for public agencies and private
development companies. These services have included geotechnical investigations,
compaction testing, consulting services and laboratory testing. These services will be provided
on an "on-call" basis as project demands dictate.
Understanding of Soil and Geotechnical Conditions within the Temecula Valley:
Nearly 75% of the geotechnical services provided by EnGEN Corporation are within the
Temecula Valley. The previous work conducted in the City of Temecula by EnGEN Corporation
has shown that soil conditions within the region vary significantly in terms of stability, soil
settlement/consolidation and corrosive potential. Registered professional engineers and
geologists as well as trained technical engineering personnel are qualified to recognize the
potential for these characteristics should they be observed at each project during the
grading/construction operations. Any soils observed that may have the potential for these
characteristics, or that could have an adverse effect on the foundation, footings and/or
pavement areas will be sampled and tested in order to provide appropriate recommendations.
Understanding of Compaction Control Needs of the City of Temecula:
Clayey sands or slightly plastic and plastic soils will present some difficulty in compaction.
Where these soils are encountered, it will be recommended that efforts be made to mix with
clean sands in order to minimize the difficulty in achieving the required compaction. It will be
recommended that compaction operations only utilize mechanical equipment. Jetting within
trenches should be avoided. The technician(s) on site will provide the Contractor and the City
with daily field test results and report any unusual conditions to the appropriate project
professionals immediately. The standard of compaction frequency varies depending on the size
of the work area, volume and depth, however it is generally understood that one compaction
test should be taken for every two vertical feet (or lift) of backfilled material or compacted fill
placed. Each test is documented on a "daily field report" and plotted on a scaled site plan
showing the number, location and depth of test taken.
Understanding of Unstable Soil Conditions within the Temecula Valley:
Unstable soil conditions exist throughout the valley at varying depths from the surface to deep
beneath the surface and each site should be evaluated in order to determine if unstable
conditions exist. The evaluation process allows the engineer to examine the characteristics of
each soil horizon under controlled laboratory conditions, simulating the conditions and loads that
the soil would experience under varying conditions. The most damaging soil conditions that
have been observed to occur within the Temecula Valley include hydro-consolidation of
supporting soils, expansion potential impacting foundation stresses and slope stability.
Due to the variety of soil types that may be encountered throughout the City, some soils
encountered could potentially be unstable. It is recommended that all excavations be
configured in accordance with CAL/OSHA requirements and be under technical observation at
all times when work is in progress.
3
~
n
n
n
n
n
I]
II
II
II
:1
II
:1
1]
I]
II
, 1
/J
u
I]
U
Understanding of Regional Geology:
EnGEN Corporation has conducted many geotechnical investigations within the City
boundaries, and as part of these studies the geology has been evaluated. The City of
Temecula is located in the seismically active region of Southern California. EnGEN Corporation
will address potential geologic hazards such as landsliding, liquefaction and faulting that might
be considered detrimental to any proposed development during its lifetime. The scope of work.
proposed will include a technical review of any previous reports, site reconnaissance, and
presentation of findings, conclusions and recommendations of the geological analysis of the
data collected.
PROJECT APPROACH
Initial Work Plan Review Meeting: EnGEN Corporation will conduct an initial in-house review
of available maps, project plans, reports, specifications and any other documentation relevant to
the project. We will schedule a meeting with City staff, contractor and others, on-site, to discuss
project specifications and site conditions before construction begins. EnGEN Corporation will also
discuss the construction schedule with the contractor and City staff to properly plan our manpower
requirements in order to meet the contracto~s projected schedule and attend progress meetings,
as required. A general fieldwork and safety plan meeting with field and technical staff will also be
conducted. We will meet with the City Project Engineer and other appropriate engineering staff, if
deemed necessary or required because of project changes or special circumstances uncovered
during the initial document review of technical data.
Site Reconnaissance: Potential subsurface exploration point locations will be planned by our
Geotechnical Engineer and staff. Site reconnaissance will consist of traversing the site,
conducting surface mapping, verifying access to all necessary areas, retrieving soil samples
and/or staking proposed boring locations to assist DIG ALERT. Exploratory borings will be drilled
within the proposed development area ranging in depth to a maximum of 50 feet below ground
surface or refusal, utilizing truck-mounted, hollow-stem auger drilling equipment. The actual
number of borings will be determined during the field operations. In-situ and bulk samples along
with standard penetration testing will be obtained at 5.0-foot intervals or less to evaluate
subsurface geotechnical conditions for laboratory testing.
PROFESSIONAL STAFF
The following is a list of personnel that will be assigned to the City's projects:
Project Geotechnical Engineer - Osbjorn Bratene, GE 162
As President of EnGEN Corporation, Mr. Bratene is available should any special conditions be
encountered which require senior Geotechnical Engineer involvement throughout the duration of
the project. See attached resume.
Field Operations Manager/Geologist - Jeffrey P. Kilpatrick
As the Field Operations Manager/Geologist, Mr. Kilpatrick is available should any conditions
arise throughout the duration of the project that may require professional judgment or
observation of geological conditions. See attached resume.
Field Operations AssistantlDay-to-Day Contact - Ryan Waroff
Mr. Waroff will serve as "Engineer-in-Charge", the liaison between EnGEN Corporation and the
City staff on all matters concerning each project and will coordinate the day-to-day activities
through completion. See attached resume.
4
~
n
n
n
11
n
I]
II
11
II
; I
11
11
1]
I]
11
lJ
U
I)
I j
Field Supervisor
Field Supervisors oversee the field technician(s) on each project to ensure adequate
documentation of field and testing activities and maintain field scheduling and reporting
coordination with the Contractor and the City throughout each project duration.
Full-Time Senior Field Technician(s)
Senior Field Technician(s) will be available to observe and test on a full-time or as needed basis
throughout each project construction period. The technician(s) assigned to each project are
experienced in compaction operations, concrete sampling and testing in accordance with
oversight Agency guidelines and the State Board of Professional Engineers requirements.
The following is a list of subcontractors that may be used on the City's projects:
. ES Babcock - An analytical laboratory for performing chemical analysis.
. Martini Drilling - A drilling company used as an outside service for drilling.
. Cal Pac Drilling - A drilling company used as an outside service for drilling.
. Structural Systems Inspections - A company used for special inspections.
. Rice's Concrete - A company used for cutting and coring of asphalt and concrete
Resumes and references for all subcontractor's will be provided upon request. Each
subcontractor used by EnGEN Corporation is a firm used for many years by EnGEN with years
of experience and all of the necessary insurance and professional requirements to meet the
needs and minimum qualifications of the City of Temecula.
5
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE
10
r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contract2002-03\EnGen annual FY02-03/ajp
~
Il
11
11
I]
II
II
; I
: I
: I
, I
i I
: I
.1
11
I
; I
: [
1 ]
J i
')
! I
II
i i
, I
I
, ,
, '
I
. ,
EnGEN Corporation
2002 SCHEDULE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES
HOURLY PERSONNEL CHARGES
Principal....... .................................................................................................................. $125.00
Registered Environmental Assessor (REA) ................................................................... $100.00
Geotechnical Engineer, (GE)............................................... ............................................ $95.00
Engineering Geologist, (CEG) ......................................................................................... $95.00
Project Engineer (RCE) ................................................................................................... $85.00
Project Geologist (RG) .................................................................................................... $85.00
Staff Engineer/Project Manager ...................................................................................... $75.00
Staff Geologist................................................................................................................. $75.00
Field Supervisor.......................................................................................................... ..... $75.00
Senior Technician................................................. ............. ....... ....................................... $70.00
Senior Field Technician, Prevailing Wage Rate .............................................................. $90.00
Field Technician.............................................................................................................. $65.00
Field Technician, Prevailing Wage Rate...........................................................:.............. $85.00
Lab Technician.. ..................................................... ........... ..... ......................................... $60.00
Drafting Services.... ............................................................. ............. ......... ............... ....... $50.00
Word Processing....................... ............................................. ......................................... $50.00
Clerical Services............................................................................................. ................. $45.00
Special Inspector (Concrete, Mason & Welding) ..............................................:...... On Request
Court Appearance, Depositions, and/or Governmental Representations .
(including Travel Time, hourly rate)....................................................................... $250.00
ADDITIONAL CHARGES
Vehicle Charge (mileage exceeding 50 miles round trip from office), per mile ........ On Request
Postage or Special Delivery Services....................................................................... Cost + 15%
Outside Services ...................................................................................................... Cost + 15%
Standard copies of reports, wet signed (each) ........................................................ On Request
Per Diem, (per day per person) ............................................................................... On Request
Overtime Rate/Holiday Rate .................................................................................... $25.00Ihour
Prevailing Wage OIT Rate....................................................................................... $15.00Ihour
Prevailing Wage DIT Rate....................................................................................... $25.00lhour
Prevailing Wage Holiday Rate................................................................................. $50.00Ihour
LABORATORY TESTING FEES
Laboratory testing fees are per test and do not reflect sample pick-up and delivery charges or
out of ordinary sample preparation time. Fees for additional tests available upon request.
SOIL TESTING
Maximum Dry Density / Optimum Moisture Content Relationships
a) ASTM 0-1557, (Method A) ............................................................................. $125.00
b) ASTM 0-1557, (Method B, C)......................................................................... $150.00
c) ASTM D-1557, (Method D).............................................................................. $150.00
d) Califomia Impact (CAL TRANS 216)................................................................ $125.00
Expansion Index, UBC 29-2 ............................................................................................ $90.00
Sand Equivalent (average of 3 points) ............................................................................ $90.00
Soluble Sulfate......... .................. ..................................................................................... $45.00
Corrosion Analysis (pH, Redox, Sat. Res., Sulfates)..................................................... $45.00
Atterberg Limits (Plasticity Limit):.....................................................................:............. $150.00
Consolidation, single point (collapse test) ....................................................................... $75.00
Consolidation, per additional loading point...................................................................... $25.00
Consolidation, In-situ sample, time rate-ratio data (per increment).................................. $30.00
company Publlcations/lSchedute of Fees, 2002
Page 1 of3
_sed May, 2002
~
Il
II
11
11
II
! I
II
II
11
: ]
I]
, I
: ]
11
! 1
: I
1 r
, J
1 '
, '
, ,
II
, I
, ,
, ,
EnGEN Corporation
2002 SCHEDULE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES
SOIL TESTING, (Continued)
Direct Shear, in-situ sample, saturated, 3 points ........................................................... $130.00
Direct Shear, remolded sample, saturated, 3 points...................................................... $160.00
Hydrometer Analysis (minus No. 10 sieve material) ........................................................ $65.00
R-Value:
CAL TRANS 301.................................................................................................. $210.00
C.B.R. (3 points, excluding optimum moisture / max. density curve) .................. $300.00
Ring Density ....... ..... ......... ......... ........ ................................................... ........................... $15.00
Sieve Analysis, washed, 3/4" Max. ................................................................................ $100.00
Specific Gravity (+ NO.4 Sieve Material) ......................................................................... $70.00
Specific Gravity (- NO.4 Sieve Material) .......................................................................... $80.00
Moisture Content/Dry Density....... .,...............................' ......................... .............. .......... $15.00
Miscellaneous Aggregate Testing............................................................................ On Request
Other Specialty Testing (not listed above)............................................................... On Request
CONCRETE TESTING
Concrete Mix Design (review calculations only)............................................................. $150.00
Flexural Strength, 6"x6"x24" beam~................................................................................. $45.00
Beams Cured but not tested (less than 28 days old)....................................................... $25.00
Compression Tests, Hold Samples, 6"x12" cylinder........................................................ $20.00
Cylinders Canceled, Not Tested (less than 28 days old) ................................................. $15.00
. MASONRY TESTING
Compression Test, Hold Samples, Mortar or Grout Cylinders ............................(each) $20.00
Compression Test, Masonry Unit, 3 required
(Net area also requires absorption and unit weight tests) ........................ (each) $65.00
Absorption Test, Masonry Unit, 3 required
(Net area also requires unit weight test) .................................................. (each) $45.00
Unit Weight, Masonry Unit, 3 required................................................................ (each) $45.00
Moisture Content, Masonry Unit (as received), 3 required.................................. (each) $45.00
Lineal shrinkage, masonry unit, 3 required......................................................... (each) $85.00
Tensile Test on Masonry Block........................................................................... (each) $125.00
Shear Test on Masonry Core.............................................................................. (each) $85.00
Compression Test on Masonry Core ................................................................. (each) $45.00
Compression Test of Masonry Prisms 8"><16" (other sizes on request) .............. (each) $125.00
Other Specialty Testing (i.e., not listed above) ........................................................ On Request
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE TESTING
Specific Gravity (Compacted Sample)...................,......................................................... $45.00
Stabilometer Test (Sample Mixing - set of 3)................................................................. $270.00
Premixed Sample (set of 3) ................................................................................ $170.00
Extraction, % Bitumen and Sieve Analysis .................................................................... $175.00
Marshall Test, per Core Specimen, (stability and flow) ................................................. $150.00
Marshall Test, Maximum Density Only........................................................................... $150.00
Marshall Test, (Sample Preparati~n - set of 3) .............................................................. $275.00
Evaluation of On-Site Failures................................................................................. On Request
Other Specialty Testing (i.e., not listed above) ........................................................ On Request
Company Publk:atlonslSchedule of Fees, 2002
Pege20f 3
Re\llsed May, 2002
11
n
11
II
II
II
11
; I
11
11
, I
, I
, I
: I
, I
i I
1 ]
] I
II
~ )
I,
1 !
, .
I j
! i
i,
I'
, .
EnGEN Corporation
2002 SCHEDULE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES
MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES
Coring Field Samples of Concrete, AC., Masonry, etc. .......................................... On Request
Reinforcing Steel, Structural Steel and High Strength Bolt Testing ........................ On Request
Portland or Asphaltic Cements, Uquid Asphalts, Emulsions and Slurry Seals ........ On Request
Roofing Observations and Tests ............................................................................. On Request
Density of Sprayed Fireproofing ......................................................................... (each) $55.00
Asbestos P.L.M. Analysis ................................................................................... (each) $35.00
Company PublicationslSchedule 01 F.... 2002
Page30f 3
fle',;sed May. 2002
CITY OF TEMECULA
ANNUAL AGREEMENT
FOR
PROFESSIONAL GEOTECHNICAUMATERIAL TESTING SERVICES
FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of July 23,2002, between the City of
Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Kleinfelder, Inc., ("Consultant"). In consideration of
the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on July 23, 2002, and shall remain
and continue in effect until June 30, 2003, unless terminated or extended pursuant to the
provisions of this Agreement.
2. SERVICES. This is an annual contract for geotechnical/material testing
on an as needed basis. Consultant can perform any of the services and tasks described and set
forth in Exhibit A. attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full.
When there is a need for geotechnical/material testing on an as needed services,
the City will identify the specific scope of work, and request a fee schedule from the consultant.
The City will instruct the consultant to proceed with the work once the exact scope of work and the
associated fees are negotiated.
3. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to
the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant
shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons
engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its
obligations under this Agreement.
4. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the
Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of
per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft,
classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract from the Director of the
Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City Clerk. Copies may be
obtained at cost at the City Clerk's office of T emecula. Consultant shall provide a copy of prevailing
wage rates to any staff or sub-contractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as
a minimum. Consultant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777 .5,
1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code,
Consultant shall forfeit to the City, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion
thereof, each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates
for any work done under this contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the
provisions of the Contract.
5. PAYMENT.
a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates
and terms and the schedule of payment as negotiated and as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates
and Schedule, as modified on the consultant letter of June 27, 2001 attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on
the tasks as directed by the City on an as needed basis. Consultant shall not bill the City for
any travel time and expenses associated with it, nor shall he charge a set minimum number
1
r:lagrmts\masterslannual oontract2002.03\K1einfelder annual FY02-03/ajp
of hours for each site visit. Any terms in Exhibit B other than the payment rates are null and void.
The total cumulative annual amount shall not exceed Sixty Thousand Dollars and No Cents
($60,000.00) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided
in this Agreement.
b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in
connection with its performance of this Agreement unless such additional services are authorized in
advance and in writing by the City. Consultant shall be compensated for services in the amounts
and in the manner as agreed to by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and Consultant at the
time City's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. Any
additional work in excess of the amount above 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 nondisputed fees. If the City disputes any of consultant's fees it shall give written
notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the
invoice.
6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE.
a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or
terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10)
days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all
work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or
terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or
invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City
shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination,
provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement
pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 4.
7. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT.
a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall
constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this
Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work
performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice
to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work
hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of
the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default.
b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in
default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the
Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (10) days after service
upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the
event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the
right, notwithstanding any other proviSion of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without
further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity
or under this Agreement.
2
r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contract2002-03\K1einfelder annual FY02-03/ajp
8. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS.
a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to
sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the
performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of
services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be
maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identi-
fied and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or
its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine
and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary,
and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this
Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of
three (3) years after receipt of final payment.
b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this
Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing
data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of
providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property
of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of
the Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant
shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary
computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing
computer files.
c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not
be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location
other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant.
9. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect
and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any
and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert
witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may
sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to
property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any
way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability
arising out of the negligence of the City.
10. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for
the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property
which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the
Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees.
a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
(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~wned auto endorsement to
the General Liability policy described above is acceptable.
3
r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contract2002-03\Kleinfelder annual FY02-03/ajp
(3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of
California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has
no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's
compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall
execute a declaration that it has no employees.
(4) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form
providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession.
b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:
(1) General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury,
personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General
Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is
used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this
project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the
required occurrence limit.
(2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and
property damage.
(3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California;
Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident
for bodily injury or disease.
(4) Professional Liability coverage: Two million ($2,000,000) per claim
and in aggregate.
c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured
retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City
Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as
respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a
bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense
expenses.
d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability
policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
(1) The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be
covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities
performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and
completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied
or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or
borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special
limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers,
officials, employees or volunteers.
(2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance
coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its
officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-
insured maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or
volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall
not contribute with it.
4
r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contract2002-03\Kleinfelder annual FY02-03/ajp
(3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the
policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage
provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
(4) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect
to the limits of the insurer's liability.
(5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to
state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by
either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30)
days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested,
has been given to the City.
e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a
current A.M. Best's rating of no less than AVII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self
insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements.
f. Verification of Coveraqe. Consultant shall fumish the City with original
endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a
person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on
forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before
work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide
complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the
coverage required by these specifications.
11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly
independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of
Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor
any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of
Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this
Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers,
employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall
not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind
City in any manner.
b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the
performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the
Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing
services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to
Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
12. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of
all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those
employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The
Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations.
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.
5
r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contract2002-03\Kleinfelder annual FY02-03/ajp
13. RELEASE OF INFORMATION.
a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall
be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written
authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without
written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attomey, voluntarily
provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or
other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or
property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered
"voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers,
employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of
deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery
request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed
thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right,
but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or
similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the
opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's
right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or
rewrite said response.
14. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other
party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (I) personal service, (Ii)
delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that
provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail,
certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as
set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be
effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following
deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above.
To City:
City of T emecula
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: City Manager
Kleinfelder, Inc.
43218 Business Park Drive, Suite 201
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: Mark S. Spykerman RG, CEG
15. 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.
To Consultant:
6
r:lagrmlslmasterslannual oonlract2002-03\Kleinfelder annual FY02-03/ajp
16. 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.
17. 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
judgement, shall be entitled to reasonable atlorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief
granted.
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. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No member, officer, or employee of the City of
Temecula or of a local public body shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the contract of the
proceeds thereof during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter.
Furthermore, the contractor/consultant covenants and agrees to their
knowledge that no board member, officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest,
whether contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of
the contracting party other than the City of Temecula, and that if any such interest comes to the
knowledge of either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all such information will be
made, in writing, to the other party or parties, even if such interest would not be considered a
conflict of interest under Article 4 (commencing with Section 1090) or Article 4.6 9commencing with
Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California.
20. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons
executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the
authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind
Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
7
r:lagrmtslmasterslannual oontract2002-03\Kleinfelder annual FY02-03/ajp
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
the day and year first above written.
CITY OF TEMECULA
Ron Roberts, Mayor
Attest:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
Approved As to Form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
CONSULTANT
Kleinfelder, Inc.
43218 Business Park Dr, Suite 201
Temecula, CA 92590
(909) 506-1488
By:
Michael P. Kesler, Regional Manager
By:
John Moossazadeh, Vice President
(Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations)
8
r:lagrmtslmasterslannual oontract2002-03\Kleinfelder annual FY02-03/ajp
EXHIBIT A
TASKS TO BE PERFORMED
9
r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contract2002-03\Kleinfelder annual FY02-03/ajp
, ,
, '
I'
! '
l.
, ,
,
I j
I'
I,
! '
l.
I:
[ :
I:
I:
L
I:
[[
l;
Ii
I[
r
...,. KLEINFElDER
An employee owned company
May 29,2002
Proposal No. 56-YP3440
Public Works Department
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Subject:
Submittal of Statement of Qualifications of Package
Reference:
City of Temecula, Department of Public Works:
Request for Statement of Qualifications
"Annual Agreement For Geotechnical and Materials Testing Services,
Various elP Projects Approved/or FY 2002-2003 dated May 14, 2002"
Kleinfelder, Incorporated (Kleinfelder) appreciates the opportunity to respond to the referenced
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to provide "On-call" geotechnical and materials testing
services to the City of Temecula, Department of Public Works.
The enclosed package includes all required company information as detailed in the RFQ package
and demonstrates that Kleinfelder has the experience, resources and local presence to perform
the services that are outlined in the RFQ package.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact either
of the undersigned at (909) 506-1488.
Respectfully submitted,
KLEINFELDER, INC.
/lIfJ
Mark S. Spykerman RG
Geotechnical Group Manager
Attachments: Geotecbnical/Materials Testing Statement of Qualifications
Fee Schedule
56- YP3440rrEM2P042
Copyright 2002 KJeinfelder, Inc.
K LEI N F E L D E R 43218 Business Park Drive, Suite 201, Temecula, CA 92590 (909) 506-1488 (909) 506-1491 fax
r'
r'
I'
, .
I'
L
! '
I,
1 .
I
,
I.
I'
,
, .
I'
I.
[ .
[ :
I:
!:
!:
[;
[;
[;
[;
...q KLEINFElDER
INTRODUCTION
This statement of qualifications package has been prepared in response to a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) from the City of Temecula, Department of Public Works (hereinafter
referred to as "the City"). According to the solicitation package, the City is seeking the services
of a qualified consulting firm, with a wide range of expertise, to provide geotechnical and
materials testing services on an "as-needed" basis for various projects approved for FY2002-
2003.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
We have reviewed the RFQ and understand that the scope of servIces required by the
Department of Public Works includes, but is not limited to, the following services.
Subsurface Exploration Services
· Provide as-needed, in-place moisture and unit weight tests
.
Perform laboratory maximum density and optimum moisture tests
Provide sieve analysis data
Provide R-values
.
.
.
Perform direct shear tests
.
Perform consolidation or collapse tests
.
Perform pH, resistivity, soluble sulfate, and chloride tests
Provide field logs of exploratory borings that summarize the subsurface conditions
encountered, the results of laboratory testing, and plot plans that indicate the boring
locations.
.
56-YP3440ITE~2P042
Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page I of 15
, ,
, '
, ,
1 '
, .
! :
f'
I.
1 '
1.
f'
,
i,
[ :
I:
!:
I:
[ :
[ :
[ [
I[
u
I;
...". KLEINFELDER
Seismicity Studies
.
Provide the City with information regarding relative frequency and distribution of
earthquake activity within a particular region or at a specific site, as well as other seismic
related geologic hazards, including fault rupture, liquefaction, lateral spreading, and slope
instability.
Geotechnical Evaluations and Recommendations
Provide geotechnical evaluations and recommendations including those related to:
.
Grading
Earthwork
Settlement considerations
Surface and surface drainage
Foundation, column, and slab recommendations
.
.
.
.
. Slope stability
. Soil sulfate content implications
. Utility trench backfill
. Retaining walls and recommended lateral earth pressures for design
. Pavement design
. Grading and floor plan review
. Construction monitoring
. Pile driving
. Lateral earth pressures
In addition to these services, Kleinfelder understands that the City requires that the consultant
also be able to provide the following services:
· Engage in discussions with City personnel regarding existing pavement or site conditions
. Provide recommendations for the removal of unsuitable materials
.
Review project plans and specifications for the City, in regards to on-going or proposed
geotechnical and material testing projects
56. YP3440/TEM2P042
Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 2 of 15
, ,
( ,
( .
I'
, ,
! '
I.
I'
I,
I'
i
I.
" .
, .
I'
I
I
!:
l:
[ :
[ :
1 :
I;
I:
u
I:
...q KLEINFElDER
. Perform batch plant inspections
Provide field observation and testing services during trench backfilling operations
.
.
Provide professional geotechnical field services during all phases of site or roadway-
grading, including, but not limited to, removal of unsuitable soils, approval of areas to
receive fill and mass fill placement
.
Provide concrete sampling and testing services
Provide field compaction testing during sub grade and base compaction
Provide personnel for structure backfill observation and testing
Prepare field and final compaction reports as required. Provide reports that include a
summary of findings and recommendations
.
.
.
Perform field sampling and testing of aggregate base, concrete and asphalt concrete
Perform all necessary laboratory tests to support field services and to satisfy Caltrans and
other regulatory agency requirements
Provide information regarding soil ferrous corrosivity and Portland Cement attack
potential
. Review project plans and specifications with an emphasis on geotechnical and laboratory
materials testing services and attend progress meetings as required
.
.
.
. Review geologic maps and reports for the region as needed
. Provide consulting services, if necessary, in regard to sites that might require corrective
and/or remedial actions
· Recognize, and provide consultation, if necessary, regarding environmental concerns and
hazards at project sites
Kleinfelder routinely provides all of the services listed above to a wide range of clients in both
the private and public sectors. In addition, we have successfully performed these very services
for the City of Temecula under previous contracts. The following section describes our firm and
provides a brief resume of the staff members who are available to work on any projects that
might be awarded by the City.
56- YP3440ffEM2P042
Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
page3 of 15
, .
. ,
, '
I.
I'
I
, .
"
I,
,.
,
I.
I'
I
I,
I'
, .
I:
I:
l:
[ :
[;
I:
lJ
[l
[l
I;
...~ KlEINFElDER
EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS
Kleinfelder, is an employee-owned geotechnical, engineering, and environmental consulting
firm, specializing in earth, air and water sciences; we are a leader in these fields as evidenced by
our number 62 ranking in the in Engineering News Records' survey of the "Top 100 Consulting
Firms" in the nation. This ranking recognizes Kleinfelder as one of the premier engineering
firms in the nation.
We employ over 1400 employees at 53 offices throughout the western half of the United States.
With assets such as these, we are able to manage multi-site projects effectively and to mobilize
quickly to meet large-scale project management requirements. However, our decentralized,
regional structure and numerous local offices give us insight into local conditions and critical
knowledge of local regulations and practices. Our resources in southern California include over
320 staff in eight offices.
Kleinfelder's Inland Empire Region incorporates offices and laboratories in Redlands,
Victorville and Temecula. The region is staffed with more than 100 qualified engineers,
geologists, managers, field and administrative personnel. With resources such as these we
foresee no difficulty responding to the needs of the City.
If awarded a contract we will provide management to the City from our Temecula office. This
office, which is located in the Rancho California Business Park (just two blocks from the City of
Temecula offices), includes a staff of over 30 and a geotechnical and materials testing laboratory.
Our Temecula personnel are familiar with the local geology, they routinely interact with Caltrans
and local regulators, and they have provided services to the City on previous on-call contracts.
The project manager and his technical support staff will be readily available to meet with City
representatives and will also be able to quickly respond, if needed, to sites anywhere in
Temecula.
In addition to routinely providing geotechnical and material testing services our local staff has
been involved in numerous earthquake studies in Temecula and the surrounding areas pertaining
to the siting and design of proposed facilities and assessing the potential for damage caused by
earthquakes. An extensive database and reference library has been developed to determine the
appropriate seismic criteria for sites in Temecula including site specific geologic and soil
conditions, local seismic data, and the location of capable faults.
56- YP3440rrEM2P042
Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 4 of 15
, '
I'
I,
I'
I.
, .
I.
! .
I.
r'
I
I
i.
1:
I:
, .
L
!:
[;
[:
It
I:
u
I:
h..q KLEINFElDER
Our staff also has broad experience in the evaluation, design, and construction of both asphalt
concrete and Portland cement concrete pavements and structures. They have provided
construction and testing services directly for Caltrans and other public sector clients including
the City of Temecula.
It is our objective on any project to reduce the uncertainty inherent in construction materials. We
have an in-house testing and qualification program designed to assure that qualified personnel
are assigned to each project. We can assure you that certified technicians, under the direction of
registered engineers, will be assigned to any project we are awarded. Our technicians undergo
certification under nationally recognized programs such as those granted by the National Institute
for the Certification of Engineering Technicians (NICET), the American Concrete Institute
(ACI), the International Conference of Building Officials (leBO) and the American Welding
Society. In addition, we have a large number of Caltrans certified technicians available if
needed.
Kleinfelder material engineers routinely work with design professionals, providing knowledge
and expertise in the development of design specifications and analysis of construction materials.
Kleinfelder engineers work diligently to reduce the uncertainty involved in dealing with
construction materials and damaged structural elements, through the application of standardized
destructive and non-destructive testing programs suitable for each client's specific needs. Our
local staff has expertise with:
.
Rehabilitation assessments and structural investigations of steel, concrete, masonry and
wood structures;
.
Performing building surveys to establish as-built construction details;
.
Evaluation of materials through non-destructive and destructive test methods;
Designing and performing full-scale load testing programs and assessments of building
distress;
.
.
Failure investigations and analysis;
.
Evaluation of design adequacy, construction techniques, and integrity of building
materials;
.
Providing damage assessments and accident reconstruction;
.
Providing expert witness testimony.
56- YP3440/TEM2P042
Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 5 of 15
, '
, .
I'
: '
! '
I.
, .
I.
! .
I.
l'
I.
! .
[ :
[ :
!:
l:
[;
[:
I;
It
[~
[;
kq KLEINFELDER
Our staff also has broad experience in the evaluation, design, and construction of both asphalt
concrete and Portland cement concrete pavements and structures. They have provided
construction and testing services directly for Caltrans and other public sector clients including
the City of Temecula.
It is our objective on any project to reduce the uncertainty inherent in construction materials. We
have an in-house testing and qualification program designed to assure that qualified personnel
are assigned to each project. We can assure you that certified technicians, under the direction of
registered engineers, will be assigned to any project we are awarded. Our technicians undergo
certification under nationally recognized programs such as those granted by the National Institute
for the Certification of Engineering Technicians (NICET), the American Concrete Institute
(ACI), the International Conference of Building Officials (lCBO) and the American Welding
Society. In addition, we have a large number of Caltrans certified technicians available if
needed.
Kleinfelder material engineers routinely work with design professionals, providing knowledge
and expertise in the development of design specifications and analysis of construction materials.
Kleinfelder engineers work diligently to reduce the uncertainty involved in dealing with
construction materials and damaged structural elements, through the application of standardized
destructive and non-destructive testing programs suitable for each client's specific needs. Our
local staff has expertise with:
. Rehabilitation assessments and structural investigations of steel, concrete, masonry and
wood structures;
. Perfonning building surveys to establish as-built construction details;
. Evaluation of materials through non-destructive and destructive test methods;
. Designing and perfonning full-scale load testing programs and assessments of building
distress;
.
Failure investigations and analysis;
.
Evaluation of design adequacy, construction techniques, and integrity of building
materials;
.
Providing damage assessments and accident reconstruction;
.
Providing expert witness testimony.
56. YP3440ffEM2P042
Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 50f15
, .
, .
{ ,
i,
I'
,
I:
f'
J
l.
[ .
,
I,
f'
,
i
I.
I:
I:
I'
[ :
l:
I:
I:
I;
[\
II
[;
It",q KLEIN FELDER
Our local laboratories are fully equipped for testing soil, rock and construction materials.
Kleinfelder has an in-house quality assurance program to maintain a high level of accuracy and
reproducibility in testing services performed by the firm. Experienced technicians perform the
laboratory tests, and registered professional engineers review the results. All gauges, proving
rings, scales, and other equipment used for testing are calibrated on a regular basis by certified
independent agencies. These services will complement and assist the City engineering staff
throughout construction-related activities. Our trained, experienced technicians, who as stated
earlier undergo certification through NlCET, lCBO and ACl, perform all laboratory tests.
Our own quality assurance program is supplemented with regular inspection by governmental
agencies. Periodic inspection of our testing equipment and testing techniques is conducted by
the U. S. Anny Corps of Engineers, U. S. Navy, and U.S. Forest Service to verify acceptance of
our testing laboratories for work performed for the respective agencies. The most significant
outside quality assurance inspection of our firm is by the National Bureau of Standards through
the Commercial Testing Laboratory Accreditation Program. Our laboratories are capable of
providing both common and specialty soil and materials testing services. Kleinfelder is certified
by Caltrans to perform soil, concrete and asphalt testing services. In addition, we participate in
the Caltrans Laboratory Reference Samples Program and are AASHTO accredited in hot mix
asphalt testing. In addition, our main Inland Empire materials laboratory is State of California
Division of State Architect (DSA) approved.
Kleinfelder has a long, successful track record of providing service on public works related
projects. Approximately 60% of our current projects in Southern California are public works
related, either being performed directly for public agencies or through design/civil engineering
firms. As a result, Kleinfelder is well versed in the requirements for timeliness and efficiency
when working on public sector projects. After 40 years in the business, we have worked with
many federal, state and local agencies (including the City of Temecula) and are knowledgeable
of the applicable codes, regulations and ordinances associated with public works design and
construction. As a result, we are experienced in the requirements for timeliness and efficiency
when working on public sector projects.
56. YP3440rrEM2P042
Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 6 of IS
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE
10
r:lagnntslmasterslannual oontract2002-03\Kleinfelder annual FY02-03/ajp
! '
! '
1_
r'
I,
I'
I.
I'
1.
1
i.
I'
,
l,
J
I.
f'
I.
L
I:
I:
I:
Ii
I;
l!
!:
KLEINFELDER 2002 FEE SCHEDULE FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL/MATERIALS TESTING SERVICES
CITY OF TEMECULA 2002-2003
PROFESSIONAL STAFF RATES.
Professional I ..........................................................................................................................
Professional II .........................................................................................................................
Staff Professional I ..................................................................................................................
Staff Professional II / Project Manager I ..................................................................................
Project Professional 1 Project Manager II .................................................................................
Senior Professional / Senior Project Manager ..........................................................................
Principal Professional ..........................................................................,..................................
Program/Client Manager I ......................................................................................................
Program/Client Manager II ........................ .............................................................................
Senior Principal Professional ..................................................................................................
Senior Program/Client Manager...............................................................................................
ADMINISTRA TIVElTECHNICAL STAFF RATES
Administrative I ......................................................................................................................
Project Administrator I ...........................................................................................................
Project Administrator II ..........................................................................................................
Technician ................................................................. ............................................................
Senior Technician ...................................................................................................................
Supervisory Technician ............................................... ............................................................
Draftsperson......................................................................................... _..................................
CADD Operator...................................................................:...................................................
Designer .................................................................................................................................
$ 86 / hour
$ 95 / hour
$ 104 / hour
$ l13/hour
$ 122 1 hour
$ 140/hour
$ 149 thour
$ 149/hour
$ 158/ hour
$ 1581 hour
$ 167/ hour
$ 60 / hour
$ 67/ hour
$ 77 1 hour
$ 67/ hour
$ 82 / hour
$ 90 / hour
$ 70 / hour
$ 82 / hour
$ 90 1 hour
Public works projects or projects receiving public funds will be subject to California Prevailing Wage laws. The
above rates do apply to projects subject to prevailing wages in California for field technical staff.
.
Applies to all professional rates including but not limited to civil, mechanical, chemical, electrical,
geotechnical and environmental engineers; industrial hygienists; geologists; hydrogeologists; hydrologists; and
computer specialists.
Temewla 2002
(Revised 5/29/02)
GEOTECHNICAUMATERIALS TESTING EQUIPMENT CHARGES
Diamond Bit Core Barrel Charge Asphalt Concrete or Masonry
2" Diameter..................................................... $ 6.20 I inch............................................. $ 4.90 I inch
3" Diameter..................................................... $ 7.75/ inch............................................. $ 5.40 I inch
4" Diameter..................................................... $ 9.25/ inch............................................. $ 6.50 I inch
6" Diameter..................................................... $12.80 / inch............................................. $ 7.751 inch
8" Diameter..................................................... $16.25 / inch............................................. $ 10.82 / inch
Minimum bit charge-6" per job
i.
MATERIALS TESTING EQUIPMENT
Skidmore Wilhelm Bolt Tension Calibrator .............................................................................
Torque Wrench........................................................................................................................
Schmidt Hammer .....................................................................................................................
R Meter (Pachometer) ............................................................................................ ..................
Windsor Probe .........................................................................................................................
Anchor Bolt Testing Device............................................................,........................................
Concrete Vapor Transmission Test Kit-Floors & Slabs....................................................RMA
Thin Lift Nuclear Asphalt Gauge .............................................................................................
Nuclear Asphalt Con1ent Gauge...............................................................................................
Coring Machine with Generator...............................................................................................
Floor Flatness Testing Device ..................................................................................................
I'
I,
I'
1
, .
I'
i'
I.
SOIL AND AGGREGATE TESTS
r'
I.
COMPACTION CURVES
Standard 4" Mold........................................................ .................................. D-698 Method A
Standard 6" Mold...................................................................................... D-698 Method B, C
Modified, 4" Mold ...................................................................................... J)..1557 Method A
Modified, 6" Mold .................................................................................. D-1557 Method B, C
California Impact, Dry Method.............................................................................. CAL-216-F
California Impact, Wet Method................................................................................. CAL-216
Check Point .............................................................................................................................
Relative Density (Maximum and Minimum) .................................................. D-4253 & 4254
I'
I
I,
L
Ii
[:
!:
II
[;
SOIL AND AGGREGATE STABILITY
R- Value, Untreated Material or field Sample............................................................. CAL-301
R- Value, Reproportioned or Chemically -Treated. ..................................................... CAL-301
Correction for oversized material in sample .............................................................. CAL-301
C.B.R 100% Compaction (Includes compaction curve) ....................................D-1883, T-180
C.B.R Other Compaction Effort (Includes compaction curve)......................................D-1883
Soil Cement, C.T.B., Mix Design................... ..........................................................................
C.T.B. Compression Test, (Includes Preparation)........................................ D-1633, CAL-312
Lime-Treated Compression Test (Includes Preparation) ............................................ CAL-373
Check Point ...................................................... ................... ..................................... CAL-373
Cement-Treated Compression Test................................................................. PCA EB052. 06S
BASIC SOIL AND AGGREGATE PROPERTIES
Sieve Analysis, Coarse and Fine Including Wash........................................................... C-136
Sieve Analysis, Coarse (Retained on NO.4 Sieve) .......................................................... C-136
Sieve Analysis, Fine Including Wash (Passing NO.4 Sieve) ........................................... C-136
Sieve Analysis, Wash (% Finer than No. 200 Sieve)....................................................... C-1l7
Hydrometer (Without Sieve Analysis) ...... ......... .............................................................D-422
Hydrometer (Including Sieve Analysis) .......................................................................... D-422
Specific Gravity ......................................................................................C-127, C-128, D-854
Sand Equivalent, Average of 3 ....................................................................... ........... CAL-217
Sand Equivalent, One Point Method ........................................................................................
Plasticity Index............................................................................................................ D-4318
Liquid Limit................................................................................................................ D-4318
Expansion Index Test...................................................................................04829, UBC 18-2
Swell Pressure, Per Point.........................................................................................................
Moisture Determination and Unit Weight .........................................J)..2216, D-2937, D-4643
Moisture Determination Only......................................................................... D-22 16, D-4643
Resistivity of Soil (Laboratory Measurement)................................................. CAL-532 or 643
[ ~
II
Temecula 2002
2
1 :
$ 43.25 I day
$ 43.25 / day
$ 70.00 I day
$ 70.00 / day
$ 21.75 I shot
$ 140.00 I day
$ 60.00 / test
$ 76.00 / day
$ 75.00 / day
$ 151.50 / day
$ 98.00 / day
$ 156.00/ each
$ 177.00/ each
$ 156.001 each
$ 165.00/ each
$ 176.00/ each
$ 136.001 each
$ 108.001 each
$ 253.001 set
$ 204.001 each
$ 246.00/ each
$ 65.00/ each
$ 480.00/ each
$ 565.00/ each
On Request
$ 740.00/ each
$ 740.001 each
$ 226.00/ each
$ 490.00/ each
$ 107.00/ each
$ 70.00/ each
$ 95.001 each
$ 65.00/ each
$ 127.001 each
$ 190.00/ each
$ 75.00/ each
$ 85.00/ each
$ 70.00/ each
$ 130.00/ each
$ 83.00/ each
$ 126.00/ each
$ 79.001 each
$ 39.00/ each
$ 20.001 each
$ 126.001 each
(Revised 5/29/02)
! '
, .
I'
i.
, .
, .
, ,
i.
r'
( .
l.
1 :
I'
I:
t:
I;
I;
I:
I:
, ,
l i
I:
SOIL AND AGGREGATE TESTS ICont.)
pH Test (Laboratory Measurement)......................................................................... EPA-9045
pH Test, Lime Treated Soils................................ ........................................................... C-977
Organic Content-Soils.................................................................................................. 0-2974
Pinhole Test for Dispersive Soils.................................................................................. 0-4647
Dielectric Constant..................................................................................................................
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
Flexible Wall, Falling Head............................................................ 0-5084, EM 1110-2-1906
Rigid Wall Permeability of Undisturbed Sample, up to No.4 Sieve Size...................................
Rigid Wall, Constant Head, Gravel..........................................................................................
SAMPLE PREPARATION
Trimming ................................................................................................................................
Remolding .... ...........................................................................................................................
Splitting.........................,.........................................................................................................
Mixing and Processing.............................................................................................................
SHEAR STRENGTH AND CONSOLIDATION TESTS
Unconfined Compression, Including Moisture Content
and Unit Weight.......................................................................................................... 0-2166
Triaxial Compression Test
Quick Per Point.................................................................................................................
UU Saturated ........................................................................................................ 0-2850
CO Saturated ......................................................................................... EM-I I 10-2-1906
CU Saturated......................................................................................................... 0-4767
CU Saturated with Pore Water Pressure................................................................. 0-4767
Direct Shear (Quick) Per Point (Dry) ...........................................................................0-3080
Oirect Shear (3 point staged test) (Saturated) ...........................................................................
Direct Shear (Residual) Per Point (Saturated)...........................................................................
Consolidation, With Two Time Rates.......................................................................................
Constant Rate of Strain Consolidation, With Time Rate...............................................0-4186
Consolidation, Without Time Rate, Six Load Increments .............................................0-2435
Collapse Potential....................................................................................................................
Note: Special testing procedures that deviate from standard will be charged on a time and
expense basis.
AGGREGATE QUALITY
Injurious Organic Matter.................:................................................................................ C-40
Absorption, Gravel......................................................................................................... C-127
Absorption, Sand........................................................................................................... C-128
Unit Weight, Average of 3 ................... ............................................................................ C-29
Unit Weight, One Point Method............................................... ........................................ C-29
Los Angeles Abrasion Test-500 Revolutions ................................................. CAL-211, C-131
Los Angeles Abrasion Test-I,OOO Revolutions .............................................. CAL-211, C-535
Sulfate Soundness (5 Cycles) Per Sieve Size.................................................... CAL-214, C-88
Mortar Making Properties of Sand (2 ages) ..................................................... CAL-515, C-87
Potential Reactivity Test................................................................................................. C-289
Cleanness Test (Referee Test) ................................................................................... CAL-227
Crushed Particles on Sieved Sample.............................................................. CAL-205, 0-693
Flat and Elongated Particles on Sieved Sample ................................ 0-4791, CE-119, CE-120
Clay Lumps and Friable Particles................................................................................... C-142
Lightweight Pieces in Aggregate............................ ........................................................ C-123
Durability, Fine........................................................................................... CAL-229, 0-3744
Durability, Coarse....................................................................................... CAL-229, 0-3744
Durability Index. Coarse and Fine............................................................... CAL-229, 0-3744
Temecula 2002
3
$ 45.00/ each
$ 84.00/ each
$ 79.00/ each
$ 196.001 each
$ 47.00/ each
$ 324.001 e;u:h
$ 163.00/ each
$ 162.74/ each
$ 49.001 each
$ 65.001 each
$ 48.00/ each
$ 52.00/ hour
$ 89.00/ each
$ 113.001 point
$ 186.00/ point
$ 284.001 point
$ 222.001 point
$ 322.001 point
$ 93.001 each
$ 246.00/ each
$ 93.00/ point
$ 315.00/test
$ 487.00/ test
$ 243.00/ test
$ 89.00/ each
$ 50.00/ each
$ 50.001 each
$ 73.00/ each
$ 83.00/ test
$ 54.001 each
$ 132.001 each
$ 172.001 each
$ 83.00/ each
$ 332.001 each
On Request
$ 122.001 each
$ 122.00/ each
$ 122.00/ each
$ 89.001 each
$ 195.001 each
$ 98.00/ each
$ 147.001 each
$ 219.00/ test
(Revised 5/29/02)
, '
, .
I'
I,
: I
I,
1 '
, .
f'
,
. .
r:
I'
I.
! :
r'
L
[;
L
[;
I;
li
[ :
CONCRETE
Concrete Mix Design Review........... ........................................................................................
Laboratory Trial Batch, Including Compression Testing of Six Specimens...............................
Concrete Cylinder Cured and/or Compression Tested...................................................... C-39
Compression Test, Lightweight Insulating Concrete ...................................................... C-495
Unit Weight of Concrete Cylinders ................................................................................ C-138
Flexural Strength, Concrete Beam........................................................................ C-78, C-293
Compression Test, Gunite/Shotcrete.........................................................................................
Compression Test, Gunite/Shotcrete Panel, Set of 6 Cores .......................................................
Compression Test on Cored Specimens (Includes End Preparation) ................................. C-42
Cylinder Molds ........................................................................................................................
Drying Shrinkage Test, set of3 ..................................................................... C-157, CAL-530
Modulus of Elasticity of 6" x 12" Concrete Cylinder ...................................................... C-469
Splitting Tensile Strength.............................................................................................. C-496
Cement Content of Hardened Concrete ............................................................................ C-85
Density of Spray Applied Fireproofing........................................................................... E-605
Unit Weight of Lightweight Concrete............................................................................. C-567
Concrete Permeability................................................... .......................................... CRD-C-48
Mortar Bar Expansion.................................................................................................... C-227
* Does not include coring
MASONRY
Grout or Mortar Specimen
Cured and/or Compression Tested...........................C-579, C-IOI9, C-780, C-942, C-I09
Compression Test, Masonry Units................................................................................... CI40
Compression Test, 8 x 8 x 16 Prisms or smaIIer.......................................... UBC 24-26, E 447
Compression Test, 10 x 8 x 16 Prisms or smaller ........................................ UBC 24-26, E 447
Compression Test, 12 x 8 x 16 Prisms or smaller ........................................ UBC 24-26, E 447
Absorption and Received Moisture, Masonry Uni!........................................................... C140
Lineal Shrinkage, Masonry Units.................................................................C-426, or Title 21
Compression Strength, Brick ........................................................................................... C-67
Modulus of Rupture, Brick................. _............................................................................. C-67
Absorption Test, Brick, 5-Hour with Coefficient .............................................................. C-67
Shear Test on Masonry or Brick Cores...................................................................... CAL-644
Gront or Mortar Mold.................................................................... ...................................... -...
Breaking Load, Roof Tile ....................................................................................... UBC 32-12
Absorption, Roof Tile............................................................................................. UBC 32-12
Permeability, Roof Tile................................................. ...........................................................
ASPHALT
Specification Tests-AR Grades.................................................................................................
-Liquid Asphalt Grades.....................................................................................................
-Emulsions....................................................................................................................... .
Other Asphalt Tests.................................................................................................................
Centrifuge Kerosene Equivalent................................................................................ CAL-303
Extraction, % Bitumen...............................................................0-1856, D-2172, or CAL-31O
Extraction, % Bitumen, with Gradation ...................................................................................
Film Stripping.................................................................................................. ........ CAL- 302
Stabilometer Test and Mixing of Sample................................................................... CAL-366
Stabilometer Test on Premixed Sample ..................................................................... CAL-366
Swell................ .................................................... ..................................................... CAL-305
Moisture Vapor Susceptibility, in Addition to Stabilometer ....................................... CAL-307
Complete Design of Wearing Surface for a Given Asphalt
and Aggreg;lte, Hveem or Marshall Method......................................................................
Marshall Stability and Flow-Set of3 (Without Mixing)................................................D-1559
Marshall Stability and Flow-Set of3 (Lab Mixed)........................................................0-1559
Superpave Mix Design- Preliminary Voids Analysis only (PMA)..............FHWA SA-95-D03
Superpave Mix Design (Excludes Binder or Agg. Qual. testing)..................FHW A SA-95-D03
Unit Weight of Core or Compacted Sample................................................................... 02726
Moisture Content (Xylene Reflux Method)...................................................................0-1461
Maximum Density of Mix by Marshall Method, Set of3 (Without Mixing)..............................
Maximum Density of Mix by Hveem Method, Set of3 (Without Mixing).... CAL-304, D-1561
Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity (Rice Method).................................................D-2041
Index of Retained Strength............................................................................. D-I074, D-I075
Index of Retained Strength................................................................. US Army Corps Method
Temecu1a 2002
4
$ 190.00/ each
$ 540.001 each
$ 22.00/ each
$ 44.00/ each
$ 44.001 each
$ 84.00/ each
$ 54.001 each
$ 190.00/ set
$ 50.00/ each*
$ 2.75/ each
$ 343.001 each
$ 196.00/ each
$ 63.00/ each
On Request
$ 59.00/ each
$ 59.00/ each
$1100.00/ each
$1100.00/ each
$ 24.001 each
$ 50.001 each
$ 79.001 each
$ 89.001 each
$ 98.001 each
$ 59.00/ each
$ 132.00/ each
$ 49.00/ each
$ 59.001 each
$ 72.001 each
$ 79.00/ each
$ 2.73/ each
$ 35.00/ each
$ 59.00/ each
$ 98.00/ each
On Request
On Request
On Request
On Request
$ 206.00/ each
$ 136.001 each
$ 216.00/ each
$ 103.00/ each
$ 200.00/ each
$ 134.001 each
$ 108.00/ each
$ 216.00/ each
On Request
$ 273.00/ set
$ 351.00/ set
$2,163.001 each
$3,500.001 each
$ 40.00/ each
$ 200.85/ each
$ 161.00/ set
$ 162.00/ set
$ 124.001 each
$ 885.00/ each
$ 605.64/ each
(Revised 5/29/02)
. .
. .
I.
, .
, .
I
I.
1
I.
f
i;
r'
l.
I:
!:
I;
L
li
I:
METALS
Tensile, Up to 0.5 sq. in. Cross Sectional Area.........................................................................
0.5 sq. in. to 1.8 sq. in.......................................................................................................
Greater than 1.8 sq. in.......................................................................................................
Bend Only............................................................................................ ....................................
Tensile and Bend, Up to 0.5 sq. in. Cross Sectional Area ..................................................
Tensile and Bend, 0.5 sq. in. to 1.8 sq. in.................................................................................
Tensile and Bend, Greater than 1.8 sq. in.................................................................................
Pre-Stress Strands, Tensile and Elongation .................................................................... A-416
Pre-Stress Wire, Tensile and Elongation .............................. ..........................................A-421
Machining Costs.................................................................................................. ....................
Weight of Coating (Set of 3) ............................................................................................A-90
Bolts, Nuts & Washers, Hardness, & Load Tests ......................................................................
"
Does not iuclude machining costs, if required.
WELDING QUALIFICATIONS-STRUCTURAL STEEL
(PHYSICAL TEST METHOD-ASME, AWS, API, TITLE 21)
Operator Performance and Procedure Tests..............................................................................
Machiniug and Material Costs.................................................................................................
Laboratory Testing:.................................................................. Gnided Bend Test, face or root
Side Bend Test..................................................................................................................
Free Bend Test..................................................................................................................
Tensile Test (reduced section) ...........................................................................................
Macroetch Test...................................................................................................................
Fracture Test.....................................................................................................................
T Bend Test ......................................................................................................................
Notch Test ........................................................................................................................
Fusion Qualification Test on High Pressure Polyethylene Pipe .................................................
Qualification tests also available by X-ray procedures ..............................................................
"
Does not include machining costs, if required.
ROOFING TESTS
Standard Quantitative Analysis................................................................................................
Weight of Bitumen., Ply Structure Diagram
Standard Quantitative Analysis With Gravel.................................... ............ ............................
Includes Weight of Gravel
Quantitative Analysis................................................................................................... 0-2829
Quantitative Analysis (New Roofs)............................................................................... D- 3617
Unit Weight of Surfacing.........................................................................................................
Unit Weight of Sample............... ..............................................................................................
Diagram of Sample..................................................................................................................
Void Analysis ..........................................................................................................................
Ply Type Identification.............................................................................................................
Mat Type Identification............................................................................................................
Bitumen Sample Recovery.......................................................................................................
Bitumen Type Identification (Softening Point) .........................................................................
Compliance Report ..................................................................................................................
Technical Photograph..............................................................................................................
Roof Moisture Survey...............................................................................................................
Ternecula 2Q02
5
$ 65.00/ each"
$ 76.00/ each"
On Request
$ 32.00/ each
$ 76.00/ each
$ 87.00/ each
On Request
On Request
On Request
At Cost + 20%
$ 113.00/ set
On Request
On Request
On Request
$ 43.25/ each
$ 43.25/ each
$ 43.26/ each
$ 76.oo/each"
$ 70.00/ each
$ 48.40/ each
$ 65.00/ each
$ 54.59/ each
On Request
On Request
$ 157.59/ each
$ 190.55/ each
$ 272.95/ each
$ 190.55/ each
$ 81.37/ each
$ 76.00/ each
$ 81.37/ each
$ 81.37/ each
$ 56.65/ each
$ 59.74/ each
$ 216.30/ each
$ 146.00/ each
On Request
On Request
On Request
(Revised 5/29/02)
I.
I'
I.
i.
I
1.
[ .
I;
,
,
l.
r
..
I;
I:
[;
I:
TIMBER
Moisture Content Measurements..............................................................................................
Strip Tension Test....................................................................................................................
Truss Load Test...................................:...................................................................................
Shear Test..................................................................... ......... ............... ...................................
Qualification Test For Adhesives ......................................... ........................................... .........
Face Joint Bonding Test...........................................................................................................
End Joint Bonding Test............................................................................................................
Temew18 2002
6
$ 21.75 each, +
technician's
hourly rate
$ 97.85 each, +
Machining
cost
On Request
On Request
On Request
On Request
On Request
(Revised 5/29/02)
I'
, '
I.
I'
I,
I'
i.
I:
I.
I ~
I'
I.
I:
[;
I:
!;
I:
ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING AND TESTING EQUIPMENT
SOIL AND WATER
Acoustic Water Level Indicator ...............................................................................................
Air Circulating Fan..................................................................................................................
Air Compressor (3 - 10 cfm) ...................................................................................................
Analog Thermometer' ............................................................................................................
Bailers .:........... ..................................... .......... ........ ...... ........................... ........ ....... ................
Bat Probe .................................................................................................................................
Bed Load Samplers
Hand-Held Low Flow .......................................................................................................
High Flow with Suspension System and Winch ................................................................
Brunton Transit' ........................................................................................... ..........................
Centrifugal Water Pump' ................................. .......................................................................
Christy Box.......... .......... ............................ ...... ............ ...................................... ......................
Concrete Bags - 50 Lbs ............................................................ ................................................
Conductivity. pH, and Temperature Monitor ...........................................................................
Conductivity-Based Water Level Indicator ..............................................................................
Current Meter/Flow Measurement Equipment .........................................................................
Diaphragm Surface Pump .......................................................................................................
Digital Thermometer...............................................................................................................
Disposable Bailers............................................................................................................. .......
Distilled Water.. ............................ .................. ................... ............................ ...... ....................
Groundwater Sampling Truckffrailer .....................................................................................
(Complete with generator, air compressor, sample pump and reel
assembly, steam cleaner and water tank, water level indicator,
conductivity, pH and temperature monitor, bailer) 4-hour minimum
Hand Auger and Soil Sampler .................................................................................................
Hermit Hydrologic Monitor .....................................................................................................
Hydrogen Peroxide Test Kit .....................................................................................................
Interface Probe (oil/water) .......................................................................................................
Isco Composite Water Sampler Unit ............................ ............................................................
Iseo Bladder.............................................................................................................................
Isco Flow Recorder .................................................................................................................
Level or Transit and Rod .........................................................................................................
Line/Cable Locater ..................................................................................................................
Locks.......................................................................................................... ......... ....................
Lysimeter Sampling Equipment ...............................................................................................
Mason Jars...............................................................................................................................
Measuring Wheel' ...................................................................................................................
Metal Detector' ......................................................................................................................
Mileage, Round Trip................................................................................................................
Peristaltic Pump ......................................................................................................................
Personal CompIBasic Soft Sys........................................................................... .......................
pH Meter.................................................................................................................................
Photo Ionization Detector.........................................................................................................
Pipe Cutter and Threader' .......................................................................................................
Portable Air Compressor' ........................................................................................................
Portable Generator* .................................................................................................................
Portable Generator (1.5 to 4 kW) ............................................................................................
Portabte Generator (greater than 4 kW) ...................................................................................
Power Inverter' .......................................................................................................................
Pump Bladders........................................................................................................................
QED Filters .............................................................................................................................
Range Finder* .........................................................................................................................
Sample Transfer Vessel (filter).................................................................................................
Sampling Kit ...........................................................................................................................
Steam Cleaner (0.5 to 2 gpm) ..................................................................................................
Stevens Water Level Recorder* ................................................................................................
.
Weekly and monthly rates available upon request.
Temewta 2002
7
$ 125.00 / day
$ 21.63 / day
$ 113.00 / day
$ 16.50 / day
$ 48.40 / day
$ 43.26 / hour
$ 59.74 / day
$ 97.85 / day
$ 16.50 / day
$ 81.00 / day
$ 103.00 / each
$ 6.50 / each
$ 55.00 / day
$ 55.00 / day
$ 97.85 / day
$ 86.52 / day
$ 16.50 / day
$ 16.50 / each
$ 2.75 / gallon
$ 81.00 / hour
$ 70.00 / day
$ 563.00 / day
$ 6.49 / hour
$ 64.89 / day
$ 183.34 / day
$ 26.00 / each
$ 129.78 / day
$ 98.00 / day
$ 108.15 / day
$ 7.60 / each
$ 38.11 / day
$ 21.75/case
$ 16.50 / day
$ 16.48 / day
$ 92.00 / day
$ 81.00 / day
$ 16.50 / hour
$ 26.75 / day
$173.00 / day
$ 26.78 / day
$ 26.75 / day
$ 43.25 / day
$ 98.00 / day
$ 124.00 / day
$ 21.63 / day
$ 76.22 / each
$ 21.75 / each
$ 16.48 / day
$ 21.63 / day
$ 16.50 / day
$ 123.60 / day
$ 54.59 / day
(Revised 5/29/02)
I'
, ,
I'
i.
, .
,
, ,
I'
1.
f'
I.
I'
I,
[ :
!:
I:
[ :
II
![
Lf,
!:
ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING AND TESTING EQUIPMENT (Continued)
Storage Tanks
500 gallon ........................................................................................................................
2,000 gallon ................................... ..................................................................................
Suspended Sediment Samplers
DH48 Hand-Held Low Flow .............................................................................................
049, D74 High-Flow with Suspension System and Winch ................................................
Syringe Sampler .....................................................................................................................
Trailer-Mounted 4-inch Submersible Pwnp and Reel Assembly..............................................
Transducer and SElOOO Recorder ...........................................................................................
Variable Voltage Supply. ...............................................................................:........................
Walkie Talkie Set....................................................................................................................
Well Development Tool ..................................... .....................................................................
AIR AND GAS
Absolute Pressure Transducer ......... .........................................
Bacharach 0, Combustible Analyzer .......................................
Barhole Puncn .........................................................................
Barometer ................................................................................
Calibration Gas ........... ...................................... ,......................
Calibration Gas Regulator ........................................................
Combustible Gas Analyzer .......................................................
Differential Pressure Transducer ..............................................
Draeger Quantimeter ...............................................................
Draeger Tubes .................................... --.. --............... --.... --........-
Dual Ambient Air Sampler .................__..__....____........__..__.........
Field Gas Chromatograph ....__......__........__....__........__................
Fyrite COz or Oz Indicator ......................................................
Gas Chromatograph (office) .....................................................
Gas Production Curves .............................................................
Integrated Surface Sampler ......................................................
lrrometer ..................................................................................
Kurz Velocity Meter ................................................................
Magnehelic Gauge .......................... .........................................
Moisture Meter ........................................................................
Nalgene Hand Pwnp ................................................................
Oz Analyzer ............................................................................
organic Vapor Analyzer or Photoionization Detector ...............
Organic Vapor Analyzer with Strip Chart Recorder .................
Orifice Plate .............................................................................
Pitot Tubes ...............................................................................
Portable Brailsford Pwnp or Equivalent ...................................
Slack Tube Manometer ............................................................
Sound Level Meter ...................................................................
Strip Chart Recorder (dual pen) ...............................................
Strip Chart Recorder (single pen) .............................................
Submersible Pwnp (3") .............................................................
Tedlar Air Sample Bag ............................................................
Test Skid..................................................................................
Test Trailer ..............................................................................
Vibration Analyzer...................................................................
Voltmeter ........................................ .........................................
Wind Speed and Direction Indicator (one system each) ............
.
Weekly and monthly rates available upon request.
Temewla 2002
8
$ 16.48 / day
$ 16.48 I day
$ 64.89 I day
$ 96.82 / day
$ 167.89 / day
$ 389.34 I day
$ 249.26 / day
$ 942.45 / week
$ 26.78 / day
$ 26.75 / day
$ 65.00 I day
Rate/Dav RatelWeek Rate/Month
$ 25.75 $ 86.52 $ 267.80
43.26 129.78 422.30
21.63 59.74 146.26
16.48 48.41 140.08
8.75 26.78 70.04
8.76 26.78 81.37
65.00 226.60 692.16
26.75 96.82 281.19
129.78 442.90 1,375.05
16.48 each
70.00 211.15 757.05
628.30 2,513.20 6,921.60
16.48 38.11 123.60
76.22 each run
442.90 each run
43.26 129.78 422.30
8.65 26.78 76.22
26.75 97.85 281.19
16.50 48.40 141.11
16.50 48.41 141.11
21.63 64.89 206.00
77.00 257.50 746.75
200.00 607.70 2,111.50
227.00 628.00 2,389.60
26.78 81.37 281.19
16.48 49.44 140.08
38.11 113.30 367.71
8.76 26.78 76.22
55.00
21.63 64.89 206.00
21.63 64.89 206.00
86.52
38.11 each
346.08 1,199.95 3,821.30
412.00 1,494.00 4,532.00
70.04
8.76 26.78 70.04
422.30 1,493.50
(Revised 5/29/02)
, .
I'
I,
I'
i,
l'
I.
! .
, ,
I'
I,
I'
I.
[ :
r'
I.
L
I ~
I;
I!
Il
[I,
I)
MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION MATERIALS.
Casing, Blank Schedule 40, PVC with Threaded Joints
10-foot lengths ...................................................................................
Casing, Blank Schedule 40, PVC with Threaded Joints
5-foot lengths .....................................................................................
Casing, Screens, 0.02-inch Slots, Schedule 40 PVC with
Threaded Joints, 10-foot lengths..........................................................
Casings, Screens, 0.02-inch Slots, Schedule 40 PVC with
Threaded Joints, 5-foot lengths ...........................................................
Casing, PVC Plug .....................................................................................
Casing, PVC Cap ......................................................................................
Sand, 100-lb bag .......................................................................................
Bentonite Pellets, 50-lb bucket ..................................................................
Drums .......................................................................................................
Granulated Bentonite, 50-lb sack ...............................................................
Ground Pump and Controller .....................................................................
Cement/Bentonite Slurry ...........................................................................
Security Tops ............................................................................................
Brass Tubes ..............................................................................................
· Quotations on prices for PVC well casings greater than 4-inch
diameter and other materials (stainless steel, etc.) provided on request.
HEALTH AND SAFETY EQUIPMENT
Portable Personnel Decontamination Trailer .............................................
Personnel Air Sampling Pump ..................................................................
Borehole Ventilation System .....................................................................
Level B Protectiona ...................................................................................
Level C Protectiona ...................................................................................
Level D Protectiona ...................................................................................
Limited Level D Protectiona .....................................................................
a Charges for each protection level are based on dry work conditions
and use of uncoated PVC/nitrile/neoprene gloves. A nominal charge for
wet work conditions requiring coated or special chemical resistant
coveralls (i.e., Saranex) and gloves (i.e., Viton) may be added.
2-inch 4-inch
$ 7.62/ foot $ 16.4& / foot
$ &.75/ foot $ 21.63/ foot
$ &.75/foot $ 21.63/ foot
$ 9.79/ foot $ 31.93/ foot
$ &. 75 / each $ 27.&1 / each
$ 16.50/ each $ 3&.11 / each
$ 33.00/ bag
$ 124.00 / bucket
$ 57.00 / each
$ 55.00 / sack
$1,030.00/ month
$ 146.26/ cubic yard
$ 249.00 I each
$ &.65 / each
$ 269.&6 I day
$ 9&.00 I day
$ 206.00 / day
$ 270.89 I day I person
$ 173.00 I day / person
$ 49.00 I day / person
$ 39.00 / day / person
SPECIAL MEDICAL SURVEILLANCE COSTS
Baseline physical costs are covered by the company; however, project-specific medical tests will be charged at cost,
plus 20%.
Temecula 2002
9
(Revised 5/29/02)
, .
, i
OTHER EQUIPMENT CHARGES
! '
! .
GEOPHYSICAL EXPLORATION EQUIPMENT
Seismograph, Single Channel Bison Model1570C or Nimbus
Model ES-125 ..................................................................................................................
Seismograph, Twelve Channel Nimbus Model ESI210F ........................................................
Resistivity Meter, Bison Model #2390 .....................................................................................
Soil Test Model R-40C ........................................... ..........................................................
Megger Earth Tester ........................................................................................................
Magnetometer, Portable Proton-Geometrics Model 6816 .........................................................
Electromagnetics .....................................................................................................................
Terrain Conductivity Meter
Geonics Model EM 31.......................................................................................................
Downhole Shear Wave Velocity Measurement .........................................................................
Blast and Vibration Monitor, VM-IOO (Normal set up and takedown)......................................
Slope Indicator (4-hour minimum)...........................................................................................
Pneumatic Piezometer Indicator
Sinco Model 51411-A .......................................................................................................
Sealed Double Ring lnfiltrometer
Test Equipment.................................................................................................................
,.
,
.
I.
r'
I.
I'
i.
! '
,
I.
OFFICE EQUIPMENT
Microcomputer, basic software systems and supPorting hardware.............................................
Mainframe Computer Time-Sharing (per CPU minute)............................................................
Camera and Film .....................................................................................................................
Computer Connect Time...................................................................... -...................................
Disk: Storage (per megabyte) ....................................................................................................
Environmental Information Management System Software Surcharge .....................................
Project Management and CPM Software Surcharge .................................................................
Reproduction ..........................................................................................................................
Telephone ...............................................................................................................................
Facsimile Copies .....................................................................................................................
Report Surcharge ....................................................................................................................
Large Format Drawing Copies, 20-lb Bond .............................................................................
Large Format Drawing Copies, Erasable Vellum .....................................................................
Large Format Drawing Copies, Precision Trim .......................................................................
Mylar Reproductions................................................................................................................
Autocad Drafting, Hardware and Software ...".........................................................................
Autocad Drawing Plots ...........................................................................................................
Video Camera .........................................................................................................................
! .
i.
I:
I:
L
I:
I [
II
li
U.
I:
Temecula 2002
10
$ 195.00 /day
$ 510.00 /day
$ 170.00 /day
$ 139.05 /day
$ 108.00 /day
$ 195.00 /day
$ 226.60 /day
$ 206.00 /day
On Request
$ 412.00 /day
$ 48.41 /hour
$ 185.40 /day
On Request
$ 21.63 /hour
$ 9.27 /minute
$ 21.75 /week
$ 7.73 /hour
$ 76.22 Imonth
$ 16.48 /hour
$ 16.48 /hour
$ 0.52 /page
$ 0.52 /minute
$ 2.60 /page
$ 38.00 /copy
$ 2.73 /sq ft
$ 3.81 /sq ft
$ 1.65 leach
$ 16.48 /sheet
$ 32.96 /hour
$ 1.65 /minute
$ 76.22 /day
(Revised 5/29/02)
ITEM 11
..'~
,..,
i ..
-
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINAN
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
City Manager/City Council
rrJlwilliam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
July 23, 2002
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Annual Professional Services Agreements for Engineering and Construction
Survey Services for Various Capital Improvement Projects for FY2002-2003
PREPARED BY:
Amer Attar, Senior Engineer - Capital Projects
Laura Bragg, Project Engineer - Capital Projects ~
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Approve the annual agreement with Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. in an amount not to
exceed $60,000 to provide as needed engineering and construction survey services; and
2. Approve the annual agreement with Project Design Consultants in an amount not to exceed
$60,000 to provide as needed engineering and construction survey services; and
3. Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreements.
BACKGROUND: There are various projects described in the approved Capital
Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2003 to 2007 that will require engineering and construction
survey services. The attached agreements are for two separate annual contracts to provide as
needed services and these services will be utilized on projects that are approved in the Capital
Improvement Program or for special projects that come up through out the year.
Two firms have been selected for annual agreements so that the City is assured that at least one
firm will be available when needed. Once the annual agreements are executed, each service
request will be negotiated separately with one of the two firms and may contain some or all of the
following services:
. Research existing survey data such as maps, records of survey, monument ties, and
benchmarks.
. Locate existing monuments.
. Performing boundary and control surveys.
· Prepare legal descriptions and plat maps for right-of-way acquisition.
. Perform Aerial mapping and topographic surveys.
. Establish and verify horizontal and vertical control.
. Locate horizontally to 0.1 j; feet all existing facilities.
. Performing field surveying for project design purposes.
A:\AGENDA REPORTS\2002\072302\ANNUAl CONTRACT Survey.AGR.DOC
. Perform construction staking including center lines, limits of clearing and grubbing and
construction, slopes, saw cuts, edge of pavement, layout lines, drainage structures, curb &
gutters, etc.
The actual number of projects and costs are not known at this time. Payment will be based upon
actual time spent on tasks as directed by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. An
accumulative not to exceed limit of $60,000 has been set by for each Agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Consultant will submit a cost proposal for each service request. Once a
scope of service and a schedule of fees are negotiated, funds are allocated from the corresponding
project budget. Only approved CIP projects will utilize the services under these agreements, unless
directed otherwise by the City Manager or City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Agreement with Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc.
2. Agreement with Project Design Consultants
2
R:\A.GENDA REPORTS\2002\072302\ANNUAl CONTRACT Survey.AGR.DOC
CITY OF TEMECULA
ANNUAL AGREEMENT
FOR
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SURVEY SERVICES
FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of July 23, 2002, between the City of
Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc., ("Consultant"). In
consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on July 23, 2002, and shall remain
and continue in effect until June 30, 2003, unless terminated or extended pursuant to the provisions
of this Agreement.
2. SERVICES. This is an annual contract for engineering and construction
survey services on an as needed basis. Consultant can perform any of the services and tasks
described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in
full.
When there is a need for engineering and construction survey on an as needed
services, the City will identify the specific scope of work, and request a fee schedule from the
consultant. The City will instruct the consultant to proceed with the work once the exact scope of
work and the associated fees are negotiated.
3. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to
the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant
shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons
engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its
obligations under this Agreement.
4. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the
Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of
per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft,
classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract from the Director of the
Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City Clerk. Copies may be
obtained at cost at the City Clerk's office ofTemecula. Consultant shall provide a copy of prevailing
wage rates to any staff or sub-contractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a
minimum. Consultant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5,
1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code,
Consultant shall forfeit to the City, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion
thereof, each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates
for any work done under this contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the
provisions of the Contract.
5. PAYMENT.
a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates
and terms and the schedule of payment as negotiated and as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates
and Schedule, as modified on the consultant letter of June 27, 2001, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the
tasks as directed by the City on an as needed basis. Consultant shall not bill the City for any
travel time and expenses associated with it, nor shall he charge a set minimum number of
1
r:\agrmts\masters\annual rontract2002-03\Cozad annual FY02-03/ajp
hours for each site visit. Any terms in Exhibit B other than the payment rates are null and void.
The total cumulative annual amount shall not exceed Sixty Thousand Dollars and No Cents
($60,000.00) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided
in this Agreement.
b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection
with its performance of this Agreement unless such additional services are authorized in advance
and in writing by the City. Consultant shall be compensated for services in the amounts and in the
manner as agreed to by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and Consultant at the time City's
written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. Any additional work
in excess of the amount above 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 nondisputed fees. If the City disputes any of consultant's fees it shall give written
notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the
invoice.
6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE.
a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or
terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10)
days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all
work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates
a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the
remainder of this Agreement.
b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City
shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination,
provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement
pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 4.
7. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT.
a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall
constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this
Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work
performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice
to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work
hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of
the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default.
b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default
in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant
with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (10) days after service upon it of said
notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the
Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right,
notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further
notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under
this Agreement.
2
r:lagrmts\masterslannual contract2002-03\Cozad annual FY02-03/ajp
8. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS.
a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to
sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the
performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of
services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be
maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identi-
fied and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its
designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and
audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and
shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this
Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of
three (3) years after receipt of final payment.
b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this
Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data
generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the
services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and
may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant.
With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make
available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software
and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files.
c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not
be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location
other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant.
9. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect
and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any
and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert
witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may
sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to
property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any
way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising
out of the negligence of the City.
10. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for
the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property
which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the
Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees.
a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
(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
r:\agrmts\masters\annual contract2002-03\Cozad annual FY02-03/ajp
(3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of
California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no
employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's
compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute
a declaration that it has no employees.
(4) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form
providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession.
b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:
(1) General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury,
personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability
Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either
the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this
projecUlocation or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the
required occurrence limit.
(2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and
property damage.
(3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California;
Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) peraccidentfor
bodily injury or disease.
(4) Professional Liability coverage: Two million ($2,000,000) per claim
and in aggregate.
c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured
retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City
Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as
respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a
bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense
expenses.
d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability
policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
(1) The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be
covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities
performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed
operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by
the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by
the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on
the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials,
employees or volunteers.
(2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance
coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers,
officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured
maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers
shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute
with it.
4
r:\agrmts\masters\annual contract2002-03\Cozad annual FY02-03/ajp
(3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies
including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to
the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
(4) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to
the limits of the insurer's liability.
(5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to
state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by
either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30)
days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested,
has been given to the City.
e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a
current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self
insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements.
f. Verification of Coveraae. 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 altemative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide
complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the
coverage required by these specifications.
11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent
contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant
shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its
officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any
of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant
shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are
in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the
power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner.
b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the
performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the
Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing
services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to
Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
12. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all
local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those
employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The
Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations.
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.
5
r:\agrmts\masterslannual contract2002-03\Cozad annual FY02-03/ajp
13. RELEASE OF INFORMATION.
a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall
be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written
authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written
authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide
declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other
information conceming the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or
property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered
"voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers,
employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of
deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery
request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed
thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right,
but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar
proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to
review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review
any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said
response.
14. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other
party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (I) personal service, (ii)
delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that
provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail,
certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address ofthe party as
set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be
effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following
deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above.
To City:
City of T emecula
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, Califomia 92590
Attention: City Manager
To Consultant:
Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc.
151 South Girard Street
Hemet, California 92544-4462
Attention: Kevin B. Cozad, President
15. 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.
16. 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.
6
r:lagrmts\masterslannual contract2002-03\Cozad annual FY02-03/ajp
17. 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
judgement, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief
granted.
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. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No member, officer, or employee of the City of
Temecula or of a local public body shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the contract of the
proceeds thereof during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter.
Furthermore, the contractor/consultant covenants and agrees to their
knowledge that no board member, officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest,
whether contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of
the contracting party other than the City of Temecula, and that if any such interest comes to the
knowledge of either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all such information will be
made, in writing, to the other party or parties, even if such interest would not be considered a conflict
of interest under Article 4 (commencing with Section 1090) or Article 4.6 9commencing with Section
1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of Califomia.
20. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons
executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the
authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind
Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
7
r:lagrmts\masterslannual contract2002-03\Cozad annual FY02-03/ajp
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the
day and year first above written.
CITY OF TEMECULA
Ron Roberts, Mayor
Attest:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
Approved As to Form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
CONSULTANT
Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc.
151 S. Girard St.
Hemet, CA 92544-4462
(909) 652-4454
Kevin B. Cozad, President
Kevin B. Cozad, Secretary
(Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations)
8
r:lagrmts\masterslannual contract2002-03\Cozad annual FY02-03/ajp
EXHIBIT A
TASKS TO BE PERFORMED
9
r:lagrmts\masterslannual contract2002-03\Cozad annual FY02-03/ajp
J
Annual Agreement for Engineering
and Construction Survey Services
City of Temecula
Statement of Qualifications
May 29, 2002
I
]
I
I
I
]
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS FOR ANNUAL
ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION SURVEY SERVICES
The City of Temecula is continuing to implement an aggressive Capital Improvements Project
Program to expand and improve the city's infrastructure. As part of the program, the City of
Temecula requires professional engineering and construction surveying services for the planning,
design and construction of new facilities and the improvement and maintenance of existing
facilities. This may include research, boundary and control surveys, topographic surveys, aerial
topographic surveys, and construction surveying. Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. has the staff
and experience to provide these services to the City of Temecula.
We believe our firm can provide the best service to the City because:
. We maintain a manageable staff providing consulting services only to a small number of
municipal clients. As a result, you get our best team with one of our principals as
project manager.
. We have twenty-five years of experience meeting City, County and Caltrans standards.
. Our engineers are also surveyors. We see the project from the perspective of the office
and the field. Our experience in surveying, roadway design, traffic signalization, and such
diverse areas as hydrology, hydraulics, culvert and bridge design, sound wall design,
retaining wall design, environmental assessment, or construction administration means our
team can assist the City with all aspects of the project.
. We have provided similar services to most cities within Westem Riverside County.
. Although, we can provide our own in-house surveying services, landscape plans, signing
and striping plans, traffic control plans, soil erosion control plans, right-of-way plans and
other speciality services, we also do not hesitate to rely on subconsultants for traffic
engineering, geotechnical services or additional surveying services.
. Before we begin a project, we prepare a detailed list of tasks required to complete the
project The detailed tasks provide a basis for estimating our services, maintaining control
and providing a scope of services to be included with the contract.
1
Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc.
~
]
1
]
I
I
I
I
Annual Agreement for Engineering
and Construction Survey Services
City of Temecula
Statement of Qualifications
May 29, 2002
I INTRODUCTION TO KEVIN COZAD & ASSOCIATES, INC. I
Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. is a full service consulting engineering firm that, since 1977, has
provided civil engineering, structural engineering, planning, surveying, environmental assessment,
and construction administration services to a wide range of public agencies throughout Southem
California. Our highly qualified team of principles and professionals with extensive consulting
experience will apply their expertise with Eagle Point Road Calc and TOS data collection software
to your projects. Utilizing 100% CAD-based design and analysis, we can also provide fully
compatible AutoCAD or Micro Station computerized files to the City of Temecula.
Currently, Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. is working with the City of Temecula, the Eastem
Municipal Water District and the Riverside County Transportation Department as "Qualified
Consultants" providing engineering, surveying and environmental services for multiple projects.
During the past 25 years, we have also provided services to the cities of Riverside, Hemet, San
Jacinto, Perris, Loma Linda and San Bernardino; school districts; hospital districts; Rancho
Califomia Water District, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, Lake Hemet Municipal Water
District, the University of Redlands, and the University of California, Riverside.
Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. performs our own in-house surveying with staff members that
are surveyors and that also have significant office design experience. The survey crew uses
'state-of-the-art" survey equipment including "Robotic" electronic total stations with vertical axis
compensation and full data collection interface with TDS data collection software for fast and
efficient data collection, stake-out and transfer to office computers. Kevin Cozad & Associates,
Inc. also utilizes GPS software for large scale control and aerial targeting surveys.
I
FIRM DESCRIPTION AND ORGANIZATION
I
Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. 's staff that will be assigned to your projects includes three civil
engineers, two dual licensed in surveying, one project engineer who is a Licensed Land Surveyor,
and two with Land Surveyor-in-Training certificates. All staff members have both extensive
professional design and surveying experience. Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. believes the key
to quality control is to assign the same professional to the survey crew that will be performing the
in-house design for projects. In this way, our staff becomes intimately familiar with the type and
accuracy of control and topographic data required by the design professional to prepare
improvement plans and the requirements of the contractor during construction.
2
Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc.
J
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
Annual Agreement for Engineering
and Construction Survey Services
City of Temecula
Statement of Qualifications
May 29, 2002
I
AVAILABLE SERVICES
~
.
Preliminary Research & Surveying - Survey research at the City of Temecula, the
County of Riverside, Riverside County Flood Control and local utilities to obtain
both recorded and unrecorded survey maps, monument ties and benchmarks.
.
Research and analyze the existing recorded and unrecorded survey maps and
compare to field monuments and field conditions. Review title reports and deeds
to determine property boundaries and control.
.
Obtain traffic control and encroachment permits from the City, the County and
Caltrans to enter the public right-of-way during construction surveying.
Provide traffic control during construction surveying in the public right-of-way.
. Perform boundary and control surveys using record information and monument ties
to locate existing monuments for street centerline and property lines for control
mapping. At Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. 's option, global positioning system
(GPS) equipment may be used for either control or topographic surveying.
. Utilizing Riverside County benchmark NGVD 29 datum obtained from the County,
the City or MWD, Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. can establish and verify vertical
control and provide topographic surveying, construction surveying or large scale
aerial mapping. Set 4"-wide 4' X 4' aerial targets with X, Y, Z coordinates for
horizontal and vertical control for aerial topographic surveying. Provide closure
and reference maps to aerial survey firm for preparation of the aerial topographic
survey map.
. Perform field topographic surveys to collect field data, spot elevations and surface
features of utilities with sufficient overlap for design of improvements for
construction utilizing robotic total stations with TOS data collection software.
Hardscape physical features will be located both horizontally and vertically within
.02:t foot accuracy. Natural ground features will be located within .10 :t foot
accuracy.
. Digital data reduction of topographic information, record utility locations, and aerial
topographic data to a three-dimensional AutoCAD 14, 2000 or 'ntergraph .OGN
compatible file.
3
Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc.
1
I
1
]
1
1
I
I
1
1
Annual Agreement for Engineering
and Construction Survey Services
City of Temecula
Statement of Qualifications
May 29, 2002
. Perform construction surveying for road and facility improvements utilizing the
design engineer's CAD file, if available. Meet with the City and the contractor and
determine the exact staking requirements for the project. Set off-set stakes, blue
tops and other construction stakes required by the contractor to perform the
grading and the construction of facilities. Perform office calculations for field stake
out and provide cut sheets and control information to the City and the contractor.
. Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. will also submit to the City:
A. Utility location maps signed and stamped by Brian Fox, Professional Land
Surveyor No. 7171, color coded per Caltrans utility mapping standards.
B. Survey notes for the project route.
C. Record maps collected from utility companies or public agencies for the
project route.
I
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
I
Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. can also provide the following additional services to the
City:
. Utility Research - Obtain available maps for water, sewer, electricity, gas,
telephone, cable TV, and other known utilities in the project area. The results of
the utility research can be added to the digital survey data file containing the
topography.
. Field Locating of Existing Utilities - Verify surface utility markings along the project
route. Above ground power and telephone poles can be field verified. Overhead
wires can be located per record information.
. Research for the Acquisition of Right-of-Way - Research and obtain existing right-
of-way documents and plot the existing right-of-way for review by the City. Prepare
legal descriptions and plat maps for additional right-of-way and coordinate
acquisition of right-of-way with the City.
4
Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc.
1
I
]
]
I
]
I
I
Annual Agreement for Engineering
and Construction Survey Services
City of Temecula
Statement of Qualifications
May 29, 2002
. Coordination with Utility Purveyors - Meet with utility purveyors to coordinate the
design of utilities that must be relocated for new construction. Redesign facilities,
prepare construction cost estimates and prepare legals and plat maps for
additional easements.
. Potholing - Additional subsurface utility exploration can be performed by potholing
to accurately verify location and elevation of underground crossings. All
topographic information and utility locations will be submitted to City staff for review
in order to determine the alignment and to assign pothole locations. Assist City
staff in determining location and ultimate number of potholes.
. Three-Dimensional Utility File - Plot available record and field verified underground
and overhead utility information on the utility location map. Utility information will
be plotted as a separate 3-<limensional digital file representing utility locations
within the project limits. Utilities can be color coded per Caltrans Utility Mapping
Standards.
. State Plane Coordinates - Assignment of state plane coordinates NAD-83 (CCS-
83) Zone 6, Califomia State Plane Coordinate System, can be used at control
points along the route.
. Overall Project Feasibility - Review preliminary information to determine the overall
feasibility of project, considering topography. existing utilities and conceptual
design. Prepare preliminary construction cost estimates for City review.
. Project Management - Provide project management and coordination services of
design consultants and processing through agencies for the City.
. Construction Administration and Inspection Services - Monitor compliance with
plans, contracts and specifications. Review change orders, determine percentage
completion and verify quality control.
. Prepare traffic control and barricade plans for construction.
. Full color photographic exhibits of facility or project routes.
. Video tape records of routes or sites before and after construction.
5
Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc.
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE
10
r:lagrmts\masterslannual contract2002-03\Cozad annual FY02-Q3/ajp
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
KEVIN COZAD
, &ASSOCIATES, INC.
. CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
. MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS
. SURVEYORS / GPS
. PLANNERS
SCHEDULE OF FEES
November 1, 2001
GENERAL SCOPE OF SERVICES
Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. provides services in the fields of civil engineering, structural
engineering, and land surveying in accordance with presently accepted professional practices.
Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. does not provide services relating to construction safety and
shall be held harmless by the contractor from any liability in this regard. In the event that the client
requests termination of work prior to its completion, we reserve the right to complete, at the client's
expense, such analysis and records as are considered necessary by us to place our files in order
and/or to protect our professional reputation.
PERSONNEL CHARGES - RATES PER HOUR
Principal Civil Engineer/Principal Land Surveyor/Structural Engineer .............. 160.00
Project Manager. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 140.00
Project Engineer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 120.00
CAD Drafting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80.00
Administrative/Project Coordination ......................................... 75.00
Typing, printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.00
Survey - Office Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 120.00
Survey Crew with Robotic Total Station (4 hr. minimum) ........................ 195.00
(Travel time charged portal to portal)
Survey Crew w/ GPS ........................................ Estimated by project
OTHER CHARGES
Expert Witness - Deposition and/or Court appearance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Two times hourly rate
Expert Witness - Research, Case Review and/or Preparation . . . . . . . . . .. Normal hourly rate
Mileage to and from meetings or project site .............................. $0.35/mile
Blueprints, Duplicating, Photography, Binding, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Cost + 20%
Telephone calls, Postage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Cost + 20%
Field Supplies (stakes, monuments, etc.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Cost + 20%
TERMS OF PAYMENT
All services will be progress billed weekly, and all invoices are due and payable when issued unless
otherwise agreed. Retainers are required for all projects. Our fee schedule is based upon prompt
payment of fees. Interest will accrue at the rate of 1 Y:i percent of the invoice total per month on invoices
30 days old or older. If suit or action is instituted to collect any sum due, the client shall be liable for
attorney's fees and court costs.
151 South Girard Street. Hemet, CA 92544-4462
909/652-4454 . FAX: 909/766-8942 . cozad@ivic.net
CITY OF TEMECULA
ANNUAL AGREEMENT
FOR
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SURVEY SERVICES
FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2002.2003
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of July 23,2002, between the City of
Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Project Design Consultants, ("Consultant"). In
consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on July 23,2002, and shall remain
and continue in effect until June 30, 2003, unless terminated or extended pursuanttothe provisions
of this Agreement.
2. SERVICES. This is an annual contract for engineering and construction
survey services on an as needed basis. Consultant can perform any of the services and tasks
described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in
full.
When there is a need for engineering and construction survey on an as needed
services, the City will identify the specific scope of work, and request a fee schedule from the
consultant. The City will instruct the consultant to proceed with the work once the exact scope of
work and the associated fees are negotiated.
3. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to
the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant
shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons
engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its
obligations under this Agreement.
4. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the
Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of
per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft,
classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract from the Director of the
Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City Clerk. Copies may be
obtained at cost at the City Clerk's office ofTemecula. Consultant shall provide a copy of prevailing
wage rates to any staff or sub-contractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a
minimum. Consultant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5,
1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code,
Consultant shall forfeit to the City, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion
thereof, each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates
for any work done under this contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the
provisions of the Contract.
5. PAYMENT.
a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates
and terms and the schedule of payment as negotiated and as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates
and Schedule, as modified on the consultant letter of June 27, 2001, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the
tasks as directed by the City on an as needed basis. Consultant shall not bill the City for any
travel time and expenses associated with it, nor shall he charge a set minimum number of
1
r:lagrmts\masterslannual contract2002-03\Project Design annual FY02-03/ajp
hours for each site visit. Any terms in Exhibit B other than the payment rates are null and void.
The total cumulative annual amount shall not exceed Sixty Thousand Dollars and No Cents
($60,000.00) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided
in this Agreement.
b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection
with its performance of this Agreement unless such additional services are authorized in advance
and in writing by the City. Consultant shall be compensated for services in the amounts and in the
manner as agreed to by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and Consultant at the time City's
written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. Any additional work
in excess of the amount above 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 nondisputed fees. If the City disputes any of consultant's fees it shall give written
notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the
invoice.
6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE.
a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or
terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10)
days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all
work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates
a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the
remainder of this Agreement.
b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City
shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination,
provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement
pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 4.
7. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT.
a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall
constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this
Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work
performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice
to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work
hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of
the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default.
b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default
in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant
with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (10) days after service upon it of said
notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the
Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right,
notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further
notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under
this Agreement.
2
r:lagrmts\masterslannual contract2002.03IProject Design annual FY02-D3/ajp
8. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS.
a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to
sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the
performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of
services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be
maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identi-
fied and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its
designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and
audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and
shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this
Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of
three (3) years after receipt of final payment.
b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this
Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data
generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the
services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and
may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant.
With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make
available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software
and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files.
c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not
be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location
other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant.
9. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect
and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any
and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert
witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may
sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to
property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any
way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising
out of the negligence of the City.
10. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for
the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property
which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the
Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees.
a. Minimum Scooe 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
r:lagrmts\masterslannual contract2002-03\Project Design annual FY02-03/ajp
(3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of
California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no
employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's
compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute
a declaration that it has no employees.
(4) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form
providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession.
b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:
(1) General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury,
personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability
Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either
the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this
project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the
required occurrence limit.
(2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and
property damage.
(3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California;
Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for
bodily injury or disease.
(4) Professional Liability coverage: Two million ($2,000,000) per claim
and in aggregate.
c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured
retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City
Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as
respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a
bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense
expenses.
d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability
policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
(1) The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be
covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities
performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed
operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by
the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by
the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on
the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials,
employees or volunteers.
(2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance
coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers,
officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured
maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers
shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute
with it.
4
r:lagrmts\masterslannual contract2002-03IProject Design annual FY02-03/ajp
(3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies
including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to
the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
(4) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to
the limits of the insurer's liability.
(5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to
state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by
either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30)
days' prior written notice by certified mail, retum receipt requested,
has been given to the City.
e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a
current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self
insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements.
f. Verification of Coveraae. 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 altemative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide
complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the
coverage required by these specifications.
11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent
contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant
shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its
officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any
of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant
shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are
in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the
power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner.
b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the
performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the
Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing
services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to
Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
12. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all
local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those
employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The
Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations.
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.
5
r:lagrmts\masterslannual contract2002-03IProject Oesign annual FY02-03/ajp
13. RELEASE OF INFORMATION.
a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall
be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written
authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written
authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide
declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other
information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or
property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered
"voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers,
employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of
deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery
request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed
thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right,
but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar
proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to
review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review
any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said
response.
14. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other
party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (I) personal service, (ii)
delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that
provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail,
certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as
set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be
effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following
deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above.
To City:
City of T emecula
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: City Manager
To Consultant:
Project Design Consultants
43460 Ridge Park Drive, Suite 170
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: Scott A. Hurst, Assistant Vice President
15. 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.
16. 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.
6
r:lagnnts\masterslannual contract2002-D3\Project Design annual FY02-03/ajp
17. 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
judgement, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief
granted.
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. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No member, officer, or employee of the City of
Temecula or of a local public body shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the contract of the
proceeds thereof during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter.
Furthermore, the contractor/consultant covenants and agrees to their
knowledge that no board member, officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest,
whether contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of
the contracting party other than the City of Temecula, and that if any such interest comes to the
knowledge of either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all such information will be
made, in writing, to the other party or parties, even if such interest would not be considered a conflict
of interest under Article 4 (commencing with Section 1090) or Article 4.6 9commencing with Section
1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California.
20. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons
executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the
authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind
Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
7
r:lagrmts\masterslannual contract2002-03\Project Design annual FY02-03/ajp
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the
day and year first above written.
CITY OF TEMECULA
Ron Roberts, Mayor
Attest:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
Approved As to Form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
CONSULTANT
Project Design Consultants
43460 Ridge Park Dr., Suite 170
Temecula, CA 92590
(909) 695-5596
Scott A. Hurst, Asst. Vice President
Arnie White, Sr. Vice President
(Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations)
8
r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contract2002-03IProject Design annual FY02-03/ajp
EXHIBIT A
TASKS TO BE PERFORMED
9
r:lagrmts\masterslannual contract2002-03\Project Design annual FY02-03/ajp
']
]
. ]
. ]
]
]
]
]
I
I
I
I
I
]
I
]
J
I
I
I
I
]
]
I
]
]
)
::jj.it"'"~ City cfTemacllla
:a Rmnmst For Q!l?!lfic3t!cns
,... ....r -r!.... ~-."' . ....:'1:" .....-,-..,." --....~"...r. i ., (;'., 'J f ~.... ,i,,"f'
L.:rr._~_" E;.,.G....UI"'...~ liOL ~IT~..lGuL....::. '-' ~......_....dJ.Ut.C.. ~_. ilu~ 0.;..,. ~."u..
Understanding or Annual Agreement
ProjeclDesign Consultants understands that this RFQ is for As-Needed/On-Call survey services and
as such. understands response time and clear communication are paramount to a successful
relationship. Our 5-year relationship with Sempra Energy is an example of our ability to meet these
demands and even exceed expectations.
We meet or exceed the insurance requirements requested ond we are aware that the State
Prevailing Wage rate is to be paid to field personnel. It is also understood that travel time to and
from the project site will not be charged and there is no minimum amount of work required per
request.
ProJectbnroach
ProjeclDesign Consultant's Temecula survey department is stoffed with 3 office personnel and 2
field crews as well os 4 employees dedicated to aerial photogrammetry. During peok workloads
survey crews and/or office personnel are transferred up from the San Diego office to ensure
project deodlines are met. Equipment on-hand includes electronic total stations, data collectors
GPS equipment and a high precision digital level. Task orders will be written by the Project
Manager for each assignment including scope of services. budget and agreed upon schedule.
The following provides a brief description of the methods we propose to employ to accomplish
the scope of work requested:
. Record Research and Review - This task consists of reviewing preliminary title reports and
accompanying documents provided by the City of Temecula or a Title Company.
Research activities include but are not limited to the fOllowing: research existing County
and City survey data such os record maps, record of surveys, monument ties, corner
records, horizontal coordinate control stations, and benchmarks. PDC has online
accounts set up and can order many of the Riverside County record maps without
leaving the office.
. Locate Existing Monuments - This task includes searching in the field for property corner
monuments, street centerline monuments and centerline ties. The located monuments
would then be used in conjunction with a boundary survey, for orientation of a project to
the local site. or for preparation of corner records relating to monuments that are
anticipated to be destroyed by construction.
.
Perform Boundary and Control Surveys - This task includes searching in the field for all
evidence of boundary locations including but not limited to: property corner monuments,
street centerline monuments. lines of occupation, and other physical evidence pertinent
to retracement of boundary locations. Physical evidence found in the field will be
precisely located by GPS or electronic total station survey instrumentation and 011 data
o
PROJECTDESIGN CONSULTANTS
7
1
1
1
1
)
I
1
1
)
I
)
J
I
]
I
]
I
I
)
I
I
]
I
]
I
]
J
]
J
I
-
1\\""'7> CitllofTemeGUla
'j RCl!mlst FlIf Qnall;!G2ti!lns
if---"'" --. -,,---".... ...,...._-.....~-"T ~ -r."" -....r-...- (-- -, . C"..... .."'....1;'
l'_J....~;;~u l.::,..u'"'"...........t___ [d::'."_,","'.""~ L (~ _c.,~_l."''''.'-n l...~~I..Qr L>.I.L.u.......
will be recorded electronically in data collectors together with physical sketches and
field notes if deemed necessary. Control Surveys involve the establishment or location of
survey monuments to be used at a later date for either additional field surveying or aeriol
photogrammetry. Control and large boundary surveys projects may require GPS survey
methods for increased accuracy and efficiency. All boundary surveys will meet or
exceed ALT A/ ACSM standards for positional accuracy of 0.07 feet plus 50 ppm.
.
Prepare Legal Descriptions and Plat Maps for Right-of-Way Acquisifion - This task includes
preparation of plats illustrating the location. extent and dimensions of proposed right-of-
way acquisition areas. Legal descriptions will be written and signed by a licensed Land
Surveyor for use in the grant of easement or condemnation. The iegal descriptions will be
crosschecked with the plat and traverse tapes to ensure accuracy and quality.
.
Perform Aerial Mapping and Topographic Surveys - This task includes field surveying for
conventional topographic surveys to collect horizontal and vertical data on plonemetric
features and ground shots to map the contour of the land to the accuracy of the
proposed contour interval. Electronic total stations or GPS equipment will be utilized to
electronically gather the data for loter downloading to on office computer. This
information will then be utilized to generate the topographic map in either ACAD 14 or
2000 format. In cases where aerial mapping is required, aerial panels will be set and
located horizontally and vertically based on published benchmark information and
rotated to either local property corners or State Plane Coordinates if requested. Aerial
photography will then be collected and later compiled on PDC's 1" order IMA stereo
analytical plotter in Temecula. CA. The aerial mapping will be supplemented with a field
check to verify accuracy and completeness.
.
Esfablish and Verify Horizontal and Vertical Control - Horizontal survey control can be
bosed on State Plane Coordinates if requested: otherwise coordinates will be based on a
local system. Large surveys will be performed utilizing LEICA system 500 GPS equipment
for high accuracy. Vertical control can be established from local published benchmarks
by either PDC's High Precision Digital Level capable of performing first order leveling or a
conventional level.
.
Locate Horizontally all Existing Facilities - This task includes the field location of existing
plannemetric features to within 0.1' feet. generally for design purposes or for as- built
surveys. Facility locations will be recorded with an electronic dota collector and later
downloaded and processed in the office. Field sketches will be generated to assist in the
office drafting.
.
Perform Field Surveying for Project Design Purposes - This task includes a field survey to
locate existing terrain and plannemetric features for engineering design. Task may aiso
include street cross-sections and collection of invert elevations of existing sewer and
storm drain facilities. Special attention will be paid to areas where proposed design will
motch existing improvements.
.
Perform Consfruction Sfaklng - This task includes the staking of street centerlines, limits of
clearing and grubbing and construction. slopes, saw cuts. edge of pavement, layout
o PRo.1EcrDESIGN CONSULTANTS
8
1
I
-J
J
J
I
J
J
J
J
I
I
]
I
]
1
J
J
I
]
J
]
J
]
I
J
l\i.'P' 'lio- Cltv ufTer:ilHmla
I RemlGstF6rQ:I?HficHtillfiS
-,-.,..."[ -,..-,.-~ "'I -,' -- - -0:> ,. -:- 1"\.-.......('1 ,"\/('... ,i....')
f......._r....I..s.""'"'...'"'"_~ f....~ L_"~" .'-"0..._.. c C..........._. ......t ..>.. \,. ...lJ...._ l uil,wuS
lines. drainage structures. curb & gutter, etc. Cut-sheets will be prepared and delivered
as needed to illustrate the staked elevations and proposed cut/fill to finished grade.
Survey centerline/profiles will be pre-calculated and downloaded to hand held
computers. Survey party chiefs will calculate stake offset locations in the field from
construction plan station & offsets. This approach provides maximum flexibility and
responsiveness to the contractor's requests. This approach also forces porty chiefs to
read the plans in the field where experienced chiefs can confirm the intent of the plans
will be functional and correctly staked and constructed.
01
PROJECTDESIGN CONSULTANTS
9
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE
10
r:\agrmts\masters\annual contract2002-03\Project Design annual FY02-03/ajp
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
J
I
I
1
J
J
]
J
I
I
]
I
I
I
J
J
]
I
I
J
-
-j\l"~ ")i!> City ofTemecl!la
I Re'1"3S1 Fcr Qual',lcatwns
--"'....~ ., "'-"'''1''' rr "'''O-":l .j..,. ""..~ 'l"'j..,- (', l:"'lr",. J''''''c
t.I.~.....~." t~_G..:;""..;;..~L.. [""~u"-.lG.L_Q c.. (C........_:I.1.. L~.. ....... Vv_ ...uII1J.....uoi:.l
lABOR RATE SCHEDULE
FOR THE
CITY OF TEMECUIA
mectivo Juno 30. 2002 through Juno 30, 2003
Principal
Project Manager
$135
$115
~lJaYAi,l1.l~r0
Crew/Mapping Manager
Surveyor
Survey/Map Technician
Clerical
2-Man Survey Crew (Conventional)
3-Man Survey Crew (Conventional)
1-Man Crew (GPS; 1 Receiver)
2-Man Crew (GPS; 2 Receivers)
3-Man Crew (GPS; 3 Receivers)
$85
$80
$65
$40
$160
$205
$120
$175
$220
:):)~).J:;(r:" (t\!1 ;f~lsJl~I~;!:~ ~:J~I ~';<
~a("'l'()c..':v:.\J"!I\,';t~:r(
Stereo Compiler & Stereo Plotter
Photogrammetry Manager
Mapping Editor
Task Order (Defined Scope)
$80
$80
$65
Lump Sum
Reimbursable charges for blueprinting, photographic mylar reproduction, photocopying, travel
and mileage. delivery services. long-distance telephone charges, computerized plotting, special
graphic supplies, facsimiles, and other direct project charges incurred on behalf of Client will be
billed to Client at cost plus 10%.
Rates subject to change without notice after June 30, 2003
,
. j
o PROJEcrDESIGN CONSULTANTS
10
ITEM 12
APPROVAL Gln....---
CITY ATTORNEY 0
DIRECTOR OF FINAN
CITY MANAGER ----1fL-
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
City Manager/City Council
~".yWilliam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE:
July 23, 2002
SUBJECT:
Amendment NO.5 to Professional Services Agreement-DMJM+HARRIS
Pechanga Parkway (Formerly known as Pala Road) Improvements-Phase II
Project No. PW99-11
PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Senior Engineer
~ Steven W. Beswick, Associate Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Approve Amendment No.5 to the Professional Services Agreement with DMJM+HARRIS in
the amount of $20,103.75 to provide additional project management and field surveying
services, and authorize the Mayor to execute this amendment.
2. Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders above the original 1 0% contingency
approved by City Council on November 16, 1999 by an additional 5% (or $28,980.00).
BACKGROUND: On November 17, 1999 the City Council awarded the subject design
contract to DMJM of Orange, California in the amount of $579,600.00.
Amendments No.1 thru 4 were previously approved by the City Manager as authorized by the City
Council on November 16, 1999. The work included in Amendments NO.1 thru 4 consisted of the
following: Road design services for the intersection of Pechanga Parkway (Formerly known as Pala
Road) and Loma Linda Road for the Phase I Improvements, Traffic study (2025 design year) at the
intersection of State Route 79 South and Pechanga Parkway, Road design services for an
additional traffic lane on Pechanga Parkway between Masters Drive and Muirfield Drive, Noise
Study and Acoustical Analysis for Pechanga Parkway Improvements-Phase II, adjustment for new
billing rates for DMJM+HARRIS and Engineering Resources (Sub-Consultant for DMJM+HARRIS)
starting July 1, 2001 for the remaining number of man hours to finish the original scope of work.
Amendment NO.5 will provide for the following:
. Additional project management time not included in the original scope of work for Pechanga
Parkway Improvements (Phase II) from October 2000 thru November 2001. Staff has prepared
Exhibit "D" identifying additional project management costs in the amount of $20,103.75. This
additional project management charges are a result of the various delays this project has
encountered.
. Additional field surveying services requested by Riverside County Flood Control & Water
Conservation District. DMJM+HARRIS has submitted a cost proposal for the additional field
surveying services in the amount of $3,630.00.
R:\AGENDA REPORTS\2002\072302\PW99-11 DMJMHAARtSContract.amendS.DOC
The scope of work forthis project includes the widening of Pechanga Parkway from State Route 79
South to Pechanga Road. The first section from State Route 79 South to Via Gilberto excluding the
Pechanga Parkway Bridge at Temecula Creek will be designed as a six lane urban arterial with a
134-foot right of way. The second section from Via Gilberto to Pechanga Road will be designed as
four lane arterial with a 11 O-foot right of way.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Pechanga Parkway Improvements - Phase II projectfrom State Route 79
South to Pechanga Road, Project No. PW99-11 is a Capital Improvement Projectfunded fordesign
engineering through Development Impact Fees. The original contract limit was $637,560.00, which
included the base contract amount of $579,600.00 plus the 10% contingency amount of $57,960.00.
Amendments NO.1 thru 4 were approved for a total amount of $41,189.39. The revised contract
amount, including Amendment No.5 in the amount of $23,733.75, is $644,523.14. Adequate funds
are available in Account No. 210-165-668-5802.
ATTACHMENTS: Amendment NO.5
R:\AGENDA REPORTS\2002\072302\PW99.11 DMJMHARRISConlract.amendS.DOC
FIFTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND
DMJM+HARRIS
PECHANGA PARKWAY (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PALA ROAD) IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE II
PROJECT NO. PW99-11
THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of July 23, 2002 by and between
the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and DMJM+HARRIS ("Consultant"). In
consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. This Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes:
A. On November 17, 1999, the City and Consultant entered into that certain
agreement entitled "City of T emecula Professional Services Agreement for Pala
Road Improvements - Phase II, Project No. PW99-11"("Agreement").
B. The Agreement was amended on March 20, 2000, January 24,2001, March
13,2002, and again on April 15, 2002. The Agreement as amended shall be
referred to as the "Agreement".
C. All sections of the agreement that refer to P ALA ROAD, shall now be changed to
"PECHANGA PARKWAY", pursuant to City Council meeting held on June 25,
2002.
D. The parties now desire to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment.
2. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates
and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibits "D" & "E", attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based
upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount shall not exceed Six
Hundred Forty Four Thousand, Five Hundred Twenty Three Dollars and 14
Cents ($644,523.14) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment
is approved as provided in this Agreement.
3. Exhibits "D" & "E" are added to the Agreement, which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein as though set forth in full.
4. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of
the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
r:\ciplprojectslpw99lpw99-11\DMJM.amend5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the
day and year first above written.
CITY OF TEMECULA
Ron Roberts, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk
Approved As to Form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
CONSULTANT
DMJM+HARRIS
999 Town and Country Road
Orange, CA 92868-4786
(714) 245-9660
Tom W. Bogard, P.E. Vice President
Bruce R. Toro, Sr. Vice President
(Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations)
2
r:lciplprojeclslpw991pw99-11 IDMJM.amend5
...
~
0
::
...
0
Gl
C.
0
u
11l
Oi
c
:g.
~
0
'tl
C
0
~
m
= ...
C ()
()
N
~
I- Gl
.c
- E
D:l Gl
- >
:J: 0
z
>< 0
W -
()
()
()
N
~
Gl
.c
0
-
U
0
E
E
...
Ol
-
Ol
0
CJ
-
C
Gl
E
Gl
l:ll
01
C
01
:0
Oi
c
.2
-
'6
'tl 11l
< ii:
0::
<
J:
+
:0
...,
:0
0
I '" .... <Xl ill ;1; III
1ii ~ 0 <Xl , , t-
~ oj <D .. ci l'i
8 '" '" ~ '"
en '" "! ~ '" ()
S ri N ~ N ...
I ~ 0
~ N
.,. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...
r! \
" ()
0 "! 0
:c 0 0 0 0 '" ci
g <; N ci ci ci <D
S ~ '" <Xl
~ ...
~ .......
.......
~ i
~
Ol ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'" .2 .,; oj ci ci ci .; ci <6
::> ~ '" '<t
0 ~
:c 0
;::
~ 0
0\ << '" 0 0 0 0 '" -i
i~ r! N ci ci ,..: <D
'" (')
...
-
" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ll. - Lri .,; .,; g ~ 13 .,;
~~ \\ ~ ~ en '"
~
~ "
" ~
o 0
!;: :J: 'i \\:
~ "C,g ;//
;.J o \\ .,. .. .. .,. .. .. ..
::> "
'" a; ~ ~ 0 en <0 en
Z 1ii '" <0 "l '"
0 "'- {;i <D ... oj N ;::: oj
'" 0 <Xl <Xl '"
0 ~~ ~ ~ ~
i: Ii
:c=
~ "
z '" .. '" '" '" '" '"
z f
0
~ "
'"
it "C
~
0 ~
'"
W
Q "
"
Q ~ ~
w Cii '0. Cii '"
;.J C> ~ " ~ '13 1ii
~ '" w ~ " '2 0
* ~ '5 '0. " .r= ~ 11l
'" ~ ~ ~
8 '[ ::; 6 W '0. 0 oJ
Q ~ ~
~ is ~ w 0 "C
.8 :~ ~ '2 .- '" 0 E 0
j D- " e .l!l <( "C
D. '" D. '" (,) <( I-
RECEIVED
JUL 1 1 2002
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
1836-A South Commercenter Circle
San Bernardino, California 92408
DM}MllHARRIS
Tel: (909) 890-0600
Fax: (909) 890-0620
July 9, 2002
Mr. Steve Beswick
Associate Engineer-Capital Projects
CITY OF TEMECULA
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: Pala Road Improvements - Phase II, Project No. PW 99-11
Additional Survey Costs
Dear Steve:
Attached please find the Proposal from Engineering Resources of Southern California,
Inc. for the additional field surveying as requested by the Riverside County Flood Control
& Water Conservation District.
The cost for the requested services from ERSC is $3,630.00 which includes the services
listed in their letter dated July 2,2002 as well as our ten (10) percent markup for general
and administrative (g&a) costs.
ERSC will deliver the results of their field work within three weeks of the Notice to
Proceed. The mapping will be prepared and submitted along with the hydraulic
calculations for the project.
Should you have any questions please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Yours truly,
DMJM+HARRIS
~Gl '((.-<9--
Roger S. Cunliffe-Owen, P.E.
Associate Vice President
Cc: Andy Nowak, DMJM+HARRIS
Amer Attar, City of Temecula
AN AECOM COMPANY
ITEM 13
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINAN
CITY MANAGER II
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
DATE:
City Manager/City Council
!\,A~ William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
July 23, 2002
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Solicit
Construction Bids for Citywide Asphalt Concrete Repairs for
FY2002-2003, Project No. PW02-04
PREPARED BY:
Greg Butler, Senior Engineer
Eric Weck, Assistant Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Construction Plans and
Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the
Citywide Asphalt Concrete Repairs for FY2002-2003, Project No. PW02-04.
BACKGROUND: This Asphalt Repair Project for FY2002-2003 is part of the Annual
Street Maintenance Program. The Program involves fixing portions of streets that require minor
repairs and the associated pavement striping and legends.
The roads included in this project are as follows: Margarita Road, Lo Colima Road, Front Street,
Overland Trail and Pujol Street.
The specifications and contract documents have been completed and the project is ready to be
advertised for construction bids. The contract document is available for review in the City Engineer's
office. The Engineer's Construction Estimate for this project is $110,000.00.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in the Public Works Department, Maintenance Division,
Routine Street Maintenance Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Operating Budget Account No. 001-164-601-
5402 for Project No. PW02-04.
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map
R:\AGENDA REPORTS\2002\072302\PW02-04BID.DOC
o
IX
<<
z
'6
"-
~
o
'l
o
~
'"
\)\\)0
co\-l
t-S
\otl\-l
1'1<.0\-1\
Sw.t-t-\
Ol-\)
S\
jol-
I'D
o
Q)
~
<{
-'L
~
o
""
"
\,).-
"
",' I, 'oq.~'
'III Ii "r~ 7"1:"
:_-----\\ ;.... ,(;' >.'
'\ f'-~ "" ...
II ,~-:_.._.\~, '::;"
\\'~-\ ~~
'<~\ 'II " -.__
\
1,\
\\
[L
<t
:2
Z
o
~
u
o
.-J
w
=
c-
O]
:r:
X
w
Q)
~
<{
-'L
~
o
""
ITEM 14
APPROVAL ~
CITY A HORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FIN C ~
CITY MANAGER r
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: James B. O'Grady, Assistant City Manager
DATE: July 23, 2002
SUBJECT: Resolution of support for the passage of Measure A on the November,
2002 ballot
PREPARED BY: Aaron Adams, Sr. Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 02-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE PASSAGE OF MEASURE
A ON THE NOVEMBER, 2002 BALLOT
BACKGROUND: Measure A is a countywide ballot initiative that would extend a half-cent
sales tax used for transportation improvements and programs. Since 1989, Measure A funds have
been used to build roads & highways, expand public transit and maintaining local roads. These
funds are a result of a one-half percent sales tax for transportation to supplement traditional
revenues and revenues to be generated through locally-adopted developer fees and assessment
districts for transportation impro\ements.
Measure A expires in 2008, yet the extension of Measure A will be on the November 2002 ballot for
voters of Riverside County to consider. This is primarily due to the time it takes to plan and guide
transportation projects through the process of environmental checks and construction.
This measure is not a new tax but rather the extension of an existing retail and transactions use tax
of Y, of 1 % for a 30-year period for specified transportation purposes.
Riverside County is the fastest growing county of its size in California. Population in Riverside
County has increased 150% in the last twenty years and will likely reach 3 million residents by 2020.
Riverside County greatly needs a more extensive transportation network to support this population.
The Measure A extension is estimated to raise over $4.6 billion for transportation projects
countywide. This will include major improvements to every state highway and interstate in the
county, the establishment of a regional arterial roadway system, as well as expanding public transit
for all residents and maintaining and improling our local streets and roads.
R:\ADAMSA\CQUNCILlResolulion- Measure A staff ,.pen.doc
If the passage of the Measure A extension is successful, specific improvements to our community
and Southwest Riverside County will include:
. Adding two lanes each direction on the 1-215 to the San Bernardino Countyline
. Adding one lane each direction on 1-15 from Route 60 to the San Diego Countyline
In addition, regional arterial imprOl.ements planned include:
. Scott Road from State Route 79 to 1-215
. Clinton Keith Road from State Route 79 to 1-215
. French Valley Parkway (Date Street) from State Route 79 to 1-15
. Railroad Canyon/Newport Road from 1-25 to 1-15
Due to these local and regional imprOl.ements planned, It is staff's recommendation to support
the passage of Measure A on the November 2002 ballot.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None at this time
Attachments:
Resolution 02-_
RESOLUTION NO. 02-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TEMECULA
SUPPORTING THE PASSAGE OF MEASURE A ON THE
NOVEMBER, 2002 BALLOT
WHEREAS, since 1989, Measure A has supplied Riverside County with the funding to
provide its residents with safer roads, more reliable public transit and traffic relief; and
WHEREAS, Riverside County is the fastest growing large county in California and is
anticipated to grow to a population of more than three million people by the year 2020; and
WHEREAS, over sixty percent of transportation funding throughout Riverside County
and its cities is provided by Measure A; and
WHEREAS; extending Measure A will raise over $4.6 billion for much needed
transportation projects, programs and improvements; and
WHEREAS; Measure A will provide major improvements to every interstate and highway
in the county; and
WHEREAS; Measure A will expand public transit programs and options for commuters,
seniors and disabled residents; and
WHEREAS; Measure A will provide the crucial funding needed for cities such as
Temecula to maintain and improve local streets and roads; and
WHEREAS; if Measure A is not extended, the transportation network within Riverside
County would be seriously crippled, adversely affecting commuters and residents throughout
the county; and
WHEREAS; by passing Measure A on the November 2002 ballot, Riverside County will
ensure a stable source of funding to relieve traffic congestion, increase public transit programs,
build new highways and improve local streets; and
WHEREAS; passing Measure A would ensure that the City of Temecula would be able
to provide a safer environment to its residents and maintain the high quality of life we enjoy.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Temecula supports the passage
of Measure A on the November, 2002 ballot; and
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at
a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of July 2002.
Ron Roberts, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 02-_was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of July, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES:
o
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
o
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
o
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
ITEM 15
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANC~
CITY MANAGER~
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
To:
City Manager/City Council
From:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
Date:
July 23, 2002
Subject:
Morgan Hill Project Mitigation Agreement-Approval of Joint Community
Facilities Agreement
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve:
RESOLUTION NO. 02-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT
ENTITLED JOINT COMMUNITY FACILITIES AGREEMENT
AMONG EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT AND CITY
OF TEMECULA AND MCMILLIN MORGAN HILL, LLC
BACKGROUND:
On June 26, 2001, the City Council approved an "Agreement for Mitigation of Impacts of
Morgan Hill Specific Plan No. 313" between the City of Temecula and TR4, L.P
("Mitigation Agreement"). The Mitigation Agreement provides for TR4, the original
developer of the Morgan Hill Project, to pay to the City a mitigation fee of $1.176 million.
The City is required to use the funds for the "design and construction of roadway and
traffic improvements on Winchester Road (SR 79S) between Butterfield Stage Road and
the 1-15/SR 79S interchange or for the design and construction of the improvements to
the 1-15/SR 79S interchange." The mitigation fee is required to be paid prior to the
issuance of the first building permit for the Morgan Hill Project. In addition, as required
by the Agreement, TR4 posted a performance bond in favor of the City in the amount of
$1.176 million to secure the payment of the mitigation fee.
On July 9, 2002 the City Council approved the assignment of the Mitigation Agreement
from the original developer, TR4, L.P., to McMillin Morgan Hill, LLP.
The Council is also being asked to approve a joint community facilities agreement with
Eastern Municipal Water District and McMillin Morgan Hill so that payment of the $1.176
million mitigation fee can be paid from the proceeds of bonds to be issued by a
Community Facilities District being established to pay for public improvements for the
Morgan Hill Project.
Joint Community Facilities Aqreement
The new owner of the Morgan Hill Project is proposing to fund a number of public
improvements for the Project from the proceeds of bond to be issued by a community
facilities district formed on the Morgan Hill Project. Under this type of public
improvement financing, the bonds are secured by and paid out of real property taxes
levied on property within the district boundaries, in this case the Morgan Hill Specific
Plan Area. The community facilities district for the Morgan Hill Project will be formed
and administered by the Eastern Municipal Water District. The District will be
responsible for the formation of the community facilities district, imposition of the taxes,
disbursement of bond proceeds to public works projects, collection of taxes, and
payment of principal and interest on the bonds. This type of public improvement
financing is also being used to finance the public improvements for the Harveston
Project, except that in Harveston, the City is the public entity forming the community
facilities district, issuing the bonds and administering the district.
The Joint Community Facilities Agreement requires the City to use the proceeds of the
Mitigation Fee for the purposes outlined in the Mitigation Agreement, account for
expenditures and provide Eastern Municipal Water District with a report of any
expenditures and interest accruing on the funds. All expenses of the City resulting from
the Joint Community Facilities Agreement requirements shall be paid by Eastern
Municipal Water District or McMillin Morgan Hill, LLC. The City shall not be responsible
in any way for payment of principal and interest on the bonds. This is the responsibility
of Morgan Hill property owners and Eastern Municipal Water District.
FISCAL IMPACT: None. The payment of the Mitigation Fee to the City is secured
by a performance bond. All expenses and potential liabilities for payments to
bondholders or other problems with the community facilities district will be the
responsibility of the Morgan Hill Property owners or Eastern Municipal Water District.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 02-_
2. Agreement for Mitigation of Impacts of Morgan Hill Specific Plan No. 313
3. Joint Community Facilities Agreement Among Eastern Municipal Water District and
City of Temecula and McMillin Morgan Hill, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
Attachment # 1
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. 02-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT
ENTITLED JOINT COMMUNITY FACILITIES AGREEMENT
AMONG EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT AND CITY OF
TEMECULA AND MCMILLIN MORGAN HILL, LLC
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula (the "City") has entered into an "Agreement for
Mitigation of Impacts of Morgan Hill Specific Plan No. 313" (the "Mitigation Agreement") with
TR4, L.P., and has approved an assignment of the Mitigation Agreement from TR4, L.P., to
McMillin Morgan Hill, LLP (the "Developer"); and
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Agreement provides for the Developer to pay to the City a
mitigation fee of $1,176,000 (the "Mitigation Fee") for use by the City to pay the costs of design
and construction of roadway and traffic improvements on Winchester Road between Butterfield
Stage Road and the 1-15/SR 79S interchange or for the design and construction of the
improvements to the 1-15/SR 79S interchange (the "Improvements"); and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Eastern Municipal Water District (the "Water
District") is undertaking proceedings to form Community Facilities District No. 2002-06 (Morgan
Hill) of the Eastern Municipal Water District (the "CFD") pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community
Facilities Act of 1982, as amended (the "Act"), and the CFD may issue bonds (the "Bonds") in
order to finance, among other public facilities, a portion of the costs of the Improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has requested that the City enter into a joint community
facilities agreement (the "JCF Agreement") with the Developer and the Water District so that an
amount equal to the Mitigation Fee can be financed with proceeds of the Bonds, and, upon the
issuance of the Bonds and the availability to the City of an amount equal to the Mitigation Fee
from Bond proceeds, the Developer can be relieved of its obligation to pay the Mitigation Fee;
and
WHEREAS, in order to enable the CFD to provide for Bond proceeds to finance the
Improvements, Section 53316.2 of the California Government Code requires that the City and
the Water District enter into the JCF Agreement prior to the formation of the CFD; and
WHEREAS, a form of the JCF Agreement, by and among the City, Water District and
the Developer has been filed with the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, with the assistance of City staff, has reviewed the JCF
Agreement, and the City Council now desires to approve the JCF Agreement and direct its
execution and delivery.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Temecula as
follows:
Section 1. ADDroval of JCF Aqreement. The City Council hereby approves the JCF
Agreement in the form on file with the City Clerk, and hereby authorizes and directs the City
Manager to execute and deliver the JCF Agreement in such form together with any changes
therein deemed advisable by the City Director of Finance upon consultation with the City
Attorney, the approval of such changes to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and
delivery by the City Manager of the JCF Agreement. The City Council hereby declares that the
JCF Agreement will be beneficial to the residents residing within the boundaries of the City.
Section 2. Official Actions. The Mayor, City Manager, Director of Finance, the Director
of Public Works and City Clerk, and all other officers of the City, are hereby authorized and
directed to take all actions and do all things necessary or desirable hereunder to implement the
JCF Agreement, including but not limited to the execution and delivery of any and all
agreements, certificates, documents and other instruments which they, or any of them, deem
necessary or desirable and not inconsistent with the purposes of this Resolution and the JCF
Agreement.
Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the Board of Directors of the Temecula
Public Financing Authority at a meeting held on the day of July, 2002.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-2-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, , City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HEREBY DO
CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. _ was duly adopted at a special meeting of the
City Council of the City of Temecula on the day of July, 2002, by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
J6319
7/18/02
-3-
Attachment # 2
MITIGATION AGREEMENT
.'--
AGREEMENT FOR MITIGATION OF IMPACTS OF
MORGAN HILL SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 313
TIDS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of June 26, 2001 by and
between the City ofTemecula, a municipal corporation ("City"), and TR4, LP, a California
limited liability company ("Developer"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and
conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
I. Recitals. This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and
purposes which the parties agree are true and correct:
a. Developer is the owner of certain real property in the unincorporated area
of Riverside County consisting of 478.3 acres, generally located north of Monte Verde
Road, south of Highway 79 and Nighthawk Pass, east ofEl Chimisal Road, and west of
Anza Road, which is more particularly described and depicted on Exhibit A to this
Agreement ("Property").
. b. On June 5, 2001, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside
certified Environmental Impact Report No. 412, approved Resolution No. 2001-172
adopting Specific Plan No. 313 (Morgan Hill) and approved Resolution No.2001-135
amending the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan, which resolution includes
the adoption of ComprehenSive GeneraJ. Plan Amendment No. 475, the General Plan .
Amendment for Morgan Hill. The Board deferred adoption of the zoning ordinance for
Specific Plan No. 313, Zone Case No. 6397.
( )
c. Specific Plan No. 313 is a 478.3 acre master planned community. The
Specific Plan proposes construction of 1,126 dwelling units on 338.1 acres, ll.l acres for
parks, 12.3 acres for an elementary school, 89.9 acres for open space, 2.2 acres for paseos
(trails), and 24.8 acres for major roads.
d. Specific Plan No. 313 is associated with Comprehensive General Plan
Amendment No. 475 which: (I) Changes the Qpen Space and Conservation Map
designation from "Agriculture" to "Adopted Specific Plan No. 313;" (2) changes the
Southwest Area Community Plan Land Use Allocation Map designation from
"Agricultural 10 ac. Min." to "Morgan Hill SP No. 313;" (3) changes the SWAP Growth
Management Concept Plan to reflect the entire Property as "Urban Area;" and (4)
changes the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
e. Specific Plan No. 313 is also associated with Change of Zone Case 6397
which proposes to change the existing zoning classifications of Light AgriculturaI, 10-
acre minimum, (A-l-lO), Light AgriculturaI, 20-acre minimum (A-I-20), and R-R (Rural
Residential) to SP (Specific Plan). The SP zoning designation would also establish those
development standards required to implement the Specific Plan.
f. For the purposes of this Agreement, Environmental Impact Report No.
412, as certified by Board action, Specific Plan 313 as approved by Resolution No. 2001-
June 29,2001 659090.2
I
(
172, Comprehensive General Plan as approved by Resolution No. 2001-135, and Zone
Case No. 6397 as proposed to the Board of Supervisors on June 5, 2001 shall collectively
constitute and be known as the "Morgan Hill Project"
g. As originally proposed, Specific Plan No. 313 would have included 1,436
residential units. The City objected to the proposal on the ground that it would have
caused significant traffic impacts within the City. As a result of the City's objections,
Developer agreed to .contribute $1.5 million to the City of Temecula towards the cost of
specified road improvements to Winchester Road (SR 79S) within the City ofTemecula
which would further mitigate the impacts of the proposed SP 313 on the City of
Temecula.
h. On April 17 , 2001, the Board of Supervisors gave tentative approval to a
substantial revision to the proposed Specific Plan No. 313 which reduced the residential
units from 1,436 units to 1,126 units and revised the land use plan.
i. City objected to the revised proposal on the same grounds as its objections
to the prior proposal and on the added grounds that the new proposal required a
subsequent environmental review pursuant to Section 15162 of the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and new public hearings before the County
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
j. The Riverside County Board of Supervisors rejected the City's objections
and approved the Morgan Hill Project as described in subparagraph b. of this section.
)
k. City and Developer have discussed the impacts of the Morgan Hill Project
upon the City and further mitigation for these impacts. As a result of these discussions,
the City and Developer desire to enter into this Agreement in order to provide further
mitigation for the impacts of the Morgan Hill Project on the City and in lieu oflitigation
over the Morgan Hill Project and address the City's concerns over the impact of the
Morgan Hill Project on the City.
1. Completion of Developer's obligations under this Agreement will alleviate
the City concerns about the impacts of the Morgan Hill Project upon the SR 79S corridor
within the City ofTemecula.
2. Mitigation of Traffic Impacts.
a. Developer shall pay to the City of Temecula the sum of one million one
hundred seventy six thousand dollars ($1,176,000.00) ("Mitigation Fee").
b. City shall use the Mitigation Fee for the design and construction of
roadway and traffic improvements on Winchester Road (SR 79S) between Butterfield
Stage Road and the I-15/SR 79S interchange or for the design and construction of the
improvements to the I-15/SR 79S interchange. City shall determine, in its sole discretion,
June 29, 2001 659090.2 -2-
.l
the specific projects within this corridor to which the Mitigation Fee shall be applied and
shall determine, in its sole discretion, when the Mitigation Fee shall be applied to such
uses.
c. City shall retain any interest which may accrue on the Mitigation Fee
from the time of payment to the City until application to an approved use and may use the
interest for any purpose.
d. Developer shall pay the Mitigation Fee to the City on or before the
issuance of the first building permit by the County of Riverside fro a residential dwelling
unit for the Morgan Hill Project.
e. In the event the Mitigation Fee is paid and not used or not fully used by
the City within fifteen (15) years from the date of this Agreement, City shall return the
unused portion of the Mitigation Fee to the Developer, without interest, excluding the
amount by which it is reduced for the cost of the performance bond or letter of credit,.
4. Security for Payment of Mitigation Fee.
a. On or before July 2, 2001, Developer shall file with the City Clerk a
performance bond or letter of credit securing Developer's performance under this
Agreement in an amount of not less that one million one hundred seventy six thousand
dollars ($1,176,000.00).
( )
b. The performance bond, ifused, shall be from a surety admitted in the State
of California and in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Surety shall have a
current A.M. Best Rating of "A minus" or better and a financial size of "VII" or better.
The letter of credit shall be in a form and from a bank approved by the City Attorney.
c. The Mitigation Fee payable to the City shall be reduced by the actual
premium paid by Developer for the performance bond or the actual fee paid by the
Developer for the letter of credit, but in an amount not to exceed twenty thousand dollars
($20,000.00).
5. City Agreement Not to Litigate. Provided the security described in Section 2
is in full force and effect and Developer is in full compliance with the terms of this Agreement,
City agrees not to file any legal action which challenges the validity of the following actions or
seeks to have such actions declared illegal: (1) The Environmental Impact Report No. 412, as
. certified by the Board of Supervisors; (2) Specific Plan No. 313, as approved by Resolution No.
2001-172; (3) Comprehensive General Plan Amendment No. 475, as approved by Resolution
No. 2001-135; and (4) Zone Change 6375, provided, however, that the text and exhibits attached
to or incorporated into Zone Change 6375 as ultimately adopted by the Board of Supervisors is
substantially the same as the text and exhibits attached or incorporated into the Zone Change
6375 as proposed to the Board of Supervisors on June 5, 2001.
June 29, 2001 659090.2
-3-
I
, ---/
6. Reoresentations and Warranties. The parties, and each of them, represent and
warrant to and agree with each other as follows:
a. The parties have each received independent legal advice from attorneys of
their choice with respect to the advisability of making the settlement and release provided
herein and of executing this Agreement. Prior to the execution of this Agreement by
each party, each party's attorneys have reviewed this Agreement at length.
b. Except as expressly stated in this Agreement, none of the parties has made
any statement or representation to any other regarding any fact that is relied upon in
entering into this Agreement. No party to this Agreement relies upon any statement,
representation or promise of any other party not contained herein in executing this
Agreement or in making the settlement provided for herein.
c. Each party, and its attorney, has made such investigation of the facts
pertaining to the underlying dispute and this Agreement, and all of the matters pertaining
thereto, as they deem necessary.
d. The terms of this Agreement are contractual, and are the result of
negotiations among the parties to settle the City's objections to the Morgan Hill Project
and to forego litigation.
e. City acknowledges and agrees that this Agreement constitutes a legal,
valid and binding agreement of the City enforceable against the City in accordance with
its terms.
)
f. Developer acknowledges and agrees that this Agreement constitutes a
legal, valid and binding agreement of the Developer enforceable against the Developer in
accordance with its terms.
g. This Agreement has been carefully read by each of the parties and the
contents hereto are known to and understood by each of the parties. It is signed freely by
each party executing this Agreement.
h. Each person executing the Agreement in a representative capacity
eXpressly warrants and represents that the party on whose behalf they are signing has
duIy approved this Agreement and has authorized such person to execute this Agreement
on behalf of the party, and agrees to indemnifY, including reasonable attorneys' fees, all .
other parties hereto against any claim that the party did not approve the Agreement or
that such person is not so authorized.
7. Intemtion. This Agreement constitutes a single, integrated contract
expressing the entire agreement of the parties hereto relative to the subject matter hereof. No
covenants, agreements, representations or warranties of any kind whatsoever have been made by
any party hereto, except as specifically set forth in this Agreement. All prior discussions and
June 29, 2001 659090.2 -4-
)
J
(
negotiations have been and are merged and integrated into, and are superseded by, this
Agreement. This Agreement may be amended only in writing, signed by the City and the
Developer.
8. Assignment. This agreement may not be assigned, in whole or in part, by
either party except through a written amendment of this Agreement duly approved and executed
by City, Developer and assignee. Neither party shall unreasonably withhold approval of an
assignment if the assignee is financially capable of completing the terms of this Agreement and
can obtain the bond described in section 2 prior to the effective date of the assignment.
9. No Liability. It is understood and agreed that this settlement is the
compromise of disputed claims, and that the terms and conditions recited herein are not to be
construed as an admission of liability of the part of the parties hereby released, and that said
parties deny liability therefore and intend merely to avoid litigation, including, but not limited to,
any admission regarding the adequacy of the EIR and/or the mitigation measures imposed by the
County of Riverside.
10. Waiver of Civil Code Section 1542. The City and the Developer
acknowledge that Section 1542 of the Civil Code of California provides as follows:
"A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor
does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of
executing the release, which ifknown by him must have materially
affected his settlement with the debtor."
() Notwithstanding Section 1542, this Agreement constitutes a full release in accordance with its
terms, and the City and the Developer knowingly and voluntarily waives the provisions of
Section 1542.
II. Waiver of Civil Code Section 1654. This Agreement has been negotiated
at anns' length between persons knowledgeable in the matters dealt with herein. In addition,
each party has been represented by experienced and knowledgeable legal counsel. Accordingly,
any rule oflaw, including, but not limited to, Section 1654 of the Civil Code of California, or
any other statutes, legal decisions, or common law principles of similar effect, that would require
interpretation of any ambiguities in this Agreement against the party that has drafted it is of no
application and is hereby expressly waived.
12. Notices. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other
party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service,
(ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal
Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United
States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of
the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice.
Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business
day following deposit with the United States Mail as provided above.
/
,
June 29, 2001 659090.2
-5-
(
To City:
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, Ca. 92589-9033
Attention: City Manager
To Developer:
TR 4, LP
17341 Irvine B!., Suite 200
Tustin, Ca. 92780
Attention: Steven Vliss, President
)
13. Governing Law; Litigation; Attorney Fees. The City and Developer 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 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.
14. 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.
1/1/
I//!
)
June 29,2001 6590902
-6-
)
')
()
)
',-_/
June 29, 2001 6590902
-7-
I
)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be )
executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF TEMECULA
,....,. --
~
Peter M. Thorson
City Attorney
( )
June 29, 2001 659090.2
-8-
,-)
...-
(
()
(~)
,
)
TR 4, LP, a California limited 1~n::llny,
By Highpoint Communities, Inc., a California
corporation I G-rNt:RPJ ~..ot:t
By:
~9-
Vice President
/\
~
June 29, 2001 659090.2
-9-
C)
( I
, )
'-.j
)
EXHIBIT A
DESCRIPTION OF MORGAN mLL PROJECT PROPERTY
AN EASEMENT FOR ROADWAY AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES TO BE USED IN COMMON WITH
OTHERS, IN AND OVER A STRIP OF LAND 110.00 FEET IN WIDTH, OVER THAT PORTION OF
THE RANCHO PAUBA, IN THE COONTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WHICH RANCHO
WAS GRANTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO LUIS VIGNES BY PATENT
DATED JANUARY 19, 1860 AND RECORDED IN BOCK 1, PAGE 45 OF PATENTS, RECORDS OF
SAN DIEGO COONTY, CALIFORNIA, THE CENTER LINE OF WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
(Il BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE RANCHO TEMECULA, IN
THE COONTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WHICH RANCHO WAS GRANTED BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO LUIS VIGNES BY PATENT DATED JANUARY 18, 1860
AND RECORDED IN BOCK 1, PAGE 37 OF PATENTS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COONTY,
CALIFORNIA, SAID POINT BEING A COONTY OF RIVERSIDE BRASS CAP MONUMENT SET IN A
14-INCH DIAMETER PIPE FILLED WITH CONCRETE AND SHOWH IN SAID COONTY SURVEY FIELD
BOCK 832, PAGE 3, SAID POINT BEING THE NORTHERLY TERMINUS OF THE
TEMECULA-MURRIETA RANCH LINE;
THENCE SOUTH 47041'03" EAST, 13,151.78 FEET TO A 6 INCH BY 6 INCH BY 18 INCH
GRANITE STONE, CHISELEJ)' L.E. ON THE SOUTH FACE AND ACCEPTED AS CORNER NUMBER 9
OF SAID RANCHO AS SHOWN ,BY RECORD OF SURVEY ON FILE IN BOCK 5, PAGE 39 OF
RECORDS OF SURVEY, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COONTY, CALIFORNIA;
THENCE SOUTH 640 52' 19" EAST, 811.02 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 580 12' 41' EAST, 225.58 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE
CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,800.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, 328.32 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
100 27' 03";
THENCE NORTH 680 39' 44" EAST, 1,872.83 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE
CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 4,000.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 1,043.77 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
140 57' 03";
THENCE NORTH 830 36' 47" EAST, 711.84 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE
CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,000.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 771.47 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
220 06' 04";
THENCE NORTH 610 30' 43" EAST, 1,070.04 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE
CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 8,000.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 1,182.13 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
080 27' 59" ;
THENCE NORTH 690 58' 42" EAST, 2,924.49 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE
CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 3,600.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 1,357.45 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
210 36' 16";
THENCE NORTH 480 22' 26" EAST, 1,581.11 FEET TO POINT "A";
THENCE SOUTH 41" 42' 50" EAST, 732.41 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE
CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,000.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 662.98 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
180 59' 35";
THENCE SOUTH 22' 43' 15" EAST, 823.44 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE
CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,000.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAI)) CURVE, 731.19 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 200
56' 49";
THENCE SOUTH 010 46' 26" EAST, 766.30 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE
CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,400.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 625.11 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
June 29, 200 I 659090.2
-10-
. . .;:?::-.. -. ~.: _',;,'
. .. ~""-':...:.
,-.'
,,",'"-'''
-'''''''''," - ':--.:, ,:;;:~.~:":::':"-,i~~_:--':':'~~:-~~~~~";~~~~
I
,':.,...;.." -~', 1_~"-~.' :;
.b','-
~ '.
250 34' 58";
THENCE SOOTH 270 21' 24" EAST, 554.43 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE
CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,200.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 812.79 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 380
48' 2S"; I
THENCE SOOTH 110 27' 04" WEST, 551.14 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE
CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,200.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 589.26 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 280
08' 06";
THENCE SOOTH 160 41' 02" EAST, 776.96 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE
CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,200.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 682.27 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 320
34' 33 U i
THENCE SOOTH 150 53' 31" WEST, 2,867.36 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE
EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 4,000.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 1,086.29 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 150
33' 36" i
THENCE SOOTH 000 19' 55" WEST, 1,423.62 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE
CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 4,000.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 1,564.26 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
220 24' 23";
THENCE SOOTH 220 44' lS" WEST, 1,552.61 FEET TO POINT "A", BEING THE TRuE POINT
OF BEGINNING AND THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A
RADIUS OF 1,200.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 976.10 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 460
36' 20" (THE CENTER LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY SIGN ROUTE 71 INTERSECTS THE CENTER
LINE OF SAID 110.00 FOOT ROADWAY AT A POINT 220.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, ALONG
SAID CURVE FROM THE BEGINNING THEREOF, SAID HIGHWAY 71 ALSO KNOWN AS TEMECULA
AGUANGA STATE HIGHWAY);
THENCE SOOTH 230 52' 02" EAST, 140.00 FEET TO POINT "B";
THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 230 52' 02" EAST, 722.82 FEET TO POINT "C";
THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 230 52' 02" EAST, 388.62 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A
TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,000.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 967.37 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 270
42' 47";
THENCE SOUTH 030 50' 45" WEST, 501.21 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE CONCAVE
SOUTHERLy AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,200.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE OF SAID CURVE TO
SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 00. 27' 51" WEST, THE SIDE LINES OF SAID ROADWAY ARE TO BE
FORESHORTENED OR LENGTHENED SO AS TO TERMINATE IN SAID LAST MENTIONED CURVE.
. ~-...~-_.-----_._- ,-
)
-.. ~
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE PORTION THEREOF INCLUDED IN PARCEL C-2 HEREINAFTER
DESCRIBED.
PARCEL C-2:
THAT PORTION OF SAID RANCHO PAUBA DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT POINT "B" AS DESCRIBED IN PARCEL 1 (I) ABOVE DESCRIBED;
THENCE SOOTH 230 52' 02" EAST, 1,111.44 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE
CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,000.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 967.37 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 270
42' 47";
THENCE SOOTH 030 50' 45" WEST, 501.21 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE CONCAVE
SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,200.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE OF SAID CURVE TO
SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 00. 27' 51" WEST;
I~j
I 'J
J
(~
THENCE WESTERLY AND SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 905.20" FEET, 'THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 430 13' 12";
THENCE SOUTH 46' 18' 57" WEST, 1,470.89 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE
CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY Am) HAVING A RADIUS OF 3,000.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 1,029.09 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
190 39' 15";
THENCE SOUTH 260 39' 42" WEST, 570.39 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE
CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY Am) HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,000.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 986.64 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
280 15' 55";
THENCE SOUTH 54' 55' 37" WEST, 754.52 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE
CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY Am) HAVING A RADIUS OF 3,000.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 493.72 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
090 25' 46";
THENCE SOUTH 450 29' 51" WEST, 1,276.76 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE
OF SAID RANCHO PAUBA;
THENCE ALONG SAID RANCHO
THENCE NORTH 43' 58' 00"
THENCE NORTH 73' 10' 43"
THENCE NORTH 29' 36' 32"
THENCE NORTH 390 54' 22"
THENCE NORTH 50' 34' 20"
THENCE NORTH 710 59' 45"
THENCE NORTH 110 05' 22"
THENCE NORTH 71' 11' 43"
....<...-.'..... :...
". t ')
LINE,
EAST,
EAST,
WEST,
EAST,
.EAST,
EAST,
WEST,
EAST,
. .",~...
-. "'-"- .-....'"';"
..'-.....
". .,0,"';,:."
..,..p;~~~.,..:..
'';'~':.':;'_'~i..:!:'
.'.-i~*~y~
r..
NORTH 46' 45'
773,26 FEET;
449.22 FEET;
1,305.47 FEET;
2,190.07 FEET;
582,58 FEET;
1,051.49 FEET;
1,273.78 FEET;
3,092,94 FEET TO
26" WEST, 1,577.85 FEET;
THE POINT OF BEGINNING,
EXCEPT THE PORTION THEREOF INCLODED WITHIN THE FOLLOWING:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWESTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE DESCRIBED AS
HAVING A BEARING AND LENGTH OF "SOUTH 23' 52' 02" EAST, 1,251.44 FEET" IN THE
CENTER LINE OF THAT CERTAIN 110.00 FOOT STRIP OF LAND DESCRIBED IN PARCEL A OF
DEED RECORDED ON NOVEMBER 9, 1965 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 127437 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
OF RIVERSIDE COONTY, CALIFORNIA;
THENCE SOUTH 23' 52' 02" EAST, ALONG SAID CERTAIN COURSE 622.60 FEET TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH 660 07' 58"
THENCE SOUTH 23' 52' 02"
THENCE NORTH 66' 07' 58"
THENCE NORTH 230 52' 02"
WEST,
EAST,
EAST,
WEST,
155.00
100.00
155.00
100.00
FEET;
FEET;
FEET;
FEET TO
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
(j
(-)
I '
. )
'~
June 29, 2001 659090.2
( J
EXIllBIT B
FORM OF PERFORMANCE BOND
-11-
]UN 28 2001 18:07 FR ~---'l3EST 8. KRIEGER 909 686 5036 ' .-
JUI'I-~-4.lCl.L .L.L.,,>,1, ~ )IIIU11,."", TO 2~ -'-'~}-:1b~!_!"..I.~'.L~
. Proj~t Name: Moras" Hili proieCt'80nd No. ~~tl, 14;;10
I Premium $17.640.00lyr
~
) ".
TRAFFIC MITIGATION BOND
WHEREAS, the City Council 01 the City crf T emecula, State of Callfomia a.nd TR4. LP. a Califomia limited
paMership (herein designated as 'Principal'), have entered into the attached agreement whereby the principal.
recognizing tile Impact of his development on existing street and highway facilities. prjnc:ipalhas agreed as a condition of
approval of the map to m~igate the impact ollhe development by payment to the City of a sum 01 money to be used lor
mitigation of such impact: and.
WHEREAS. principal wtshes till defer the payment of the sum, and is requirec1 under the tenms of said agreement
furnish security to guarantee the payment of the traffic mitigation fees.
NOW THEREFORE. we. the principal and Gulf Insurance ComDanv. a corporation organlted and exlslillg under
Ihe laws of the Slate of Missouri and authorized to transact'surely business In the Slate of california, as Surety are held
and firmly bound unto CilY ofTemecula , in the sum 01 One Million One Hundred SevenN Sill Thousand and NO/100lhs
Dollars ($1 176 000). for the payment whereof, well and lnJly to be made, said Principal and Surety bind themselves, their
heirs. administrators. successors and assigns. JOintly and severaRy. finmly by these presents.
The Cond~ion of this Obligation is such that if the above-bounden Principal, his or its heirS, executors,
administrators. successors or assigns, shall In all things stand to and abide by and well and trUly keep and perform the
covenants, conditions and provisions In the said agreement and any alteration thereof made as therein provided. on his or
their part. to be kept and performed at the lime and in the manner therein specified, and In all respectS ac:c:ording to their
, lnJe intent and meaning, and shall indemnify and save harmless the Clly of Temecula, its officers, agents and employees.
( ) as therein stipulated, then this obllga~on shall become nun and void: othetWlse it shall be and remain in full fon:e and
effect.
As a part of the obligation secured hereby and ,in addition to the race amount specified therefor, there sllall be
included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, inclUding reasonable attomey'& fees. incurred by City ,111 successfully
enlorcing such obligation, all to be taxed as c:ost5 and included in any jUdgement rendered.
The surety hereby stipulated and agrees that no change. extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of
tile agreement shall In anywise affe<:l'ils obligation on this bond, and it does hereby waive' notice of any such change.
extension of time. alteration or addition io the tenmS of this egreement surely funher stipulates and agrees lh81 the
provision of Section 2845 01 the Civil Code are not a condition precedent to the Surety's Obligations hereunder and are
hereby waiv b urety.
Wh the uired payment covered bylhe Agreement Is made, the Cily of Temecula will thereupon release the
obligation 0 this bo d.
IN WITNES
2001.
EOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the prIncipal and surely above named, on June 27,
Gulf Insurance Company
(Surety)
(_J
By:
Victoria M. Campbell.
, TOTAL P.B2
** TOTAL PRGE.12 **
Attachment # 3
JOINT COMMUNITY FACILITIES AGREEMENT
Quint & Thimrnig LLP
7/18/02
JOINT COMMUNITY FACILITIES AGREEMENT
among
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
and
CITY OF TEMECULA
and
MCMILLIN MORGAN HILL, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
relating to:
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2002-06 (MORGAN HILL)
OF THE EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
)6320
JOINT COMMUNITY FACILITIES AGREEMENT
THIS JOINT COMMUNITY FACILITIES AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is entered
into effective as of the _ day of July, 2002, by and among the EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT, a municipal water district ("EMWD"), the City OF TEMECULA, a municipal
corporation (the "City") and MCMILLIN MORGAN HILL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company (the "Property Owner"), related to the proposed formation by EMWD of a community
facilities district to be known as "Community Facilities District No. 2002-06 (Morgan Hill) of the
Eastern Municipal Water District" ("CFD No. 2002-06") for the purpose of financing costs
related to certain public facilities and equipment, including costs related to certain facilities to
be constructed by or under the supervision of the City.
RECITALS:
A. Property Owner is the owner of certain real property which consists of
approximately 452.71 acres of land located in the unincorporated area of the County of
Riverside and which is proposed to constitute the land within the boundaries of CFD No. 2002-
06 (the "Property"). The Property is depicted in Exhibit A attached hereto.
B. The Property Owner desires to develop the Property for residential purposes and
has obtained, or intends to obtain, the necessary development approvals to construct
approximately 1,126 single family detached residential units on the Property, as such
development may be modified from time to time (the "Project").
C. The Project will require the payment, pursuant to that certain "Agreement for
Mitigation of Impacts of Morgan Hill Specific Plan No. 313" between City and the former owner
of the Property, TR4, LP, a California limited liability company (the "City Agreement"), of a
Mitigation Fee in the aggregate amount of One Million One Hundred Seventy-six Thousand
Dollars ($1,176,000.00) (the "Mitigation Fee"), which is to be used to finance costs of the design
and construction of roadway and traffic improvements on Winchester Road between Butterfield
Stage Road and the I-15jSR 79S interchange or for the design and construction of
improvements to the I-15jSR 79S interchange (collectively, the "City Facilities"). The City has
agreed that the Mitigation Fee may be paid directly to City or paid out of proceeds of the bonds,
or other securities, issued by CFD No. 2002-06 (the "Bond Proceeds").
D. The City has agreed to provide the Property Owner with a credit against
payment of the Mitigation Fee to the extent that Bond Proceeds are made available to the City to
pay costs of the City Facilities, all as further described herein.
E.
2002-06.
EMWD will have responsibility for the formation and administration of CFD No.
F. The Board of Directors of EMWD (the "EMWD Board") has declared its intention
to form and establish CFD No. 2002-06 pursuant to the provisions of the Mello-Roos
Community Facilities Act of 1982, Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 53311) of Part 1 of
Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code (the" Act").
-1-
G. EMWD and the City, by their respective approvals of this Agreement, find and
determine that the residents residing within the boundaries of their respective jurisdiction will
be benefited by the City Facilities and that this Agreement is beneficial to the interests of such
residents.
H. The parties hereto intend to have CFD No. 2002-06 assist in the financing of the
City Facilities by making Bond Proceeds available to the City in an amount which is equal to the
amount of the Mitigation Fee.
1. EMWD is authorized by Section 53313.5 of the Act to assist in the financing of the
City Facilities. This Agreement constitutes a joint community facilities agreement, within the
meaning of Section 53316.2 of the Act, by and among EMWD, City and Property Owner,
pursuant to which CFD No. 2002-06, when and if formed, will be authorized to finance a
portion of the costs of the City Facilities. As authorized by Section 53316.6 of the Act,
responsibility for constructing, providing for and operating the City Facilities will be the
responsibility of the City, as described herein.
AGREEMENT:
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth
herein, and for other consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows:
1. Recitals. Each of the above recitals is true and correct and is, by this reference,
incorporated herein.
2. Proposed Formation of CFD No. 2002-06. EMWD will undertake to analyze the
appropriateness of forming CFD No. 2002-06 to finance a portion of the costs of the City
Facilities as well as certain other facilities and equipment. EMWD will retain, at the expense of
the Property Owner, the necessary consultants to analyze the proposed formation of CFD No.
2002-06.
3. Sale of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. In the event that CFD No. 2002-06 is formed, the
EMWD Board acting as the legislative body of CFD No. 2002-06 may, in its sole discretion, make
Bond Proceeds available to the City to pay a portion of the costs of the City Facilities by issuing
bonds of the CFD in one or more series (the "Bonds"). To the extent that the EMWD Board
determines, in its sole discretion, that Bond Proceeds are available to finance a portion of the
costs of the City Facilities, it may deposit such amount in a special fund, or fund(s), accounts(s)
or subaccount(s), of CFD No. 2002-06 (the "City Facilities Account"), established by the
document pursuant to which the Bonds are issued (the "Fiscal Agent Agreement"). The Bonds
shall be issued only if, in its sole discretion, the EMWD Board determines that all requirements
of state and federal law and all EMWD policies have been satisfied or have been waived by
EMWD. In no event shall City have a right to compel the issuance of the Bonds or any deposit
of Bond Proceeds to the City Facilities Account.
The City Facilities Account, to the extent established and funded as described in the
preceding paragraph, shall be held by the fiscal agent or trustee for the Bonds (the "Fiscal
-2-
Agent"), and amounts shall be disbursed from the City Facilities Account upon receipt by the
Fiscal Agent of a Disbursement Request Form executed by the City Manager or the City's
Director of Finance. The City agrees that amounts will be withdrawn from the City Facilities
Account solely to pay costs of the City Facilities then due and payable by the City, or that have
otherwise theretofore been paid by the City after the date of this Agreement, and the City
hereby represents and warrants that it reasonably expects to expend at least 85 % of any Bond
Proceeds deposited to the City Facilities Account within 3 years of the date of deposit. In no
event shall EMWD, the Property Owner or CFD No. 2002-06 have any right to approve any
such disbursement request.
The City Director of Finance shall have the sole right and obligation to direct the
investment of any amounts on deposit in the City Facilities Account; provided that any such
investment shall be a permitted investment for Bond Proceeds under the Fiscal Agent
Agreement. Amounts deposited to the City Facilities Account and any investment earnings
thereon shall be used solely for (a) satisfaction of Disbursement Request Forms submitted to the
Fiscal Agent as described in the preceding paragraph, (b) with respect to any amounts on
deposit in the City Facilities Account on the date which is 15 years after the first deposit of
funds therein, to the redemption of Bonds, and (c) to the extent investment earnings on
amounts in the City Facilities Account are in excess of the yield on the Bonds, the excess may be
used by CFD No. 2002-06 to make rebate payments to the federal government.
In the event that Bond Proceeds are deposited to the City Facilities Account and the
provisions governing the City Facilities Account are consistent with the foregoing provisions of
this Section 3, the City will provide a dollar for dollar credit for each dollar of Bond Proceeds so
deposited against amounts owing in respect of the Mitigation Fee.
Nothing herein shall supersede the obligation of Property Owner to pay the Mitigation
Fee when due. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide a mechanism by which CFD No.
2002-06 may issue bonds to provide a source of funds to finance the City Facilities in lieu of the
payment of the Mitigation Fee. In the event that Bond Proceeds are not available to satisfy the
obligation, then Property Owner shall remain obligated to pay the Mitigation Fee as a condition
of receiving building permits for the Project; provided, however, that in the event Bond
Proceeds in an amount less than the full amount of the Mitigation Fee are deposited in the City
Facilities Account, the Property Owner shall be deemed to have satisfied the applicable
Mitigation Fee with respect to the Project in an amount equal to such deposit.
The City agrees to maintain accounting records relating to the use of amounts disbursed
to or upon its order from the City Facilities Account in accordance with City accounting
procedures for similar funds. The City will, upon written request, provide EMWD with
reasonable access to City's records related to such disbursements.
4. Reimbursement of City Costs. Property Owner shall advance to the City an amount
equal to the City's costs reasonably incurred in connection with its review and approval of this
Agreement, which advance may, in the sole discretion of the EMWD Board as the legislative
body of CFD No. 2002-06, be reimbursed to Property Owner from Bond Proceeds.
-3-
5. Construction. The City will be responsible for all matters related to the design and
construction of the City Facilities.
6. Ownership of Facilities. The City Facilities shall be and remain the property of City.
7. Limited Obligations. All obligations of EMWD under and pursuant to this Agreement
shall be limited to the amounts, if any, on deposit in the City Facilities Account. No
Boardmember, officer or employee of EMWD shall in any event be personally liable hereunder.
Following any deposit of Bond Proceeds in the City Facilities Account as provided in Section 3
above, EMWD shall have no liability with respect to the handling or the investment of such
funds by the Fiscal Agent, or the disposition of such funds by the City.
8. Termination. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, this
Agreement shall cease to be effective and shall terminate if a deposit of Bond Proceeds to the
City Facilities Account is not made by CFD No. 2002-06 by March 1, 2003.
9. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended at any time but only in writing
signed by each party hereto.
10. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement among the parties
with respect to the matters provided for herein and supersedes all prior agreements and
negotiations between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement.
11. Notices. Any notice required or permitted by this Agreement to be given or
delivered to another party shall be deemed to have been received when personally delivered or
seventy-two hours following deposit of the same in any United States Post Office in California,
registered or certified, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
EMWD:
Eastern Municipal Water District
2270 Trumble Road
Post Office Box 8300
Perris, California 92572-8300
Attn: General Manager
City:
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Attn: City Manager
Property Owner:
McMillin Morgan Hill, LLC
c/o McMillin Land Development
2727 Hoover Ave.
National City, CA 91950
Attn: Wade Hall
-4-
Each party may change its address for delivery of notice by delivering written notice of
such change of address to the other parties hereto.
12. Exhibits. All exhibits attached hereto are incorporated into this Agreement by this
reference.
13. Severabilitv. If any part of this Agreement is held to be illegal or unenforceable by a
court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall be given effect to the
fullest extent reasonably possible.
14. Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be
governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
15. Waiver. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the
provisions of this Agreement by another party hereto, or the failure by a party to exercise its
rights upon the default of another party, shall not constitute a waiver of such party's right to
insist and demand strict compliance by such other party with the terms of this Agreement
thereafter.
16. No Third Party Beneficiaries. No person or entity other than CFD No. 2002-06 when
and if formed shall be deemed to be a third party beneficiary hereof, and nothing in this
Agreement (either express or implied) is intended to confer upon any person or entity, other
than City, EMWD, Property Owner and CFD No. 2002-06 (and their respective successors and
assigns), any rights, remedies, obligations or liabilities under or by reason of this Agreement.
17. Singular and Plural; Gender. As used herein, the singular of any word includes the
plural, and terms in the masculine gender shall include the feminine.
18. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall
be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute but one instrument.
-5-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and
year written above.
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
By:
Director of Finance
ATTEST:
By:
Secretary of the Board of Directors
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
City Manager
ATTEST:
By:
City Clerk
McMILLIN MORGAN HILL, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: McMillin Management Services, LP,
its Manager
By: Corky McMillin Construction
Services, Inc., a California
corporation, its General Partner
By:
Name:
Title:
By:
Name:
Title:
-6-
EXHIBIT A
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
[COPY OF BOUNDARY MAP TO BE INSERTED]
Improvement Area A
[INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION]
Improvement Area B
[INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION]
Improvement Area C
[INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION]
A-1
EXHIBIT B
DISBURSEMENT REQUEST FORM
1. , as Fiscal Agent for Community Facilities District No. 2002-06
(Morgan Hill) of the Eastern Municipal Water District ("CFD No. 2002-06"), is hereby requested
to pay from the City Facilities Account established by CFD No. 2002-06 in connection with its
Series _ Special Tax Bonds (the "Bonds") to the City of Temecula ("City") or its order, the
sum set forth in 3 below.
2. The undersigned certifies that the amount requested hereunder is being or has
been expended for costs of the City Facilities.
3. Amount requested: $
4. The amount set forth in 3 above is hereby directed to be paid to
5. Capitalized terms used in this Disbursement Request and not otherwise defined
herein have the meanings given such terms in the Joint Community Facilities Agreement among
EMWD, City and Property Owner, dated as of ,2002.
Date:
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
Its:
B-1
ITEM 16
ORDINANCE NO. 02-03
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY
COUNCIL CITY OF TEMECULA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
That an amendment to the contract between the City Council of the City of Temecula
and Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System.
SECTION 2.
The Mayor of the City Council is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to execute
said amendment for and on behaif of said Agency.
SECTION 3.
This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption, and prior to the
expiration of 30 days from the passage thereof shall be published at least once in the
Californian, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Temecula
and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula
this 25th day of June, 2002.
Ron Roberts, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
R:/Ords 2002l0rds 02-03
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Ordinance No. 02-03 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at
a regular meeting of the City Council on the 25th day of June, 2002, and that thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Temecula on the 23rd day of July, 2002 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
R:/Ords 2002l0rds 02-03
2
TEMECULA COMMUNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT
ITEM 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
JUNE 25, 2002
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 7:28
P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. President
Stone presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
4
DIRECTORS:
Comerchero, Naggar, Roberts, Pratt
ABSENT:
1
DIRECTORS:
Stone
Also present were General Manager Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Tract Map No. 23209 - Service Level B. Service Level C. and Service Level D Rates
and Charqes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. CSD 02-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
ACKNOWLEDGING THE FlUNG OF A REPORT WITH
RESPECT TO SERVICE LEVEL B, SERVICE LEVEL C, AND
SERVICE LEVEL D RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT MAP
NO. 23209 BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 AND
SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH
2 Authorize the expenditure of funds for the Landscape Maintenance Contract with
Excel Landscape. Inc. for FY 2002-2003
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Authorize the expenditure of funds in the amount of $1,110,440.00 for the
base contract and an additional amount not to exceed $120,000.00 for the
supplemental and new areas that may be brought on line during the term of the
contract;
Minutes.csd\062502
2.2 Approve a contingency of 10% in the amount of $123,044.00 for extra work
items.
3 Third Amendment to the Tree Maintenance Services Contract with West Coast
Arborists. Inc.
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Approve the third amendment for the extension of the Tree Maintenance
Services Contract with West Coast Arborists, Inc. through June 30, 2003
in an amount of $75.00000;
3.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of $7,500.00 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount.
MOTION: Director Comerchero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3. The
motion was seconded by Director Roberts and voice vote reflected approval with the exception
of President Stone who was absent.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
No additional comments.
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
A. Community Services Director Parker invited the community to the Star Spangled Fourth
of July Festivities, advising that the parade, in Old Town, will begin at 10:00 A.M. with family
festivities at the Sports Park beginning at 2:00 P.M.
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
No comments.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS
No comments.
Minutes.csdl062502
2
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:33 P.M., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to
Tuesday, July 9, 2002, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, California.
Jeffrey E. Stone, President
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/District Secretary
[SEAL]
Minutes.csd\062502
3
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
JULY 9, 2002
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 7:43
P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. President
Stone presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
4
DIRECTORS:
Comerchero, Naggar, Roberts, Pratt
ABSENT:
1
DIRECTORS:
Stone
Also present were General Manager Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of June 11, 2002.
2 Amendment NO.2 to a ConsultinQ AQreement for Professional Materials TestinQ -
Chaparral HiQh School SwimminQ Pool - Proiect No. PWOO-08CSD
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve Amendment NO.2 to the consulting agreement with Ninyo & Moore
in the amount of $13,637.50 to complete the materials testing services for the
Chaparral High School Swimming Pool - Project No. PWOO-08CSD - and
authorize the President to execute the amendment.
MOTION: Director Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2. The motion
was seconded by Director Roberts and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of
President Stone who was absent.
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
Extending his appreciation to those involved, Community Services Director Parker commended
his staff and other City departments involved with making this year's Fourth of July Festivities
another success.
Minutes.csd\070902
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
Echoing Community Services Director Parker's comments, General Manager Nelson as well
commended those involved on a job well done.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS
No comments.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:46 P.M., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to
Tuesday, July 23, 2002, at 7:00 P,M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, California.
Jeffrey E. Stone, President
ATTEST:
Susan W, Jones, CMC
City Clerk/District Secretary
[SEAL}
Minutes.csd\070902
2
ITEM 2
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY ~
DIRECTOR OF FINAN
CITY MANAGER 1fJ
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
FROM:
Board of Directors
Herman D. Parker, Director of Community service&
July 23, 2002
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Naming of Vail Ranch Park Sites A, Band C
PREPARED BY:
Cathy McCarthy, Development Services Administrator /
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors approve names for the Vail Ranch
Park Sites located in the Vail Ranch development as follows: Park Site A - Vail Ranch Park;
Park Site B - Nighthawk Park and Park Site C - Pablo Apis Park as recommended by the
Community Services Commission.
BACKGROUND: On July 1, 2001, the Vail Ranch community was annexed into the City of
Temecula. There are three developed park sites in the Vail Ranch area that are unnamed. The
Community Services Department maintains a policy of naming and placing signage on all City
park and recreation facilities.
At the direction of the City Council, the Community Services Department ran a "Name Your
Parks" campaign for the Vail Ranch community. Flyers were distributed, advertisements and
press releases were placed in the local newspapers and the park naming was offered on the
City's website. During a four-week period, several suggestions were made for naming the park
sites. Attached you will find those names suggested through the Vail Ranch park naming
campaign. Also attached, you will find our standard list of park name recommendations for
future City of Temecula Park and Recreation Facilities.
Pursuant to City policy, the Community Services Commission forwards recommendations to the
Board of Directors regarding the naming of the City's parks and recreation facilities. At their
meeting June 10, 2002, the Commission approved a motion to recommend that the following
names be forwarded to the Board for these sites:
Park Site A Vail Ranch Park
Park Site B Nighthawk Park
Park Site C Pablo Apis Park
The Board may approve these names or select other names of their choice.
FISCAL IMPACT: City of Temecula concrete monument park signs will be installed
at each site. The cost of each sign is approximately $4,000 and has been funded in the current
year's budget.
ATTACHMENTS:
Vail Ranch Park Site Map
List of Name Recommendations from the Naming Campaign
R:\McCarthC\Agenda AeportsWail Ranch Park Sites Naming.doc
Memo Dated July 15, 2002 Re: Pablo Apis
List of Name Recommendations for Future City of Temecula Park
and Recreation Facilities
Letter Dated July 8, 2002 Re: Names for New City of Temecula
Parks
Resolution No. CSD 92-08: Naming Parks and Recreation Facilities
A:\McCarthC\Agenda ReportsWail Ranch Park Sites Naming.doc
.............
'... .'
,-
Vail Ranch Parks
City of T emecula
June 6. 2002
/\I Centerline
_ Parks
[ ] Parcels
I I City
500
,
o
500
N
A
1000 Feet
,
---~
Legend
This map was made by the City of Temecula Geographic
Information System. The map is derived from base data
produced by the Riverside County Assessor's Department
and the Transportation and Land Management Agency
of Riverside County. The City of Temecula assumes no
warranty or legal responsibility for the information contained
on this map. Data and information represented on this map
are subject to update and modification. The Geographic
Information System and other sources should be queried for the
most current information. This map is not for reprint or resale.
r:\gis\kelli\arcviewprojects\vail_ranchJ)arks.apr
Park A
(Located at
Vail Ranch
Parkway)
Vail Park
Luiseno Park
Heart of Temecula
Park
Pablo A is Park
Walter Vail Park
Tony Tobin Park
Teme Vail Park
Ramona Wolf Park
PARK NAME RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
VAIL RANCH PARK SITES
~
..
l"l
o
3
3
..
=
c..
ll>
....
o.
=
'"
Park B
(Located at
Nighthawk Pass)
I Hawk Park
I Via del Rio Park
I Pablo Apis Park
2 Cattleman Park
2 Ramona Park
I Luiseno Park
I Ni hthawk Park
I
I
I
2
Sunset Park
Kit Carson Park
Immigrant Trail Park
I
I
Vail Ranch Park
Erie Stanley Gardner
Park
Rori augh Park
Pe ercom Park
Butterfield Trail Park
Palomar Park
I
2
~
..
l"l
o
3
e
..
=
c..
ll>
f"'to;
o'
=
'"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TEMECULA VALLEY MUSEUM
City of T emecula
Community Services Department
Memo
To: Herman Parker
From: Wendell Ott, Museum Services Manager
Date: July 15, 2002
Re: Pablo Apis
Pablo Apis became one of the noted Luisefio leaders during post-secularization
times. (He married Casilda Ano at Mission San Luis Rey.) According to the
padrones, Pablo Apis and Casilda Ano were parents of seven children born between
1809 and 1831. Their eldest child was named Pablo Apis after his father, and both
played prominent roles in Luisefio affairs.
The younger Apis received a grant for the Little Rancho Temecula from Governor Pio
Pico in 1845. Apis died (1855) about the time his claim for the Little Temecula
Rancho was rejected by the Board of Land Commissioners in 1853. A few years
later, the Apis heirs were successful in having their title restored after an appeal of
the case.
[Pablo Apis was one of the few Indians to be awarded a land grant. Getting the grant
was one thing, keeping it was another.]
Until early in 1990, a low mound of melted adobe on the south bank of the Temecula
Creek marked the location of the Apis Adobe, an important historic house of early
San Diego County. The home of Pablo Apis served as a ranchhouse, store, and the
Temecula station of the Overland Mail Company. The house was a quarter mile east
of the historic Indian village of Temecula and three miles southeast of modern
downtown Temecula near the intersection of State Highway 79 and Redhawk Road.
(Running past the front door of the Apis Adobe was the trail variously known as the
Emigrant Road, the Butterfield Stage Road, and the Overland Road.)
.
LIST OF NAME RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
FUTURE CITY OF TEMECULA PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES
1. Palomino Park 13. Eagle Park
2. Cutting Horse Park 14. Eagle Ranch Park
3. Wild Horse Park 15. Vineyard Park
4. Bronco Park 16. Granite Park
5. Cattle Drive Park 17. Wolfe Valley Park
6. Vaqueros Park 18. Bear Mountain Park
7. Wagon Wheel Park 19. Rainbow Canyon Park
8. Fort Temecula Park 20. Ponderosa Park
9. Old West Park 21. Recreation Park
10. Rodeo Ranch Park 22. Earle Stanley Gardner Park
11. Indian Park 23. Vail Ranch Park
12. Patricia H. Birdsall Park 24. Ronald Regan Park
R:\ZIGLERGILISTSILIST OF PARK NAME RECOMMENDATIONS.doc
Jul OS 02 06:34a
~ .
Elliott Miller
SOS 600 8726
p.2
Dr. David M. Elliott & Dr. Anne J. Miller
20246 Avenida de Arboles
Murrieta, California 92562
(909) 600-8626
FAX (909) 600-8726
8 July 2002
Mayor and City Council
City of Temecula
Temecula City Hall
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92589-9003
Re: Names for new City of Temecula parks
Dear Sirs:
We understand that Pablo AplS Park is being considered for a name of one of the new parks in
Temecula. We strongly support the use of this name for a park. The Apis name has been
associated with Temecula since 1836, if not before. Descendants of Pablo Apis continue to
reside in the Temecula Valley; 166 years later. Few people, if any, can say that their family has
lived in the Temecula area that long.
Pablo Apis, a Luiseno Indian, was granted the Little Temecula Rancho, which contained about
2200 acres. Much of what was the Little Temecula Rancho is part of Temecula today. Most of
Redhawk, part of Vail Ranch, the Pechanga Entertainment Center, the Wolf Store area, part of
the neighborhoods southwest of Pala and Loma Linda Roads, and some of the area known as
Wolf Valley are all in what was the Little Temecula Rancho.
To name one of the parks Pablo Apis Park would be a great honor to Temecula's history, to
the Luiseno Indians who have lived here so many years, and to the many descendants of Pablo
Apis.
Sincerely,
/J~b:fr/vpf?-_._--
David M. Elliott
~~
Anne J. Miller
RESOLUI10N NO. CSD 92-08
A RESOLUI10N OF TIlE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF TIlE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES
DISTRICT ADOPTING A POLICY FOR NAMING
PARKS AND RECREATION FAClLmES
WHEREAS, on April 23, 1991, the Board of Directors (the "Board") adopted a policy
for naming parks and recreation facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Community Services District and the Parks and Recreation Commission
requests that the aforementioned policy be adopted by resolution;
NOW, THEREFORE, mE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF mE TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT DOES HEREBY, RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND
ORDER AS FOLWWS:
Section 1. That the policy for naming parks and recreation facilities as set forth on
Exhibit "A" is adopted establishing a uniform policy and procedure that identifies criteria for
the naming of parks and recreation facilities.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 1992.
~1iL
Ronald J. Parks, President
ATTEST:
R."", CSD 92-08
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the
foregoing Resolution No. CSD 92-08 was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Temecula on the 8th day of September 1992 by the following roll call vote.
AYES: 5
DIRECTORS:
Birdsall, Moore, Lindemans, Munoz
Parks,
NOES: 0
DIRECTORS:
None
ABSENT: 0
DIRECTORS:
None
~.J7J
une S. Greek, C. Clerk
Roso. CSD 92-08
Exhibit "A"
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
Naming Parks and Recreation Facilities
PURPOSE
To establish a uniform policy and procedure that identifies
criteria for the naming of parks and recreation facilities.
POLICY
The Park and Recreation Commission will be responsible for the
selection of names for parks and recreation facilities. Once a
name is selected, it will be forwarded to the Board of Directors
for ratification. Staff will be responsible for encouraging
citizens and community organizations to suggest possible names that
will then be forwarded to the Commission for consideration.
At a minimum, each park and community building will be designated
a name. Naming of specific areas within a park (garden, swimming
pool, lake, ballfield, etc.) is acceptable but should be kept to a
minimum to avoid confusion. No park shall be given a name which
might be perceived as controversial by the community. All names
selected shall be acceptable and meaningful to a majority of the
neighborhood/community where the park or recreation facility is
located.
Priority in naming sites shall be given to geographical locations,
historic significance or geologic features. No park shall:be named
for a person, except where an individual has made a si9nificant
financial contribution toward the acquisition and/or development of
the park or facility, or has been an outstanding long-time
community leader who has supported open space and recreational
activities.
All park and recreation facilities will be designated a formal name
within six months of acquisition or construction. All parks shall
have an entrance sign. Buildings will have an entrance sign and a
plaque inside the facility for name identification.
The name of a park or recreation facility may be changed only after
a hearing is held by the Commission to receive community input and
direction. No name shall be changed unless there is significant
justification and support by the community.
E,ESPONSIBILITY
Department
Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Department
ACTlON
1.
Acquires a new park or recreation
facility.
2. Solicits possible names from community.
3 . Forwards suggested names to the Parks and
Recreation Commission for consideration.
4.
Receives any additional community input.
5. Selects a name for the new park or
recreation facility.
6. Forwards name to city Council for
ratification.
7. Installs the appropriate naming sign or
plaque.
.
.
TCSD
DEPARTMENTAL
REPORT
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANC~
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
Board of Directors
Herman D. Parker, Director of Community servicesQ)
July 23, 2002
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Departmental Report
PREPARED BY:
Gail L. Zigler, Administrative Secretary
The Master Plan for the Temecula Public Library was adopted at the September 26, 2000 City
Council Meeting. Staff has negotiated a contract with LPA for the final construction documents and
specifications for the Temecula Public Library. Staff is resolving the final issue with the construction
documents and they will be submitted for final plan check. Staff released an RFQ for grant writing
services to apply for the California State Library's Bond Act 2000. Staff and the consultant worked
tirelessly to complete the grant application, which was delivered in person by Phyllis Ruse and
Aaron Adams to Sacramento on June 13, 2002.
The plans for general tenant improvements for the Temecula Children's Museum are in second plan
check. The Community Services Commission reviewed the design concept for the project and
recommended staff take the design concept forward to the City Council. The Board of Directors
approved the Master Plan at the March 26, 2002 City Council meeting. Staff anticipates the project
will be going out to bid in the near future.
RHA Landscape Architects is preparing the construction documents for the improvements to Vail
Ranch Park Site "C" adjacent to Pauba Elementary School. This project is identified in this year's
CIP. The new amenities will include a tot lot, picnic shelter, tables, benches and walkways. The
Community Services Commission reviewed and approved the conceptual master plan at their
February 11, 2002 Commission meeting.
The Development Services Division continues to participate in the development review for projects
within the City including Wolf Creek, Roripaugh, Villages of Old Town and Harveston, as well as
overseeing the development of parks and recreation facilities, and the contract for refuse and
recycling, cable television services and assessment administration.
The Maintenance Division continues to oversee the maintenance of all parks and recreation
facilities, as well as all other City owned public buildings and facilities. In addition, the Maintenance
Division assists in all aspects of Citywide special events.
R:\ZIGLERGIXDEPTRPTl0702.doc
July 16,2002
The Recreation Division completed the annual 4th of July Extravaganza, which included the 4th of
July parade through Old Town and the events at the Rancho California Sports which included live
entertainment, food and craft vendors and 30 minutes fireworks display. Staff is currently
programming many of the summer programs including Summer Day Camp, the SMART Program,
the Learn To Swim and Public Swim Programs, and the Summer Concert Series. The Recreation
Division continues to plan, program and implement a variety of classes and activities for the
community.
R:\ZIGLERGIXDEPTRPTl0702.doc
July 16,2002
REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
ITEM 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JUNE 25, 2002
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 7:33
P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
4
AGENCY MEMBERS:
Naggar, Pratt, Roberts,
Comerchero
ABSENT:
1
AGENCY MEMBER:
Stone
Also present were Executive Director Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No input.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Exclusive Neqotiatinq Aqreement with AGK Group, LLC
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement between the Agency and
AGK Group, LLC.
MOTION: Agency Member Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item NO.1. The
motion was seconded by Agency Member Roberts and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Agency Member Stone who was absent.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
No additional comments.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
No comment.
AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS
No comments.
R:\Minutes. rda\062502
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:33 P.M., the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to
Tuesday, July 9, 2002, in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California.
Jeff Comerchero, Chairman
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/Agency Secretary
[SEAL]
R:\Minutes. rda\062502
2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 9, 2002
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 7:46
P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
4
AGENCY MEMBERS:
Naggar, Pratt, Roberts,
Comerchero
ABSENT:
1
AGENCY MEMBER:
Stone
Also present were Executive Director Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No input.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of June 11, 2002.
MOTION: Agency Member Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item NO.1. The
motion was seconded by Agency Member Roberts and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Agency Member Stone who was absent.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
No comment.
AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS
No comments.
R\Minutes.rda\070902
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:47 P.M. the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to
Tuesday, July 23, 2002, in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California.
Jeff Comerchero, Chairman
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/Agency Secretary
[SEAL]
R:IMinutes. rdal070902
2
ITEM 2
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
DATE:
Executive Director/Agency Members
,tW~ William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
July 23, 2002
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Approval of Cooperative Agreement with the Temecula Redevelopment
Agency for Construction and Funding of the Mercantile Building Seismic
Retrofit (Community Theater) - Project No. PW01-20
PREPARED BY:
Greg Butler, Senior Engineer - Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION:
That Redevelopment Agency Board:
1. Approve an Agreement entitled "Cooperative Agreement" between the City of Temecula
(City) and the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) of the City of Temecula for construction and
funding of the Mercantile Building Seismic Retrofit (Community Theater) - Project No.
PW01-20.
2. Authorize the Chairperson to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Agency in substantially
the form attached to the Agenda Report.
3. Authorize the budgeted expenditure of $287,500.00 for the RDA's share of the Mercantile
Building Seismic Retrofit project costs incurred, as approved by the City or the RDA.
BACKGROUND: The City's Capital Improvement Program includes improvements for the
Mercantile Building Retrofit (Community Theater). This Improvement is located within the Project
Area of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency Project Area 1988-1. The RDA's planning also calls
for this Project to be funded by the RDA.
The Community Redevelopment Law, a Health and Safety Code Section 33220 authorizes and
encourages cities and redevelopment agencies to aid each other and to cooperate in the planning,
undertaking, construction, and operations of redevelopment projects. Sections 33220 (b)
specifically authorizes such cooperative agreements allowing a city and a redevelopment agency to
assist each other in the construction and installation of parks, playgrounds, community, and
educational facilities.
The Redevelopment Plan for the Temecula Redevelopment Project Area 1988-1 specifically
authorizes the expenditure of RDA funds on Community facilities within or benefiting the Project
Area.
R:\AGENDA REPORTS\2002\072302\ARcoopagrmt0121 ROA.doc 1
Completion of this Project will promote the goals of the redevelopment, as it will complete
community improvements as detailed in the City's Capital Improvement Program and in the
Redevelopment Plan. The Project will also induce private investment in and promote expansion of
the commercial areas which will provide additional employment opportunities within the Project Area.
The attached "Cooperative Agreement" between the City and the RDA for construction and funding
of improvements to Mercantile Building (Community Theater); Project No. PW01-20 will implement
the funding plans of the City and the RDA.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Mercantile Building Retrofit (Community Theater) project is funded
through RDA Capital Improvement Program budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. A total of
$287,500.00 has been budgeted for the seismic retrofit reinforcement in Administration Account No.
210-190-183-5801 and Construction Account No. 210-190-183-5804.
ATTACHMENT:
Cooperative Agreement
R:\AGENDA REPORTS\2002\072302\ARcoopagrmto121 RDA.doc2
2
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
FOR THE OLD TOWN TEMECULA MERCANTILE BUILDING SEISMIC
RETROFIT (COMMUNITY THEATER) - PROJECT NO. PWOl-20
TillS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT made and effective as of July 23, 2002 by and between the
City ofTemecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and the Redevelopment Agency of the CityofTemecula, a
public body, corporate and politic ("Agency"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and obligations set
forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
I. This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and purposes, which each party
finds and determines to be true and correct:
a. The Community Redevelopment Law at Health and Safety Code Section 33220
authorizes and encourages cities and redevelopment agencies to aid each other and to cooperate in the
planning, undertaking, construction, and operations of redevelopment projects. Sections 33220 (b) and (c)
specifically authorize such cooperative agreements between a city and a redevelopment agency to assist each
other in the restoration and safety enhancement of historically significant buildings intended for public use
within the Project Area.
b. The Redevelopment Plan for the Temecula Redevelopment Project Area 1988-1
specifically authorizes the expenditure of Agency funds on building rehabilitation within or benefiting the
Project Area.
c. The Old Town Temecula Mercantile Building Seismic Retrofit (Community Theater),
Project No. PWOI-20 is a part of the City's Capital Improvement Program and is located within the Project
Area of Temecula Redevelopment Project Area 1988-1.
d. Completion of the Project will benefit the Project Area and will assist in the
elimination of blight within the Project Area as it will restore and enhance public safety of a historically
significant building intended for public use, Community Theater, as detailed in the City's Capital Improvement
Program and in the Redevelopment Plan. The Project will induce private investment in the commercial area,
and promote expansion of employment opportunities within the commercial areas within the Project Area.
e. No other reasonable means of financing the improvements are available to the
community.
2. The City and the Agency agree to cooperate and share responsibility for the design and
construction of the Project in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
3. The City shall undertake the following responsibilities with respect to the Project:
a. prepare necessary bid documents for the Project;
b. solicit bids and award construction contracts for the Project; and
c. administer the construction contracts.
4. The Agency shall pay for all Project costs, except for such costs as the City is obligated to pay
R:ICIPIPROJECTSIPW01IPWOl-20CSD TheatellMercantileRDACOOP.doc
pursuant to this Agreement. The Agency shall, however, reimburse City for its payments made for the value of
the City services provided.
5. The City Manager, upon the recommendation of the Director of Finance, shall determine the
allocation of costs between the City and Agency pursuant to this Agreement and his or her determination shall
be final.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first
written above.
CITY OF TEMECULA
BY:
Ron Roberts, Mayor
Attest:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
BY:
Jeff Comerchero, Chairperson
Attest:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, Agency Secretary
Approved As to Form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney! Agency General Counsel
R:ICIPIPROJECTSIPW01IPW01.20CSD TheaterlMercan,leRDACOOP.doc
2
ITEM 3
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANC
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Chairman and Members of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency
Executive Director
FROM:
Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manag~
July 23, 2002 U
DATE:
SUBJECT:
First Amendment to Lease of Agency Property - 27500 Jefferson Avenue
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the Agency approve a first amendment to the lease a9reement with the Donna L.
Reeves Trust UTD 7-25-90 for Agency property located at 27500 Jefferson Avenue to
provide a one year extension to this lease for an amount of $15,000 per month.
2. That the Agency approve a first amendment to the sublease agreement between the Donna
L. Reeves Trust and Temecula Valley Automotive, d/b/a Temecula Valley Mitsubishi and
authorize the City Manager to sign the consent agreement.
BACKGROUND: The Temecula Redevelopment Agency ori9inally entered into a lease with the
Norm Reeves Group (Donna L. Reeves Trust UTD 7-25-90) for Agency property at 27500
Jefferson Avenue in January of 1994. This agreement has been periodically amended, and
most recently the Agency entered into a new agreement with the Donna Reeves Trust dated
March 30, 2001. The Norm Reeves Group was able to make expansions on their own
property, and consequently requested that the Agency approve a sublease with San Bernardino
Mitsubishi. The Agency approved this sublease on August 14, 2001.
The lease agreement with the Reeves Trust provides that the agency receives $15,000 per
month rental, and is due to expire on March 31, 2003.
Temecula Valley Mitsubishi wishes to extend the terms of their sublease for up to an additional
one-year period. This requires an amendment to our a9reement with the Donna L. Reeves
Trust as well as approval of the amendment to the sublease. The attached amendments
provide for this extension as well as a 90 day notice period for termination.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the amendments. Approval of these
amendments will result in the continuation of lease and sales tax revenues from this location.
FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this amendment will result in revenues of $15,000 per month to
R:IOGRADYJ\27500 JEFFERSONlAGENDA REPORT - AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH REEVES, 07-23-02.DOC 7/10102
the Agency in addition to sales tax revenues.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. First Amendment to Lease between Agency and Donna L. Reeves Trust
2. First Amendment to Sublease between Donna L. Reeves Trust and Temecula Valley
Automotive
R:\OGRADYJI27500 JEFFERSONIAGENDA REPORT. AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH REEVES, 07-23-02.DOC 7/5/02
FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE (this "Agreement") is made and entered into as of
the day of , 2002, by and between the REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a public body, corporate and politic (the "Lessor") and
DONNA 1. REEVES, AS TRUSTEE OF THE DONNA 1. REEVES TRUST DATED JULY 25,
1990 (the "Lessee"), with respect to the following facts:
RECITALS
A. Lessor and Lessee entered into that certain Standard Industrial/Commercial Single-
Tenant Lease - Net dated as of March 30, 2001 (the "Lease"), whereby Lessor leased to Lessee that
certain real property located in the City of Temecu1a, County of Riverside, State of California and
the three commercial buildings located thereon (the "Premises"), commonly known as 27500
Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, California, for use as an automobile dealership with a retail sales and
service center, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Lease. Capitalized terms not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Lease.
B. Lessee then subleased all of the Premises pursuant to that certain Agreement of
Sublease dated as of August 2001 (the "Sublease"), by and between Lessee, as sublessor, and
Temecula Valley Automotive, a California corporation d/b/a Temecula Valley Mitsubishi
("Mitsubishi"), as sublessee. Lessor granted its consent to the Sublease and its approval of
Mitsubishi as a subtenant of the Premises, as required under Section 12 ofthe Lease.
C. Pursuant to Section 6 of the Sublease, Lessee assigned to Mitsubishi the option to
purchase the Premises set forth in an Addendum to the Lease dated April 1, 2002 (the "Purchase
Option"). Mitsubishi must exercise the Purchase Option by giving written notice of such exercise to
Lessee during the period from April 1, 2001 to December 31, 2002 (the "Option Period").
D. Pursuant to Section 1.3 of the Lease, the two (2) year term of the Lease is due to
expire on March 31,2003. Lessor and Lessee desire to amend the Lease in order to grarlt Lessee the
option to extend the term ofthe Lease for a twelve (12) month period, and to extend the term of the
Option Period for exercise of the Purchase Option, subject to the terms and conditions set forth
herein.
E. Lessor hereby acknowledges that Lessee and Mitsubishi intend to execute an
amendment to the Sublease concurrently herewith, which amendment will similarly grant Mitsubishi
the option to extend the terms of the Option Period for exercise of the Purchase Option, subject to
the terms and conditions more specifically set forth in such amendment, so that the term of the
Sublease shall run and expire concurrently with the term of the Lease, as it may be extended or
earlier terminated. Lessor further acknowledges that Lessor intends to grant its consent to such
amendment to the Sublease, which consent is required to be obtained pursuant to Section 12 of the
Lease.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated
herein by this reference, it is agreed by the parties hereto as follows:
I. Grant of Option to Extend Term. Unless the Lease is terminated prior to expiration of
the Original Term, Lessee shall have the privilege and option of extending the term of the Lease (the
"Extension Option"), for an additional term of twelve (12) months (the "Extension Term"), to
commence upon expiration ofthe Original Term, only so long as Lessee is not in default or breach
under the Lease at the time of exercise of such Extension Option and at the time such Extension
Term commences. Such option shall be exercised by Mitsubishi's delivery of written notice thereof
to Lessor no later than ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the Original Term, sent in the
manner and to the address of Lessor set forth in Section 23 of the Lease. The parties acknowledge
and agree that upon the exercise of option by Mitsubishi, that the Lease shall automatically be
extended for an additional twelve (12) month period, and that no separate notice from Lessee shall be
required or be effective to extend the term of the Lease or the Sublease. If for any reason Mitsubishi
fails to timely and properly exercise the Extension Option as aforesaid, then the Extension Option
shall automatically terminate. In addition, in the event of termination of the Lease for any reason,
then the Extension Option, if not yet exercised, or if exercised but not yet commenced, shall
automatically terminate. The terms and conditions of the Lease shall be the same during the
Extension Term as during the Original Term, as provided in the Lease. The "Term" as used in the
Lease shall be deemed to include the Original Term and the Extension Term, if any.
2. Extension of Option Period for Purchase Ootion. In the event that Lessee validly and
timely exercises the Extension Option, pursuant to and in accordance with Section 1 hereof, then the
term of the Option Period in which to exercise the Purchase Option, as set forth in paragraph (b) of
the Option to Purchase Standard Lease Addendum attached to the Lease dated April 1, 2001, shall be
extended so that the Option Period shall expire on December 31, 2003 (i.e., ninety (90) days prior to
the expiration of the Extension Term) or upon the earlier termination of the Lease.
3. Termination of Extension Term. The parties acknowledge and agree that for the
duration of the Extension Term, Mitsubishi shall have the right to terminate the Lease and the
Sublease at any time without cause by giving ninety (90) days written notice of such termination to
Lessor and Lessee. The parties further acknowledge and agree that the term of the Lease shall run
and expire concurrently with the term of the Sublease, including the Extension Term, ifany, and that
no separate notice from Lessee shall be required or be effective to terminate the Extension Term as
to either the Lease or the Sublease.
4. Representations and Warranties of Lessee. Lessee hereby represents and warrants that
as of the date hereof, (a) Lessee is not in default or breach of the terms, covenants and conditions of
the Lease, and (b) Lessee has not committed any act or omission which, after notice or the passage of
time, or both, would constitute an event of default under the Lease.
G: \ TEMVAlAUTO\GENERAL \AGT\LEASEAMDl.DOC
Page 2 of3
5. Event of Conflict. In the event of conflict or inconsistency between the terms and
conditions of the Lease and the terms and conditions ofthis Amendment, the terms and conditions of
this Amendment shall control.
6. All Other Provisions of Lease to Remain in Effect. All of the other remaining
provisions of the Lease, and the terms, conditions and covenants contained therein, do hereby remain
in full force and effect and shall not be amended, modified or in any way affected hereby.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Lessor and Lessee have executed this Amendment as of the
date and year first above written.
"Lessor" :
"Lesseell :
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA, a public body,
corporate and politic
Shawn Nelson, Executive Director
THE DONNA 1. REEVES TRUST DATED
JULY 25, 1990 .' ...
.' ......-]
/-:.~:-"~.> . .-.- -'"")
.~ /
/..... ~;;;.~~~-_...-
"b'o' ~
'- -- -- --
.. Donna 1. Reeves, Trustee
By:
ATTEST:
Susan Jones, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
G: \TEMV AlAUTO\GENERAL \A.GT\LEASEAMDI.DOC
Page 3 of3
FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUBLEASE
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUBLEASE (this "Agreement") is made and entered into
as ofthe day of ,2002, by and between DONNA 1. REEVES,
AS TRUSTEE OF THE DONNA 1. REEVES TRUST DATED JULY 25, 1990, as sublessor
("Reeves") and TEMECULA VALLEY AUTOMOTIVE, a California corporation d/b/a Temecula
Valley Mitsubishi, as sublessee ("Mitsubishi"), with respect to the following facts:
RECITALS
A. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula, a public body corporate and
politic (the "Agency"), and Reeves entered into that certain Standard Industrial/Commercial Single-
Tenant Lease - Net dated as of March 30, 2001 (the "Lease"), whereby the Agency leased to Reeves
that certain real property located in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California
and the three commercial buildings located thereon (the "Premises"), commonly known as 27500
Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, California, for use as an automobile dealership with a retail sales and
service center, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Lease.
B. Reeves then subleased all of the Premises pursuant to that certain Agreement of
Sublease dated as of August 2001 (the "Sublease"), by and between Reeves, as sublessor, and
Mitsubishi, as sublessee. The Agency granted its consent to the Sublease and its approval of
Mitsubishi as a subtenant of the Premises, as required under Section 12 of the Lease. Capitalized
terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Sublease.
C. Pursuant to Section 6 of the Sublease, Reeves assigned to Mitsubishi the option to
purchase the Premises set forth in an Addendwn to the Lease dated April 1, 2002 (the "Purchase
Option"). Mitsubishi must exercise the Purchase Option by giving written notice of such exercise to
Reeves during the period from April 1, 2001 to December 31, 2002 (the "Option Period").
D. Pursuant to Section 1 of the Sublease, the term of the Sublease is due to expire on.
March 31, 2003. Reeves and Mitsubishi desire to amend the Sublease in order to grant Mitsubishi t.l:1e
option to extend the term of the Sublease for two (2) successive six (6) month periods, and to extend
the term of the Option Period for exercise of the Purchase Option, subject to the terms and conditions
set forth herein.
E. Reeves and Mitsubishi hereby acknowledge that on or about the date hereof, the
Agency and Reeves executed an amendment to the Lease which granted Reeves the option to extend
the term of the Lease for a twelve month period beyond the original expiration date of March 31,
2003, and also extended the term ofthe Option Period for exercise of the Purchase Option, subject to
the terms and conditions more specifically set forth therein. Reeves and Mitsubishi desire that the
terms or the Sublease run and expire concurrently with the terms of the Lease, as it may be extended
or earlier terminated. Reeves and Mitsubishi further acknowledge that they have obtained the prior
written consent of the Agency for this amendment to the Sublease, which consent is required to be
obtained pursuant to Section 12 of the Lease.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated
herein by this reference, it is agreed by the parties hereto as follows:
1. Grant of Option to Extend Term. Unless the Sublease is terminated prior to expiration
ofthe original term as set forth in Section 1 of the Sublease, Mitsubishi shall have the privilege and
option of extending the term of the Sublease (the "Extension Option"), for an additional term of
twelve (12) months (the "Extension Term"), to commence upon expiration ofthe original term, only
so long as Mitsubishi is not in default or breach under the Sublease at the time of exercise of such
Extension Option and at the time such Extension Term commences. Mitsubishi shall exercise such
option by delivering written notice thereof to Reeves and the Agency no later than ninety (90) days
prior to the expiration of the original term, sent in the manner and to the address of Reeves set forth
in Section 23 of the Sublease. The parties acknowledge and agree that upon the effective exercise of
option by Mitsubishi, that the Lease shall automatically be extended for an additional twelve (12)
month period, and that no separate notice from Reeves shall be required or be effective to extend the
term of the Lease to run consecutively with the Extension Term. Iffor any reason Mitsubishi fails to
timely and properly exercise the Extension Option as aforesaid, then the Extension Option shall
automatically terminate. In addition, in the event of termination of the Sublease for any reason, then
the Extension Option, if not yet exercised, or if exercised but not yet commenced, shall automatically
terminate. The terms and conditions ofthe Sublease shall be the same during the Extension Term as
during the original term, as provided in the Sublease. The "Term" as used in the Sublease shall be
deemed to include the original term and the Extension Term, if any.
2. Extension of Option Period for Purchase Option. In the event that Mitsubishi validly
and timely exercises the Extension Option, pursuant to and in accordance with Section 1 hereof, then
the term of the Option Period in which to exercise the Purchase Option, as set forth in paragraph (b)
of the Option to Purchase Standard Lease Addendum attached to the Lease dated April 1, 2001,
which was assigned td Mitsubishi pursuant to Section 6 of the Sublease, shall be extended so that the
Option Period shall expire on December 31,2003 (i.e., ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the
Extension Term) or upon the earlier termination of the Sublease.
3. Termination of Extension Term. For the duration ofthe Extension Term, Mitsubishi
shall have the right to terminate the Sublease at any time by giving ninety (90) days written notice of
such termination to Reeves and the Agency. The parties acknowledge and agree that the term of the
Lease shall run and expire concurrently with the term of the Sublease, including the Extension Term,
if any, and that no separate notice from Reeves shall be required or be effective to terminate the
Extension Term.
4. Termination of Sublease. Mitsubishi hereby acknowledges and agrees that,
notwithstanding Sections 1 and 2 hereof or anything to the contrary contained herein or in the
Sublease, the Sublease and the Purchase Option shall automatically terminate upon the expiration or
earlier termination of the Lease regardless of the cause therefor.
G:\TEMV ALAUfO\GENERAL\AG1\SUBLEASEAMDl.DOC
Page 2 of 5
5. Representations and Warranties of Mitsubishi. Mitsubishi hereby represents and
warrants that as of the date hereof, (a) Mitsubishi is not in default or breach of the terms, covenants
and conditions of the Sublease, and (b) Mitsubishi has not committed any act or omission which,
after notice or the passage oftime, or both, would constitute an event of default under the Sublease.
6. Event of Conflict. In the event of conflict or inconsistency between the terms and
conditions of the Sublease and the terms and conditions of this Amendment, the terms and
conditions of this Amendment shall control.
7. All Other Provisions of Sublease to Remain in Effect. All of the other remaining
provisions of the Sublease, and the terms, conditions and covenants contained therein, do hereby
remain in full force and effect and shall not be amended, modified or in any way affected hereby.
8. Guarantv of Sublease. The Guaranty of Sublease executed by Southern Automotive
Marketing, Inc., a California corporation d/b/a San Bernardino Mitsubishi ("Guarantor"), of even
date with the Sublease, is hereby deemed to cover this Amendment to Sublease, and Guarantor
consents thereto below.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Reeves and Mitsubishi have executed this Amendment as of
the date and year first above written.
"Reeves":
"Mitsubishi":
THE DONNA 1. REEVES TRUST DATED
JULY 25,1990
/<::::-::'.::::..:" -'-I
~. ~)
<~-'.._:~~5:~'"
By:- __ ~____
Donna LReeves, Trustee
TEMECULA V ALLEY AUTOMOTIVE, a
California corporation d/b/a Temecula Valley
Mitsubishi A I ~~ '/"/1/1,,, JI/ A
By: ru,<<;UU/'r~t....-
Michael R. Graeber, President
"Guarantor" :
SOUTHERN AUTOMOTIVE MARKETING,
INC., a California corporation d/b/a San
Bernardino Mitsubishi
By:
~~
Michael R. Graeber, President
G:\TEMV ALAUTO\GENERAL\AG1\SUBLEASEAMDl.DOC
Page 3 of5
CONSENT TO FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUBLEASE
The undersigned as Lessor under that certain Lease between the undersigned, as Lessor, and
Donna L. Reeves, as Trustee ofthe Donna L. Reeves Trust dated July 25, 1990, as Lessee, dates as
of March 30, 2001, hereby consents to the foregoing First Amendment to Sublease, without waiver
of any restriction in the Lease concerning further assignment or subletting or further amendment or
modification of the Sublease.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a public body, corporate and
politic
By:
Shawn Nelson, Executive Director
G:\TEMV ALAUTO\GENERAL\AG1\SUBLEASEAMDl.DOC
Page 4 of5
ATTEST:
Susan Jones, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
G:\TEMV ALAUTO\GENERAL\AG1\SUBLEA$EAMDl.DOC
Page 5 of5
ITEM 4
APPROVAL~
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANC
CITY MANAGER
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA REPORT
FROM:
Executive Director/Agency Members
John Meyer, Housing and Redevelopment Manage~
July 23, 2002
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Revision of the Facade Improvement Program
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Agency Board approve the
recommended revisions to the Facade Improvement Program, extending the list of eligible
improvements to include hardscape and landscaping.
BACKGROUND: The Facade Improvement Program (Program) was originally approved in
April 1995 and last amended in July of 1999. The Program is designed to enhance the visual
attractiveness of buildings in Old Town by providing financial assistance to reinforce the Old
West design theme and to reduce non-conforming conditions.
Participation in the Program greatly increased after the completion of the Streetscape
Improvements. The scope of work has ranged from large projects like the conversion of the
Long Branch Antiques from the Napa Auto Parts store, to smaller individual business signs.
The overall impact on the physical environment has been significant.
Currently, eligible improvements include physical improvements such as paint, windows,
signage, etc. New construction and building additions are not eligible. We have had recent
interest in expanding the program to include landscaping and hardscaping such as fountains,
trellis's, wind barriers and patios.
ANALISYS: The majority of buildings in Old Town have taken advantage of the Fa9ade
Improvement Program. In many cases, there still exists unimproved areas between the
buildings and the streetscape improvements. By expanding the eligible improvements and thus
extending the financial assistance, property owners will have more incentive to complete this
next level of improvements.
The proposed revision of eligible improvements will include the hardscape improvements
discussed above, but only 25% of the cost of landscaping. The reasoning behind this is that if a
building becomes vacant or a property owner defers maintenance, the new paint job or fountain
remains in place. However, landscaping if not watered may die and need to be replaced.
Therefore, the chance of the Agency's investment being lost with landscaping is greater than
other physical or hardscape improvements.
FISCAL IMPACT: The FY 1999-00 budget for the Fa9ade Improvement Program is $75,000
(account number 280-199-813-5804).
R:\PowersjIFacadelmp'Amendment Staff Report 7-25-02.doc
RDA
DEPARTMENTAL
REPORT
,..J
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE DIRECTOR
CITY MANAGER
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Members
FROM: John Meyer, Redevelopment Director
DATE: July 23,2002
SUBJECT: Monthly Departmental Report
Attached for your information is the monthly report as of July 23, 2002 for the Redevelopment
Department.
First Time Homebuvers Proaram
Funding in the amount of $200,000 is available for FY 01-02.
Residential Improvement Proarams
The program budget for FY 01/02 was $250,000 and $237,192 was funded on 57 units. The
program budget for FY 02/03 is $250,000.
Affordable Housina
The Agency has entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with Affirmed
Housing to develop a 17 affordable single-family housing project. Construction will begin in late
August, 2002, with homes available for purchase in early 2003. Affirmed will market the homes
during the construction period.
Senior Housina
Agency staff is negotiating with a development partner to rehab units for an affordable senior
housing project.
Old Town Communitv Theater
The Architect is working on the Construction drawings and is scheduled to complete them in
August.
1
R:\SYERSK\MONTHLL Ylreportjuly2002.doc
J'
The Mercantile Buildina Retrofit
Staff anticipates bringing a contract for Council consideration within 30 days. Staff estimates
about a 90-120 day construction period.
Facade ImprovementINon-Conformina Sian Proaram
The following facade improvement/sign projects are in process or have recently been
completed:
. Welty Building
Sign Program
. Country Porch
Fire Suppression System
. La Table De Provence
Sign Program
. Del Rio Cakes & Supply
Sign Program
Old Town PromotionslMarketina
. Great Race and Street Paintina Festival - Once again, the Great Race returned to
Temecula. This event was held in conjunction with our Street Painting Festival on June
22 & 23,2002. The City of Temecula, along with The Temecula Chamber of Commerce,
hosted a luncheon with the arrival of vintage cars driving through Old Town on Saturday,
June 22. Three participating restaurants provided lunch to the Great Race drivers
served by the Drifters Car Club, Temecula Valley Car Club and Temecula Valley Model
A Car Club.
In addition, the Agency sponsored the 2nd Annual Street Painting Festival, which
featured over 100 artists painting murals ranging in size from 4 foot by 6 foot to a 10 foot
by 12 foot blocks on the asphalt. Street painting originated in Italy with the artist gaining
the title "Madonnari" after their historical practice of creating chalk paintings of the
Madonna. Now the name Madonnari implies Italian Street Painting that expands beyond
the scope of its original religious nature. Children participated in the street painting fun
at the Children's Art in the Park events held in Sam Hicks Park at the northern edge of
Old Town Temecula. While a variety of programs were offered at the park, youth Street
Painters were able to try out their creative talents on the sidewalks as part of the street
Painting Festival. The event was free to the public and artists.
. Summer Niahts - "First Friday Summer Nights" kicked off on July 5 in Old Town. It was
Old Town Temecula's "Hot First Friday Summer Nights" which featured a variety of live
bands and a different theme will be used each first Friday night.
2
R:\SYERSK\MONTHLL Ylreportjuly2002.doc
-'~
,
The First Friday Night, July 5, was themed Red, White & Blues. The evening featured
blues by Aunt Kizzy's Boyz, Rocky Zyarp & the Blues Crackers, and Gypsy Jazz by Club
Django. This included games for the kids, jolly jumps, craft and food vendors.
3
R:\SYERSKIMONTHLL Y\reportjuly2002.doc
FROM
FRX NO.
Jul. 02 2001 03:41PM P2
tithe. ianlBitgoUnion.f€ribune. Thursday)jun~,7, 200~
'-.. . '. .' ..... ._---'\.
I Ternecula Fa rrn ers Marketpushesthe envelope '
By Lynn Alley
. TEMECUlA~Th~Temecu-
Ia Farmers Market isn't like
the tanners markets I've
. seen ill my own neighborhood. .
Oh,.sure,it'hasnne.fresh.:' .
fruit and piuduce. Bill it al~ .
bas a goodly $hOt (J~locaI crafts
andcolOi-. .. . . .
.... "Th~;;anitthefarnierSinar,
. keto but'r... neveractnally seen
. tannersforsale here; quipp"'d
TemecuJaresident David.Crob,
sllln<!ing Iiearthe Black Sheep' .
preserves stand'on arecent. . .'
SatnrcJay mOrnilig..
'Theymay not seU tlnners, .
but they've.gotplenty of eNery.
thing else.' '.
.'. Th~gottheTraditiOXlSof
ProvenCe bakery guy, who
,. bringS fresh croissants, hreads
! and tarts do'Wtl from Studio . . .'
/. City each week. : ....
.. Th~e gotGEil>r,ge and Gale
Cunningham:;' lltVme.<:ilrus .
friiit,s; sapOtes,d1~oyas,!G-
. quaIS, dried.ftuiIS~<!'jilices
. fiOin.De Luz~yOn.-GaIe is.
'. also.theniarkehl1~..She"
andGe6rge grow~eniypeS
. of~~.~;metfortto ,':'
'.supiiIYnWk~:demandyear'-:' .
round. :Ibeit~ysci\l,Cezed
:juices~fu)l!'it.tIavoi.'.'., . .
"~egi:it Qi.gamc straw..
beirlesfroni-CtoW's Pass'Fann
.in:'TemOcula;.Sfriiwberries:are
-JlOioWland re3.jily absOrb aliy
che~.usedonj:hem,so .
. when tlindgooil oi-~sInIw-
. Denies, I cin'i iliIY eti~ of .
'.them;Ai1d6elilMi'me;.i:hese:
areg.,oit'''.i;.,'.:/::,'':.': ,,",-. .' .
Thiwv": gQtDaIe ~dLauren
Stafford; W!ththeirlove]y ~y
of~ llo~ laW>DS,.&tiam..
.. P90;<3n'il8~ #id~.wiil>iiII'::
n.att:zra(.. dieiilS8.iidka-
"~5\~'~':::'~::.:~::: ". ;:.' ".
...o'.' 'H~""""'"
- One "'gular lIendo.r.at the TelllGcula FlIrmftrS Market Is Maribeth .
Harrison, who. with her husband. Tom, produces"plckles and.pre-
. serv.e$~nder theBla.ck $h.eep Goilr:met foods label. LJmnAIky
: gJ;UlCe!l. . olive.oll ma4e in San Diego by .
'. And atWy's SaUS3&es his father, George Petrol{.
(bratwurst, lamb Satisage. llt.. . Thel'l' 8<6 quilts: wat.er~I.
. douiDe, ClIilin.1talian country ors,.hand-pain!ed law!dry tubs,
llnd POrtltguese-HalVaiian), . huge ornamenlal gourds,live .
. made in. Teni.eai1a: BUziy will . orchids, Mricait violets, pome-
spIit'~ ~or you on the spot for' ~te bushes, bOugainvillea,
.. easy grilling. ..bamboo anil,.weII; more kinds .
You can't iwerlook the Wm- ofplantsth"'l:Icannatlie,..
chesll:r chtleses made by Jules' There~s.even a woman'selling .
Wesselink. He traveled bomebird cages and'livebirds.
.to'HoUandto learn the Brtof . The.Teineaua Fanners Mar-. .
. makingfarntsteadGoudaSou' ker;~sti'om8a.m.uD.til
canviS4.his'factoryin'Win-. '. llClon;isiocatedinOldTown .
. chester, juSt a IS-minute drive Temecula.,Takel-l.5:north:and
from the farmers inarli.et, but r. gei west'on Rancho California .
: fOr those otus pressedfor' . Road, then turri left on Front
lime, it's great to be able to ~eetto the Stlge Stop park_ .
pick up his cheeses here. ing Iotal 6th and Front streets.
You certainly won't want to There's aIso a Wednesday
. missAndrCasPetrou,whoseUs famiersmarketfeaturingmany'..
. some of the best sheep's milk . '. of the sanie \'endors.lfsfroin9' .
: teta;made hy his uncle in Del.,. ".a.m'-to.lp,i1i.al;i:he~
phi, tIiat.you're likelY tq:fi!>c! '.: ....: nade.MaU;igo~1i:mD the Ed.
" anywhcire:He also ""Ds'deli." -: w.n'd;. Theat.e(S.~' .
ciouS~~le9Ji,;esan!i....:..\: Iii I CI bail It .
. .... . ....~: .~.s'~ ~r.s. ~ ~r..
;.
ITEM 17
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINA
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
City Manager/City~~
Debbie Ubnosk~i~ector of Planning
DATE:
July 23, 2002
SUBJECT:
Remove a Condition of Approval on Amendment No. 7 of the Paloma del
Sol Specific Plan (Planning Application 02-0299)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 02 -_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA REMOVING A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR
AMENDMENT NO.7 OF THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN,
ALSO KNOWN AS PLANNING APPLICATION 99-0285 (PLANNING
APPLICATION 02-0299)
BACKGROUND: The Paseo del Sol Specific Plan was first approved by the County of
Riverside in 1988. Since that time, the Plan has been amended several times. Amendment No.
7 was considered by the City Council on October 19, 1999 and November 9, 1999, and
eventually approved on November 16, 1999. The Corona family had expressed a concern that
the continued development by Newland would cause harm to their property located east of
Butterfield Stage Road. In response to the concerns of the Corona Family, the City Council
added Condition of Approval Number 7 to Amendment 7 of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan
that required Newland Communities to attempt to address the drainage issue with the Corona
family in a good faith effort.
The actual Condition of Approval placed on Amendment No. 7 to the Paloma del Sol Specific
Plan by the City Council is as follows:
"7. The Butterfield Stage Interceptor ultimate improvements shall be built, or the City
Council, following a public hearing, determines that significant improvements have
occurred in the negotiations for a reasonable compromise, at which time the Council
has authority to issue building permits for Parcel Map No. 29431, Parcels 6 and 7
(Planning Areas 6A and 6B), consisting of 508 multi-family units. The City shall
process the request for a public hearing, if needed, as a "no fee" application.
(Amended by the City Council, November 9, 1999 and modified by the City Council
November 16, 1999)."
R:\S P A\2002\02-0299 PDS Conditions of ApprovaJ\Staff Report CC2.doc
1
/v" ',,-
.~
Following this decision, representatives from the City, County, Newland Communities, and the
Corona Family have meet many times to try to resolve the issue. Representatives of Newland
Communities state that they have met numerous times with members of the Corona Family, and
staff members from Riverside County and/or the Flood Control District, and have been unable to
arrive at a mutually acceptable reasonable compromise.
Most of these discussions revolved around two key areas of difference: (1) the location of the
future drainage channel and (2) who will pay for the improvements. Newland Communities
wants to build the drainage channel within the Assessment District consistent with the approved
master plan. The Corona Family wants to have the channel placed underground approximately
Y2 mile east of its proposed location and well outside of the boundary of Assessment District
159. The easterly location, preferred by the Corona family, would cost substantially more than
the available Assessment District funding.
The Corona family also wants all of their property protected by the future channel but is
unwilling to add their remaining properties to the Assessment District or to pay for the increased
costs to fund the improvements. The Corona family has indicated a willingness to provide
funding at some point in the future once their remaining property in the County has been entitled
for development. It is important to note, that Newland Communities is not obligated to front the
costs associated bringing the remaining parts of the Corona's property out of the floodplain for
future development.
On April 17, 2002, representatives for Newland Communities notified the City that they did not
believe a reasonable compromise was possible and officially requested that the City Council
remove Condition of Approval No. 7 for Planning Application 99-0285. A copy of this letter is
contained in Attachment NO.2. The location of Planning Areas 6A and 6B, as well as the
detention basin are shown in Attachment NO.6.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The City Council adopted Addendum No 3 to the Environmental Impact Report for Amendment
No 7 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan on November 9, 1999. The primary changes
associated with Amendment No 7 involved modifications to the land uses in the southwestern
portion of the Plan. Addendum No 3 did not identify any new or expanded impacts associated
with Amendment NO.7 and concluded that the impacts to the environment were either the same
or slightly less than previously identified in the original Final Environmental Impact Report and
Addenda 1 and 2. Condition of Approval NO.7 was not identified in the previous environmental
documents as an impact mitigation measure. Therefore, the removal of his condition does not
change the underlying project or the environmental documents prepared for the Paloma del Sol
Specific Plan.
Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines established criteria to assist the Lead Agency is
determining when additional environmental review is necessary. The criteria are as follows:
1. Have substantial changes been made to the project that requires major revisions to the
previous environmental documents?
No. The removal of Condition No. 7 does not change the size, scale, or magnitude of
the development envisioned with this project that was considered and evaluated in the
previous environmental documents. As a result, no additional environmental review is
required.
R:\S P A\2002\02-0299 PDS Conditions of Approval\Slaff Report CC2.doc 2
2. Have substantial changes occurred in surrounding area that requires major revisions to
the previous environmental documents.
No. There have been no substantial changes to the project locale. The local setting has
not substantially changed since the project was previously considered and evaluated in
the previous environmental documents. Removing the condition allows the previously
approved project to proceed as envisioned in the Specific Plan. As a result, no
additional environmental review is required.
3. Is new information available that was not known when the previous environmental
documents were prepared?
No new issue areas or substantial changes in the facts have occurred since the project
was previously considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. Drainage and
flood control issues were addressed in the original environmental documents. As a
result, no additional environmental review is required.
The removal of this condition of approval does not meet the standards of Section 15162 that
would require that a new environmental document be prepared. As a result, no additional
environmental analysis is required by the changes to the conditions of approval for Specific Plan
Amendment No 7.
FISCAL IMPACT: Removal of this condition of approval will have no direct financial impact on
the City of Temecula.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution approving modifications to the Conditions of Approval for Amendment 7-
Page 4
2. Letter from Hewitt & O'Neil dated April 17, 2002-Page 9
3. Excerpts from the City Council minutes for Specific Plan Amendment No.7-Page 10
4. Additional Letters from Hewitt & O'Neil-Page 13
5. Meeting Chronology - Page 14
6. Map showing the location of Planning Areas 6A and 6B - Page 15
R:\S P AI2002\02.0299 PDS Conditions of Approval\SlafI Report CC2.doc 3
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
R:\S P A\2002\02-0299 PDS Conditions of Approval\Slaff Report CC2.doc
4
ATTACHMENT NO.1
RESOLUTION NO. 02-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA REMOVING A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR
AMENDMENT NO.7 OF THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN,
ALSO KNOWN AS PLANNING APPLICATION 99-0285 (PLANNING
APPLICATION 02-0299)
WHEREAS, del Sol Investment Company LLC by and through Newland Communities
filed Amendment No.7 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan (Planning Application No. 99-0285),
in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in
the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. 99-0285 on
September 15, 1999, September 29, 1999, and October 6, 1999, at duly noticed public hearings
as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to,
and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearings and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, the City Council considered this application on October 19, 1999,
November 9, 1999 and November 16, 1999, at which time interested persons had opportunity
to, and did testify either in support or opposition to Planning Application No. 99-0285;
WHEREAS, during the Public testimony, representatives of the property owned by
Corona family testified about the potential for flooding impacts on their adjacent property;
WHEREAS, the City Council added Condition of Approval NO.7 to encourage Newland
Communities and the Corona family to pursue a solution to address the asserted flooding
issues;
WHEREAS, the City Council approved Planning Application 99-0285, subject to the
Conditions of Approval on November 16, 1999;
WHEREAS, Representatives of the City of Temecula, Newland Communities, and the
Corona family have met on numerous occasions to discuss resolution of the flooding issue;
WHEREAS, Newland Communities submitted a letter to the City of Temecula on April
17, 2002 asserting their belief that a mutually acceptable compromise was not possible and
accordingly requesting relief from Condition of Approval No.7;
WHEREAS, this amendment to the entitlement granted to the Applicant was processed
including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local
law;
R:\$ P A\2Q02\02.0299 PDS ConditiOllS of Approval\$laff Report ce2.doc 5
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the application for relief from Condition of
Approval No. 7 for Planning Application No. 99-0285 on July 9, 2002 and July 23. 2002, at a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by Resolution No. 90-04, as amended, at which time
the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify in regards to the
matter:
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
by reference.
Section 2. Findinqs. That the City Council, in approving the request for relief from
Condition of Approval No.7 for Planning Application No. 99-0285, hereby finds that (1) Newland
Communities has conducted negotiations with representatives of the Corona family as required
by Condition of Approval No.7, (2) significant improvements have occurred in the negotiations
for a reasonable compromise, and (3) has been unable to arrive at a mutually acceptable
compromise. The City Council hereby terminates the restriction placed upon Newland
Communities as is set forth in Condition of Approval No. 7 and repeals Condition of Approval
NO.7 for Planning Application 99-0285.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The City Council adopted Addendum NO.3 to
the Environmental Impact Report for the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan on November 9, 1999.
Addendum NO.3 addressed the issues related to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment NO.7.
The primary changes associated with Amendment NO.7 involved modifications to the land uses
in the southwestern portion of the Plan. Addendum NO.3 did not identify any new or expanded
impacts associated with Amendment No. 7 and concluded that the impacts to the environment
were either the same or slightly less than previously identified in the original Final Environmental
Impact Report and Addenda 1 and 2. The Condition of Approval being considered for removal
was applied to Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 to encourage a negotiated settlement to
concerns raised by an adjacent property owner and is not a mitigation measure.
Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines established criteria to assist the Lead Agency is
determining when additional environmental review is necessary. The criteria and
determinations are as follows:
A. Substantial changes have been made to the project that require major revisions
to the previous environmental documents. The removal of Condition No. 7 does not change
the size, scale, or magnitude of the development envisioned with this project that was
considered and evaluated in the previous environmental documents. As a result, no additional
environmental review is required.
B. Substantial changes have occurred in surrounding area that require major
revisions to the previous environmental documents. There have been no substantial changes
to the project locale. The local setting has not substantially changed since the project was
previously considered and evaluated in the previous environmental documents. Removing the
condition allows the previously approved project to proceed as envisioned in the Specific Plan.
As a result, no additional environmental review is required.
RIS P A\2002\02-0299 PDS Conditions of Approval\Staff Report CC2.doc 6
C. New Information that was not known when the previous environmental
documents were prepared. No new issue areas or substantial changes in the facts have
occurred since the project was previously considered by the Planning Commission and City
Council. Drainage and flood control issues were addressed in the original environmental
documents. As a result, no additional environmental review is required.
The City Council hereby finds that the removal of this condition of approval does not meet the
standards of Section 15162 that could require that a new environmental document be prepared,
and that the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan is consistent with the project considered in the
previously certified environmental impact reports and addenda.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this 23rd day of July 2002.
Ronald Roberts, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ss
CITY OF TEMECULA
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City ofTemecula, do hereby certify that Resolution
No. 2002-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a
regular meeting thereof held on the day of 2002, by the
following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
RIS P A\2002\02..Q299 PDS Conditions of Approval\Slaff Report CC2.doc 7
ATTACHMENT NO.2
LETTER FROM HEWITT & O'NEIL DATED APRIL 17, 2002
R:\S P A\2002\02.0299 PDS Conditions 01 Approval\StaH Report CC2.doc
8
rr n \-~'/
",";:>,--\'
..,
,,\ :l,
': I APR 1 8 2002 i:;
HEWITT & O'NEIL LLP
"j
ArrORNEYS AT LAW
TInA M. COCHRAN
DEAN DUNN-RANJaN
SANDRA A. GALLE
WILLIAM E. HALLE
ANDREW K. HARlZELL
HUGH HEwm
LAWRENCE J. HILTON
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL: (949) 798..0734
EMAIL: doneil@hcwittoneil.com
JOHN D. HUDSON
STEVEN B. IMHOOF
DENNIS D. O'NEIL
JAYF. PALOIIKOFF
PAUL A. ROWE
WIWAM L. TwOMEY
JOHN P. YEAGER
19900 MAcARTHUR BOULEVAlUl, SUITE 1050
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612
(949) 798-0500 . (949)798-0511 (FAX)
EMAll..: counsel@hewittoneil.com
April 17 , 2002
'"
Mr. Gary Thornhill
Deputy City Manager
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Re: Paloma del Sol
Dear Mr. Thornhill:
On behalf of Newland Communities ("Newland"), 1 am asking for your assistance
in initiating a "no fee application" to request the City Council to have Parcels 6 and 7 of Parcel
Map 29431 in the Paloma del Sol (now known as Paseo del Sol) project released from the hold
previously included as Condition No.7 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No.7. (1 have
attached a copy of that condition for your convenient reference.)
The owners of the Corona Ranch located just easterly of Paloma del Sol across
Butterfield Stage Road have objected to the City Council's approval of prior planning
applications involving the Paloma del Sol project being developed by Newland. Despite
evidence in the record to the contrary, the Coronas contend Newland is responsible for
constructing a storm drain facility (Butterfield Stage Interceptor Channel) to mitigate storm
water flows that accumulate on a portion of their property during periods of heavy rainfall.
The City has in the past approved Newland's planning applications for Paloma del
Sol, but recognized the need for the County and the landowners included in Assessment
District 159 to meet and work on implementing a plan to construct the Butterfield Stage
Interceptor Channel. In an attempt to address the concerns raised by the Coronas and provide
further incentives for Newland to continue in its efforts to resolve the Butterfield Interceptor
Channel matter, the City Council at its November 16, 1999 meeting as part of the approval of
Specific Plan 219, Amendment No.7, placed a ''hold'' on issuing building permits for Parcels 6
and 7 of Parcel Map 29431. Even though Newland was advised by counsel there was no legal
obligation to accept this limitation, and the City staff found no nexus between the Specific
Plan 219, Amendment No.7 entitlements and the condition, Newland acknowledged the need to
show its good faith willingness to continue to work towards a resolution of dealing with storm
4/15/02 10019-{)0002
S:1152ICORRI02040004.L TR2.doc
Mr. Gary Thornhill
April 17,2002
Page 2
water drainage in this area. Newland accepted this condition and offered the collateral of an
"equity holding" on Parcels 6 and 7 of Parcel Map 29431. It was clearly the intent of the City
and Newland as reflected in the City Council meeting minutes that this would be an interim
condition. (Copies of the City Council November 16, 1999 minutes are attached.)
The condition placing this "hold" allows the City Council to process a "no fee
application" to allow issuance of the building permits for Parcels 6 and 7 when "significant
improvements have occurred in the negotiations for a reasonable compromise." Since the
imposition of this condition, numerous meetings have been held with the Coronas and the
County to work towards a reasonable compromise. Most recently, the City Council appointed a
subcommittee of Councilmembers Stone and Comerchero to look into the status. We believe
they will affirm back to the full City Council the many actions taken and proposals submitted by
Newland to address the drainage issue.
The Butterfield Stage Interceptor Channel facility is an improvement described as
an Assessment District No. 159 project. Many of the other AD 159 improvements, including the
construction of Butterfield Stage Road, the widening of SR 79, the modifications to Temecula
Creek and the installation and sizing of the associated drainage facilities have been built.
AD 159 was able to construct these downstream facilities, but, unfortunately, did not build the
Butterfield Stage Interceptor Channel which seems to have raised the storm water issue on a
portion of the Corona Ranch.
To date, the Coronas are apparently only willing to accept an alignment for the
Butterfield Interceptor Channel at the most easterly portion of their Property outside of the
boundary of AD 159. Newland does not object to this alignment, but the Coronas have failed to
agree on a method of funding the Butterfield Stage Interceptor Channel at this location.
Recently, the Coronas have filed a lawsuit naming the City and Newland as defendants and
requesting a court to intervene in this dispute. Under the circumstances of the pending litigation,
further negotiations cannot occur.
You will recall, the Temecula City Council, on February 2, 1998, in approving
Paloma del Sol Planning Application No. PA96-0258 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24182),
added a Condition 40 requiring Newland to maintain a detention basin in an area entitled for 188
residential units. An interim detention basin has been constructed on approximately 20 acres of
the southeast portion of Tract 24182 to satisfY this Condition 40. The detention basin must
remain in place until such time as the Butterfield Interceptor Channel or some other adequate
facility is built to convey off site storm flows to the Temecula Creek. This property has an
estimated value of over $6 million. The City, therefore, has adequate protection against storm
water flooding in this area until the Butterfield Stage Interceptor Channel or such equivalent
facility is built. (A copy of Tentative Tract 24182, Condition 40 is attached.)
It has been over two years since the hold was placed on Parcels 6 and 7 of Parcel
Map 29431. For all of the reasons stated in prior correspondence between Newland and
Newland's legal counsel on file with the City and because of the pending litigation, Newland
respectfully requests the City Council set a public hearing to remove, or if applicable modifY,
Condition No.7 of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.7. Newland has acted in
good faith to work out a solution with the Coronas. The Coronas have failed to cooperate and
4/15/02 10019-00002
S:\152\CORR\02040004.L TR2.doc
Mr. Gary Thornhill
April 17, 2002
Page 3
instead are now seeking relief through the judicial process. Therefore, it is no longer reasonable,
nor would it be legally justifiable, to continue to enforce the condition to withhold building
permits for Parcels 6 and 7 of Parcel Map 29431.
Please call Dean Meyer at Newland Communities if you need further information
to support this request. Dean Meyer is in the Temecula office of Newland and can be reached at
694-5572.
~'&~
Dennis D. O'Neil
cc: Shawn Nelson
Peter M. Thorson
Jim Delhamer
Martha Guy
Dean Meyer
Sam Alhadeff
4/15/02 10019-00002
S:II 52\CORR\02040004.L TR2.doc
CONDITION NO.7 OF
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO.7
4/15/02 10019-00002
S:\152\CORR\02040oo4.L TR2.doc
. .
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECUlA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Revised by the City Council, November 16, 1999
Planning Application No. PA99-02B5 - Specific: Plan Amendment No.7
Project Description: To smend Specific Plan No. 219 (Paloma del Sol) as follows: land
uses within Planning Areas 1,6 and 8; the realignment and
reconfiguration- of Campanula Way between De Portola Road and
Meadows Parkway; the reallocation of acreage within Planning Area
1 from 32.3 acres to 35.0 acres; the reallocation of acreage within
Planning Area 6 from 35:3 to 34.3 acres; the division of Planning
Area 6 into Planning Area 5A (22.3 acres, high density residential,
9-12 dwelling units per acre, with a maximum of 258 dwelling units)
and Planning Area 5B (12 acres, very high density residential,13-
20 dulac, with a msximum of 240 dwelling units), resulting in an
oversll reduction of units from 590 to 508 dwellings; the provision
to develop an active, privste, gated senior community within
Planning Area 8 that includes a private recreation area; and an
update of Specific Plan Design Guidelines that incorporate the
village vignettes and the senior amenities.
Approval Date: November 16,1999
PLANNING DIVISION
General Requirements
1. The applicant snd owner of the resl property subject to this condition shall hereby agree
to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, snd defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or sny of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees,
conwltsnts, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions,
awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to sttack, set aside, void, annul,
seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of
and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency,
appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City,
conceming the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant and
landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and
shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to
take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens
in regards to such defense.
2. The applicant shall comply with sll underlying Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan No.
219 and its smendments unleu superceded by these Conditions of Approval.
3. The text of Amendment No.7 to Specific Plan No. 219 shall conform with Exhibit No. 1B,
"Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, Amendment No.7" dated October 11, 1999, or as
amended by these conditions.
R:ISTAFFRPT\28.lp.99.CC 11-9.99 ronnoned.doc
16
.
.
4. The text of Amendment No.7 to Specific Plan No: 219 Zoning Standards shall conform
with Exhibit No. 2A, "Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Zone Ordinance, Amendment No. 7"
dated October 11, 1999, or as amended by these conditions.
Within Thirty (30) Days From the Second Ruding of the Ordinance Approving the
Amendment
5. The applicant shall submit the amended Specific Plan text to the Community
Development Department- Planning Division, in accordance with Conditions of Approval .
and witli requirements by the City Council.
6. The applicant shall correct or modify the following:
a. Page IV-85 b.2) a): The last sentence shall read:
"A minimum of 10% of the net acreage at the Home Depot site shall be
landscaped."
b. Remove all references to the Major and Minor Commercial Entry and Shopping
Cenler Identification signs, which shall be included in the Villages Design Manual,
submiUed for review and approval by the Planning Manager prior to the issuance
of permits.
Prior to issuance of building permits for Parcel Map No. 29431, Parcels 6 and 7 (Planning
Areas 6A and 68):
7. The Butterfield Stage Interceptor ultimate improvements shall be built, or the City CounCl7,
following a public heen'ng, determines that significant improvements have occurred In the
negotiations for a reasonable compromise, at which time the Council has authority to
issue building permits for Parcel Map No. 29431, Parcels 6 and 7 (Planning Areas 6A and
6B), consisting of 508 multi-family units. The City shall process the request for B public
hearing, if needed, as B "no feeR application.
(Amended by the City Council, November 9, 1999 and modified by the City Council
November 16, 1999).
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be.
subject to Community Development Department approval. .
Applicant Signature
R:ISTAFf1\PT\285p.99.CC \1.9.99 ronnoned.doc
17
4/15/02 10019-00002
S:\152\CORR\02040004.L TR2.doc
CONDITION NO. 40 OF
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24182
I/!I U4U/UU1
..'
..-
CITY OF TEMECULA
..~
.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA96.0258'Vestlng TentB1ive Tract Mep No. 24182.
Revised) .
ProJect l?escrlption:
'.
The project consisti of 8 revised Vesting Tentative /
Tract Map No. 24182 'the subdivision of 124.35 acres
withIn creating 562 single family residentIal 'ots Md 31
open space lots). Paloma- del So,
Various
Fehrulll)' 2. 1998
To be determined by the Development Agreement
.'
Assessor's Parcel No.:
ApprovlIl Dllte:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
. General 'Requirements
1;
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of CalifornIa Subdivision Map
Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No, 460. unless modified by the
conditions listed below. ,A time extension may be ~pproved in accorda'nce with the
State Map ACt and City Ordinance, upon written request, If made 30 days prior to
the expiration date. .
2. The developer/applicant shall indemnity, protect, defend, and, hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, lIctions, or proceedings- against the City. or allY
agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers. emplQyees lInd agents, to
attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages reSUlting from an approva'
of the City, or any agenCY.or instrumentality thereof, advisQry agency, appeal board
or Jegislatlve bQdy including aC,tions apprQved by the Voters of the City, concerning
Planning Application No. PA96.0258 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24182.
Revised) which actlon is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations periOd
and Public Resources Code, Dlvision'13. Chapter 4 'Section 21000'.at 211., inClUding
but not by the'way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly
notity the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within thl,
time period. City shall further copperate fully In the defense of the action. Should
the City fail to either promptly notify Or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall
not, thereafter be responsible to iPdemnity, defend, protect. or hold harmless the
City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers. employees, or
' agents.
)
3. If SUbdivision phasing is proposed, the applicant shall submit a phasing plan to the
Planning Manager for approve I,
,
1
.
"t::I""""'V'
l-
Conservation District is required for work within their Right-of-Way.
32. All utility systems including gas. electric. telephone. water, sewer, and cable TV shall
.be provided for underground, with easements provided as raquired, and designed and
constructed in accordance with City Codes and.the utility provIder. Telephone, cable
TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the resIdence.
33. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop.
Condu~t shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street Improvement',
34. Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future. bus stops as determined by the
Riverside Transit Authority and as approved by the Department Qf Public Works.
35. Pedestrian access with sidewalks shall /le provided from the cul-de-sac terminus of
street 'u. G' to the adjacent public street. .
36. This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Tr'ip Reduction
Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. .
37. Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where
sidewalks meander through private property.
t .'.
38. Easements. when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements. drainage
facilities, utilities; etc., shall be shown on the final map.J.tt.hey are located within the
land division boundary, .AII offers of dedication and conveyances.shall.be submitted
for review and recorded 'as. directed by the DepartmentofPublic Works, On-site
drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within
drainage easements and shown on the final map. A note shidl be added to the final
map stating "drainage easements shall be kept free of bu,7dings and obstructions. "
)
39. If phasing of the map for construction is proposed. legal all-weather access as .
required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tractb'oundary to a paved City
maintained road. '.
40. An interim detention basin has been constructed on the southem portion of Phase 5
'and the Final Phase of Tentative Tract 24182.-The existing detention basin. or an
equivalent facility shall remain in place until such time that ~pstream drainage .
facilities are constructed to convey offsite storm flows to an adequate outlet. Any
revisions to the existing detention basin and appurtenant drainage facilities shall be
approved by the City. '
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
.
41. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works. the Developer shall receive
. written clearance from .the fallowing agencies:
. .
.. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
. 8
.
ATTACHMENT NO.3
EXCERPTS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FOR SPA NO.7
R:\S P A\2002\02.0299 PDS Conditions of Approval\Stafl Report CC2.doc
9
OCTOBER 19, 1999
R:\S P A\2002\02-0299 PDS Conditions 01 Approval\Staff Report ee2.doc
10
At 7:36 P.M., the City Council recessed and convened as the Temecula Community Services
District and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 7:58 P.M., the City Council resumed with
regularly scheduled City Council business.
PUBLIC HEARING
10 Planning ADDlicetion No. PA99-0285 (Amendment No.7 to SDecific Plan No. 219-
Paloma del Soil and Plannina Aoolication No. PA99-0283 (DeveloDment Aareement for
the Villages @ Paseo del Sol - Community ShODDing Center)
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1 Make a determination of consistency with a project for which an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified and find that a subsequent EIR is not
required;
10.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 99-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPUCATION NO. PA98-G285
(AMENDMENT NO.7 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219) BASED UPON
THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF
REPORT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
10.3 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO, 99-_
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA99-0285 (AMENDMENT NO.7 TO SPECIRC PLAN NO. 219)
AMENDING LAND USES WITHIN PLANNING AREAS 1, 6, 8,
27, AND 36; AMENDING THE ALIGNMENT AND
CONFIGURATION OF CAMPANULA WAY BETWEEN DE
PORTOLA AND MEADOWS PARKWAY; AMENDING THE
ALLOCATION OF ACREAGE WITHIN PLANNING AREA 1
FROM 32.3 ACRES TO 35,0 ACRES; AMENDING
ALLOCA nON OF ACREAGE WITHIN PLANNING AREA 6
FROM 36.3 ACRES TO 34,3 ACRES; DIVIDING PLANNING
AREA 6 INTO PLANNING AREA 6A (22.3 ACRES, HIGH
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, 9-12 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE,
WITH A MAXIMUM OF 268 UNITS) AND PLANNING AREA 68
(12 ACRES, VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, 13-20
DUlAC, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 240 UNITS) RESULTING IN AN
OVERALL REDUCTION OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 590 TO
508; AMENDING THE TEXT TO PROVIDE FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A SENIOR COMMUNITY WITHIN
PLANNING AREA 8 AND AMENDING THE DESIGN
GUIDELINES TO INCORPORATE THE VILLAGE VIGNETTES
AND SENIOR AMENITIES
R:\Minutes\101999
5
10.4 Introduce and read by titie only an ordinance entitied:
ORDINANCE NO. 99-_
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT ENTITLED VILLAGES @ PASEO DEL SOL
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PLANNING AREA 1(A) & 1(8)
OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219 AMENDMENT NO.7
Deputy City Manager Thornhill reviewed the staff reports (as per written rnaterial), referencing a
petition, submitted at the Planning Commission meeting, in opposition to the multi-family
apartments that are part of the Specific Plan; advising that the multi-family areas were
previously approved; and noting that the approval would actually reduce the density in the
residential project areas by 82 units. Mr. Thomhill advised that Mr. Steve Corona had as well
expressed issues of concern with regard to drainage and Its Impacts on the Corona Ranch; that
Newland Communities and staff has responded to the issues of concern and that it has been
determined that there is no nexus to Newland Communities and Corona Ranch as it relates to
drainage. Mr. Thomhill noted that Mr. Corona has filed an appeal to the Planning Commission's
approval and, therefore, staff recommends a continuance of the matter in order to thoroughly
address the issues of concern with regard to drainage. Mr. Thomhill as well advised that staff
has received written communication from Mr. Savala (property located north of the Corona
property) in which he expressed similar drainage concems as those noted by the Coronas.
At this time, Mayor Ford opened the public hearing.
Mr. Barry Burnell, T&B Planning Consultants, 3242 Halladay, #100, Santa Ana, representing
Newland Communities and Paseo Partners, relayed concurrence with staffs recommendation
for a continuance.
Mr. Robert Krieger, 3602 University Avenue, Riverside, representing the owners of Corona
Ranch, addressed the issue and highlighted the following:
that the proposed project is located in an area that is currently protected by an
existing detention basin which was constructed in the absence of completing
what is referred to as the Butterfield East Interceptor;
that this Interceptor was part of a planned facility in Assessment District No. 159
but has not been built because of insufficient funds;
that the Coronas are concerned with the potential flooding on their property in the
event of a 1 OO-year flood;
that the existing detention basin was not a reasonably designed facility; that it
was intended only as an interim measure;
that the Butterfield East Interceptor, if properly designed and built, would
eliminate the Coronas' flooding concerns; that the design and construction of
such a facility would cost approximately $5 to $10 million;
that a 1 O-year flood would exacerbate the Coronas' flooding concems.
R:\Mlnutes\101999
6
Ms. Michele Staples, 2100 SE Main Street, Suite 104, Irvine, referenced her detailed comment
letter (copies provided to the Councilmembers) and noted the following:
that as a result of development projects filling in the natural drainage channel
and because of improvements to Butterfield Stage Road in order to
accommodate the new channel alignment, a flood hazard, that originally did not
exist, was created on Corona Ranch;
that specific mitigation measures were imposed on the project with regard to
flood hazards; that of these measures, two have not been met: 1) EIR prohibits
increased flood hazards to adjacent and downstream properties; and 2) ErR
requires an in depth analysis of the Temecula Flood Plane;
that Assessment District No. 159 consists of four property owners with the
applicant being responsible for over 90% of the cost of the interceptor facility;
that all approvals for the project to date have been based on the assumption
that the interceptor channel would be constructed and that 11. years after project
approval, the interceptor channel has not even been designed;
that the City is required to enforce mitigation measures imposed on a project;
that this approval be conditioned that any future approvals for this project be
contingent on the construction of the interceptor.
Mr. Allan Davis, developer, 5051 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, noted the following:
that the project is 9/10 of a mile west to the Corona property and,
therefore, there is no nexus to this issue of flooding;
that the project be approved in a timely manner.
Mr. Dennis O'Neil, 19900 MacArthur Boulevard, Irvine, representing Newland Communities,
addressed the issue, noting the following:
that the Coronas' flooding concern has been addressed at each Specific Plan
amendment and that each time it has been determined that there is no nexus
with regard to Paseo and Corona Ranch; that there is no obligation on Newland
Communities to resolve the flood control problems;
that Newland Communities has a responsibility to be assessed to pay for
improvements but does not have the jurisdiction or authority over building the
improvements; that the building is the responsibility of Assessment District No.
159.
Mayor Ford requested that the involved parties and staff discuss the matter of the Assessment
District funding the interceptor with Mayor Ford and Councilman Undemans relaying a desire to
be included in the discussions.
R:\Minutes\101999
7
MOTION: Councilman L1ndemans moved to continue the matter to the November 9, 1999, City
Council meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval.
11 Development Aareement with Eli Lillv & Companv - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-
0-0\ JSlKL
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 Adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA99-0274;
11.2 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance:
ORDINANCE NO. 99-27
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA AND ELI ULL Y AND COMPANY FOR
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF YNEZ ROAD
WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND SOUTH OF OVERLAND
DRIVE (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0274)
By way of overheads, Deputy City Manager Thomhill reviewed the staff report (as per agenda
material).
Councilman Comerchero clarified that the City is not relinquishing control and that the ultimate
decision on the use and zoning of the property will remain with the City.
Deputy City Manager Thomhill concurred that any projed would have to proceed with the EIR
process in order to assess any potential impacts.
Mayor Ford opened the public hearing.
Mr. Samuel Stall, 43824 Barletta Street, representing Eli Lilly and Company, spoke in support of
staffs recommendation.
At this time, Mayor Ford closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was
seconded by Councilman L1ndemans and voice vote refleded unanimous approval.
12.1 Adopt the Negativ
ration for
'ng Application No. PA99-0273;
oduce and read by title only an ordinance.
R:\Minutes\101999
8
NOVEMBER 9, 1999
R:\S P A\2002\02.0299 POS Conditions of Approval\Staff Report ee2.doc
11
PUBUC HEARING
12 Plamina Aoolication No. PA9S-0285 (Amendment No.7 to Soeclfic Plan No. 219 Paloma
del Soil. Plannlna Aoollcatlon No. PA99-0283 (Develooment Aareement for the Villaaea at
paseo del 501- Community ShooDinll Center). Plannina ADolication No. PA99-0284
(Develooment Plan - Alloeall and Plannlna ADolication No. PA99-0288 (Tentative Parcel
MaD No. 29431 -ADoeall
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 99-104
A RESOLUnoN OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECut.A FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT NO ADDmONAL
ANALYSIS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMeNTS OF
THE CAUFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1170, AS
AMENDED AND THE GUIDELINES PROMULGATED THEREUNDER
REGARDING PLANNING APPUCAnoN NOS, PAlI.om
(AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 211); PAII.o2l3
(DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE VILLAGES AT PASEO DEL
SOL, COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER); PAlI.o21.
(DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PAII-0211 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
NO. 29431)
12.2 Read by lilie only and introduce an ordinance entitied:
ORDINANCE NO. 99-28
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECut.A APPROVING PLANNING APPUCAnoN NO. PAlll-028S
(AMENDMENT NO.7 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 211), WHICH AMENDS
LAND USES WITHIN PLANNING AREAS " 8, I, 27 AND 38i AMENDS
THE ALIGNMENT AND CONFIGURATION OF CAMPANULA WAY
BETWEEN DE PORTOlA AND MEADOWS PARKWAY; AMENDS
THE ALLOCATION OF ACREAGE WITHIN PLANNING AREA 1 FROM
32.3 ACRES TO 36.0 ACRES; AMENDS THE ALLOCATION OF
ACREAGE WITHIN PLANNING AREA 8 FROM 3U ACRES TO H.3
ACRES; DIVIDES PLANNING AREA 6 INTO PLANNING AREA IA
1%2,3 ACRES, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 268 UNITS) AND PLANNING
AREA 6B (12 ACRES, VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAl., 13-20
DUlAC, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 240 UNITS). RESULTING IN AN
OVERALl REDUCTION OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 1180 TO IOli
AMENDS THE TECT TO PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
SENIOR COMMUNIlY WITHIN PLANNING AREA Ii AND AMENDS
THE DESIGN GUIDEUNES TO INCORPORATE THE VlUAGE
VIGNETTES AND SENIOR AMENlnES: BASED UPON THE
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
R:lMinutes\110999
6
12.3 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled
ORDINANCE NO. 99-29
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT ENTITLED VILLAGES AT PASEO DEL SOL
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PLANNING AREAS 1(8) & 1(b)
OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO.7
.
12.4 Deny the appeal of Planning Applicetion No. PA99-0284 (Development Plan) and
Planning Application No. PA99-0286 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29431);
12.5 Uphold the approval by the Planning Commission of Planning Application No. PA99-
0284 (Development Plan) and Planning Application No. PA99-0286 (Tentative
Parcel Map No. 29431);
12.6 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 99.105
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA99-0284 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-o286 (TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP NO. 29431), AND UPHOLDING THE APPROVAL
OF THESE PROJECTS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION,
BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN
THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
Deputy City Manager Thornhill reviewed and clarified the detailed staff report (as per agenda
materials); referenced staffs opinion that there is not a nexus between the Butterfield Stage
Road Interceptor Channel and the four cases before the City Council this evening; advised that
the Channel was to be constructed and funded through AD No. 159 and that Newland
Communities has no control over the timing of this process; commented on the bonding
capacity of the Assessment District; and noted that due the lateness in receiving Ms. Staples'
fax, he has not had the opportunity to review the information (copies of which were provided to
the Councilmembers). Mr. Thornhill relayed the Corona's concern that this project or any future
project be approved without Newland Communities fulfilling its commitment to install the
interceptor channel. Mr. Thornhill recommended denial of the appeal and approval of the
remaining applications.
City Attorney Thorson pointed out that because Mayor Ford does not own any properties within
2,500' of the subject site, because Mr. Ford's employer does not own any undeveloped property
within the applicable 2,500' radius, and because of relationship of this project to AD No. 159,
Mayor Ford may participate in the discussion and may vote with regard to this issue.
In light of the lateness of some of these reports, City Attorney Thorson, for Mayor Pro Tem
Stone, advised that staff's response to drainage issues on the appeal are summarized in the
staff report; that the extensive Newland Communities submittal is summarized in a cover letter;
and that the fax from Ms. Staples is, in large, summarized on pages 1 and 2 of the proposal.
R:\Minutes\110999
7
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Stone, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that the
construction of Butterfield Stage Road by AD No. 159 and the reising of It by one or two feet
was built according to plans and specifications and that the two 120. pipes do not adequately
mitigate the concerns of both two basins.
Councilman Lindemans referenced the May 26, 1988. (of record), particularly commenting, as
per his interpretation. on the City's responsibility to ensure that the interceptor channel is
constructed.
By way of overheads. Mr. Barry Burnell, T&B Planning, 3242 Halladay, #100, Santa Ana,
representing Newland Communities, reviewed the request; referenced and relayed his
understanding of a letter dated May 26, 1988 (of record); and noted the following:
. That the maximum bonding capacity is $4.9 million;
. Tha~ as requested by the Flood Control District, a drainage structure was
designed to intercept a large amount of off-site storm runoff that approaches the
project from the east;
. That AD No. 159 was formed in 1988 with its own Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) processed through the County; that a supplemental District formed in 1991
at which time the Butterfield Stage Road east interceptor channel was originally
considered;
· That the assessment. at that time, was determined at $2.2 million In order to
protect the 38 acres owned by the Coronas/Savalas; that the cost of such a
facility escalated to $3.5 million (Altemative No.1) which included a box culvert
to protect future farming (38 acres);
. That the current proposal requests the protection of 202 acres, which
encompasses the entire Corona, Savala, and Lumsdaine properties for $5.8
million; that this recent proposal cost has been increased to $6.2 million;
. That the conditions of approval for the Vail Meadows Specific Plan never
intended the protection of 202 acres;
. That the Assessment District was approved and the EIR was adopted prior to
the approval of the Vail Meadows EIR;
. That the Assessment District listed the 38 acres as undeveloped/unplanned land
and the 202 acres as agriculture land;
· That the construction of Butterfield Stage Road created an impact on
approximately 5 to 6 acres of the Corona property; that such construction did not
create flooding to the east of the Assessment District; that the interceptor
channel was Intended to mitigate concerns with regard to the 5 to 6 acres;
. That the area to the east of the Assessment District (140 acres) has historically
flooded.
Mr. Rich Robato, representing Newland Communities, further clarified the location and
hydrology of the two existing basins and advised that the two 120. pipes were installed by
Nelwand Communities to assist with the water flow for Basin No.2; and that Newland
R:\Minutes\110999
8
Communities has been assessed 82% of Basin NO.1. In closing, Mr. Robato noted that the
Assessment District has failed to fulfill its function.
Ms. Michelle Staples, 2100 SE Main Street, Suite 104, Irvine, representing the Coronas,
reviewed the request; referenced and relayed her understanding of a letter dated May 26, 1988
(of record); commented on the Coronas' compromise (as per faxed material) which would allow
the Home Depot project to proceed; and noted the following:
. That a new flood hazard has been created at the commercial comer (79 South)
as a result of the new building in and developing on the natural channel;
. That the City has never relieved the developer of the condition (as per the May
26, 1988, letter) to construct a permanent facility prior to development of the
downstream areas;
. That it is a legal responsibility of this developer to consllUcl a permanent facility;
that any approval should be based on the construction of an interceptor chamel
before the issuance of development permits;
. That the lateness of her faxed letter was as a result of waiting for information
from the County, which was not received;
. That the project cost of approximately $6.2 million (Alternative No.3) does
include the underground interceptor and the open channel to the east;
. That although only 5 to 6 acres of the Corona property are impacted as a result
of the construction of Butterfield Stage Road, in order to construct facilities In a
manner which will allow the Coronas to continue their current and future land
uses of the property without further severence damages to them, the facility
which was constructed in the middle of their property must be buried by 4'; it
was suggested that a smaller facility be constructed in its place and that a larger
facility be constructed to the east;
Councilman Undemans suggested that, in order to meet with the County and the developer, the
matter be continued to the November 16, 1999, City Council meeting. Ms. Staples noted her
concurrence with a continuance.
Mr. Allan Davis, Del Sol Investment, Carls bad, requested that the City Council take action as
recommended by City staff.
Mr. Sam Alhadeff, representing Newland Communities, 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 203,
referenced and quoted City Condition NO.27 on Map No. 24182, as follows: an inferim detention
basin has been constructed on the southem portion of Phase IV and the final phase of Tentative
Tract No. 24182; the existing detention basin or an equivalent facility should mmain in place
until such time that upstream drainage facilities am constructed to convey off-site storm "ows to
an adequate outlet; any mvision to the existing detention basin and appurtenant drainage
facilities should be approved by the City. Further addressing the matter before the City Council,
Mr. Alhadert noted the following:
. That there is no nexus to the Corona property and Home Depot;
. That there would be no objection to including Condition No. 27 (as noted above)
with the approval of Home Depot.
R:\Minules\110999
9
· That the appeal be denied and that the remaining issues be approved with the
imposition of Condition No. 27.
Ms. Staples noted her opposition to the approval of Home Depot as well as any other approval
under Specific Plan No. 219 without the imposition of a condition requiring the construction of
the interceptor channel. She supported the approval of the Home Depot project contingent
upon withholding building permits for Newland Communities.
Mr. Bob Krieger, representing the Coronas, further commented on Altemative NO.3 (submitted
to the County); addressed the water flow; the 2120" pipes Installed for Basin No.2; and the
construction of a facility upstream on the easterly portion of the Corona property.
By way of overheads, Mr. Sam Alhadeff reiterated his request that the City Council deny the
appeal due to lack of nexus and approve the project
At 10:05 P.M.. the publiC hearing was closed and a recess was taken. The Council reconvened
at 10:14 P.M.
In light of this evening's discussion, Councilman Comerchero noted that the noted drainage
issues will obviously not be resolved today and, therefore, suggested the following:
. That the Home Depot project be approved;
. That all building permits for Map No. 24182 with the exception of Phases 1 and
2 be withheld until this issue is resolved or the matter is addressed by the City
Council in a public hearing.
City Attomey Thorson introduced and read by tiUe only Ordinance No. 99-28 and Ordinance No.
99-29.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to approve staff recommendation with amending the
Specific Plan as it relates to Home Depot as follows: that Mayor Ford and Councilman
Lindemans continue to serve on the subcommittee that is to meet with the proponents and
opponents in an effort to create a reasonable compromise; that the City will have the ability to
withhold approval of building permits within Tract No. 24182, with the exception of Phases 1 and
2, as identified by Deputy City Manager Thomhill; that once a reasonable compromise has been
negotiated, the matter would be addressed at a City Council public hearing; and that the
subcommittee will report to the City Council at its November 16, 1999, City Council meeting.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Lindemans and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval.
For Ms. Staples, it was noted that Phases 3 and 4 of Tract No. 24182 would withhold
approximately 400+ building permits.
R:\Minutes\110999
10
NOVEMBER 16, 1999
R:\S P A\2002\02-0299 PDS Conditions of ApprovaJ\Staff Report CC2.doc
12
RESOLUTION NO. 99-111
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TE ULA VACATING A PORTION OF NORTH GENE
KEARN AD FROM MARGARITA ROAD TO
EASTERLY 0 GARlTA ROAD
MOT! . Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to approve staff recommendation.
. emans seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
16 Oral ReDort from Subcommittee Second Readina of Ordinance No. 99-28 (SDecific Plan
No. 219) and Ordinance No. 99-29 (DeveloDment Aareementl- Home DeDot Proiect
(located north of State Hlahwav 79 South. south of Monteleare Wav. east of Maraarita
Road. and west of Meadows Parkwav
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1 Receive an oral report by Subcommittee Members Mayor Ford and Councilmember
Lindemans;
16.2 Adopt an ordinance entitled:
R\Minutes\111699
9
ORDINANCE NO. 99-28
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA99-0285 (AMENDMENT NO.7 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219),
WHICH AMENDS LAND USES WITHIN PLANNING AREAS 1, 6,
8, 27 AND 36; AMENDS THE ALIGNMENT AND
CONFIGURATION OF CAMPANULA WAY BETWEEN DE
PORTOLA AND MEADOWS PARKWAY; AMENDS THE
ALLOCATION OF ACREAGE WITHIN PLANNING AREA 1
FROM 32.3 ACRES TO 35.0 ACRES; AMENDS THE
ALLOCATION OF ACREAGE WITHIN PLANNING AREA 6
FROM 36.3 ACRES TO 34.3 ACRES; DIVIDES PLANNING
AREA 6 INTO PLANNING AREA 6A (22.3 ACRES, WITH A
MAXIMUM OF 268 UNITS) AND PLANNING AREA 6B (12
ACRES, VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, 13-20 DUlAC,
WITH A MAXIMUM OF 240 UNITS), RESULTING IN AN
OVERALL REDUCTION OF DWELUNG UNITS FROM 590 TO
508; AMENDS THE TEXT TO PROVIDE FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A SENIOR COMMUNITY WITHIN
PLANNING AREA 8; AND AMENDS THE DESIGN GUIDELINES
TO INCORPORATE THE VILLAGE VIGNETTES AND SENIOR
AMENITIES; BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT SUBJECT TO THE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CITY CLERK
16.3 Adopt an ordinance entiUed:
ORDINANCE NO. 99-29
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT ENTITLED VILLAGES AT PASEO DEL SOL
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PLANNING AREAS 1(A) & 1(8)
OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO.7
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Stone moved to approve the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 98-
28 (Specific Plan no. 219) and Ordinance No. 99-29 (Development Agreement.) Councilman
Roberts seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
With respect to the dispute between the Corona Ranch properties and Newland Communities,
Mayor Ford relayed that although there had been discussions, at this point in time no final
agreement had been reached.
Ms. Michele Staples, attorney for the Corona Ranch properties, specified the issues of dispute;
relayed that the Corona family did not oppose the Second Reading of the Ordinances; and
thanked Mayor Ford, and Councilman Lindemans for their assiduous efforts spent over the
weekend, working with the parties in an attempt to reach an agreement.
R:\Minutes\111699
10
Councilman Lindemans relayed that the Council had previously placed a hold on 218 lots in
Tract 24182-3, and 4, associated with this projec~ noted that due to this property currently being
in escrow, Newland Communities had offered in its stead, Parcels 6 and 7, consisting of 508
multi-family units, requesting that there be a substitution of the parcels being held; and
recommended that due to the situation, that the parcels be substituted.
Mr. Alhadeff, representing Paseo Del SoVNewland Communities, relayed gratitude to Mayor
Ford and Councilman Lindemans for thair time and consideration in attempting to aid the parties
in the dispute; relayed that although there was no mandated requirement, Newland
Communities had agreed to place a hold on the aforementioned properties in an attempt to be
amenable with respect to settling the dispute; noted the specifications of the existing
Development Agreement; reiterated Councilman Lindemans' recommendation to substitute the
held parcels; in response to Mayor Ford's comments, relayed assurance that If the City Council
approved the proposed substitution of parcels, that there would be continued efforts to attempt
to come to a resolution with the Corona Ranch properties; for Mayor Pro Tem Stone, specified
that if the Council did not approve the substitution of holdings, that the property owner would not
be able to sell the property; and noted that there was, additionally, a risk of a lawsuit.
Ms. Staples relayed that the Corona family opposed the proposal to substitute the property
holdings, providing the rationale for the opposition; and specified that the Brown Act regulations
would prohibit a ruling on the matter at this time due to this meeting being a Special meeting.
City Attorney Thorson offered the following clarification: 1) noted that this was not a Special
meeting, but an adjourned regular meeting, 2) relayed that the Agenda did specifically reference
the project; 3) provided additional information regarding the Development Agreement; and 4)
specified the Council's purview with respect to the releasing of the property hold at this time,
and in the future, if requested.
For Councilman Lindemans, Deputy City Manager Thornhill clarified that the rationale for the
Condition restricting the parcels was to ensure that there would be attempts to resolve the
issues of dispute; and relayed that the holding may not have been placed on the property if
Newland Communities had not been agreeable.
MOTION: Councilman Lindemans moved to have the City, hereby, release the 218 lots in Tract
24182-3 and 4, as desClibed in the Conditions of Approval, approved by the City Council on
November 9, 1999, and substitute, in its place, Planning areas 6A and 68 of Parcel Map 29431,
Parcels 6, and 7, consisting of 508 multi-family units. Councilman Comerchero seconded the
motion. (This motion ultimately passed; see page 12.)
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Stone's querying, Ms. Staples relayed that her client would
request a week's time to consider the new proposal.
Mayor Ford specified the location of the originally held properties, and the properties proposed
to be substituted; advised that since Newland Communities had offered the collateral on good
faith at the time, and due to the substitution proposal still maintaining an equitable holding,
which would continue to encourage efforts to reach a settlement, recommended that the
substitution proposal be approved.
Recognizing the unusual circumstances of the matter, Councilman Comerchero reiterated that
Newland Communities had offered the parcels currently being held; noted that at the time of
R:\Minutes\111699
11
approval, the Council was not aware of the fact that the parcels were in escrow; and
recommended that the Council approve the substitution of the parcels.
After further consideration of the matter, Ms. Staples relayed that the Corona family had no
objection to the proposal to substitute the parcels.
At this time voice vote was taken reflecting unanimous approval.
In light of the time the Council that had devoted to the discussions, Mayor Ford implored the
parties In dispute to make efforts to come to a resolution.
For informational purposes, Councilman Lindemans relayed that after much deliberation,
Newland Communities was willing to post a $3.5 million bond, noting the efforts to cooparate in
raaching a resolution.
eceive and file a report regarding GST Telecom fiber optics.
GST Fiber Optics
By way of overh d maps, Director of Public Works Hughes presented the staff ort (of
record) as an info tionalltem per the City Council's and City Manager Nels 's request;
specified the location the telecommunication facilities installation; noted e concessions GST
had made to mitigate the affic impacts associated with the project; rela that the City would
be monitoring the installatio roject; and for Councilman Comerche ,advised that solely the
area within the Commercial DI .ct would have the installation po oned until January 3, 2000,
(after the holiday season.)
Mr. Joe Ferrill, representing GST Fibe ptics, relayed for uncilman Comerchero, that the
applicant would be willing to, additionally, elay the pro in the southern area until January 3,
2000 if that was the desire of the Council; a in re se to Mayor Ford's request that a
minimum of two lanes of travel be open for ve affic during Installation, provided assurance
that GST would adhere to all of the traffic guld n dictated by the Department of Public
Works, and the Council.
For Councilman Roberts, Director of 8 lic Works Hughe dvised that although there were no
required cash deposits, or bond ho Ings, the City's standa ncroachment pannit spacifies
that the applicant would be held spoosible for any damage to bllc property, private property,
or any other utilities, relaying at the City would not be liable for aforementioned damage.
City Attorney Thorson r yed that the encroachment permit was inclus
requirement, noting t the City would be made an additional Insured.
In response to uncilman Roberts' concems with respect to adept flagmen, ro closure
tI severed telephone cables, Mr. Ferrill reiterated that GST would st Iy adhere to
the traffic Idellnes provided by the City; noted that if necessary, the flagmen woul
retrai to meet the City's specifications; and clarified the issue of the cut GTE cable i
Ci f Murrieta associated with their project, relaying that GTE had taken responsibility fo e
tter; and noted that GST would take every precaution to prevent the severing of utility line .
R:\Minutes\111699
12
ATTACHMENT NO.4
ADDITIONAL LETTERS FROM HEWITT & O'NEIL
R:\S P A\2002\02.0299 PDS Conditions of Approval\Staff Report CC2.doc
13
HEWITT & O'NEIL LLP
C(())/P/f
TliIA M. COCHRAN
DEAN OUNN.RANKIN
SANDRA A. GALLE
WILUAM E. HALLE
ANDREW K. HARTZELL
HUGH HEWJTT
LAwRENCEJ. HlLTON
JOHN D. HUDSON
ArrORNEYSATLAW
I 9900 MAcARlHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 1050
IRVINE, CAlIFORNIA 92612
(949)798-0500 . (949) 798-0511 (FAX)
EMAIL: cOWlse1@hewittoneil.com
WRITER'S DIRECT tHAl: (949) 798..0734
EM AIL: doneiJ@hewittoneil.c:om
STEVEN B. lMHOOF
DENNIS D. O'NEIL
JAY F. PALCHIKOFF
PAULA. ROWE
WIWAM L TWOMEY
JOHN P. YEAGER
OrCO\JNSEL
AMYW. LARKIN
July 1, 2002
RECEIVE
JUL 0 8 2002
Honorable Ron Roberts
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
IF~Y':
,..
Re: Paloma del Sol
Dear Mayor Roberts and Members of the City Council:
On behalf of Newland Communities ("Newland''), I am submitting this letter in
support of Newland's request that the City Council release Parcels 6 and 7 of Parcel Map 29431
in the Paloma del Sol project from the hold previously placed on these parcels and included as
Condition No.7 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No.7. (Copies of the condition and the
minutes of the November 16,1999 City Council meeting are attached.) We believe it was the
intent of the City as reflected in the City Council meeting minutes that this condition was
imposed as additional incentive for Newland to continue to work on a plan to resolve storm
water drainage issues. At the time, Newland was advised by counsel there was no legal
obligation to accept this limitation, and the City staff found no nexus between the Specific
Plan 219, Amendment No.7 entitlements and. the condition. Neverthe]ess, Newland
acknowledged the need to show its good faith willingness to continue to work towards a
resolution of the problems associated with storm water drainage in this area and accepted the
condition.
The Butterfield Stage Interceptor Channel facility is an improvement described in
Assessment District No. 159 as a facility designed to collect storm waters to the east and
upstream from the Paloma de] So] project. Many of the other AD 159 improvements, including
the construction of Butterfield Stage Road, the widening of SR 79 and the installation and sizing
of the associated drainage facilities have been built. AD 159 was able to construct these
downstream facilities, but, unfortunately, did not build the Butterfie]d Stage Interceptor Channel
prior to construction of Butterfield Stage Road to divert storm waters flowing from the east into
Temecula Creek.
712/02 10019-00002
H&O: #324 v3
Honorable Ron Roberts
July 1, 2002
Page 2
The original location of the Butterfield Stage Interceptor was planned to be built
adjacent to Butterfield Stage Road on the Corona property.
To date, the Coronas are only willing to accept an alignment for the Butterfield
Interceptor <;hannel at the most easterly portion of their property outside of the boundary of
AD 159 which would drain all 160 acres of their land. Newland does not object to tbis
alignment, but the Coronas have failed to agree on a method of funding the additional cost of the
Butterfield Stage Interceptor Channel at this location. Recently, the Coronas have filed a lawsuit
naming the City and Newland as defendants and requesting a court to intervene in this dispute.
Under the circumstances of the pending litigation, further negotiations have ceased.
The Temecula City Council, on February 2, 1998, in approving Paloma del Sol
Planning Application No. P A96-0258 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24182), added a
Condition 40 requiring Newland to maintain a detention basin in an area entitled for 188
residential units. An interim detention basin has been constructed on approximately 20 acres of
the southeast portion of Tract 24182 to satisfy this Condition 40. The detention basin or an
equivalent facility must remain in place untjl such time that upstream drainage facilities are
constructed to convey offsite storm flows to an adequate outlet. Newland is therefore satisfying
its obligation to deal with any storm water coming onto their property from the east, and the City
has adequate protection against storm water flooding in this area. (A copy of Tentative
Tract 24182, Condition 40 is attached.)
It has been over two and a half years since the hold was placed on Parcels 6 and 7
of Parcel Map 29431. Newland has acted in good faith to meet and confer on many occasions to
work out a solution. Condition No.7 states the Butterfield Interceptor Channel must be built or
. significant improvements have occurred in the negotiations for a reasonable compromise before
building permits for Parcels 6 and 7 of Parcel Map No. 29431 will be issued. The Coronas have
failed to cooperate and instead are now seeking relief through the judicial process. "Significant
improvements" in the negotiations for a reasonable compromise have therefore been thwarted
and through no fault of Newland cannot occur.
It is no longer reasonable, nor would it be legally justifiable, to continue to
enforce the condition to withhold building permits for Parcels 6 and 7 of Parcel Map 2943 I .
Newland Communities respectfully requests the City Council to remove this condition from
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No.7 and reinstate Newland's property rights as vested in
the Paloma del Sol Development Agreement.
Very truly yours,
~~N
cc: Shawn Nelson
Peter M. Thorson
Dean Meyer
Dennis D. O'Neil
712/02 10019-00002
H&O: #324 v3
Honorable Ron Roberts
July 1,2002
Page 3
bee: Jim Delhamer
Martha Guy
Sam AlhadefI
LaDonna K. Monsees
Michelle Ouellette
Bill Curley
7/2/02 10019-??oo2
H&O: #324 v3
HEWITT & O'NEIL LLP
THlA M. COCHRAN
DEAN DUNN-RANKIN
SANDRA A GALLE
WILLIAM E. HALLE
ANDREW K. HARTZELL
HUGH HEwITT
LAWRENCE J. HILTON
JOHN D. HUDSON
A ITORNEYS AT LAW
. 19900 MAcARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 1050
IRvINE. CALIFORNIA 92612
(949) 798-0500 . (949) 798-0511 (FAX)
EMAIL: counsel@bewinoneil.com
STEVEN B. IMHOO"F
DENNIS D. O'NEIL
}AYF. PALCHIKDFF
PAUL A ROWE
WILLIAM L. TWOMEY
JOHN P. YEAGER
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL: (949) 798..{1734
EMAlL: doncil@bewittoneil.com
OF COUNSEL
AMY W. LARKIN
July 9, 2002
Honorable Ron Roberts
City ofTemecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Re: Paloma del Sol
Dear Mayor Roberts and Members of the City Council:
You are in receipt of my letter dated July I, 2002 which is included with the
July 9, 2002 City Council agenda materials pertaining to Item 18. My letter is submitted on
behalf of Newland Communities requesting the City Council to release Parcels 6 and 7 of Parcel
Map 2943 I in the Paloma del Sol project from the hold previously placed on these parcels and
included as Condition No.7 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No.7.
My letter further discusses the City Council action in placing Condition 40 on
Vesting Tentative Tract 24182 requiring Newland to set aside the southerly portion of Phase 5
and Final as a detention basin to remain in place until such time upstream drainage facilities are
constructed to convey offsite storm flows'to an adequate outlet. Newland Communities has not
in the past, nor does it now seek to have the City Council remove Condition 40 from
Tract 24182. Newland clearly understands that the detention basin or an equivalent facility must
remain in place and is necessary to satisfy its obligation to protect property in the area from
flooding caused by storm waters originating from the east.
The staff report has alternate resolutions on the agenda for consideration by the
City Council to retain or remove Condition of Approval No. 40 for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map 24182. This is not the request being made by Newland and should not be considered by the
City Council.
7/8/02 10019.00002
H&O: #635 v2
Honorable Ron Roberts
July 9, 2002
Page 2
Therefore, Newland is respectfully requesting the City Council to continue this
matter to their next meeting in order to properly agendize and document the appropriate request
for action by the City Council addressing only the release of Parcels 6 and 7 (Planning Areas 6A
and 6B) of Parcel Map 29431 from the "equity hold" Condition No.7 of Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No.7.
Very truly yours,
~~~
Denni~'N~il- .
cc: Shawn Nelson
Peter M. Thorson
Dean Meyer
718102 IO019~0002
H&O: #635 v2
Jul 15 02 01:41p
ALHADEFF8.S0LAR
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
A LIMITED llA8lUTY PARiNERSH1P
43460 RIDGE PARK DRIVE. SUITE 270
TEMECUlA, CAltFDRNlA 92590
MAlN TELEPHONE: (909) 699-7556
FACS~~E:(909)699c6191
Offices in San Diego and Temecu/a, California
July 15,2002
SAMUEl C. AllWlEFF
SAlHI\DEFF@ASlAw1.coo
9103.0002
Ms. Debbie Ubnoske
Planning Director
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Re: Modifications of Conditions of Approval for Amendment No.7 of the Paloma
del Sol Specific Plan
Dear Ms. Ubnoske:
This letter is a follow up to Mr. Dennis O'Neil's correspondence of July 1,2002, a copy
of which is attached as Exhibit I, concerning the agenda item listed above. Pursuant to our
discussion and at your request. enclosed is certain information which may be helpful to you in
sununarizing the issue before the City Council at its next meeting on July 23, 2002.
One of the qucstions asked of Newland was to address the issue in Condition No.7 that
was amended by the City Council on November 9, 1999 and modified on November 16, 1999. If
you will recall prior staff reports indicated there was no nexus between the Improvement and the
Newland application. However, as a sign of good faith Newland accepted Condition No.7 to
show its willingness to work with the City Subcommittee. In fact in discussing these matters the
City Council was specifically advised by the Deputy City MllIl~er,_ Gary Thomhil1, that there
was ". . . no nexus between the Butterfield Stage Road Interceptor Channel and the four cases
------before-theGity-Councilthis-evening._._.,,__That_CQndition re~$_l!1>_p.l!!l_lISiol1ovvs: _______
"the Butterfield Stage Interceptor ultimate improvements shall be
built, or the City Council, following a public hearing, determines that
significant improvements have occurred in the negotiations for a
reasonable compromise.....
The purpose for requesting the motion under consideration is to remove Condition No.7.
Newland has acted in good faith over a two-year period in meeting and conferring with the
Coronas, their representatives and County and District representatives. Unfortunately, the
Coronas have elected to file litigation and therefore there is no further effort that can be made for
C:\WTNDOWS\Desktop\Dam\Clien1S\Ncwland Cooununitic:s\910).OOJ\UDNOSKE 7.I0-02,doc
Jul IS 02 01:41p
ALHADEFFI!.SOLAR
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
Ms. Debbie Ubnoske
July 15,2002
Page 2
reasonable compromise. Newland therefore seeks to remove this condition to be able to proceed
with the property righls that were vested under the Paloma del Sol Development Agreement.
To assist you in your evaluation of these issues we have attached certain exhibits
including Exhibit 2 which lists the frequency of meetings with the Coronas and a chronology as
to certain of those meetings. After November 19, 1999 and simultaneously with the meetings
that occurred with the Subcommittee from the City Council, then Councilmembers Lindemans
and Ford, Newland began a series of meetings and exchanges of documenls with various parties
at the County of Riverside who are involved either on behalf of the County or managing
Assessment District 159 (herein "District"). Participating in those meetings at various times
were the following persons representing the County and/or the District:
1. Tony Carstens from the County Administrative Office;
2. Linda Thomason from Finance;
3. George Jolmson from Transportation;
4. Stewart McKibbin from Flood' Control;
5. Dave Stahovich from Supervisor Buster's office;
6. Tim Davis, County Counsel.
In addition to those individuals, there were other persons representing the County from
oUlside consulting firms including Paul Thompson from Webb & Associates and a number of
other colleagues from his staff.
There were also at various times other representatives of the County CowlseJ's office,
Transportation Department and Engineering Department who took an active role in these
-discussions. The Coronas were represented by their counsel, Michelle Staples and their engineer
Mr. James Krieger. In addition, various members of the Corona family attended the meetings
- who Ir kIth c ffi
_m__._o__
rc too p ace at e - ounty-o lces,------------------------------------------ _______uu___________________
Attorney Darren Stroud representing the Corona family also summarized those series of
meetings in his letter of August 13,2001 to Supervisor Venable. George Johnson from County
Transportation Department summarizes those meetings in a December II, 2001 letter to your
City Engineer, Mr. Hughes. Those meetings span a period of over two years.
Newland was also represented by Mr. James Delhamer, the President of Newland
California, Mr. Dean Meyer and then other consultanls inciuding Rob Brown, Dennis O'Neil and
myself. In order to assist the parties, Newland also had its OUlside engineers present for various
meetings. Those engineering representatives included agents from the Keith Company. The
C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\Data\Clients\Ncwland Communitics\9103.00J\UBNOSKE 7.10-OZ.doc
Jul 15 02 01:41p
ALHADEFF8.S0LAR
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
Ms. Debbie Ubnoske
July 15,2002
Page 3
purpose of having those persons at the meetings was to interface with the suggestions of Mr.
Krieger representing the Corona family and to review those suggestions.
It should be stated here that, even after these meetings, the ultimate recommendation of
the County and District did not change. That recommendation was the original alignment that
had been proposed and discussed in an April 2000 staff report by the County is the
recommendation the County has continued to give with regard to the construction of the
improvement. Item 3.6 was placed on thl! Riverside County Board of Supervisors' agenda for a
meeting dated April 18, 2000. The staff report had a recommendation to the Board. in part, to
approve" . . . the original Assessment District concept for the construction of the Butterfield
East Channel and direct staff to return to the Board in thirty days with an implementation plan. .
." To date, the County has not taken action of the staff recommendation because of the
unwillingness oilhe Coronas to dedicate the needed right-of-way. Notwithstanding this the
parties continue to work on alternatives that the Coronas would support with regard to any
improvement.
The Coronas have always suggested their only acceptable alternative they would support
consisted of an improvement that would be constructed at the far easterly end of their property to
protect not only the 19+/- acres in the District but also their entire 160 acres under their
owm:rship. We believe the purpose for the Corona's suggestion is because they are continuing to
advocate and in fact the draft RCIP shows a density of2-5 units per acre for this property. This
density has not yet been challenged by any agency although it would extend the urban limit line
approximately 4800 feet of where it now exists. We do not know whether the City ofTemecula
is supportive of extending this urban line limit but the draft RCIP provides for the extension of
this urban line limit. Accordingly, we believe that is why the Coronas continue to request an
improvement that would protect all their property.
While the property owners in the District including Newland have been supportive of
working on the alternative suggested by the Coronas and their engineer, Connty r.o'.1l'sd through
- ---Tim Davis has advised there are insufficient funds available for such an Improvement. For
whatever reason the Coronas at this time are unwilling to proceed to any amendment to the
-- - ---- ----financingorto-pledge-their-additionalproperty_fQLSU..Q!l.llI!IIDRt:.()v~.!"~Ilt.___ ___ __________
In addition to the meetings that took place at the County, there were a number of public
hearings on this matter. At each of those public hearings, the City staff as well as the County
staff has suggested the District is responsible for the Improvement and the Improvement should
be located as it was originally planned. The Coronas have continued to reject this location. In
fact, the April 2000 staff report from the County recommended the District and County proceed
with the construction of the Improvement at its original location. It was only through continuing
legal threats and now legal action brought by the Coronas that the project has not gone forward.
Attached as Exhibit 3 to this letter are summaries of the public hearings held with regard t6 this
particular issue.
C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\Data\Clicnts\N'c:wland Communitics\9tOJ.OOl\UBNOSKE 7 -1 0-02.doc
Jul 15 02 01:42p
ALHADEFF&SOLAR
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
Ms. Debbie Ubnoske
July 15, 2002
Page 4
Finally, we have tried to give you a flavor ofthe various discussions, technical reports
and correspondence included between the parties. Exhibit 4 gives you a summary of certain of
those discussions, technical reports and correspondence. A summary of those docwnents as well
as the actual documents are included.
We believe that the docwnentation, the chronology of meetings and the efforts on behalf
of Newland clearly satisfy the condition that was imposed upon Newland in November of1999.
Finally, there is adequate collateral and security for this requested action with Condition No. 40
of Vested Tentative Map 24182 which requires the interim detention basin remain on the
Newland property until such time as this matter is resolved. That condition reads as follows:
"40. An interim detention basin has been constructed on the
southern portion of Phase 5 and the Final Phase of Tentative Tract
24182. The existing detention basin or an equivalent facility shall
remain in place until such time that upstream drainage facilities are
constructed to convey offsjte flows to an adequate outlet. Any
revisions to the existing detention basin and appurtenant drainage
facilities shall be approved by the City."
We have previously advised this Council that this interim detention basin presently
affects approximately 188 lots and represents collateral security. Newland is not asking for the
removal of this detention basin.
Sincerely,
JO..-Qt..I.,~
Samuel C. Alhadeff of
Alhadeffand Solar, LLP
SCA:dll
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Dave Hogan
Mr. Gary Thornhill
C;\WINOOWS\Desktop\Dato\Clients\Newltand Conununilies\9103.00 I \UBNOSKE 7~1 0-02.doc
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
with regard to
Public Hearing Item No. 17
(Planning Application No. 02-0299)
Information was received after the Monday
afternoon Council delivery deadline!
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Members of the City Council
David Hogan, Principal Planner Cf4
July 23, 2002
AdditionallnforTnation for Agenda Item No. 17
The purpose of this memorandum is to forward information to you that has been provided to
Mary Corona. On July 2200, Mary Corona came to the Planning Department, asked to see, and
later requested copies of, the information contained in Exhibits 3 and 4 to Sam Alhadeff's July
15, 2002 letter. (A copy of the July 15th letter is included in Attachment No.4 of the Agenda
Report.) The reason this material was not originally included in the Agenda Report package
was primarily that it is already in the public record and did not provide new information on this
matter. Staff is providing it to you, in case the Corona family wishes to discuss some of this
information.
R:\S P A\2002\02-Q299 PDS Condnions of Approval\Supplemenfal Memo to the Council.doc
r.l;'--
EXHIBIT 3
.....
11-04-99
co~srO~DE1'lCE
S""'" D,ron "",""~' bct,,,~ fu' R"a>id' coun" floo' co~"o, ond w~a
CO-.." D,",i" ,ho Ci' o[T""~u" ond ",w,,,,d ""o"'~~ ""'" 0"'00
Lo"" fro'" Roo ,,,",, '" US ^""Y Con> of Bn';''''' "'~, ",W,"" "" .
dun' ",,,,,",,0' '" fuci' 'OW" \0 ,N"" ", "i"~' pN''''''~ " , ,od of ","
d"oI""'''''. Th"" i' 00 ",,,,,, '" wi_ld ,oq",,"'oo ,_,ta 0< "",0\0''''''''
a rova1s as the affect the paloma Del Sol roo ect.
lffiM fro'" Dom" 0'''00 " "un "",,,un '" """" ' oU of'" Co<on"
Wl" fro'" 0"'" M'Y" '" C~o, Do'ohO' ",goW\nll ",,-" '''~, "00 by
the Corona's
Lo"" fro'" ,,,d ThO""'" " ",,"'''' """n "",d"" ", b""""und of ",
Butterfield East 1nterce tor Channel . ..
L"'" fNm Ri'''''' Rob'''' '0 D"" M'Y" ",~diog fu'" o"",un fu<>' """,,,,d
" i, ~mP1-' wit' ,\1 d",,,,,m~' "''''''' ond 00"",.00> ."",,,,,,,1Y 0> fu'Y
",1'"' ,,\100d'" 0< ""'un ,"",~ ~ BU""'''''' ta ,R",d "" "' w. "
L,\1" fmm """g' '0_' '0 c,m" _, "",di" Nocl\nll ofD"""bo< 10,
1999 .
LoU" fro'" s,m A''''''''''' To'Y Co>- ond """go 'olm"o ",,,d'"
meetin on March 1, 2000
L'"'' On'" Son> AI"""'" '0 G""'" '0_' "goWi" com'o" '''''' d~oo
March 14,2000 re ardin inaccurate statements
L"''' from Goo'g' ,,_, " S",'''' com" """d",g furtb" ,tully 0'
additional 0 tions re ardin draina e
,,,,uni' ",Ii""" "",nn ,In'"'' ,0< "",,,fBU.,,,,,,"'ta ,RO'" .
Wl" from ,,,, Thomp'" \0 JAi'bo"' S,.,'~ """di,g oX- ".d' ",,""1'
,. AD \59 .
Lo"" from Mi",\1' Sta, '" " T ooY C'^""'" ",d G""" '0"",," "gmd""
flndin a suitable flnaflcin Ian
Lo"" from Son> A""'''''' Tony C",,,,,, "" ](,lIT Dun"'" "g"ding AD ]59
ro ert owners meetin bein continued . .
Wl" from D""" S""ud \0 'on>"" V"""" "","'.' ""do","'" w',"'" AD '"
over a ear have been meetin re ular1
T _ri ", B'''' o<Su ""^",,, ,.,un " """" CO 'u,,",o ,,,,,, ..
L'"'' from Son> A"""ft \0 '"'' 11"'''''. "g"ding dol",.g fu' COO".o. of
A rova1
L'"'' from Son> AI,,,,,ff '" D,bbi' Dbno"" "goW",g ,,,"'" dnoomonta '" b'
made a art of the record
12-\ 1-0' L"Ia fro'" Go"g' 101m'" " WlU"'" Hu,hoo ~,,><ling ,~"" ""
. ,.'0"" di"""" botw"" th, Coooty "d fu' ,,,,ortY 0"'""" fo< .",'Y twO
ears
Wl" fin'" Lon""" S <"h \0 """" 10""'0' ",,,,,,,,,g ti,ting f"" -'
draina e roblems
~EWLAND OtJTLl~E OF EV'E~TS
/
/'
'/
/
~-
DATE
01-22-91
01-23-98
11_01-99
11-03-99
11_04-99
02-11-00
03-16-00
04-04-00
\
I
04-11-00
04-26-00
06-06-00
08-03-00
01-10-01
08-13-01
,
\ 09-25-01
11_06-01
11-29-01
\
12-18-01
,.
)
.
NEWLAND OUTLINE OF EVENTS
/
DATE CORRESPONDENCE
07-22-97 Storm Drain Agreement between the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District, the City of Temecula and Newland Associates Incorporated
01-23-98 Letter from Ron Parks to US Army Corp of Engineers regarding Newland has
done everything in their power to protect the adjacent properties as a part oftheir
development. There is no reason to withhold requested permits or development
approvals as they affect the Paloma Del Sol project.
11-01-99 Letter from Dennis O'Neil to Peter Thorson regarding appeal of the Coronas
11-03-99 Letter from Dean Meyer to Carol Donahoe regarding response to appeal filed by
the Corona's
11-04-99 Letter from Paul Thompson to Shawn Nelson regarding the background of the
Butterfield East Interceptor Channel
11-04-99 Letter from Richard Robotta to Dean Meyer regarding their opinion that Newland
is in compliance with all development criteria and conditions particularly as they
relate to flooding or drainage issues at Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79
02-17-00 Letter from George Johnson to Corona Ranch regarding meeting of December 10,
1999
03-16-00 Letter from Sam Alhadeffto Tony Carstens and George Johnson regarding
meeting on March I, 2000
04-04-00 Letter from Sam Alhadeffto George Johnson regarding Corona's letter dated
March 14,2000 regarding inaccurate statements
04-11-00 Letter from George Johnson to Stephen Corona regarding further study of
additional options regarding drainage
04-26-00 Preliminary Estimate Drainage Interceptor East of Butterfield Stage Road
06-06-00 Letter from Paul Thompson to Michelle Staples regarding excess funds available
in AD 159
08-03-00 Letter from Michelle Staples to Tony Carstens and George Johnson regarding
finding a suitable financing plan
01-10-01 Letter from Sam Alhadeffto Tony Carstens and Kelly Donovan regarding AD 159
properly owners meeting being continued
08-13-0 I . Letter from Darren Stroud to James Venable regarding landowners within AD for
over a year have been meeting regularlv
09-25-01 Transcript of Board of Supervisors hearing regarding Colorado Pacific
11-06-0 I Letter from Sam Alhadeffto Peter Thorson regarding deleting the Condition of
. Approval
11-29-01 Letter from Sam Alhadeffto Debbie Ubnoske regarding certain documents to be
made a part of the record
12-11-01 Letter from George Johnson to William Hughes regarding summarizing the
. ,
ongoing discussion between the County and the property owners for nearly two
vears
12-18-01 Letter from Leonard Savala to George Johnson regarding listing facts about
drainage problems
C:\Data\Clients\Newland\Newland Outline of Events.doc
.:;.,
.
\
.
DATE CORRESPONDENCE
01-03-02 Letter from Dennis O'Neil to Mayor and Members of the City Council regarding
outline of events
01-04-02 Letter from Sam Alhadeffto Ron Roberts regarding deleting the Condition of
Approval with manv attachments
01-07-02 Letter from Sherry Davis to Ron Roberts regarding typographical errors in the
letter sent to Mr. Roberts dated Januarv 4,2002
01-09-02 Letter from Sam Alhadeffto Mike Naggar regarding thanking him for examining
the facts
02-05-02 Assessment District 159 Butterfield Stage Road East Interceptor Alternative
Analysis
04-02-02 Memo from Dennis O'Neil to Jim Delhamer, Dean Meyer, Martha Guy and Sam
Alhadeff regarding letter to be sent to Gary Thornhill regarding releasing the 508
multi-familv units
C:\Data\Clients\Newland\Newland Outline of Events.doc
\.
. .'
,.
1
2
3
4
AGREEMENT
. (Tract Nos. 24182 and 24185)
The RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION
DISTRICT, hereinafter called "DISTRICT", the. CITY OF TEMECULA,
5
6 hereinafter called "CITY", and NEWLAND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED, a
.
7 California corporation, hereinafter called "DEVELOPER", hereby
8 agree as follows:
9
10
11
.:.~. .
RECITALS
A. DEVELOPER has submitted for approval Tract Nos. 24182
and 24185 in the City of Temecula, and as a condition for approval
12
13 DEVELOPER must construct certain flood control facilities in order
14 to provide flood protection for DEVELOPER'S planned development;
15 and
16
17
B. The required facilities include approximately 2,300
lineal feet of underground concrete pipe, hereinafter called "STORM
18
19 DRAIN", along with a certain interim retention basin, hereinafter.
20 called "BASIN", as shown in red and green~ respec;tively, on Exhibit
'21 "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. STORM DRAIN and BASIN
22
are hereinafter altogether called "PROJECT"; and
23
24
25 will be dependent upon the functional operation and integrity of
C. The functional operation and integrity of STORM DRAIN
26 BASIN. The BASIN wil~ be constructed outside of CITY street rights
27 of way, wi thin a drainage easement; and
28
-1-
~UL 2 2 1991.
If./
EXHIBIT \0
.'
1
D. DEVELOPER desires DISTRICT to assume ownership and
2 responsibility for the operation and maintenance of STORl'-1 DRAIN.
3
Therefore, DISTRICT must review and approve the plans and specifi-
4
cations
5
6 and
,
7
and subsequently inspect the construction of STORM DRAIN;
E. DISTRICT is willing to review and approve plans and
8 specifications prepared by DEVELOPER for STORM DRAIN, and is
10
9
willing to inspect the construction of STORM DRAIN;
~ DISTRICT is willing to assume ownership
and
11
andresponsi-
bility for the operation and maintenance of STORM DRAIN, excluding
12
13 inlets and connector pipes within CITY rights of way, provided (i)
14 DEVELOPER complies with this agreement, (ii) DEVELOPER' pays
15 DISTRICT the amount
16
as
specified herein
to cover DISTRICT'S
construction inspection costs for PROJECT,
(iii) DEVELOPER pays
17
18
DISTRICT the amount as
specified herein to cover DISTRICT'S
19 operation and maintenance costs for STORM DRAIN, (iv) PROJECT is
20 constructed in accordance with plans and specifications approved by
21 DISTRICT and CITY, (v) CITY and DEVELOPER assume ownership and
22 responsibility for the .operation and maintenance of BAS IN set
as
23
forth herein, and (vi) DEVELOPER obtains and conveys to DISTRICT
24
and CITY all rights of way necessary for the inspection, operation
25
26 and maintenance of PROJECT as set forth herein; and
27
28
G. CITY is willing to (i)' accept and. hold faithful
-2-
.'
, .
'.'
1 performance and payment bonds submitted by PEVELOPER for PROJECT,
2
3
4
(ii) grant DISTRICT the right to operate and maintain. STORM DRAIN
within CITY rights of way, (iii) accept responsibility for the
operation and maintenance of inlets and connector pipes within CITY
5
6 rights of way, and (iv) monitor and ensure DEVELOPER'S 'operation
7 and maintenance of BASIN as set forth herein, provided DEVELOPER
8 conveys all necessary rights of way and rights of entry to CITY as
9 set forth herein, and PROJECT is constructed in accordance with
10
plans and specifications approved by DISTRICT and CITY.
11
12
13 follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, tr,e parties hereto mutually agree as
14
15
16
17
18
19 and specifications to DISTRICT and CITY for review and approval.
SECTION I
DEVELOPER shall:
1. Prepare plans and specifications for PROJECT in
accordance with DISTRICT and CITY standards, and submit the plans
20 2. Pay DISTRICT, for DISTRICT'S costs incurred in the
21 plan review and approval of PROJECT, the applicable amount(s) as
22 provided for under Ordinance No. 671, including any amendments
23
24
and approval fees, as determined and approved by DISTRICT.
25
thereto, of the County of Riverside relating to such plan review
26
3. Pay DISTRICT, upon execution of this agreement, the
27 amount of $2,500.00, the agreed upon amount necessary to cover
28
-3-
..
1 DISTRICT'S costs incurred in the preparation, processing and
2 administration of this agreement.
3
4
4. Pay DISTRICT upon execution of this agreement (Zone 7
Maintenance Trust .Fund) , the one time cash sum of $3,500.00, the
5
6 agreed upon DISTRICT estimated cost for operation and maintenance
7 of STORM DRAIN through the year 1998.
8
5. Pay DISTRICT fOr the cost of providing' construction
9
inspection for STORM DRAIN, at the time of providing writ ten
10
11
notification to DISTRICT of the start of PROJECT construction. as
set forth in Section 1.7. herein, in an amount as determined and
12
13 approved by DISTRICT in accordance with Ordinances 671 and 749,
14 including any amendments thereto, of the County of Riverside, based
15 upon the bonded value of STORM DRAIN facilities to be inspected,
.. operated .and maintained by DISTRICT.
17
16
18
6. Secure all necessary licenses, -agreements, permits and
19 rights of entry as may be needed for the construction, inspection,
20 operation and maintenance of PROJECT.
DEVELOPER shall furnish
24
map for Tract Nos. 24182 and 24185, or any phase thereof, whichever
25
26 occurs first, with sufficient evidence of DEVELOPER having secured
27 such nece.ssary licenses; agreements, permits and rights of entry,
28
-4-
/
I
1 as determined and approved by DISTRICT.
2
,,/ >,
I
\.StePhen C.
'"
of cohstnic-
Notify DISTRICT in writing (Attention:
3
;'
(
'4
..-.--.7.
'\
I
Thomas) at least
twenty (20) days prior to the start
tion of PROJECT.
construction shall not begin on any element of
5
6 PROJECT for any reason whatsoever, until after DISTRICT has issued
7 to DEVELOPER a written Notice to Proceed authorizing DEVELOPER to
8 initiate construction.
9
10
11
8. Provide CITY, at the time of providing written
notification to DISTRICT of the start of construction as set forth
in Section I.7., with faithful performance and payment bonds, each
12
13 in the amount of 100% of the estimated cost for construction of
14 PROJECT as determined by DISTRICT. The surety, amount and form of
15 the bonds shall be subject to the approval of DISTRICT and CITY.
16
The bonds shall remain in full force and effect until PROJECT is
17
accepted by DISTRICT as complete; at which time the bond amount may
18
be reduced to 10% for a period of one year to guarantee against any
19
20 defective work, labor or materials.
21
9. Obtain and provide DISTRICT, at the time of providing
22
written notification to DISTRICT of the start of construction as
23
24
25 Dedication to the public for flood control purposes, including
set forth in Section I.7. with duly executed Irrevocable Offers of
26 ingress and egress, for the. rights of way deemed necessary. by
27 DISTRICT for the construction,
inspection,
operation and
28
-5-
1 maintenance of STORM DRAIN as shown in concept cross-hatched in
2
blue on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. The
3
4
Irrevocable Offer(s) of Dedication shall be in a form approved by
DISTRICT and shall be executed by all legal and equitable owners
5
6 described in the offer (s) .
7
10. Obtain and provide CITY, at the time of providing
8 written notification to DISTRICT of the start of construction of
9 PROJECT
10
as
set
forth
in
Section
1. 7.,
with
duly
executed
Irrevocable Offers of Dedication of easements to the public for
11
12 flood control and drainage purposes, including ingress and egress,
13 for the rights of way deemed necessary by CITY and DISTRICT for the
14 construction, inspection, operation and maintenance of BASIN, as
15
shown in concept cross-hatched in green on Exhibit "B".
The
16
Irrevocable Offer(s) .of Dedication shall be in a form approved by
17 -
CITY and shall be executed by all legal and equitable owners of the
18
19 property described in the offer(s). The IrrevocableOffer(s) of
20 Dedication. shall provide that if and when construction of 1,300
21 lineal feet of future storm drain as shown in concept in orange'on
22 Exhibit flAil is complete and accepted by DISTRICT, the Irrevocable
23
Offer(s) of Dedication shall be vacated by CITY.
24
25 11. . Furnish DISTRICT and . CITY, when submitting the
26 Irrevocable Offer.(s) of Dedication as set forth in Sections 1. 9.
27 and 1.10., respectively, with Preliminary Reports on Title, dated
28
-6-
'.
1 not more than thirty (30) days prior to date of submission, for all
2 property described in the Irrevocable Offer(s) of Dedication.
3
12. Construct., or cause to be constructed, PROJECT at
4
DEVELOPER'S sole cost and expense in accordance with plans and
5
6 specifications approved by DISTRICT and CITY.
7
13. Upon completion of construction of PROJECT, but prior
8 to DISTRICT acceptance of STORM' DRAIN for operation and
9
maintenance, convey, or cause to be conveyed to DISTRICT flood
10
11
12 approved by DISTRICT, for the rights of way shown in concept cross
control easement (s), including ingress and egress, in a form
13 hatched in blue on Exhibit "B".
14
14. At the time of recordation of the conveyancing
15 document (s) set forth in Section I .13., furnish DISTRICT with
16
policies of title insurance, each in the amount of not less than
--17
fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) for each parcel to be conveyed
18
19 to DISTRICT, guaranteeing DISTRICT'S interest in said propertx as
20 befng free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, assessments,
21 easements, taxes and leases (recorded and unrecorded), and except
22 those which, in the sole discretion of DISTRICT are acceptable.
23
24
15. Assume ownership and responsibility for the operation
and maintenance of BASIN. Such operation and maintenance shall be
25
26 performed in such a. manner as to ensure the safe and normal
27 functional operation of BASIN in accordance with DISTRICT and CITY
28
-7-
1 standards and regulations, subject to the provisions of Section
2
IV.S. herein.
3
4
16. Pay where DISTRICT or CITY is successful in any suit
under. this agreement or any action to enforce any bond guaranteeing
.5
6 the completion of PROJECT, all costs and reasonable expenses and
7 fees, including reasonable attorneys' fees, and acknowledge that,
8 upon entry of judgment, all such costs, expenses and fees shall be
9 taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered.
10
17. Furnish DISTRICT with the final mylar plans for
11
PROJECT and assign their ownership to DISTRICT prior to the start
12
13 of construction on any element of PROJECT.
14
15
16
17
SECTION II
DISTRICT shall:
1. Review and approve plans and specifications prepared
by DEVELOPER for PROJECT, prior to the start of construction.
18
19
2. Provide CITY an opportunity to review PROJECT design
20 plans prior to DISTRICT final approval.
21
3. Upon execution of this agreement, record or cause to
22
b. recorded, a copy of this agreement in the Official Records of
23
24
25
26
the Riverside County Retorder.
4. Inspect the construction of STORM DRAIN.
5. Accept ownership and responsibility for the operation
27 and maintenance of STORM DRAIN exclusive of inlets and connector
28
-S-
1 pipes within CITY rights of way, upon (i) DISTRICT acceptance of
2 PROJECT construction as being complete, (ii) recordation of all
3
4
acceptance by CITY of all street rights of way as deemed necessary
5
conveyancing
documents
described
in Section
I; 13.,
and
(iii)
6 by DISTRICT and CITY for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT.
7
6. Furnish CITY with final reproducible "as-built" mylar
8 plans for all PROJECT facilities, upon DISTRICT acceptance of
9
PROJECT construction as being complete.
10
11
12
13
SECTION TIT
CITY shall:
1.
Review and approve plans and specifications prepared
14" by DEVELOPER for' BASIN, prior to the. start of construction of
15 PROJECT.
16
17
and payment bonds submitted by DEVELOPER as set forth in Section
18
2.
Accept CITY and DISTRICT approved faithful performance
19 1.8., and hold said bonds as provided herein.
20
3. Grant DISTRICT, by execution of this agreement, the
21 right . to construct, inspect, operate and maintain STORM DRAIN
22 within CITY rights of way as set forth herein.
23
24
25
4.
Inspect the construction of BASIN.
5.
Consent to the recording of any Irrevocable Offer(s)
26 of Dedication furnished by DEVELOPER pursuant to this agreement.
27
28
6. If requested by DISTRICT, accept the Irrevocable
-9-
1 Offer (5) of Dedication as set. forth herein,. and any other
2 outstanding offers of. dedication necessary for the construction,
3
inspection, operation and maintenance of PROJECT, and convey
4
suffiCient rights: of way to DISTRICT to allow DISTRICT to
5
6 construct, operate and maintain STORM DRAIN as provided herein.
7
7. Upon DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT as being complete,
8 accept ownership and responsibili,ty for the operation and
9 maintenance of all inlets and connector pipes within CITY rights of
10
11
way. CITY shall further accept the added responsibilities
associated with the continued operation and maintenance of BASIN as
12
13 set forth in Section IV. 8. herein.
14
8. Not grant any occupancy permits for any unit within
15 any portion of Tract No. 24182 or Tract No. 24185, or any phase
16
thereof,
until
construction
of
PROJECT
is
complete,
unless
17-
otherwise approved in writing by DISTRICT.
18
19
9. Upon DISTRICT acceptance. of STORM DRAIN as being
20 complete, and upon DISTRICT and CITY acceptance of BASIN
21 construction as being complete, accept sole responsibility for the
22
adjustment of all STORM DRAIN manhole rings and covers located
23
24
within CITY streets and rights of way, at no cost to DISTRICT,
which shall be performed at such a time that the finished grade
25
26 along and above STORM DRAIN is improved, repaired, replaced or
27 changed.
28
-10-
1
2
3
4
5
6 and accepted as complete by DISTRICT.
SECTION IV
It is further mutually agreed:
1. All work involved with PROJECT shall be inspected by
DISTRICT and CITY and shall not be deemed complete until approved
7
2. CITY and DEVELOPER personnel may observe and inspect
11
control communications with the contractor during the construction
of STORM DRAIN.
12
13
3. DISTRICT and DEVELOPER personnel may observe and
14 inspect all work being done on BASIN; but shall provide any
15 comments to CITY personnel who shall be responsible for all quality
16
control communications with the contractor during the construction
17
18
19
of BASIN.
4. Construction of PROJECT. shall be completed by
20 DEVELOPER within twel ve (12) consecutive months after execution of
21 this agreement and within oi,e hundred forty (140) .consecutive
22
calendar days after commencing work on PROJECT. It is expressly
.
23
24
understood that since time is of the essence in this agreement.
failure of DEVELOPER to perfqrm the work within the agreed upon
25
26 time shall constitute authority for DISTRICT to perform the
27 remaining work and require DEVELOPER'S surety to pay to CITY the
28
-11-
16
--17
18
.,
1 penal sum of any and all bonds.
In such case, CITY shall
2 subsequently reimburse DISTRICT for DISTRICT costs incurred.
3
4
5. DEVELOPER and DISTRICT, knowingly and voluntarily,
waive the provisions of Government Code Section 65913.8, relating
5
6 to fees and charges.
Such waiver is accomplished with the
7 understanding that DISTRICT' is voluntarily undertaking the
8 obligation to accept ownership and responsibility for the operation
9
and maintenance of STORM DRAIN, and DEVELOPER is not required by
10
11
12
DISTRICT to enter into this agreement.
6. DEVELOPER shall during the construction period,
13 provide Worker's Compensation Insurance in an amount required by
14 law. A certificate of said insurance policy shall be provided to
15 DISTRICT and CITY at the time of providing written notice pursuant
to Section I.7.
7. DEVELOPER. shall, commencing on the date notice is
19 given pursuant to Section I. 7., and continuing until. DISTRICT
20 accepts PROJECT as complete, and accepts STORM DRAIN for operation
21 and maintenance:
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(a) Provide and maintain comprehensive liability
insurance coverage which shall protect DEVELOPER
from claim from damages for personal injury,
including accidental and wrongful death, as well
as from claims for property damage which may
-12-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
-17
,
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
arise from DEVELOPER'S construction of PROJECT
or the performance of its obligations hereunder,
whether such construction or performance be by
DEVELOPER,
by
any
of
its
contractors,
subcontractors, or by anyone employed directly
or indirectly by any of them.
Such insurance
shall name DISTRICT,
CITY and County of
Riverside as additional insureds with respect to
. this agreement and the obligations of DEVELOPER
hereunder.
Such insurance shall provide for
limits of not less than two million dollars
($2,000,000.00) per occurrence.
(b) Cause its. insurance carrier (sl which shall be
authorized to transact business of insurance in
the State of California to furnish DISTRICT and
CITY
at
the
time
of
providing written
notification to DISTRICT of the start of
construction as set forth in Section 1.7., with
certificate (s) of insurance showing that such
insurance is in full force and effect and that
DISTRICT, CITY and County of Riverside are named
as additional insureds with respect to this
agreement and the obligations. .of DEVELOPER
-13-
. .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
hereunder. Further, said certificate(s) shall
provide that the issuing company shall give
DISTRICT and CITY sixty (60) days written notice
in the event of any cancellation, termination,
non-renewal or reduction in coverage of the
policies evidenced by the certificate (s) . In
the event of any such cancellation, termination,
non-renewal or reduction in coverage, DEVELOPER
shall, forthwith, secure replacement in8urance
meeting the provision of this paragraph.
Failure to maintain the insurance required by this
14 paragraph shall be deemed a material breach of this agreement and
15
16
-17
18
19
shall authorize and constitute authority for DISTRICT, at its sole
discretion, to proceed to perform the remaining work pursuant to
Section IV.4.
8. CITY, pursuant to Section III.7., shall have the. legal
20 right and responsibility to monitor DEVELOPER'S operation and
21 maintenance of BASIN, including, but not limited to, the right and
BAS IN .
DEVELOPER, by execution of this agreement, grants CITY all
27 including ingress and egress. CITY agrees to provide reasonable
28
-14 -
1 notice to DEVELOPER as to its intent to enter upon DEVELOPER'S
2 property for the purpose of such periodic inspection and to defend,
3
indemnify and hold harmless DEVELOPER, its officers, agents and
4
employees from and against. liability for injury or damages
5
6 occurring as a direct result of such periodic inspection.
7
DEVELOPER shall perform all corrective work within
8 BASIN as may be deemed necessary by 'CITY to ensure the continued
9
functional operation and integrity of BASIN and STORM DRAIN.
10
11
In the event of a flood emergency, if it should be
deemed necessary by CITY that certain emergency actions must be
12
13 taken to ensure the functional operation of BASIN, and DEVELOPER is
14 unable to timely perform such necessary work, CITY shall have the
15 right to enter upon DEVELOPER'S property to perform such emergency
16
work as deemed necessary by CITY, at DEVELOPER'S sole cost and
17"--
expense.
18
19
ShoUld CITY, at any time in the future, determine that
20 DEVELOPER'S
performance
of
operation
and
maintenance
21 responsibilities as set forth herein be insufficient to ensure the
22
functional operation and integrity of BASIN and STORM DRAIN, or
23
24
should CITY at any time determine DEVELOPER'S continued operation
and maintenance of BASIN not to be in the best interest of the
25
26 public, then CITY shall accept the Irrevocable Offer(s) of
27 Dedication provided by DEVELOPER for BASIN pursuant to Section
28
-15-
1 I. .10., and assume ownership and responsibility for their operation
2 and maintenance.
3
9.
4
for BASIN,
5
6 nor within
DISTRICT shall assume no responsibility, whatsoever,
or for surface drainage, within DEVELOPER'S property,
the' easement parcels shown in concept cross-hatched in
7 green or cross-hatched in blue on Exhibit "B".
8
10. In the event that any claim or legal action is brought
9 against DISTRICT or CITY in connection with this agreement because
10
of the actual or alleged acts or omissions by DEVELOPER, DEVELOPER
11
12
shall
defend,
indemnify and hold DISTRICT,
and CITY harmless
13 therefrom, without cost to DISTRICT or CITY.
14 failure to do so, DISTRICT and CITY shall be entitled t6 recover
Upon DEVELOP.ER I S
15 from DEVELOPER all of their cost and expenses, including, but not
16
limited to, reasonable attorney's fees.
17
18
11. DEVELOPER shall defend, indemnify and hold DISTRICT
and CITY, their respective officers, agents, employees and
19
20 independent contractors free and harmless from any claim or legal
21 action whatsoever, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I,
22 Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of
23
24
the United States Constitution, or any other law or ordinance which
seeks to impose any other liability or damage whatsoever, for the
25
26 design, construction or failure of PROJECT or from the diversion of
-"'"'=='
27 the waters from the natural drainage patterns, save and except
28
-16-
1 claims and litigation arising through the sole negligence or sole
2 willful misconduct of DISTRICT or CITY. DEVELOPER shall defend
3
DISTRICT and CITY without cost to DISTRICT or CITY, and upon
4
5
DEVELOPER'S failure to do so, DISTRICT and CITY shall be entitled
6 to recover from DEVELOPER all of their cost and expenditures,
7 including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney's fees.
8
12. DEVELOPER for itself, . its successors and assigns
11
suits of any kind arising out of any liability, known or unknown,
12
13 present or future, including, but not limited to, any claim or
14 liability, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, Section. 19 of
15 the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United
16
States
17 ._--
impose
18
Constitution, or any other law or ordinance which seeks to
any other liability or damage, whatsoever, for the design,
19 construction or failure of PROJECT, or the discharge of drainage
20 within or from pROJECT. Nothing contained herein shall constitute
21 a release by DEVELOPER of DISTRICT or CITY, their officers, agents
22
and employees from any and all claims, demands, actions or suits of
23
24
any kind arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or
future, for the negligent maintenance of . PROJECT, after the
25
26 acceptance of PROJECT by DISTRICT.
27
2,8
13. Any waiver by DISTRICT or by CITY of any breach of any
-17-
lone or more of the terms of this agreement shall not be construed
2 to be a waiver of any subsequent or other breach of the same or of
3
any other term hereof. Failure on the part of DISTRICT or CITY to
4
require exact, full and complete compliance with any terms of this
5
6 agreement shall not be construed as. in any manner changing the
7 terms hereof, or estopping DISTRICT or CITY. from enforcement
8 hereof.
9
10
11
14. If any provision in this agreement (with the exception
of Section IV.5.) is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to
be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will
12
'13 nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired or
14 invalidated in any way. Should it be held by a court of competent
15 jurisdiction that any portion of Section IV.5. is invalid, void, or
16
unenforceable, the provisions of Government Code 65913.8(b) shall
17
18
19 extended through the year 1998.
apply.
It shall, therefore, be determined that' this fee is.
20
15. This agreement is to be construed in accordance with
21 the laws of the State of California.
22
23
24
16. Any and all notices sent or required to be sent to the
parties of this. agreement will be mailed by first class mail,
postage prepaid, to the following addresses:
25
26
27
28
-18-
;.
. '
1 RIVERSIDE CO~Y FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
2 1995 Market Street
3 Riverside, CA 92501-1770
CITY OF TEMECULA
CITY HALL '
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
4 NEWLAND ASSOCIATES, INC.
9404 Genesee Avenue, Suite 230
5 La Jolla, CA 92037
6
7
8
17. Any action at law or inequity, brought by any of the
parties hereto for the purpose of enforcing a right or rights
provided for by the agreement, shall be tried in a court of
9
10 competent jurisdiction, in the County of Riverside, State of
11 California, and the parties hereto waive all provisions of law
12 providing for a change of venue in such proceedings to any other
13
county.
14
15
16 the parties here'to, and the advice and assistance of their
18. This agreement is the result of negotiations between
I} ,~espective counsel. The fact that this agreement was prepared as
18 a' matter of convenience by DISTRICT shall have no import or
19 significance. Any uncertainty or ambiguity in this agreement shall
20
21
not be construed against DISTRICT because DISTRICT prepared ,this
agreement in its final form.
22
23
19. The rights and obligations of DEVELOPER shall inure to
24 and be binding upo~ all heirs! successors and assignees.
25
20. DEVELOPER shall not assign or otherwise transfer any
26
of its rights, duties or obligations hereunder to any person or
27
28
-19-
15 II
16 II
17
18
19
20
21
1 entity without the written consent of the other parties hereto
2 being first obtained.
In the event of any such transfer or
3
4
assignment, DEVELOPER expressly understands and agrees that it
shall remain liable with respect to any and all of the obligations
5
~ and duties contained in this agreement.
7
21. This agreement is intended by ,the parties hereto as a
8 final expression of their understanding with respect to the subject
9 matter hereof and as a complete and exclusive statement of the
10
11
terms and conditions thereof and supersedes any and all prior and
contemporaneous agreements and understandings, oral or written, in
12
13 connection therewith. This agreement may be changed or modified
14 only ~pon the written consent of the parties hereto.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-20-
1
2
6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
/:'iiC{17,
.' <ifft. 17)//,
<:i 4'eO' &<:io!-...
Clerk of the Board) <\:: <' 6Ye _~'!i
'S lOJ fet;T- IiiI'.
O,*" ,f&1'
LOO CONTRv~
ATI TRICT 6
o
agreement on
3
(to be
4
By
,.....--
5 RECOMl'lENDED FOR APPROVAL:
: \ '
7
8
Engineer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
9 ,WILLIAM C. KATZENSTEIN
10 County Counsel
11 By\L/JJd~t \I {11m 4//5/n
FCt-Joe S. Rank
12 'Assistant County Counsel
ATTEST: jUL 2 2 1997
GERALD A. M1.LONEY
Clerk of the E~ard
13
14 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
B~~
Depi/'
(SEAL)
15
16
--17- _A.J;:PROVED AS TO FORM: '
18 By ,~-
City Attorney
19
20 Dated'f~ t;, /19?-
~.
CITY OF TEMECULA
By ~o.uvz-~~
City Manager
Ronald E. Bradley
::;;;~~.4L
-~Clerk '
Engineer
(SEAL)
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
SCT:mcv
28 rcfc\10808
4/1/97
NEWLAND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Bd~/?),y~
Title C:~G7:. {/.?
(NOTARY)
JUl 2 2 1997 f I
-21-
JURATMTH AFFIANT STATEMENT
STATE OF CAUFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO'
./ See Attached Document (Cross out lines 1-11 below)
o See Statement below (Lines 1-11 to be completed by document signers only - NOT NOTARY)
1
Signature o~ Document Signer
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I. ELIZABETH C. GROMAN I
_' \ COMM. , 992753 ."
S . 00 : NOTARY PUBLIC.CALlFORNIA S'
~ . SAN DIEGO COUNTY -
I . .... My Comm. Exp. Apr. 2S. 1997 I
d and sworn to (or affirmed) before me
. this 23rd day of April, 199Z,_by
(1) LaDoIU1a K. Monsees
Printed Name oE Signer(s)
Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable ersons relying on the .
document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document.
Further Description of Any Attached Document Right Thumbprint
Title or Type of Document: Riverside County Flood Control &
Water Conservation District/ Alcoba Drive Storm Drain. Proiect
No. 7-0-0046, Tracts 24182 & 24185-Cooperative Agr.
Document Date: "to be filled in bv clerk of Board" Pages: 25
Other Signers:Temecula City ManalZer, City Engineer, City
Attorne Riverside Co. Flood Control Dist.
Signer Nt
Signer #2
~~~
,.' ~
", .. ~
. ~
r
~
j I
, 0 C. ~
"
, "'.
. ~ ,~~~'>"" I,-,
"Y"1J...'-. '.~ 9" Q ; (1,;.; ~
,ii/I' 'V , / -.. .. r- ~ ,..",) ;-:~ ,<~,-/, 0:'
//:-i',,,--;.R'ff' 'I I I I I i I \\'1 1-11111 1/7' ~.) FI )vj. ~' \..-
/ ~X..I' \.J.-I-~ i\ \ \ II f7Ir, ,..... I ITII17;~~k-~f..'/,A ~ .
~. ~ ~ Hill I JlTffi. iT \ I \ -"':' :<..~~[@ '~'V?"/;~"'~~
'" '-'-" -1-1 :,)"', ,'" ~ 0 '
'-, 11\\ rn ' --1-' " /;'.') X; . ;7<' > .
'/1$':; ::::/-{ 'T1\\\~ C.\ t. \ :jty~\::t~~~",S<>:'A''-~ y~/,~, \.:
_ '--1 L, vL \. ^-.;\'.~""'" /'1>.' 0,' \,
I ':::':J LI fTl \\\1 ~ i.::: :>t~-">).> >~';':Jt.:.c.;:, .-:~\ \, P ~ ~~..
I ~:-'!- ,~", {~~C ":.." ),Y '-" ,'('~..- \:::~; C%\.\
. ~~~{).'" ... 1B - .,/
Y.n~~ .~\:),~/y<,\:~. ~ 1-+- c-- bll'll'Irb./
~"Yk!J) "/~,,,<\'::"\-X~"'<:"":l ~ t::L b=l= nIT Y ~
)! ::: :: ,;,.'}~~>".<FI~L'!!)~~~'~'1111 r;n- - '"" ~'rr~7t E
J- -, '''<;'''';;:\,~'>\'''' /,.<..i..I0r.i:s.. ~ D~"f-l..-l...< II
]". <}41'~4>-~.:;~,/14? !~'I" L- =.~...""''' 21 ,; tIiT..r T\ 2
.' I-I,/~< 'f>; ,).'>~ "'~ -4 /, ~ iJJJ1rp '-
, '1! - FL- /.:-. 'S/ II .. ~ / \ l'~"'" ..t........kll
;J/~.::J ~ '.:'.\." ~UlUO~/'" . ,J..( @I ./la\
__ '/ . "~.. --.t) .:: '5:~,J '---=:;....-< >: 7, UI i". ':::
~,....,u" ~ ':t-1 -i '" ~U' ,~--1 . . '(-, l::.
./ I5i:;: ~:~"t['r/:::J - \\:'\ \ \ '(:;u:y i -.:: " ~ Ill))., .:!.: /' :J /: '
~ " ITTl ~ ,-' '. ~~://;/l:Oi;. . , ~~~
l;q!llh~~-~~~~i~~~m ~'~g
t:;J (:::1"'-J. 'J? 1\\ ~~ ' -3 '<;7,~ '!;:;<-tJ-l1T ~..-f~..
::l '- '--- .' -=. ~ ((ffi\ liT i \' " ( ;.b, -:J {If.. \l) ~!f m 1-1'ffi.W'
:::;::~ '~~~~ Iii /~~"l')~ ~
s~n" ~~~;:A ~RIIIIIfllT\I\ITIKt~
~ -rim TTIIII'II~ ,J'<'>- :..... ~ WI:: ,III ",;Vlm"
"c, i \1 \J or--': I.': \V3;-- \-' f....' ?JFlt''1,''-.. ~/.\
,;;; _.>->-"...--- Cfl' ": ,.:.' <::1",;;t f- I- LI/) f\~; ~Ip \---;...!
\i ~ ..F -'~ -I'lJ Iffr"J-.. I- -~' \" I-H
,f- :Ar1'~:/. ,- :::d-::\:,
. -It::;t Iii 1-1 .. ~ I- c:\v~ "l.."'\ \ \ I \ \---1
,,-If3-tJ S~ E t t _~~:Y(,'mllll (::;
,l) 'll:.';_:~,,,,_~..,?~ 1I!11.\~"rllll "~' l~iJJ' Jni-n@/flllllll v "
r . -. ST....n:: t-IQiWAY 7. .- ..-. "w - .- --'"
EXHIBIT "A"
~ '
~Jf
'. .
.' b
I
~
. ~~ '':~'~ I
..\ .' ..r'~~~-@1 .
'\".\ 'i ~,) (1!:'
ilif%. "~'-~ --\~/..f' i~~':::;ma~\\
/n.' - \ \ \ 111111li! N~~~FfNM~"ll ~\\- .
(j :"':'''-'-fT\ \ L..L11 II I ~ ,/\'; ^ ...'1' J: ''\.''.
/"< -1 T LY-; \llliW rr '~-(I \ \ ~: U2~~ /'<: if~ ~ \"'" .
a ~ F:c ml \ LlIIII .H"~ \ \\)"'^'<?')~>i%l~~'\.
lye::: ~m\ 1\/ I-I -~\::J, -..:.H ~.':~~'<::''>'~~b>,'(, ~t;:>:'~..,\
/!~ --+:::f { rT\ \1-D 8 @ ~ / -\\\;"0 ~'" ~~~ A' r1 ~\~~'\
. ~~t'r.....-r; ,......) ';:''.''1 ,,I", \'\! uJ--v-... ''\\
!--J-? ~~"~::c0'~~~~, . '\ ....;.;'~~, / ~ ,...~\~ fTrni }
~). xs 'J'!~~. ~~1~W1'\'\--::X:::: 1-1- ~'~~II- t1I.Y ~~ . ~
l: .. . '" "_70 '\ 1>./. '1:;.x.......... r:.-t=.. 1--1- r--
~ -.. ,K> \)" :>'\"-." ':',':>~~p'~:r:. '-.L. cr- I J ll' ;..... I-
~ - .;'<;~~'~\':<FlNAt~;:I), J,!-\(;llllll I i7-- '@i'(1J..1LIT-Ji1l
) ," '/;, .. '. \.',... /', -../) - "" -...., "f=:I
24184" :.....,......}{t,) '. I--~.~~,~ ^-, ,if., .LJ!f7T I-
~ ~~J.; '. \ \..'\" ':~_~~f1 -4 ~/ H ~jj 111m j:::.
I>, 'r-- '-I--J~' . .\::5,"~ /'1 '1-1 ~.' NIIJJr ",...1'::!,,>__
/: "I -,-- "'1"" """"'WOO<>a.h " ~
I#~ 1-/ -., . '.;';. \., ~:;:! ~I'. .....::/ c- . ,i, '" III -j...,), '--11 'I
I/}l-( - '"} '\ - . ",.~ ~ .---=::: , . ,>_'i..J..J.. (/
'~~'.'.. "./x ": -! ;-'1:::, '-. 0-~7i ,BI: U 111 f::r~'<'l _~)~:;/! /4 ~~ g
. -...' ..., J'--tlj-- '. \2, . M0-1' .,..';ZJ.. 'III r.-
.. r;;::~~.;j?,:<?d r: \ ~ w/a ~~{J,~~;;Z~~00r' u 1)~t, ,c---
\~o;~"-LIIIII (\ ~C1~;Q,>/. '~'f?..'<< IU~~ Y.
'-... ~ 'DE ~llr\J.t>~~):> j',' rr;. NUf::
I ~fh-; U, ^ \\ ~Ll~~J: S,t,r-lfY~~;;!zif!1 }:0;:1'K
S1.::r:?j&iIA~YI~~U >~ ;;h~-3j~li(~!:a)]m ~3'.
:: =i:=\ ~T::-~' (11111 i II \ ~~/,;; ::<:::J.7ix(J;50j '1::/3 ~ ~~ \1="
~ d::i_""" ~ ~ t~ / <-~~)::/ tiLL/1[]jjjjlnILk:. "
\/T\\Tt:\ 'u~r'$' /.~ ~ i= ~0.11 \ 1'1~~ 10 8
~ ( \ III III LlW I Lll.';:.y.. j . W! '-1-= . I- I- 'I '). \'/ i1iri~f....Vj~.....
,~ -'- I "". -' 0'- c,;;'{(. 1-,- I- _~. (o;.~. ~"'16 \:=\:= =
,[Q:)J... '-~ f...i .L 'II, _ ^' n..' _
'l},wa ;:J , "-1-" - ~..-'; /'-..'" or: f-- ,...
'aHr- -I de: ~ Pc tf:; y:::, f:: JJ W --j (,5T ~ vm \ \ t=
, 't: -J} -:' ~ - :-i ~-<\t::J t _~ ~..J.~WlIII ~ \=
,~,,-!_..I;-,~~,-:::,;~-=..,_~..II_~.- ..Ll~llIill (,Qi \I~C!;~::.I'I'.II~I..,_..~-
, , \,
See Exhibit "B" See Exhibit "B"
2 of 3 Line "e"
2 of 3 Line "AU
EXHIBIT "B" 1 OF 3
/?/rI
;;: ~ ~
\
( \ ~ l/r-INTER'MBAs'N.....' .III
\)JY'i/JL ~_ 11'11
y~ ~ Jl -ti-H
~
~
LINE "A"
,
<
~ '
t(
-
o
~
5'01/
'ON'WW
'1S'
-
-
- -
- ~ ~
Ei'1'Z:
Cf::.. HIGHWAY79
I
.:>.
6>
';>0.
?
, ><
~.;>
FH 12. -
FHtO-
C;i.-G
FMZO
~
- =----
0.
,~
~~. "
.9.9
><
"?
'.
EX'. M,II.N!. 2
LINE "ell
HICHWA Y 79
EXHIBIT"B" 2 OF 3
J
'-
\
~\'.,; \ ---I
o '" I
ex: ~ I
I
~'"
1#2 J [ftJ(9g[b ~fP !M@. '
1J~@~1J
- ROAD
- - ---S,. AGt
eIJTTERt\tLO N 22. 55'2:>W
~ ...,.-.... .-. ......
\
, I
0'1
r--.
71'
>-.
I~,
::I:.
t:)
:J:
I
w
.....
0<(
....
V)
. , e" 3e',0.W 805.59'
:e.,...
~~tfJ
EXHIBIT-"B"
30F3
-
w
r
02 05:07p
p.2
~
RitllVlD
JAN 28 1998
..Citj(ofTemecula", , " .IIGULATORYIIANCS":
43200 Business Pa1c Qive. Temecu/a. CA 92590. MalT"",,,,,,,=: P,O, Ila1< 9033. TemecuI.. CA 92589,9033
, 1909J 694-6444 . Fax 19(9) 694-1999
January 23, '1998'
US Army Corp of Engineers
P. O. Box 532711
, Los, Angeles, CA 90053 "
Attn: Spencer McNeil; EnVironmentarCompIiance Specialist
Re:, NewlandPropertyAnnualPermit
Corona Ranch Issue '
Dear Mr, McNeil:
, ,
, , '
, ,
You have requested clarification of an issue raised by Mr: Steve Corona regarding potential
flooding of the CorooaRanch property as it relates ,to the construction of the Paloma Del Sol. _,
project owned by the Newland Corporation.
The Paloma Del Sol project was originally approved as a Specific Plan,by,thecounty of Riverside
before the.city of'Iemecu1a Incorporated. There havebeen..several revisions, to the Specific Pian
through the city1)fTemecuht'which have been reviewed, anaapproved 'by thiS:agency,.' In' '
addition,. severalTentative Tract Maps have been processed through.the. city of Temecula as. a
part cfttJs Specific Pla..,. Th~ qu~ons cfflooding and draL.....aage contrcl are always a concern
and,addressed..whendevelopmenlplansare. processed-through tbe',city..:'. .,' "
The city staffh'as evaluated the problems identified by Mr. Corona as they relate to the Paloma
DelSol project. Thethreatofflooding,ofthe Corona Ranch has always been, present due to the "
fact that it lies within thi: flood plain, ' The issue was addressed with the design studies associated'
withCountyAssessment District.159in which an'interceptor channel was proposed at the easterly
boundary of the Corona Ranch'property., This was'supposed'to be built iil conjiinction with 'other ..
major stonn drain improvement!> built within Butterfield Stage Road to intercept the storm runoff
from the east and, direct it to Temecula Creek,
As of this date the major storm drain- improvements have been installed in Butterfield Stage Road
and DePortola Road and Butterfield Stage Road has been fully improved which raised the
elevation about one foot above the previous grade, This work was approved and constructed by
County Assessment District 159 and was not the responsibility of the Paloma Del Sol.project. It
is further the responsibility of AD 159 to complete the construction of the interceptor channel '
r:':r,', ~,~~~ftT ~L?
b~...'7.'~01I1 l ~ rij i ..,.
Il.~ARXSR.\t.JI9N.EI'tE\AJt.MYCOllPJ.nt.
'rirIc~~ Ilecyd~"~
^" I". '10.._" --
2 05:08p
p.3
\\
,
Newland Propeny
Page Two" ..
. .',.'
which would provide the ultimate protection of the Corona Ranch property as well as the
southeast comer of the Paloma Del Sol project, The developer of the PalomaDeI Sol project b,as .'
constructed a retention/detention basin on the southeast comer of their project to protect their
property as an interim measure until the interceptor channel is built. One could argue that the
Newland property is also being held hostage until AD 159 completes the interceptor channel.,' ,
The,city of Temecu1a,staffl1as thoroughly investigated these issues and is of the opinion that the
Newland' Corporation' has 'done-everything in theirpower,to'protecuhe adjacent, properties as'a' .
part of-their developme'nt; There is no reason to withhold ,requested pennits or development
approvals as they affect the Paloma Del Sol project.
If you have any questions or, need further information, please give me ,a call. '
Sincerely, '
;fJ;I~
Ronald J. Parks
Principal Engineer, Land Development
cc: Joe Kic~ CityEilgineerlPublic Works Director
R;\PAIU(SRIlnIlll.EITEJl.\ARCORl'.LTR.
nl/0AI?nn? WT 1"f..ft"f r"''YJn" 1l.ln ft...... no.........
.
HEWITT & McGUIRE, LLP
DEAN DUNN-RANKIN
- CHARLES S. EXON
WILUAM E. HAllE
ANDREW K. HARTZELL
HUGH HEWllT
JOHN D. HUDSON
ATTORNEYS AT LAw
19900 MAcARnRJR BOULEVARD. SUITE 1050
IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92612
(949) 798-0500 . (949) 798-0511 (FAX)
EMAIl: counscl@1lewiltmq;uirc.com
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL: (949) 798-0734
EMAIL: doneil@hCwiumcguirc.com
MARK R. McCUII",
DENNIS D. O'NEIL
JAY F. PAlCHIKOFF
PAULA. Rowe
WILLIAM L. TwOMEY
JOtIN P. YEAGER
November 1,1999
.
'"
Peter M. Thorson
City Attorney
City ofTemecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
"
, ,
Dear Peter:
Re: Planning ApplicationP A99"9284 (Development Plan),
PA99~0286(Tentative Parcel MapNo. 29431), Plarming,
Application No. PA99-0285 (Specific PlanAmendment)
and Plaiming ApolIcitti()n No. pA99-0823 (DeveJoDmenl Agreement)
..... .
"
Our law firm repre~ents Ne~landC()mmunities, the developer of the Paseo del Sol
Master Planned Community. Newlan!lhas receivedniltice that the owners of the Corona Ranch
have appealed some or all of the applications referenced in this letter. The stated grounds for the
appeal are: (i) "the applicanlhas failed to, come into compliance with the development criteria and
conditions placed on the project'1; (ll) "the project itselfis oui of compliance with conditions ofits
approval"; and (iii) " . .'. the California Environmental Quality Act requires preparation of a
subsequent EIR for a project, and precludes reliance on an addendum, when substantial changes
occur to the circumstances under which a project is to be undertaken, or new information shows that
project impacts will be substantially more severe."
As they have in the past with prior Paseo del Sol Specific Plan Amendments, the
Coronas contend that the construction of Butler field Stage Road has effectively blocked drainage
through this area, creating significantly increased flood hazards to upstream properties than was
previously identified in the EIR for (Paloma) Paseo del Sol. Furthermore, they point out, a planned
upstream storm water interceptor facility ("Butterfield Interceptor Channel") to mitigate this problem
has not yet been constructed. However, even assuming the Coronas' contentions are correct, they
have no bearing on compliance with prior land use entitlement conditions or whether a Supplemental
EIR ("SEIR") should be prepared in connection with the pending planning applications. This is
11'()1-99 IOOl9.()()O()2
- S;\I52\CORR\99IOOOO8,lTR,wpd
Peter M, Thorson
November I, 1999
Page 2
r'
because the development of the Pasco del Sol commercial site and the Specific Plan No. 7
Development Plan will have no imoact on uostrearn orooerties or their exoosure to flood control
hazards. This follows from the fact that no stonn water from the Paseo del Sol project is directed
upstream. The approval of Specific Plan Amendment No.7 and related development applications
will have no physical consequences at all on the property owned by the Coronas and there.are
absolutely no new significant adverse envirorunental effects to analyze in a SEIR. Simply stated,
there is no nexus or relationship to the pending planning appli!;ations and drainage issues on Corona
Ranch.
,
~
AD 159 has provided many public improvements of regional siinificance in the South
Temecula area. Thus, the construction ofBulterfield Stage Road and Highway 79 South hi 1993 was
not intended to benefit solely one property owner, but rather to'improve the overall traffic circulation
of the region to the benefit of all people living in this end of~own. ,The Corona Ranch is included
within AD 159 and along with Paseo del Sol and otherpropecties,havebeen assessed to pay for these
regional publi~ improvements. , ',' ,.'
.
Butterfield Stage Road, which is already completed: and the Butterfield Interceptor,
Channel facility, ,which lias not yet been constnicted, are improvements under the control of the'
County of Riverside and/or Assessment District No; 159,not Newland C9mmtinities. EIR No. 241, '
was certified by the RiverSide County Board of Supervisor when AD 159was formed in 1988. Any
issues tlie Coronas have regarding flood concerns should be directed to'Assessment District No. 159
and the County. " ", ,
.' :'
'. ". I
The Butterfield Int~rceptor Channel istobe built to the east and upstream from the
Paseo del Sol community and its purpose is to collect waters flowing from these undeveloped areas '
and divert them into Temecula Creek. Newland has been working diligently with both AD 159 and
the County of Riverside for over three year:; in analtempt to facilitate and accelerate the construction
of the Butterfield InterceptorCh~el. The Coronas playa key role in the Butterfield Interceptor
because they must agree on its location and the cost AD 159 will pay for their land, Newland will
continue to cooperate with the County and the Coronas to insure this flood control channel is
constructed. _
.
In the meantime, in satisfaction of the development conditions required by both
Riverside County Flood Control and the City ofTemecula's Public Works Department, Newland'
has constructed an approximately twenty acre interimdetention basin at the northwest corner of
Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79. South. This basin was designed and constructed pursuant
to Riverside County Flood Control and City ofTemecula review and approval. Further, the basin
fUlly protects the Paseo del Sol community during rare stonn events in which water may enter from
areas to the east. To give you a sense of the rarity of the stonn event that might cause water to enter
the basin, you should know that during El Niiio of recent years this twenty acre facility remained dry.
11-01.99 10019-??oo2
- S~IS2\CORR\9910000S.I.TR.wpd
Peter M. Thorson
November 1,1999
Page 3
On February 2, 1998, the Planning Commission approved revisions to Newland's
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24182 ("VTM 24812") and, based upon staff analYSIs, found the
project to be in conformity with the previously certified Environmental Impact Report. The'
continued presence of the detention basin was assured in the conditions of approval for VTM 24182
to remain in place until upstream drainage facilities are installed to mitigate off-site flows.
In general, CEQA limits later environmental review for subsequent land use
approvals to issues orimpacts which were not addressed in prioE environmental documentation. The
intent of CEQII. is to allow public agencies to rely on prior environmental documeJ;ltation, unless the ,
project itself or other circumstances have changed significantly since its adoption and these changeS '
have a negative impact on the environment which cannot be mitigated. Under Public Resources'
Code Section 21166 (CEQA Section 21166) and Cal. Code of Regs. 15162 (CEQA Guideline
Section 15162), a supplemental EIR is not necessary unless major revisions are required to the
original EIR asa result of: " " '
(a)
substantial changes in the"projectwhich have an increasednegative
' ,
impact on the environment;
(b}substantial changes in the circumstances of the projectwhichhave an,'
i~creased neg~tive impact on the environment; or '
new information which was not available when the original EIR was
prepared which indicates that the pfoject has a substantial adverse,
imPllcl ~hich cannot be mitigated. '
The CEQA statutes and guidelines are, very clear on what the test is for requiring a supplemental
EIR. Once an EIR has been prepared for a project, no further environmental review may be required
' unless one of these specified triggering events occur.
(c)
.......
A public agency's'discretion to require a subsequent or supplemental EIR is very
limited once an EIR has been prepared for a project. The statute is phrased in prohibitory language:-
An agency shall not require a supplemental EIR unless one of the statutory exceptions exist. The
policy behind the statute is to avoid repeating the CEQA process when environmental review has
been completed and the time for challenging that process has expired (Fufld for Eflviroflmefltal
Defeflse v. COUflty of Oraflge (1988) 204 Cal. App. 3d 1538, LOflg Beach Saviflgs afld Loafl
AssociatiOfl v. Long Beach Redevelopm,efll Ageflcy (1986) 188 Cal. App. 3d 249, Bowmafl v. City
Of Pet alum a (1986) 185 Cal. App. 3d 1065), CEQASection 21166 is designed to provide a degree
of certainty and finality once environmental review has been completed for a project. Even a
substantial increase in the severity of an envirorunental impact does not require the preparation of
a subsequent EIR if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the impact to a level of
11.01.99 10019.??oo2
,S:\I S2\CORR\991 oo008,L TR.wpd
Peter M. Thorson
November 1,1999
Page 4
insignificance. (Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco. Inc. v. Regents of the
University of California ("Laurel Heights If') (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112.) Caurt cases uphald the
presumptian against the preparatian af subsequent EIR. (Snarled Traffic Obstructs Progress v. City
and County of San Francisco, 1999 Daily Jaurnal D.A.R. 9211.) Ifimpacts resulting fram changes
to. the praject do. nat differ significantly fram thase described in the project ErR, a further EIR. is nat
required (Bowman).
A city may nat, therefore, require a furtherE.IR unless it finds, an the basis af
substantial evidence, that ane af the three exceptians to. the'rule against requiring a further EIR
exists. In this case there is no. evidence to. suppart such findings. All reasanable daubt will be
decided in favar afthe city (Laurel Heights).
A city may prepare an addendum to. a priar EIR to. dacument its decisian that a
subsequent EIR is nat required. CEQA Guideline Sectian 1 5164(b)( e). This Guideline reflects case
law approving use af an EIR addendum to. detennine whether a'subsequerit ar supplemental EIR
might be required. In the Bowman case, the caurt upheld the City's use af an EIR. addendum to.
evaluate changes to the praject.' The caurt held that using an adden'dumas a mechanism far
detennining whether a furtherEIR shauld be required was an appropriate way to. fill in a pracedural
' ! gap in CEQA and the Guidelines. Nathing in CEQA ar the Guidelines requires that the city canduct
an investigatian to. ferret aut changes in circumstances ar new infannatian. CEQA and the
Guidelines do. nat man(late any specific procedure far cities to. fallaw in detennining whether a
supplemental ErR is required. The Guidelines simplypravide that a brief explanation afthe decisian
nat to. prepare a supplementalEIR pursuant to. CEQA Guideline Seytian 15162 shauldbe included
in an addendum to. anEIR., the city's required findings an the project, ar elsewhere in the record.
Newland has provided you with legally suppartable evidence af campliance with all
drainage and flaad cantral canditians. 'The appellants have affered no. evidence af nancampliance
with the canditians af the praject appraval, any significant changed circumstances, ar new
infannatian which was nat cansidered in the ariginal project EIR. as further reviewed in priar and
the current Addendum. Finally, there is absalutely no. cannectian between the planning
11.Q1-99 IOOl9.()OOO2
'S:\H2\CaRR\991 00008,L TR.wpd
I
r'
\
,
! .
~
.
Peter M. Thorson
November 1, 1999
Page 5
applications currently pending before the City Council and storm drain issues impacting the Corona
Ranch. Therefore, we submit there is no need in the case of the pending planning applications to
consider adding new conditions or conduct further envirornnental documentation.
Very truly yours,
~&~
Dennis O. O'Neil
DDO/mer
cc:
James M. DeIhamer
Mayor and Members of the City Council
.
"
.
IHlI-99 10019-??oo2
.s:\~S2\CORR\991 OOOOS,L TR.wpd
"
)
ITlES
November 3, 1999
Carol K. Donohoe, AICP
Associate Planner
CI1'Y OF TEMECULA
Planning Deparbnent
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula,CA92590
Subject:
Paseo del Sol - Plaruring Applicarron: P A99 - 0284 (Development
Plan), P A99-0286 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29431), P A99-0285
(Specific Plan Amendment) and PA99-0283 (Development
Agreement)
:NI..\
1.-1tiO:i
Dear Carol:
;,I..:om
A~ a follow up to the information forwarded to you,9n October 26,1999 and
subsequent meetings ,with City Staff and City Atiorriey, we hereby submit the
following correspondence in response to the ,appeal filed by Corona Ranch: '
1. Letter from Dennis O'NeiIto Peter Thorson dated November 1, 1999
stating Our positions.
i) The develop~ent of the Paseo del Sol conunercialsite and Specific
Plan NO.,7 will have no impact on upstream properties or their
exposure to flood control hazards. '
om
ii) Newland'has:provided evidence of compliance with all drainage
and flood control conditions..
iii) There is no need to conduct any further environmental review or
prepare any subsequent reports.
2. Letter from Paul Th6mpson of Albert A. Webb Associates, Assessment
Engineers for Assessment District 159 to Shawn Nelson dated Novem15er 1,
1999. '
i) This letter indicates there is an authorized "$2.2 million for design
and construction of the Interceptor Channel or a substitute facility"
through AD 159. .
ii) In addition there is authorized but unissued bond capacity on the
Paseo del Sol property,
'.
'"'
.
~~
Carol Donohoe
November 3,1999
Page two '
3.', Letter from Richard T. Robotta of The Keith Companies dated October 29,
1999 which summarizes the technical history of Specific Plan 219 (Vail
Meadows) and EIR 235 as it relates to drainage issues.
.
In summary:
1. The Paseo del Sol project has met all the conditions placed on the project
throughout the entitlement process and more specifically as it relates to
drainage. ' ",
2. The Paseo del Sol project has constnicted;an,ipterim detention basin and
has been conditioned that the basin or equivalent facility shall remain in
place until such time, that upstream drainage facilities are constructed.
3. There exists $2.2 million of authorized bonds through AD 159 for the
design and construction of the Butj:erfie1d Interceptor Channel.
4. Newland Conununitiessupports the use of authorized but unissued bond
capacity on the Paseo del Sol property.
5. ' There is no evidepce to support the appeal of the pending applications nor
need for any neW:COnditions or the preparation of further envirorunental
documentation.
We thank the Gty Staff for their efforts and time spent on these matters. We are
respectfully requesting that this correspondence, along with the compilation of
reports and analyses as submitted to you under cover letter dated October 26,
1999, be filed with the Gty Clerk and made a part of the official record of the City
Council relating to the subje;:t planning applications and appeal. ~
Very truly yours,
NEWLAND COMMUNmES, LLC
~ -->--
Dean R. Meyer
Director of Engineering & Development
CC: Jim Delhamer
<,
"'ii,
WEBB
ASSOCIATES
ENClNEDUHc; COllSIlLTM'TS
o CoIp<nIa~
31U Mccra)'Su=
l!iw:l>idc. CA 92Sll1i
(90916&6-10111
Fox (909) 1a8-12S6
C Rtj;ionaI Olr=
2Z481 RIlldlo Cali!. Road, SIe. 10&
T=b,. CA V2S90
(909) 69f-9"'..50 .
fax (909) 699-1032
W.O. 89-4308
File No. 3851.08
Nuvembc:r4, 1999
Mr. Shawn Nclso.l1
City MllI1lIger
City ofTemecula
43200 .BlI~ilJ(,sS Pll!k Driv~
Temecula, CA 92590
.
,
RE: Assessment DistrictNo. 159- Butterfield,East JD,t,etceptor Channel
Dear Mi. Nelson:
fi w.,
T am the Assessment. I:l1VisiollManager with Alben A. Webb Associates,
, ,
Assessment Engineers forAssesSl:DentDisirictNo. 159 (A. 0.159")., I am proviclingibc
' , ,
following infomuition to assist~ CitY ofTc:mccula. in understanding the background ,of
the Butterfield &st Interceptor Chunnel(the "Interceptor ChAl1rie!") and to hclp to
identify potential fup'Hl1J;: for itsconstructioil.
. . .~_.
A. D. 159 was originally fonucd in 1988 to fund certain regional public
Unprovemenrs and oIber ~'within the District Boundaries.. IIi 1991, a
supplemental district was foImed to in=e the fimds available for the cost of the
.
original A. D. 159 improvcm"'lt'l, and to add new District improvpm"njS such as the--
Interceptor elmnn..! AppIOXimntely $2.2 million was specifically identified by the
supplemental district lIS necess3ly for th~ de:,ign and CODStruCtion of the Interec:ptor
ChAnnA! This $2.2 million was lISSesBcd to four of tho propllrty owners within the
Di$trict and ~ead to these owners based on benefit received and allocated on acreage.
Consequently, Paseo del So! received ahom 82% of the AS~""'TTJent wi1h the rem!lining
three owners n:cciving about 18%.
"_"r..'rt-t~Q;l::D "''''('''iAiJtDJ;I''_'Q.A)t''"'r;Q.1.~'Q]:~1 b 'l.J ~
ovn. ENGINEERING · PLANNINO · A.SSESsMENr I sPECIAL TAX CONSULTING · W^TER RESOURCEs ENOINESUNa
, ..-
-;
At this date, there is authorized but'tmissued bond capacity on the Pasco del Sol
property toraling!lpproxitnately $4.9 million. Under ,AOOP'N'llen1 District law, authorized
bonds can only be released by !be agency admiDistering the District and any actual
assessment debt issued 8gllinst II property mnoins an obligation of the property Until paid.
Fuzther, an AssesSllIent District may build improYellle11ts oUl.side Or its botUldllries if
those improvements are to the benefit ofpropl:lties within the District
.
,
In On going meeting.~ wi!b Riv~c1e COllll1y omciaJs, Newland .ColIUllunitics
indicated that they would suppori ~;ng a portion of the aulhorlzed but unissued bOnd
capacity 011 its property to provide fimds in e."{~ of tbc authorized $2.2 million for the
design /Illd <:<n1SlnIction of the Inlen:eptor Channel or a substitute fuciJity such as' a
detention has in.;
"
1 trust this information has been helpful to you and I am available to answer any
questions you may have. PiCas!} freetocal1 me at (909) 781-6190.
SinCerely,
, ALBERT A. WEBB,ASSOCIATES
"'~~
Paul Thompson
PTlis
1\..\SSE.o;sMlWrlAsSE"I.~MENT_D.U.\\R1VCa..-\ll~I~.R..O;\""_ ....
Co
'". "''', ,.m'""""/n<c:::
November4,1999
~
Mr. Dean Meyer
NEWLAND COMMUNITIES
27393 Ynez Road, Suite 253
Temecula CA 92591
Re: Paseo del Sol: Appeal of P.A. 99-0283, 99-0284, $9-0285, 99-0286
Butterfield Stage Road at Highway 79 Drainage Issues
,
Dear Mr. Meyer:
The Keith Companies has been informed that the aforementioned planning applications for
the commercial development within Pas~o del Sol near l-jighWay 79 and Margarita Road
have been appealed by the Corona Ranch owners. Further, it is our understanding that the
appeal is based on issues involving compliance with develOPment criteria and conditions as
they relate to flooding concems at the northeast comer of Butterfield Stage Road and :
Highway 79 approximately 1 mile to the east upstream of the referenced applications. It is
the intent of this correspondence to define the development criteria and conditions as they
, relate to drainage for Paseo del Sol (formerly Vail Meadows )by rela~ng the history of the
drainage approvals and thereby show compliance with said development criteria and
conditions.
In 1988, the Engineer of Work for Vail Meadows, Robert Bein, Wif/iam Frost and Associates,
and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District engaged in
correspondence dated April 6, 1988; May 16, 1988; and May 26, 1988 which discuss and
developed the master plan of drainage for the Vail Meadows project. As a part of the
approved master plan of drainage a large off site basin immediately to the east (approx. 1190
acres) was identified as a partofthe Vail Meadows approval (refer to attachment 1, 2 and
3). The oftsite basin's drainage was mitigated by the construction of twin 120-inch culverts.
Which exist today in Butterfield Stage Road and easterly in DePortola Road. '
Also in 1988, Assessment District 159 , which constructed many substantial regional
facilities in the south Temecula area, was approved and its E./.R. No, 241 was certified.
This E.I.R. and the aSSOciated AD. 159 documents identified a large basin (approx.2239
acres) further to the east which would require the construction of a channel. This
channel known as the Butterfield Interceptor Channel diverts flows upstream of
Butterfield Stage Road to the south towards Temecula Creek. As you know, AD. 159
has Provided many public improvements of regional significance in the south T emecula
area inducting Butterfield Stage Road. Highway 79 and T emecula Creek. However, the
Inland Empire Division
22690 Cactus Avenue,
Suite 300
Moreno Valley
California 92553-9024
t 909.653,0234
I: 909,653,5308
WWW.l<eilhco.com
..
, .. Page 2
N~_', "'lTKC
construction of the Butterfield interceptor channel was never accomplished ~y the A.D. In
1996, when Newland Communities purchased the Paseo del sol project, The Keith
Companies discovered that the Butterfield interceptor channel had not been constructed.
With Newland wanting to move forward with the development of Paseo del Sol and "
evidence that the construction of the interceptor channel improvements were subject to
delay, interim flood mitigation aKematives were identified and approved on the Newland
property to protect it and potentially other downstream properties from flooding.
Ultimately an interim detention facility was designed and constructed pursuant to
Riverside County Rood Control and City ofT emecula review and approval. (see
attachments 4, 5, 6, and 7).
On February 2, 1998 the City of T emecula Planning Commission approved revisions to
Newland's Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24182 (VfM 24182) and confirmed the continued
presence ofthe interim detention facility with Condition 27 stelting that"... the basin or an
equivalent facility shall remain in' place until such time that upstream drainage facilities are
constructed..: ( see attachment 8). '
'.
hi conclusion, 'and in our opinion eviden~d by the aforeme'ntfonel approvals, Newland is in
' compliance with all development criteria and conditions particularly as they relate to flooding
or drainage issues at Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79.'
Should you have any questions regarding this subject, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
.
THE KEITH COMPANIES,'INC.
/2V/~':'
Richard T. Robotta, P.E.
President-Inland Empire Division
RTR:ml
Enclosures
cc: Mr. James Delhamer
\lJ<E.rn<<)J01INET_0\911.01~J..dlx
~"
:-
a:/2~j2eee 16:62 8776395559
Frn-,::4-00 THU 02: 54 PM R I V CfQ:CUTI VI: O~ r 1\;<.
f...: .
RR BROWN CO
Joflll NU. 1
,".. :..:<! "'lZ.r;:o:''':,,'/'
.. '." "PAGb.'",a?,, '
, qtO'J'OO/f."Uc."" ~'",
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
TRANSPORTATION AND
LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Transportation Department
Dltvld E. Barnhart
Dir<<h1,o/1'I'4#fSJlon..t;O'I
February 17, 2000
CERTIPIED MAIL Ip 310 675 430
Corona Ranch
33320 State Highway 79
Ternecula, CA 92592
Attention; Steve Corona
RE: Butterfield East rnterceptor StQrm Drain
Dear Mr. Corona:
I am writing this letter as a follow up to the December 10,1999 meeting we had at the
Flood Control DistrIct offices, The purpose of that meeting was to discuss the various
alternatives we studied for the Butterfield East InterceptQr Storm Drain Facility, I
appreciated the opportunity to hear your concerns, and as a result, I gained a better
understanding of the history surrounding this project and the various alternatives.
Attached is a table that summarizes the three options we discussed.
As you are well aware, Ihe Butterfield Interceptor was incfuded as an Assessment
District No. 159 facility, to be located atihe eastern Assessment District boundary, tq
intercepttho tributary drainage flows and provide flood protection to Butterfield Stage
Road. State Route 79 South. and downstream properties. The original AD 159 concept
was to construct an open channel at the eastern AD 159 boundary. Because you own
property upstream of the AD Interceptor alignment east of theAD boundary, you
requested we stUdy other altematives. You are currently farming all of your property
and,advised the Interceptor would disrupt your farming operation. With your input, we
agreed to analyze several other alternatives. Let me summarize the two other options
we discussec;i, whIch seemed po1entially feasible:
Alternative No.1 examined the possibility Qf constructing the Interceptor on the same
alignment as the original option (the eastern AD 159 boundary), but lowering the
channel and conslructing a box under your property. YOU expressed an openness to
this option as long as 1) you could COntinue your farming operations Uninterrupted, and
2) the Flood Control District would accept this option as a solulion: Theintent was to
provide four feet of cover over the box, so you could continue your farming over the top
of the facility, During our meeting. Flood Control District representatives questioned the
feasibility of this option. First of all, they doubt the tributary flows can actually be
properly coflecled by the underground box. Secondly, by fowering the facility to place it
4080 Lr:mod Srr~t:t 8tb floor. Rro:uidc. Clrifocnl.1 ~2S01 . (909) 955-67.10
P,Q. Bux 1090' Rn.mido. C.B/o,".. nSOH090 . FAX (909) 9S5,6nl
02/2.;0<600 15: 02 87763'35,55~.. .
:E~-:~4-UU THU UC::,:, Yn !UV I.:U ",tI.:U 11 VI:. UH 11.:1:.
RR BROWN CO
rHA NU. I
PAGE
r. u.:)
. "::'3
63....
".;.
-
Mr. Steve Corona
February 17.2000
Page 2
underground makes the slope of the box culvert too flat and creates ongoing
maintenance problems. Therefore. this option doesn't seem practical.
The other option we discussed was Alternative No.5. a dual system with an open
channel located along your easterly property boundary to intercept a majority of the
drainage from the east, along with a smaller underground system at the eastern AD
boundary to collect the smaller flows from the north and east, abov~ De portora Road
and east to Calle CQntento. You expressed your preference for this alternative.
Under Alternative No.5, all of your property will be flood protected. The property you
OWll outside the AD bounda/)' Would benefit under this altemative and would therefore
be required to pay Its proportionate share of the costs.
You discussed your desire to defer any assessments on your properly until your farming
operation develops into some other use. This would require some other,party to
advance your costs. While I unde~tand your desire. the County doesn't have the
financial capacity or ability to advance fund your share. One way to reduce your costs
is to dedicate the right-of-way needed to COnstruct the facility. Other than that, I have
not been able to come up with any other cost saving solutions. .
If you are Willing to place the required financial burden on the remainder of your
property outside the current AD 159 boundaries, the Transportation Department is
willing to recommend Alternative No.5. However, to proceed we will need your written
concurrence,
Your cooperation is needed to make the Interceptor a reality.
I look forward to receiving your positive response so we can proceed in a cooperative
manner. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or require any
additiOnal information. .
Sincerely.
4d~
George A. Johnson
Deputy Director of Transportation
GAJ:sa
cc: Supervisor Bob Buster
Bob Krieger
Tony Cars1ens
Dave Barnhart
Kelley Donovan
Fmnk Peairs
"0"/24/2088 15:82 8775335553
:'tl:h'q-UU lHU UL;~~ rn "IV (;L' '~(;UIJV~ urrJI,;~
i
I
....
..
~ ~
~
" ~
~ ~
e: '"
.. ...
~ ::: 8
~ ~
... ~
~ ~ l':
:: ... '"
g .., '"
'" ..
'" ~
~ ~ ....
..
:z ~ if
..
.. .. !:'
.. J::
.. ~
.. '"
.. .. "
H .
E- ~'JI
~~~~.
E -' E.2-
00 '" _ ~
~tJ ~_c:
~~ !:;:~
~ f Ij ~
~Q. ~s;zi
2'.1:: c: WI ~
~H!iH
..! "",..B < e8
(!z]:!IaJ~
HH .~j'"
-0 - - t ><
- '"' C'o 0_
~
.
"
~
..
~j
~Il
S 8
"'..
" .
""
'v2
-0
><0.
~ .
~~
, t
80
=-N
~
s ~
.. .t:
~ i'
.
i ~
e ~
~ ~
e "-
g~.g
"'~'11
uti..
~ ..fi~
>< ,-
HU
olio,!;
=Zn~
RR BROWN CO
t'M I'lV. !
10'01""10
G..l~i~.8
l"!~:~!g
;;;,f'oo...........
;:f;.... - ..,.
,
I
~
..
i
~
E
:f
~..~ig:~I:e
"''',T:lS _
s..g:~'; 8"! g'
UlI "'",' _ ...
,.,", .e.,..... _ I...
".3 . I
i'D :
,",
g;
.:
i.
!Ii
:~
~
..
...
~
'i
,
,
I I
,
J ,
~I~I'~I~I~
,,!~ ;;I'ii% ;;
:.&.-''" -I"
roil "I'..;.... ..
..' I r
, I I
, , I
ii'
'"
5
..
..
..
z
0
I"
"
z '"
0 'I:;
" ;!;
.. '" ..
~ .... ....
:0: "
.., w .w
'" ~ :Ii
0 Z w :',j
~ 0 '" ...
" ;1i .,
< .. 8
< u 0 ,I
z 0 ~ ~
'" .... g
:0: '" ''''
w 0 0: ~ .g
~ '" "
:f u ~ ~ ~ 0 1=
'" ;? u. => ..
f' 0 :0: '" ..
:; 0
., ... '" t; ~
" ,. or ~ a ..
0 '" "' ...
u 0 ii: w :"
82/24/2888 15:82
f]l/i~:L: .:.:."j
PAGE 84
r. U'f
0~/24/20~0 16:02
87763'3555'3
RR BROWN & CO, LLP
RR BROIAN co
PAGE 01
CERTIHED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
*** FAX ***
DATE:
z/~c.f-<:?Q
S \....... ()~~
TO:
FROM:
Rob Brown
~e:A.J
I
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: -1.-
~g(\l <~~J):;ff--
950 S Ch~,.ry Street., Suite 716
Denver, CO S02~6
275S5 Y nc< Road, Sui", 407
Temecul2, CA 92591
Phone (877) 639-5565
FAX (877) 639-5559
e.nlall robbrown@rrbrownco.com
....
613 West Valley Parkway
Suite 345
-~ido, CA 92025
~ephone: (760) 743--1201
..csimile: (760) 743-9926
ALHADEFF & SOLAR
27555 YNEZ ROAD, SUITE 203
TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA 92591~46n
MAIN TELEPHONE: (909) 699,9088
FACSIMILE: (909) 699-9878
550 Corporate Center
550 West C Street
19lhFIoor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-8700
Facsimile: (619)231-8323
Offices in San Diego, Escondida and Temecula, California
March 16, 2000
SAMUEl. C, AlHADEFF
SAlHADEFF@ACRSP,CQM
(909) 699-9088
9103,001
Mr. Tony Carstens
County of Riverside
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Mr. George Johnson
County of Riverside Transportation Department
P.O. Box 1090
Riverside, CA 92502
Re: Assessment District 159 ("District") and Specific Plan 219-Paseo del Sol ("Project")
Dear Messrs. Carstens and Johnson:
I wanted to thank you, Ms. Thomason, and Mr. Donovan for meeting with Newland
Communities and myself on March 1st to discuss the District and Project. We appreciate the
time and consideration each of you and a nwnber of other members of County Staff have given
with regard to the issues that we discussed at that meeting.
As discussed in our meeting, we think that the District has reached a critical crossroad
regarding the funding for and construction of the Butterfield Interceptor Drainage Channel
("Interceptor Channel"). Consequently, we believe that the County and the District should
recommend a solution to the County Board of Supervisors and seek direction in facilitating and
completing this improvement as provided for in Assessment District 159.
This letter is really intended to be a summary of the current status of both the District and
the Project as it relates to the Interceptor Channel. The delay in the construction of this facility is
not only having a serious adverse impact on Newland's Project, but also on the District, its
owners, and the integrity of State Route 79, Butterfield Stage Road and other regional
improvements constructed by Assessment District 159.
Assessment District 159 was formed in 1988 to fund certain regional public
improvements and other infrastructures within the District boundaries. In 1991 a Supplemental
I\SLDlC_DRlVElDATAICLlENTSINEWLAND COMMUNITIESlCARSTEN JOHNSON LEITER 3,6REVISED,DQC
ALHADEFF & SOLAR
Mr. Tony Carstens
Mr. George Johnson
March 16,2000
Page 2
District was formed to fund the increased cost of the original District improvements, and to add
new District improvements such as the Interceptor Channel.
Specifically our client's Project had original assessment debt of$I1.9 million. When the
supplemental assessment was adopted another $13,8 million was added to the original
assessment debtincreasing the total debt to $25.7 million, To date, our client has always kept
both its real estate tax obligations and assessment debt obligations current.
The Interceptor Channel was to be constructed at the eastern edge of the District
boundary. This channel would pick up storm water entering the Savala property (19.49 acres)
and the Corona family property (19.17 acres) and divert the drainage southerly to the District
improved Temecula Creek. The estimated cost of the Interceptor Channel was in the range of
1.8 million and was to be shared on an allocated basis with four (4) different owners. The
current estimate is 3.5 million or more.
As you know, the Corona family has resisted the original design of the Interceptor
Channel and has suggested different alternatives that would not only protect their property within
Assessment District 159, but a larger Corona parcel outside of the District as well. In order to
resolve these issues, a number of discussions took place between the District and the Coronas.
To date, those discussions have not resulted in any agreement.
Accordingly, on February 17,2000, the County sent a letter to the Corona Ranch asking
that they select one of two alternatives for the Interceptor Channel. Specifically, the County
suggested that if the Coronas wished to adopt a significantly more expensive storm water
channel that would benefit their entire property, they should be willing to include all of their
property within Assessment District 159 to assist in its funding.
The reason we are again bringing this matter to your attention is because, quite frankly,
this issue needs to be resolved for several very important reasons. First of all, the delay in the
construction of the Interceptor Channel has caused our client to incur additional costs of
$860,000 for the construction of an interim detention basin that protects not only their property,
but property owned by others to the west. These costs would not have been incurred if the
Interceptor Channel had been built in a timely fashion as were other District funded
improvements. Second, this interim detention basin prevents Newland from developing forty
acres (approximately 188 lots) of their residential property. While these lots continue
undeveloped, Newland is shouldering the burden of tens of thousands of dollars of interest costs,
property tax, and assessment expense. Third, the Coronas are raising the question of liability
arising from the damming of storm water on their property as a direct result of the District's
design and construction of an elevated Butterfield Stage Road without building the Interceptor
Channel to divert this water into Temecula Creek. Finally, the Coronas and others believe that in
certain storm events both Butterfield Stage Road and State Route 79 will be flooded because of
the failure to construct the Interceptor Channel. As you probably know, the significance of
I\SLDlC_DRlVElDA TAICUENTSINEWLAND COMMUNITIESlCARSTEN JOHNSON LETIER 3,6REVISED,DOC
';
ALHADEFF & SOLAR
Mr. Tony Carstens
Mr. George Johnson
March 16, 2000
Page 3
Butterfield Stage Road as a circulation element is growing as a number of parties both in the City
of Temecula and at the County are considering Butterfield Stage Road to be a major loop-road in
this area. In swnmary, it is now time to seek a final solution to this matter and to prevent any
further adverse impacts to the District, the County, and the owners in the District.
As previously stated, Assessment District 159 assessed Newland and three other property
owners for the construction of the Interceptor Channel. Further, this original assessment is
believed to be inadequate to fund the channel's construction. Newland has volunteered to allow
any remaining authorized but unissued assessment debt currently on its property to be identified
and sold to raise additional funds for the construction of Alternative No. I of the Interceptor
Channel. However, it is important to fully understand that the District's ability to raise
additional assessment funds through Newland's cooperation diminishes each time Newland sells
property to others.
Therefore, it is now imperative that the District act quickly to help us make all of this
happen. In addition, we believe that the County needs to act upon its letter of February 17,2000
and if no timely response has been received from the Coronas, to proceed with the final design
and right-of-way acquisition for the Interceptor Channel.
This matter has gone on for some time now, and we just simply need your assistance to
resolve these issues and respectfully request that this matter be discussed with the Board of
Supervisors.
In summary:
I. the Paseo del Sol project has participated in Assessment District 159 and
through its assessments has paid for many regional infrastructure improvements;
2. our client has installed the required storm drain facilities throughout the
Project to satisfY its drainage requirements;
3. certain public improvements already completed by both the District and
our client were designed and constructed in reliance on the completion of the Interceptor
Channel;
4. our client is willing to cooperate with Assessment District 159 to allow
additional indebtedness that could be placed on the property in a fair and equitable allocation to
provide for construction of the Interceptor Channel;
5. there currently exist adverse conditions on our client's property, which are
working in an unnecessary hardship. The hardships can be resolved by the County proceeding to
act upon its letter of February 17, 2000; and
I\SLDlC_DRlVElDA T AICLlENTSINEWLAND COMMUNITIESlCARSTEN JOHNSON LETTER 3,6REVISED,DOC
'.
ALHADEFF & SOLAR
Mr. Tony Carstens
Mr. George Johnson
March 16, 2000
Page 4
6. we are asking that you take our request to the County Board of
Supervisors for direction in facilitating and completing the Interceptor Channel, pursuant to the
authorization provided for in Assessment District 159 and we in turn pledge our client's
cooperation to working with the County and District to reach a solution.
S=~I c. AI"",~fUl--
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
SCA:sld
cc: Mr. Dave Stahovich
C:\DAT AICLlENTSINEWLAND COMMUNITIESlCARSTEN JOHNSON LEITER 3,6,DOC
I\SLDIC _DRIVElDA T AICLlENTSINEWLAND COMMUNITIESlCARSTEN JOHNSON LEITER 3.6REVISED.DOC
. ,
, "
1e.st Valley Parkway
, _ 345
,"candido, CA 92025
Telephone: (760) 743-1201
FaC3imile: (760) 743-9926
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
IW~;t) =::r=7
, \..,)
jvY'
,
27555 YNEZ ROAD. SUITE 203
TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA 92591-4677
MAIN TELEPHONE: (909) 699-9088
FACSIMilE: (909) 699-9878
550 West C Street
19th Fioor
,San Diego. CA92101
Tgiephone: (619) 231-870(
Facsimile: (619) 231-832:
OffIC8S in San Diego, Escondida end Temecula. California
April 4, 2000
SAMua. C. AlNAoeFF
SAuwleFF@ACRSP,COIoI
(909)699-9088
9103.001
Mr. George Johnson
County of Riverside Transportation Dept.
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501,
Re: Newland Communities - Butterfield Interceptor Channel- Assessment District 159
Dear Mr. Johnson:
On March27, 2000, I received a copy of a March 14, 2000 letter that was directed to you
by Steven Corona concerning the above-captioned matter. Mr. Corona's letter contained certain
inaccurate statements. Two of those statements are as follows:
In the third paragraph of his letter he references your correspondence of February
17, 2000 and goes on to state "In your letter you rnistakenly state, 'As you are well aware, ,the
Butterfield Interceptor was included as an Assessment District 159 facility, to be located at the
Eastern ASsessment District Boundary, to intercept the tributary drainage flows and provide
flood protection to Butterfield Stage Road, State Route 79 South, and down stream properties.'"
Your letter of February 17, 2000 is correct. Mr. Corona's assertion is incorrect The
original improvements for Assessment District 159 (the "District") contemplated an interceptor
channel to be constructed at the eastern edge of the District boundary. The Environmental
Impact Report ("EIR") prepared by the Rancho Villages Assessment District ("EIR 241 ")
addresses the area wide drainage. Exhibit IV - V (State Highway Corridor Drainage Study) calls
out for a permanent interceptor located on the easterly boundary of the District.
The facility as 'originally contemplated would have picked up the drainage entering the
Savala property (19.49 acres) and the Corona family property (19.17 acres) and diverted the
drainage southerly to the District improved Temecula Creek. This original concept consisted of
an open trapezoidal channel across the Savala and Corona property at the eastern edge of the
District. This specific channel design was included as part of the SupplementalAssessment in
the District, The costs were first anticipated to be approximately $2.2 Million Dollars in the
District and then escalated to approximately $3.5 Million Dollars. including right-of-way
acquisition when the Corona's refused to participate in dedicating the right-of-way. This fact
becomes important on further analysis in this letter.
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
Mr. George Johnson
April 4, 2000
Page 2
The next inaccurate statement in the letter relates to the assertion made at the bottom of
page 2, in the next to the last paragraph, where Mr. Corona states "According to all the
documents which we reviewed (and I am sure there is much more), the developer remains
ultimately responsible for the cost of constructing the Interceptor Channel. The developer has
never been relieved of this obligation by the City ofTemecula or by County Flood Control".
This statement again is also incorrect.
In fact, on November 9, 1999, in a staff report prepared for the City Council of the City
ofTemecula, the staffreport and the Deputy City Manager submitted their report and the
minutes of that meeting reflect the following, and I wish to make a verbatim quote, so that there
can be no misunderstanding that one public agency has already reviewed, in detail, this matter
and clarified the issue.
"Deputy City Manager Thornhill reviewed and clarified the detailed staff report (as per
agenda materials); referenced staffs opinion that there is not a nexus between the Butterfield
Stag:e Road Interceptor Chan,\'1el and the four cases before the City Council this evening:: advised
that the channel was to be constructed and fundedthroug:h AD 159 and that Newland
Communities had no control over the timing: of this process; (emphasis added) " . Mr. Thornhill
recom!nend denial of the appeal and approval of the remaining applications." The appeal was
brought by the Coronas and obviously, the staff was recommending the denial of that appeal.
As a result of that hearing, Newland and the City Council reached an. amicable accord to
again iIlow for continued development of the property, while at the same time trying to resolve
issues with the Co~onas. In fact, then Mayor Ford, and then CoUncilman Lindemans, proposed a
solution. The solution was agreed to by Newland Communities ("Newland") and the Corona
Ranch ("Corona") on Friday November 12,1999. However, at the City Council meeting on
November 16, 1999, the Coronas withdrew their approval to the solution. In part, because the
Coronas again refused to dedicate the necessary right-of-way to the County Flood Control
District without compensation. I find this odd because of the Commercial zoning on that
portion of the subject Corona property located in the City ofTemecula and any development
would include dedication requirements. '
In summary, to set the record very clear, your letter of February 17,2000 was accurate
with regard to the facts that you recited, The Coronas have, for whatever reason, been unwilling
to cooperate with the other property owners in AD 159 and continue to assert, mistakenly,
conditions that do not exist, nor have ever existed with regard to alleged requirements imposed
upon Newland. [n order that this record may be complete, I have attached the following
documents:
l. Your letter of February 17,2000.
2. Our letter of March 16.2000.
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
Mr. George Johnson
April 4, 2000
Page 3
and
3. Newland's co-counsel, Hewitt & McGuire's letter of November I, 1999;
4. The minutes of the Temecula City Council dated November 9, 1999.
If! can offer any further information to you, please do not hesitate to contact us, Enough
time has transpired with regard to the delay tactics of the Coronas. We believe, as we have
stated, the time has come to adopt a reasonable alternative and move forward with this project
We look forward to the..,April18 hearing at the CoUnty Board of Supervisors. '
Sincerely,
~ tlett~9:~
JC. ,
Samuel C. Alhadeff, of
Alhadeff & Solar, LLP
SCA/sld
Enclosures as noted
cc: Supervisor Bob Buster (via U.S. Mail and facsimile)
Supervisor Jim Venable (via U.S. Mail and facsimile)
Mr. Tony Carstens (via U.S. Mail and facsimile)
Mr. Dave Barnhart (via U.S. Mail) ,
Mr. Kelley Donovan (via U.S. Mail and facsimile)
Mr. Frank Peairs(via U.S. Mail)
Mr. Dave Stahovich (via U.S. Mail and facsimile)
Mr. Rick Hofflnan (via U.S. Mail),
The Honorable Jeff Stone, Mayor (via hand delivery) ,
Mr. Jeff Cornerchero, Mayor Pro Tern (via hand delivery)
Mr. Albert Pratt, Councilmember (via hand delivery) ,
Mr. Michael S. Naggar, Councilrnernber (via hand delivery) ,
Mr. Ron Roberts, Councilmember (via hand delivery)
Mr. Gary Thornhill (via hand delivery) ,
C:IDATAICLlENTSINEWLAND COMMUNlTIESVOHNSON LETTER 4.4,DQC
~i/24/2000 16:02 87763355-
11:6-24-00 THU 02:54 Pl1 RIV C~' ,{ECVflV!: O~r ll;l:.
PR BROWN CO
JoM NV. I
'.-:?/','I":<~:'.:',~.i :::',::;r~ PAGq77~3'J'5=:
(!"'q/O:poorCb'joJ<!11 rol'l \;fJ
: '.'
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
TRANSPORTAnON AND
LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY
'fransportation Department
DlfYld It. B4Tnh4rt
Dir=Nr tJITI'4IU~II'O#t
February 17, 2000
CERTIFIED HhIL tp .310 675 430
Corona Ranch
33320 State Highway 79
Temecu/a, CA 92592
Attention; Steve Corona'
RE: Butterfield East Interceptor Storm Drain
Dear Mr. Corona:
) am writing this letter as a follow up to the December 10, 1999 meeting we had ~t the'
Flood Control District offices. The purpose of that meeting was to discuss the various
alternatives we studied for the Butterfield East Interceptor storm Drain FaclJity. I
appreciated the opport1JJ1ityto hear your concerns, and as a resuft. I gained a better
understanding of the history surrounding this project and the various alternatives.
Attached is a table that summarizes the three options we discussed.
As you are weJ/ aware. the Butterfield Interceptor was included as,an Assessment
'District No. 159 facility, to be located at the eastem Assessment District boundary, tq
intercept the tributary drainage flows and proVide flood protection to Butterfield Stage
Road. State Route 7S South, and downstream properties_ The original AD 159 concept
was to construct an open channel at the eastern AD 15S boundary. Because You own
property upstream of the AD Interceptor alignment east of theAD boundary, you
requested we stUdy other alternatives. You are currently fa/Tl1ing alf of)lOUr property
and, advised the Interceptor would disrupt your fanning operation. With your input, we
agreed to analyze several other alternatives. Let me summarize the two other options
We discussed, which seemed potentially fea;;ibJe:
Alternative No, 1 examined the possibility of constructing the Interceptor on the same
alignment as the original option (the eastern AD 159 boundary), but lowering the
channel and eonstructing a box under your property. Yoo expressed an openness to
this option as long as 1) you could continue your farming operations uninterrupted, and
2) the Flood Control District would accept this option as a solution: The,intent was to
provide four feet of cover over the box, so you could continue your farming over the top
of the facility, During our meeling. Flood Control District representatives questioned the
feasibility of Ihis option. First of all, they doubt the tributary flows can actually be'
properly coflected by the underground box. Secondly, by lowering the facility to place it
.LOBO lemo'l Screec. Sfh Floor. Ri..-,:oidc. Cllifornlo1 92501 . (909) 955-67-1Q
P.O. 8\1;( 1090 .. P;ivcHiJ~. CAli/oml.} 91502.109Q ~ FAX (909) 9S5.6Tlt
~272d/2~~8 l~:82 ij77~)~5~
H:.!h~4-UU THU IJI.:~~ rn Yol'! Wl.tl;Ull 'It Utt ll;t,
RR epOyJtI co '.";:12"/';"':
tH^ flU. 1 ~-;'_;J.-.,.~~~-T.:_:
PAGE ~1',
r." .u,J
Mr. Steve Corona
Februar/17. 2000
Page 2
underground makes the slope of the box culvert too flat and creates ongoing
maintenance problems. Therefore. this option doesn't seem practical.
The other option we discussed was Altemative No.5. a dual system with an open
channel located along your easterly propertyboundal)' to intercept a majority of the
drainage from the east, along with a smaller underground system at the eastern AD
boundary to collect the smaller flows from the north and east, above De Portola Road
and east to Calle Contento. You e:xpress~d your preference for this alternative.
" .
Under Alternative No, 5, aU of your property will be flood protected. The properly you
own outside the AD boundal)' WOuld benefit under this altemative and would therefore
be required to pay Its proportionate share of the costs.
You discussed YOUr desire to defer any assessments on your property uritil your fanning
operation develops into some other Use. This Would require some other party to
advance your costs. While I understand your desire, the County doesn't have the
financial capacity or ability to advance fund your share. One way to reduce your costs
is to dedicate the right-of-Way needed to construct the facility. Other than that, I have
not been able tocome up with any other cost-saving solU1ions,
If you are wjJling to place lile required financial burden on the remainder of your
property outside !he current AD 159 boundaries, the Transportation Department is
willing to recommend Alternative No.5. However, to proceed we will need your written
concurrence.
Your cooperation is needed to make the Intercepfor a reality.
I look forward to receiving your positive response so we can proceed in a cooperative
manner, Please feel free to contact me if you Have any questions or require any
additiOnal information. '
Sincerely.
4cd~
George A. Johnson
Deputy Director of Transportation
GAJ:sa
cc: SUpervisor Bob Buster
Sob Krieger
Tony Carstens
Dave Barnhart
Kelley Donov.:3n
Frank Peairs
, .
...V.."..YP:vlrw..Y
....,
~.CA!J'202'
r,~ f76017.tJ.oI201
FlIC.lIlrnil<r. (7~) 7"J.o9925
ALHADEFF & SOLAR
27555 YNEZ ROAD. SUITe 203
TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA 92591--46n
- MAIN TeLePHONe: (909) 699-9088
FACSIMILe: (909) 699-9878
S50~. c.n..,
550 w.,c C Sftet
,...""'"
. s., Cleoo. CA 92101
T~(51912J1-6700
F~iIe: (619) 2J1-8323
Offices in San Diego. escondida and Temecula. Califomia
March 16, 2000
~C.Aw.ceFl'
SAuwlEFl'@ACRSP.COM
(909) 699-9088
9103,001
Mr. Tony Carstens
County of Riverside
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 9250 I
Mr. George Johnson
County of Riverside Transportation Department
P.O. Box 1090
Riverside, CA 92502
Re: Assessment District 159 ("District") and Specific Plan 219-Paseo del Sol ("Project")
Dear Messrs. Carstens and Johnson:
I wanted to thank you, Ms. Thomason, and Mr. Donovan for meeting with Newland
Communities and myself on March 1st to discuss the District and Project. We appreciate the '
time and consideration each of you and a number of other members of County Staff have given
with regard to the issues that we discussed at that meeting. '
As discussed in our meeting, we think that the District has reached a critical crossroad
regarding the funding for and construction of the Butterfield Interceptor'Drainage Channel
("Interceptor Channel"). Consequently, we believe that the County and the District should
recommend a solution to the County Board of Supervisors and seek direction in facilitating and
completing this improvement as provided for in Assessment District 159,
This letter is really intended to be a summary of the current status of both the District and
the Project as it relates to the Interceptor Channel. The delay in the construction of this facility is
not only having a serious adverse impact on Newland's Project, but also on the District, its
owners, and the integrity of State Route 79. Butterlield Stage Road and other regional
improvements constructed by Assessment District 159.
Assessment District 159 was formed in 1988 to fund certain regional public
improvements and other infrastructures within the District boundaries, [n 1991 a Supplemental
I\SI.U\(.'_IlIIIVl:IIMTAICLlI:NnINcWI.ANIl COM~IUNITIE~'\C<IIlSTEN JOIINSON LErrell ),6IleVIScD.DOC
<
ALHADEFF & SOLAR
Mr. Tony Carstens
Mr. George Johnson
March 16, 2000
Page 2
District was formed to fund the increased cost of the original District improvements, and to add
new District improvements such as the Interceptor Channel. '
Specifically our client's Project had original assessment debt of$11.9 million. When the
supplemental assessment was adopted another $13.8 million was added to the original
assessment debt increasing the total debt to $25.7 million. To date, our client has always kept
both its real estate taX obligations and assessment debt obligations current.
The Interceptor Channel was to be constructed at the eastern edge of the District'
boundary. This channel would pick up storm water entering the Savala property (19.49 acres)
and the Corona family property (19.1 7 acres) and divert the drainage southerly to the District
improved Temecula Creek. The estimated cost of the Interceptor Channel was in the range of
1,8 milIion and was to be shared on an allocated basis with four (4) different owners. The
current estimate is 35 million or more.
As you know, the Corona family has resisted the original design of the Interceptor
Channel andhas suggested different alternatives that would not only protect their property within
Assessment District 159, but a larger Corona parcel outside of the District as well. In order to
resolve these issues, a number of discussions took place between the District and the Coronas.
To date, those discussions have not resulted in any agreement.
Accordingly, on February 17,2000, the County sent a letter to the Corona Ranch asking
that they select one of t'..vo alternatives for the Interceptor Channel. Specifically, the County
suggested that if the Coronas wished to adopt a significantly more expensive storm water ,-
channel that would benefit their entire property, they should be willing to include all of their
property within Assessment District 159 to assist in its funding.
The reason we are again bringing this matter to your attention is because, quite frankly,
this issue needs to be resolved for several v.ery important reasons, First of all, the delay in the
construction of the Interceptor Channel has caused our client to incur additional costs of
$860,000 for the construction of an interim detention basin that protects not only their property,
but property owned by others to the west. These costs would not have been incurred if the
Interceptor Channel had been built in a timely fashion as were other District funded
improvements. Second, this interim detention basin prevents Newland from developing forty
acres (approximately 188 lots) of their residential property. While these lots continue
undeveloped, Newland is shouldering the burden of tens of thousands of dollars of interest costs,
property tax, and assessment expense, Third, the Coronas are raising the question of liability
arising from the damming of storm water on their property as a direct result of the District's
design and construction of an elevated Buttertield Stage Road without building the Interceptor
Channel to divert this water into Temecula Creek. Finally. the Coronas and others believe that in
certain storm events both Butterfield Stage Road and State Route 79 will be flooded because of
the tGilure to construct the Interceptor Channel, As you probably know, the significance of
\l~I.Il\l'_'l/(IVI,~/)AT,\lCLIENTS\NEWL,\N[) CUMMIINrrIE~~CAIISTEN JUIINSON Ll,nm J,6RcVIScD,DOC
ALHADEFF & SOLAR
Mr. Tony Carstens
Mr. George Johnson
March 16, 2000
Page 3
Butterfield Stage Road as a circulation element is growing as a number of parties both in the City
ofTemecula and at the County are considering Butterfield Stage Road to be a major loop-road in
this area. In summary, it is now time ,to seek a final solution to this matter and to prevent any
further adverse impacts to the District, the County, and the owners in the District.
As previously stated, Assessment District 159 assessed Newland and three other property
owners for the construction of the Interceptor Channel. Further, this original assessment is ,
believed to be inadequate to fund the channel's construction. Newland has volunteered to allow
any remaining authorized but unissued assessment debt currently on its property to be identified
and sold to raise additional funds for the construction of Alternative No. I of the Interceptor
Channel. However, it is important to fully understand that the District's ability to raise
additional assessment funds through Newland's cooperation diminishes each time Newland sells
property to others. "
Therefore, it is now imperative that the District act quickly to help us make all of this
happen. In addition, we believe that the COWlty needs to act upon its letter of February 17,2000
and ifno timely response has been received from the Coronas, to proceed with the final design
and right-of-way acquisition for the Interceptor Channel.
This matter has gone on for some time now, and we just simply need your assistance to
resolve these issues and respectfully request that this matter be discussed with the Board of
Supervisors. ' '
In summary:
1. the Paseo del Sol project has participated in Assessment District 159 and
through its assessments has paid for many regional infrastructure improvements;
2, our client has installed the required storm drain facilities throughout the
Project to satisfy its drainage requirements;
J. certain public improvements already completed by both the District and
our client were designed and constructed in reliance on the completion of the Interceptor
Channel;
4. our client is willing to cooperate with Assessment District 159 to allow
additional indebtedness that could be placed on the property in a fair and equitable allocation to
provide for construction of the Interceptor Channel;
5. there currently exist adverse conditions on Our client's property, which are
working in an unnecessary hardship. The hardships can be resolved by the County proceeding to
act upon its It:ttcr of Febnlury 17,2000: ano
\\.'tI.D\C_DltJVDOAT,\\ClIENTS\NEWl.,\NO (,O^"MUNITIE~'CI\IL"TcN JOIINSON Ll.;Trl:R 1.6IlEV1SEO.OOC
ALHADEFF & SOLAR
Mr. Tony Carstens
, Mr. George Johnson
March 16, 2000
Page 4
6. we are asking that you take our request to the County Board of '
Supervisors for direction in facilitating and,completing the Interceptor Channel, pursuant to the
authorization provided for in Assessment District 159 and we in turn pledge our client's
cooperation to working with the County and District to reach a solution.
SCA:sld
cc: Mr. Dave Stahovich
C:IOA TAICLlENTS\NEWlAND COMMUNITIESlCARSTEN JOHNSON LETl'ER J,6,OOC
\\SI.I)\t.'_tmIVE\IMT/\\CLlENTS\NEWl...\NO COM"'HJNITIE~"\C,\RS'TEN JOtlNSON Ll:Tn:R J.6RIZVISEO.OOC
"J;1'l} 24/ 210'1"1'-1 1':': W2
877f; ]')')').
PP BPO,..Jt I OJ
RR BROWN & CO, LLP
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
*** F ~"{ ***
z...- ,'b<f' - 00
S \ ""- D~~
~~A.J
I
Rob Brown
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: +
950 SCheff")' Stne-t.. Suitt: 7tG
D~Il"or. CO ~n.1.16
!7SSS Yllc~ Ro~uJ. Suitt: 407
Tcmccul.:a. c.-\. '::.591
CER11Freo PUBLIC ACCOUNTA,Yrs
PAGE '11
~~1 ~~ ~tttF-
PhlJnC (811) 6)9~S565
FAX (R71) &39.5559
...n,all robbrown@rrbrowr'\Co.cOIl'l
,
~2/2~/2~8~ l~:~2 ~77~J~?5
:.t.H-"c::q-UU IHU uc;~:, rn Kt'J ~U -"t'..UIlYC UrrJl,,;c.
f
-'"
~ ~
5S
a
;;0
el
I:G,.. c: a b
~i IH
': q, :h '5 ":'-E
:is" " C : $ !c-
.. H;; :: ~
c 4. ell. '1;f
..g ~.3<e~
, 5: -= ~ :>.. i"
2i .. ..)5 A 0 \U
S~.. r"'8
~,H.Jgll
"
z
~H
ea-
"= ~
,.._c
~o~
~.. u
e
,.
~
..
~~
a>J
:; ~
"r:a'Q
u.
a: C
~:!
-u
>Co.
~-
"'C;
.c C
~ It
.!I 0
--
-~
e
~
"
l
g
.9
'"
l!
u
:j
2
e
~
e ..
g~g
..~"
u ~ a ~
aH
:JiC'% Q.~
H~~
o:so,!;
='ZN'O
.
'"
..
~
;!
...,.., ".." 0
~_I ~ i ~. ~
,..IOI.....jo
'T'-"",o
<0.""._.....
~. i'" -."
:
o'C.iO:~I'"
oq . <0: .....
~. 'ti 1.....: .. "":.
",.~.~,g!8
01 ........._ _
. C ,_. _ 1_
" . a . I
... U :
i a: I
...
. .8 ;
} ;.
'l:!
.!
." :
... '
,
.
,
!
;
,
,
,
i I
;
I J
:l! I .. ' 51 151 I:::!
.... g CD' (S ...
~!~'IE"I~'I;{'
~..! - I.. .... ...
~. I i r
, .J I
, . I
iI'
I
I
!
"
~ z
'"
~ '"
~ <=
~ ;;; '"
>- '"
... ~ g 'g,
a: ..
~ " '"
:: '" a. .. ..
a. ~ ~
'" ... !: ~
ci .... :3 u; z
~ '" .w
>: '" '" '"
~ ~ !!: 0 z w '" ...
... >: ~ 0 .. <;) ..
~ ;; " ;:: ;:; '" 0
... '< :;; < 3 v
" v '"
is '< a: z 0 ~ ~
w , ~
~ '" " ~ ~ :"
!;; ~ w
~ IU 0 '" ,. ,!;! ~
~ " ~ ~
IU ~ /: ~ ;:;
',< ~ ~ u '" '"
.. IU '" ;; u. :0 :> ~
'" '" ~ E 0 0 ~ IU
IU t: ~ " ... a: I;; ~
... '" '" -<
... " >: a ,. '" ~ .5 ...
'< .. v '" ir 0
u '" w ... ...
PP BRO/,Jt I co
rM nv. t
....;:.!
~
::
~
~
E
::
'!
~
...
"t
3
''i
g
~
:!
..
-<
-
, ". ...., .1)' I" "--,"
..l-.... ~J.. PAGe: f J;J4' j""'.
r. U't
couNTY OF RIVERSIDE
TRAN8PORTATIONAND .
LAND MANAGEMENTAGENCY
Transportation Department
David E. HarnlJnrl
Dirt:c(or (If TrampnrlariOfl
April 11, 2000
Mr. Stephen Corona
Corona Ranch
33320 State Highway 79
Temecula, CA 92592
RE: Bullerfleld Interceptor
Dear Mr, Corona:
I am in receipt of your leuer dated M~rctL14,:2000. Th'lO.!5 you for taking the time 10 r:e~pond to my
previous letter. The additional information you provided is needed so we can make a fully informed
decision, '. .' . , . . . .
. .
. -
In your leller you requested we stu5lwSne other option,not Included Inmy jeit~~, Your' suggestion
is to construct some sort of east to west drainage facility.through Butterfield. Stage Road and then
extend the facility to TemeculaCr~,~~~I<;>ng the west side of Butterfielq SJageRoad. You also
indicated Mr, Savala had been studying the feasibility of this option and lie would submit this
suggestions, ):>.:: . .. ...,..
. '. ,,~ :~. ~ ..; ;, ".;. . ~ "'. , .'- . '.'. . -' .' .
. .; ,. ,.,.." ., ...... , "'~." -"'- . " ..,'. .~. .: '. .'. .
I had an opportunity to meet with Mr,$av;il~onFriday,rVfarch 31, 2000: Alterdfscussing the'
constructibilily of this option with Mr.J~,vala; ~e C!greed)cistudy ii further. . Atjached are two cost
estimates, The first one contemplates t~~lh9Jb~ drain<1lge from east to wesllnjo'a QEltention basin
on Newland's property with an aPPrOpr}ate;tiptlet structure. The estimat~i"Ciidt of this option is
$6,OOO,000,./:!,. .' ,.... /1
The other possibility is to extend a f[iPI~:.~;~. :\.0,' box structure along the Vie.st~r1ystde,Of BUtlerfiel~ \
Stage Road to Temecula Creek, a'~:~~0~bm~t~d cost of $5,000,000. . .' ?r:;;;:;:;,>",~... ) It
As we discussed earlier today, I am::aI~ofotV?<lrdin9 youa qqpy .of the $taff report MjoS presented
to the Board of Supervisors on April1$;20PO, Please cO~tlSict me if you wahl io discUss this item
any further. " '. .,... . .
Sincerely,
/cZyr- c;:7Y~
George A. JOh~~
Deputy Director of Transportation
GAJ/pd
xc: Dave Stahovlch
Tony Carstens
Dave Barnhart
Kelly Donovan , '. .
40Rn l.'In'm Slre.l, ~th~~r -..Riverside. CalifoJitia 92501 . (909) 955-6740
)'.0, lJux JUYU . Rivers,ide, Otliforni. 92502,)090 ' FAXE(9) 955.6nl
J.. '.! . ..' X' Nil ""IDIT
'.,... -..' .. U
QPR 1? '~~ 1S;?g
61 PAGE,09
"'~
:,:;;
, :'r:
: ::"'~
." -.'
, .....
; !.:-;
",.:;
.;"\.;:
""",
. . . .:...~,
"";".'
':~,
::. -~~;
. ,"\'
::',',i'.
;.t'.t
......
:" '~!;j'
, ., ~.
'.; :'?~!
~. . .:~\
: '=:I;~
'~:::;'::~
;....~;
. :':~':2
.i ",~.
:....:...j
":-':~:
: '~.';
., ;.;'.~
,:,: ~.:
: .~:; t
: .>;~
.:' '\'.,~
. ';.:~
~ ::,,:
^ ..":
,,-,,,
. ~..~
"':.""
. ~>~
..t))
'1 .~.;~
:. :~t:
" :~~~ I.
).
..r,
'"
.-
.. .
"
'.
, ,
. .... :;~
'. <(
.; ..":'
":'f"
....;
, :.?~
."; '.::.~~
.r:}:::
';.?i:
,'P"
'. ~.;.
~ ~~~
":::.J.
\ .~.;.;:
.' ~.~,
.' ~;>4
.....)
; ;;~
.~. ..'.~:
=..:.....-:
~'1~
. ~:..:'
','
SUBMITTAL TO THE BOARD ()F SUPERVISQ5"
COUNTY OI'.AIVERSIDE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
{.'t~
.l3,:~~~'
:~/~i
. ''it!,:
.,>~'.t.~
".:::'.r-
".'r;~
. '.;.~'
. . ,~.~.::lJ!:
:' '1:':S~~
. . -. .
FROM: County Executive Office,fjnd ..sUBMITTAL DATE: April 1 a, 2QCP, '.
TLMAfTransportation Depart... .' .....
SUBJECT: Butterfield East InterQeptQr Storm Drain, AssessmentPistiicfNQ. 159
2,
. . . ."
RECOMMENDED MOTION: That th~eoai'd approvei:he Original AsseSsrn$r\tDistrict
Concept for the construction oftf1~ Butterfield East Channel and dii'e'ct "~taff to return to , .
the Board in 30 days with an in1Plementlltionplah,to include:' .' ... .. . .' .
1. A reimbursement agreemeotbetween the County, on behalfofAo159, the Flood
Control District and Newl~nd for' construct!onof the Butterfiel?'ER~tChannel;
A right-of-way acquisitior{~9reement between the County and Ney:iland, in order
that right-of-way be1dehtlfjed'iirid obtained from affected lilnd':OWDers;
A calendar and processfqrtln AD 159 Change Proceeding toJri'oie~,se authorized
funding for the Channel tO~3;5 hlillion; '. .' . '
A schedule for issuance ohidditional bonds in~D 159 Supplemental.
<.:\f;
'.~ o!~";j
Ji
Ii
.' .:~'.~:9
3,
4.
.' .
. .
BACKGROUND: Assessment DisiricUljo.159 was formed in 1988t(dI;JAd,certain regional
public improvements in the south Temecula area.Jn1991, a Supplt;!'it)eofa!'District was .~
formed to fund the increased cq~(cOfthe origiriaLOis' t imRrovemi:mtr~hd fund additional
~ -crt .,'
0--
Tony Carstens
Deputy County Executive Officer, .'
GAJ :sa
attachments
cc: County Counsel
. :J'.~{!.
~;',~~
":.X~
: ~"j.~
. .~:..~~
'.:-:t~!', .J
. .. : '~~i
"; .....~:
.. "r:
. X~~
t...~J
. ....~ 'i~
'f'f~
.:t.~l(
..,,~
.-:'t.~
.' . . . .'. ,>.~
ANNUAL COST $ ~lA.." " ::;i~
IN l>,URRENT YEAR 8lJDG$T~' ... YES! NO! X ;: ~"~:
aLipGET ADJUSTMENT: YES/Ndiic FOR FY: 99!OO}~~
::':::::::An:~:- No_ IS' ... .. -JI
. County Execiltiil,Offic'er Slgnaturji' '. ..' . ,1
'" ',::;',i
. ....t~
:r.I.;'I.:"
t]~
....~
;r~
~. .:(;
h1.'"
.~: ~_:~!:
.,.){
David E. Barnhart ", ........
. .'
Director of Transport6li()h' .
", i,
(OO~tlnued on attach~dpakes)
'". ....,
FINANCIAL DATA:
CURRENT YEAR COST
NET COUNlY COST
-!
$ 100 ;Q'OO . .
$ 0 ::
>-
o
'"'
o
Cl
o
~
Vl
C
o
()
U
ii
IE
o
~
~
" '-,
, :'
".,' .
. ".-
~
"
1.
Prevo Agn. ref.
,
i; .
'...Dl$i. 1st
.. AG'6NDA NO.
"" ,"
D:""LU.\Wfl\U.CKVI'\FO"MII~TPlF.WPO
.;.- .' "
"t.:,:-"..:,.':. .
,'.
APR 12 '00 15:24
PAGE. 05
. "1"
The Hbnorable Board of Supervisors.. ",
RE: Butterfield East Interceptor:$tQrm Drain, A.D. 159
April 18, 2000
Page 2 of 4
. -
. . . " .
improvements. The Butterfield ~Eastlnterceptor' was included asps!'! !if ~t)e
Supplemental District. The But~tirfi~ldEast Interceptor was intend6,~t()'bean open.
channel located at the eastern Assessment Distrl.c:tboundary toii'\ter'ooptthe
tributary drainage flows and prqv.ide flood protection to Butterfiefd~t~~eRoad,
State Route 79 South, and downstream properties. The originallnt~'rp,qptor was
estimated to cost $2,200,000,"'" . .
There are four downstream prop,t;lrtiesthat will r~ceive flood protectiQ!'1,ffQm the
Interceptor and will be assesse~fortheflood benefit received. ,Thefqur property
owners are identified on the attached hiap as being Corona, Sava1a,Wiwatiis, and
Newland. . . .
...
The benefit is spread to the pr6~rtlesbased onlicre!ige as follows; .'
Prooertv Owner
A~r~aoe
Percentage
.... .r.
i',' .
'. 1:9~17
1~A9
18.91.'
25" r
.4A;j3 .....
-:-_._ '_ ..... I
3j~..lOafresi ^.1,~9:o.(),%,
.. .
County staff has held numerousi'AP1 ~$ prop~rtyo.wner meet'ings'OVerth~ past.
. several years .In various meetil'\9s,afffjcted property owners havi:q)ro\il~ed input.
To date, County staff and thep~.op,ertyowners have not come tOll coose!1Sus on
the Butterfield Interceptor. .,. '. .
Corona'
Savala
Williams
Newland
.~
.
6.14 %
6.24 %
.6.06%
81.56 %.
'I..
Total
, .
,
'. .
. , . . . .' . ..... .
Newland Communities has appr~achedCounty st~ffand requested we bring this
item to the BOilrd for. direction irifacilitating andcoinpleting the Int~rceptpr.' See
attached letter from Samuel C; Al,hadeff of Alhadeff&: Solar, LLP~dat~~March 16.
2000 representing the Newlandpioperty.' . .'
While Newland supports the Intf;lrceptor. the Corona and Savala bwna.rkt)aVe
." '. ..' .' . ..' c.... .
expressed concerns. .'. . . . .
"/ ."'.'
The Corona's, through their engln'~er,8db Kriegar}' approached the Trc(Mi,ortation
Department and requested alterli~tive Il1tercepto(alignments becOnsider:~d. . The
Transportation Department agreddand has studied the suggested~lteinativ.es.
Attached is a letter to Mr. StevaCorona from GeQrge, Johnson, Di:lpu\yOi($ctor of
Transportation. dated February 1'7,2"000, which Summarized the \T/I(19U~.:
alternatives studied. Reference fS'madeto the February 17 letter (or:s disoussion
of the alternatives, summarized asfotlo~s: ' '. '. . . .'
....:'.,.
'. ):.
',;
I
...
.,.....
'... -
.....
'.:
.,. .
". .
D:'#ILn\Wr\8ACI(l.If'\..D,....,1\8TRf:wP'''
.':".
" ,..'"
'.' .,;.
'.~:\;~
T~~
L ,,~_~;
..... \~~
. >~.~!
. ...~..~~
'. ;.~::t
:J.~~
t~
.The' Honorable Board of Supervi:S:qrs .. .
RE: Butterfield East Interceptor StormcDiain,
April 18, 2000 . '.
Page 3 of 4
A~D. 159
.
Original Alternative:
~:~~..~..~.:.i~ie~t:~rti~~,~.,;t,:;;~~P~~~~~;;~J~)
COSt Estimate: $ 3 ,5 mIllion.,.. .. ...' ldj
",". .
. ,'. "
'; , -' .. . :" . "":",
Alternative 1: Underground dQ.14b1e7' x 14' box culvert on Cor.ona.~nd Williams.
Cost Estimate -J4/500,OOO
1,. ". ..' ; . ......
Alternative 5: Dual System. Open ell'annel from Temecula Creeft~i!'dOutile 7' x
12' box culvert'underState Route 79 South and Qpen oNmnel
continued alon9~"Cqion:a's easterly ptoperty bounda;Y;PIt;is7' x 12'
box from TemecliJa Creek alongWlIIiams, underStStll.Fioiite 79
: .' '. '. . . ;.-. .' " ~, ", '.
South and continuing under Coronaelong Assesstnt'in-r'Dlstrlct
boundary wittioft~n,i;h~nnel alori,g $lIvala.' .' '.
Cost Estimate.- !$'6,SOO,OOO .
. " . .
Alternative 6: Triple 6' x 1 O'boxe'a'Stto west under ButterfiEdd:S~~.~R..oad ,the'l1
\extended/alongth~Westerly side' of Butterfield Sfli9.eRoa'd to /
Temecula Creek: ;".: ..' .'
Cost Estimate .$p,OOO,OOO '.'
..... ", ..',
Several other alternatives were~t~d.ied, but weredrcipped as notbejrig,p'r~ciical.
Mr. Corona responded with a letter dated March 14, 2000 (copy atUehe'd);
. '..~. '~", . ,":: .' . . . ~. ." . :" .', .' :. .' :. ";', .
Mr. Corona states his preferen~~fijrAltemative5-ifthe Intercept9r.ch~i:i~al.
facilities are on his property, butjal$ost~tes thaUiis'farming could nl>t-SU$taln that
level of funding. '. ,., ': '" .:..
:.... ,', . .. " . . ...... ",.
Mr. Corona also requested another. 'optioh be consider'ed;referred tQ,:a$,Alternative
6. His suggestion is to construcfilO1:io){culverteast to west und~rB~tt~rli$ld Stage
Road and then extend the draina{lefacility on Newland's land toT~n:i~Qi.iI~;~reek
along the westerly side of autterfiefti Stage Road: He states this 6ptlonWciuld
solve the problems, the water wquldflQW as it originally flowed, andthe .
responsibility to construct the In~arpeptbr wlll goto the Developer,NeWJatio.
The Transportation Department tb~h .met with Mr.S:avala to seek hls :Ihput Into this
last suggestion. During our disclis$ionS,we concluded this optionwasf~aSlbfe, but
would not provide any protection'tcrtheSavala, Corona or Williams'propefties. We
have since estimated the cost tOibe approximatefy $5,000,000, ar\d:~~Is':QPtion
would require the costly relocatid~:r.)feJdsting unaerground utiiiti$sineU(iMfield
Stage Road. Any development o{'the above noted properties wouldr;e~o!.rethe
extension of the drainage facilitie(Upstream along with the constr\Jct1ol\ofSome
type of drainage interceptor, addlhgto th.e $5.0 million coSt estimate..
. .
'.
. . b'
.~ ,,-.
. ..... .
I
1
"
D:\MI.!.'\wPlaAc:KUN=O"Mll\8TRF.WPP
: ,',
~ .~ Inn .~.~
.',
. ," .," 'r..
" :.., :.,.:'~.: '. . .'
,.
....,...>!
,:~t~
, ~.t-lii
..~t~
':":l.;~
-)j;~
...r;
..,' ':'-'~
.J.I
;'.r.~
.';T~
<<~~
".,:..?~
.,;~
;':',~
.};~
.t~.
."",,,
."tr
. ~")~~
.~
"-";~
..~
....~
,~,~
. "~o;O
:{~~
'("~
....~
":~.:~1
. 'T~1lJ
.~':'l":l
:-:~4:~
,J. ~.:;~
. ";,,:':!~~
. .........
":".r~~
~~f~~
.......
..:;:f
Ji
't~~~
"'~'/~
.;:~
'11
.,:',
:{~
..
The Honorable Board of Superv(sorE;
RE: Butterfield East Interceptor Siorm Drain, A;D. Hi9
April 1 S, 2000 .
Page 4 of 4
'.,,"
The Assessment District is curret\tlyauthorizedtoissue $2.1ri1i11ion kdjbhded debt
for the Interceptor. Newland h~$st!lt~d a willirieoessto plaoe '8~C!itlb081
indebtedness on its property through an AD 159 change proceedlng,'brlnging the
total authorization to $3.5 milliCiri. .'. ".' . '. ..,: ...
~~~~~::h~:~;:I~::;,:~;%1i~~:~:":~~~~t." ", ooly lJ"h~,nyi''';b1' J
: ~
.'.;.
'. '
.';
;..
1:'"
t..:'
, ..
'.
,"
"
, ..
," ",'.
j. '..
'I.
~; '.
',i:::..
-, "
"
. '!'."
'.,
11
'..1 D;ll"~(:S\Wl"\64C:It~"M'l"TN.WM)
. ":'I',i",
'.i,"
...; ..... ..:;1....
7.... ". .....
,.,....
. :'~: .
APR 12 '00 15:28
~nn
~ ~<Y:
.~ t:...Y-:
'j.~i.~
. .~...
.~.f!i
. ~{~~
(~i
..~
. ..~.t~~
:;f'~::~
"\.;j
. ~~'m
tl
.", >i?:1
',~'q~~
.~~;j
j';~
/.e~
r~~
.(::~
~.~~
,.,......
,,!,'~k:l
. 'f=:-'~
'II
~~~.Jf
"n~~
. . .~~~.
'"''1'''
.~. '~
.+~t~
...'.....
'. '('1"
,.......,..*
,':ki
. -!.':f~
> t~;;
"." .:::;?'~
JI
f~
~ MrK-':O-UU WtU Uq,u: r11
\.JV rl.l v I!\MI'i.)rUl\II1IIVn
r n^ nu, i:JUvv:)J.:' 1 U'1
I. VII V~
'. '
..
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
DRAINAGE INTERCEPTOR EAST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD
COMPANION STORM DRAIN ON NEWLAND & MDC
April 26, 2000
A, CONSTRUCTION
!iTEM Cl[iSCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST/UNIT TOTAL!
1 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $20,000,00 120,000,00
2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 1 LS $10,000.00 110,000,00
3 >'URNISHING AND APPL YWATER 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
4 EXCAVATION & COMPACT EMBANKMENT 44,444 Cy $4.00 $177,777.78
5 TRIPLE 6' X 10' RCB 2,250 LF 11,000,00 $2,250,000,00
6 JACK ~ BORE TRIPLE 6' X 10' ReS 100 LF $5,000,00 5500,000.00
7 MANHOLE NO, 3 20 EA 11,200.00 524,000.00
a SEWER SIPHON 1 LS 5200,000,00 5200,000.00
9 HEADWALL 2 EA 510,000,00 120,000,00
. 10 RIPRAP PROTECTION 50 CY' $40,00 $2,000.00
12 DETOUR PHASING , LS S50.000.00 550,000.00
13 WATER RELOCATION 1 LS 5' 00,000,00 5100.000.00
14 ROAD RECONSTRUCTiON 1 LS 5100,000.00 $100.000,00
'5 EROSION CONTROl 1 LS 510,000,00 $10,000,00
CONTINGENCY (10%) $346,677.76
SUBTOTALICONSTRUCTlON) $3.815,655.56
B, DRY UTILITY RELOCATION
IiTE~_[?.!'SCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST/UNIT TOTAL!
'5 GAS LS $20,000,00 520,000.00
16 ELECTRIC LS $50,000.00 550,000,00
,7 TELEPHONE LS $50,000,00 550,000,00
SUB-TOTAL lORY UTILITY RELOCATION) 1120,000,00
C. RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS
liTEM DESCRIPTION
16 NEWLAND
'9 SWANGER
20 SAVALA
50"300
50 x 600
30X30
;
65,000
40,000
900
sf
sf
sf
$4.00
$'5,00
$1.00
5260,000,00
5600,000,00
$900,00
;
;
SUBTOTAL (RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS)
1860,900.00
D. ENVIRONMENTAL
liTEM ClESCRIPTlON
21 Proces~in9
22 Mili93lion
5
5
50,000.00
SUBTOTAL rENVIP.ONMENTAL)
E. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT & INSPECTION
~TeM riESCRfPTrOt!._
5
50,000.00
-.J
2) eM & I
S
520.31~
S20,316,67
SUBTOTAL [CM & I)
s
'\-it,. Fax NOIC
7671
2-
ROJECT TOTAL
$5,366,872.22
/1'~8-4f:"' mJ.;:~~
C~JDl~pt. Co.
Nlnnl'l/l
Phono IJ
t'IlltR
~ .... 77:2 - a~;P?- F;JX Ii
r "~,I' ~ nO' '.'0 IT
I!,~ j:-,,:, l~" - ~ ~~ IC1 ,
1i,..ul:, II ~,
6~
"'~,......I.'.'",, ,~'"~.. ~'......,;~~.>><,..w..I__~. _..:,........ ......:.. ........ ,..,..
coo ~~ ,~~ 1C~~~
aClQQC::~~1C/l
00;';1:' I'iH
'1rK-~()-UU WW Uq. a rn
vu KJV IKHI~;,rUKIHI!UN
rH^ NU, ~U~~oojJbq
.,. .,-
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
DRAINAGE INTERCEPTOR EAST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD
NEWLAND/SWANGER OPEN CHANNEL
April 25, 2000
A. CONSTRUCTION
liTEM DESCRIPTION
1 MOBILIZATION
2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING
3 FURNISHING AND APPLY WATER
. JACK & BOI~E 10' X '15' BOX CULvERT
5 DETOUR PHASING
6 ROAO RECONSTRUCTION
6 SEWER SIPHON
7 WATER RELOCATION
n E.XCAVATIONn~XPORT
9 RECTANGULAR 10' X IS' CONCRETE CHANNEL & APPURTENANCES
'0 EROSION CONTROL
CON1'INGENCY (10%)
QUANTITY UNIT
1 LS
1 LS
1 lS
100 LF
1 lS
. 1 lS
1 LS
1 LS
58,333 CY
2,000 LF
1 LS
SUBTOTAL {CONSTRUCTION}
B. DRY UTILITY RELOCATION
liTEM DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY UNIT
11 GAS
12 ELECTRIC
13 'ElEPHONS
LS
LS
lS
SUB,TDTAL lORY UTILITY RELOCATION)
C. RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS
liTEM DESCRJPTIOH
15 NEwLAND
1<1 SWANGER
16 SAVALA
75 X 1200
75 X 800
30 X 30
90,000
60.000
900
sf
sf
Sf
<
,
SUBTOTAL (RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS)
D. ENVIRONMENTAL
lITEM DESCRIPTION
COST/UNIT
S20,000.00
SI0,OOO.00.
S5,000.00
$3,000.00
SSO,OOO,OO
S100,OOO,OO
S200,000.00
S100,OOO,OO
$4.00
5650.00
SI0,OOO.00
COST/UNIT
S20,OOO.00
S50,OOO.OO
SSO,OOO.OO
S4.00
$15.00
S1.00
r. uc./uc
TOTALI
S20,OOD.00
S10,OOO,OO
S5,OOO,OO
S300,00D.00
S50,OOO,00
$100,000.00
S200,OOO.00
S100,OOD,00
$233,332,00
51,300.000,00
S10,000,OO .
$232.a33.20
$2,561,1&.5.20
TOTAll
S20,OOO.00
S50,OOO 00
S5D,000,00
$120,000.00
.J
S360,OOO.00
S900,000.00
. 1900.00_
$',260,900.00
, 7 Proces~ing
16 MitjD~Hon
SUBTOTAL (ENVIRONMENTAl)
E, CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT & INSPECTION
liTEM 1iESCRiPTlON
S 50,000.00
S
S 50.000.00
I
5 34f.l.2<l9.eo
. 349,249.80
-.-- .
$4,J41.J1s.DO
19 eM & I
SUBTOTA~ ICM B. I'
PROJECT TOTAL
ceo "1: tl'A~ ;c.~.,.,
,..,~,..,.................,...
"
j1JfO
A 'L E, E R T A.
:: ~(EBB
ASSOCIATES
ENGll'ltERlNG CONSULTANTS
o Corporate Headquarters
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA 92506
(909) 686-1070
Fax (909) 788-1256
o Regional Office
28481 Rancho Calif, Road, Ste. 106
Temecula, CA 92590
(909) 694.9250
Fax (909) 699-1032
W.O. 00-103
File No. 3043.49
June 6, 2000
Ms. Micheiie A. Staples
Jackson, DeMarco and Peckenpaugh
4 Park Plaza, 16th Floor ,
Irvine, CA 92623-9704
RE: Assessment District No. 159 - Excess Funds
Dear Ms. Staples:
Mr. Rob Brown, representative of Newland, and I have calculated the total
amount of excess funds available for a changed proceedings in Assessment District No.
159. It would be approximately $300,000. These excess funds are represented by
authorized but unissued bonds that were intended for other facilities such as Highway 79,
(the second phase), the on and off ramps at Interstate 15 and Highway 79, and other
facilities that have been constructed.
The $300,000 excess funds have been assessed against only those properties that
are within the original benefiting area for the Butterfield East Storin Drain Interceptor. .
As you recall, originally there was approximately $3.5 million availabl~ in authorized but
unissued bonds, but a good portion of this was represented by properties that were not in
the originally assessed benefit area, and were represented 9Y properties owned by
Newland Communities that were north of DePortola Road and west of Butterfield Stage
Road. Because those properties do not benefit from this improvement, these properties
can not be included in a changed proceedings within Assessment District 159 and be
assessed for that facility,
'. .
~
{i~l:'j~i?P, r;! ~ n f1T
r;'~ ','" ,.-'-... "I;" .;iJ"\ ~ tl
~_ J/~~L\ tr~J g ~'-:~;) H Q
4lP
CIVIL ENGINEERING. PLANNING. ASSESSMENT I SPECIAL TAX CONSULTING . WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING'''''
m -.._ .....;,... ," . ......_~..~'^'". "" """n'" ,. IN~Pl'rTl()N . TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
c.
1
.
Ms. Michelle A, Staples
June 6, 2000
Page 2
We are in the process of evaluating the formation of a Commllllity Facilities
District for the purpose of funding the Butterfield East Storm Drain Interceptor,' We
should have those costs and numbers available shortly.
If you have questions regarding the above, please call me.
Sincerely yours,
ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES
Yt>vv-L :) ~(\D~
Paul Thompson
PT:kg
(:c: George Johnson, Riverside County Transportation Department
Kelley Donovan, Riverside County Transportation Department
Tony Carstens, Riverside County Executive Office
Robert Krieger, Krieger & Stewart
Dusty Williams, Riverside County Flood Control Department
Steve Corona
...
0:\2000100-() 1031MAS,doc
MARc D. A!m1tltlE1
BJ.lAN'Wc...ss:UUl'
JOHNC.COJll),l.5
~R.D2.MAlICO
JOl"K.EGEKfSm~
KwMt. S.Ft'fE
RoGEIIM..FM'<<5
Hnw1 Z. PIW'fSZ
EOWoUDA.GAu.ow..u
MlCHA!L S. HnlDU50H
WtwAM M. HENSlEl
F. SamJACDJtl
~W F. I...o.iiDMIM
JOfIH M. Irro:trT
M. AuM MAult
SHW 1.. MAaYltl
Sm'HEN G. M\5OH
\
JACKSON DEMARco & PECKENPAUGH.
^ L^W CORPOR^TION
-~
nAvtDA.OSSENtJI,IX
THOMA.$D.~
JOKH P"lmt.uiclI
GnGOJIfEREGIU
CmttsrorHExMRoGElIS
CMuK.R~
CutoL P. SOWfEII
-..we. SOM%
M1aIw A. Swus
SIWION 1.. TAMlYA
JU5m'x. T1roMrsoH
MicLw.LTmus
WII.l.I.AM J. Tumr
PA.tILE.VJtlfHOOMiS~
J!Nf M. WIlAmI
W!'snAK.! VnLAGl OrrICi
4 PARK Pl..AzA. 16TH FLOOR
IRVINl!. CALlPORNlA 92614
31365 OAX CRfiT DRMI. SUm! 200
WUfUJCl! VUJ.AGa. CAwOil'IlA 91361
TEI..818.874.1270
PAX 818.874.l272
^
P. O. Box 19704
lRVlNE. CA1.n:oRNIA.92623-9704
TEL 949.752.8585
FAX 949.752.0597
www.jdplaw.com
uWIJllica R. RESNtCK
orcolJNsl!1..
REx A. McKrrnucx
umooD
\
OtJ'lt PlUI MJMBII~
28878
August 3, 2000
I-MAlL:
mstaples@jdplaw.com
Wmu.'s DDl.!CT 1)LU. NlJMBU:
(949) 851-7409
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Mr. Tony Carstens, Deputy County Administrator
Mr. George A. Johnson, Deputy Director of Transportation
County of Riverside
Post Office Box 1090
Riverside, California 92502-1090
Re:. Butterfield InterceRtor Storm Drain. Assessment District No. I59
Dear Messrs. Carstens and Johnson:
This letter is submitted on behalf of James and Mary Corona, their family, and
relat,~d business entities, in response to the funding stmcture proposed by Newland Communities
for the Butterfield Interceptor Storm Drain,
The Coronas appreciate your 'efforts to identifY a plan for financing the mutually-
agreeable alternative for the interceptor channel facilities. The Coronas remain agreeable to
finarlcially participating in a plan that fairly allocates the costs of the facilities and bases the
Coronas' repayment obligation on their ultimate development approvals. The financing plan
proposed by Newhind Communities fails to achieve either of these goals. However, the Coronas
support continued discussions among the County and affected property owners to identifY a
suitable financing plan.
Summary of Alternatives
The County has identified three basic aligrunents for the proposed Butterfi<:ld
Interceptor Storm Drain: (I) a channel on the Newland land at the west side of Butterfield Stage
Road; (2) a channel through the Coronas' land at the eastern boundary of AD 159; and (3) a dual
channel facility with one channel at the eastern-most boundary of the Coronas' land with a
EXHIBIT 63
/
/
JACII:SON DEMARco &PECKENPAUGH
Mr. Tony Carstens
Mr. George A. Johnson
August 3, 2000
Page 2
sm~Lller, buried, intermediate facility through the Coronas' land at the eastern boundary of AD
159, The Flood Control District has confirmed the feasibility of installing and maintaining
adequate facilities at all three alignments,
The first alternative is the most cost effective for the County and the assessment
district. Any shortfall in funding would be borne by Newland as a condition of its development
project, Specific Plan 219. Since the interceptor facility is a land use condition appurtenant to
the Newland property, the necessary right-of-way through Newland's land could be acquired
without the need for condemnation proceedings,
As more fully discussed in our letter to the Board of Supervisors dated April 13,
2000, when the County first approved Specific Plan 219, it imposed a condition on the entire
dev1elopment project requiring Newland's predecessor-in-interest to construct a flood control
"int'erceptor" channel to mitigate project impacts resulting from its blocking storm. flows that
used to pass through the project site to Temecula Creek. Since the City of Temecula was
incorporated, it has approved the same requirement as a project condition each time it has
IlPproved amendments to Specific Plan 219, most recently in 1999. Thus, to this day, the
requirement to construct an interceptor channel adequate to transport the flood flows formerly
conveyed in the natural drainage filled by the project remains the responsibility of Newland as
the master developer of Specific Plan 219.
Through a series of events documented in our April, 2000 letter, AD 159 was used
as a vehicle to attempt to benefit the development project and shift the burden of constructing the
interceptor channel to other landowners adjoining the development project, including the
Coronas. Prior to constructing the necessary flood control channel, improvements were made to
Butterfield Stage Road and the development project, resulting in blocking the natural drainage
without creating an alternate route to Temecula Creek, As a result, a flood hazard was created on
the Coronas' land within AD 159 that did not previously exist.
Recent studies by the Flood Control District confirm that the hazardous condition
is not irreversible. The problem can be corrected by restoring the natural drainage through the
com;truction of culverts beneath Butterfield Stage Road. A flood control channel can be installed
on Newland's land to the west of Butterfield Stage Road to divert the flood water to Temecula
Creek.
This alternative would alleviate the current flood risks to Butterfield Stage Road
and the Coronas' land within AD 159, and would restore the Coronas' and Savalas' land to the
condition that existed prior to construction of Specific Plan 219 and Butterfield Stage Road.
This alternative also has the benefit of relying primarily on vacant larid under the possession and
JACKSON DEMARco & PECKENPAUGH
Mr. Tony Carstens
Mr. George A. Johnson
August 3, 2000
Page 3
control of Newland that is alreadysubject to a rand use condition that requires Newland to
constmct the interceptor channel facility, Of course, since this alternative would have no flood
control benefit to the Coronas beyond restoring their land to its original condition, the Coronas
would not participate financially in such facilities. Newland opposes this alternative.
The second alternative involves construction of a 70-foot wide open channel
extending all the way through the Coronas' property, Newland calls this alternative the
"original" AD 159 concept, even though the assessment engineer has confirmed that no facility
concept or design was disclosed at the time that the assessment was imposed.
This alternative is the most burdensome possible alternative, It would take
productive farmland out of production, and would physically bisect the Coronas' land impairing
their current farming operations and future development of their land. The Coronas and the
Savalas oppose this alternative. Neither the Coronas nor the Savalas are willing to convey the
rights-of-way necessary to install such a burdensome facility. Unlike Newland's land, the
Coronas' and Savalas' land has no associated condition requiring construction of the. flood
. control facility as a condition of their land use. The cost projections for this alternative do not
include the costs of eminent domain proceedings, fair market value of the land to be acquired,
and severance damages.
The third alternative is the only feasible alternative identified to date that is
supported by Newland, the Coronas and the Savalas. This alternative involves constructing an
open channel on the eastern-most boundary of the Coronas' land with a smaller, buried facility
through the middle of the Coronas' land at a sufficient depth to allow farming and eventual
construction over the top of it. This altern~tive is the most costly alternative.
This alternative would capture the same storm flows that formerly drained
through the Newland project. Since the interceptor channel would be constructed farther to the
east, it would benefit a larger area than the land originally assessed for the interceptor channel
under AD 159, including (but not limited to) additional acreage owned by the Coronas, The
Coronas have offered to enter into a standard reimbursement agreement whereby they would pay
their fair share of the costs of this facility as a condition of developing their land in the future.
However, Newland is unwilling to construct the facility on such terms. Instead, Newland has
proposed a financing mechanism whereby the Coronas' land would be subject to bonded
indebtedness, with the repayment obligation deferred for up to ten years.
JAClCSON DEMARco &PECKENl'AUGH
Mr. Tony Carstens
Mr. George A. Johnson
August 3, 2000
Page 4
Analysis of Newland's Financini:! Proposal
The Coronas have extensively evaluated the Newland financing proposal. Their
due diligence has resulted in the conclusion that the Newland financing proposal subjects the
County and the Coronas to umeasonable risks of default. That is because, unlike the Newland
pr05ect which has been built out with attendant profits realized, the Coronas' land is currently
farmland with no development entitlements.
Under the Newland financing proposal, Newland's share of the $5.6 million
Mello-Roos Community Facilities District bonds would be under $1.6 million while the
Coronas' share would be over $3.5 million. Although the fair market value of the Coronas' land
is much higher, investors will evaluate the bond offering based on the assessed valuation of their
land. Under the Newland proposal, the assessed value to lien ratio of the Corona land is upside-
down (a ratio less than I) (reference attached Table I).
Even if the bonds could be sold based on the investment potential of the Corona
land, the Coronas would be forced prematurely into building on their fann]and. ]n just] 6 years
under the Newland proposal, assuming an interest rate of7.75%, the Coronas' debt obligation on
their 161 acres would soar to almost $7.5 million (reference attached Table 2), with payments
totaling well over $400,000 per year thereafter (reference attached Table 3).
The Coronas remain willing to support flood control facilities that accomplish the
developer's land use obligation while allowing the Coronas to continue their current agricultural
land use and future development. They also remain willing to pay their fair share of flood
control facilities that accomplish mutually be.neficial goals. However, the Newland financing
proposal would impose an umeasonable financial risk on the Coronas.
The Coronas request that this matter be continued off the Board of Supervisors'
agenda to accommodate'further study and discussion of financing mechanisms. If the board
take:s action, the Coronas urge the County and/or Newland to fund the cost of the flood cOhtrol
facility alternative that is mutually supported and achieves the mutually-beneficial purposes of
the affected landowners, subject to a standard reimbursement agreement by the Coronas.
In the alternative, the Coronas urge the County to pursue construction of the
interceptor channel on Newland's land. The Coronas' land has been placed in a flood risk
condition that did not exist prior to the development of Specific Plan 2]9 and construction of the
Butterfield Stage Road improvements. By contrast, Newland has benefitted from the
devdopment of Specific Plan 219 and construction of the Butterfield Stage Road improvements..
The County has identified as a feasible alternative the construction of culverts through
,
JACKSON DEMARco & PECKENPAUGH
Mr. Tony Carstens
Mr. George A. Johnson
August 3, 2000
Page 5
Butt'erfield Stage Road and siting the interceptor channel on the Newland land, That alternative
would relieve the existing flood risk to Butterfield Stage Road and the Coronas' land, place the
facility on vacant land instead of taking.productive farmland out of production, and obtain a
right-of-way on land that is already subject to a land use condition requiring the owner to
construct the flood control facility without the need to condemn the land from unwilling sellers.
Your efforts toward identifying and implementing a mutually-agreeable
interceptor channel alignment are greatly appreciated. We look forward to further discussions to
attain that goal.
Sincerely,
Michele A. Staples
MAS/jaa
EncJ osures
376223,1
cc: Board of Supervisors, County of Riverside (w/encls.)
. City Council, City ofTemecula (w/encls.)
Mr. Stephen Corona (w/encls,)
Tim Davis, Esq., Deputy County Counsel (w/encls,)
TABLE 1
BUTTERFIELD EAST INTERCEPTOR
VALUE TO LIEN RATIO
Assessed
Value Assessment Assesse.d .
Assessor's (RCAR) (Lien) Value to
Owner Parcel No. Acres ($) ($) Lien Ratio
Corona 952-150-002 20.34 200.512 505,105 0.40
952-190-001 20.21 186.092 501,877 0,37
952-190-002 20.95 207,476 520,253 0.40
952-190-003 20.05 198,545 497,903 0.40 .
952-140-001 19,81 175,688 491,943 0,36
952-140-002 .21.04 186,371 522.488 0.36
952-140-003 19,56 172,880 485,735 . 0,36
Lumsdaine 952-130-002 22.01 . 151,132 . 491,695 0.31
Notes:
RCAR: . Riverside County Assessor's Records:
RAKlblt
C500/Bczy01_.xlsNtoL (8/3/00)
TABLE 2
CORONA'S SHARE OF
MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT
DEBT BURDEN
$3,525,300
7-3/4% Compound Interest
Year Principal Interest Amount Due
1 3,525,300 273,211 3,798,511
2 3,798,511 .. 294,385 4,092,896
3 4,092,896 317,199 4,410,095
4 4,410,095 341,782 4,751,877
5 4,751,877 368,270 5,120,147
6 5,120,147 396,811 5,516,958
7 5,516,958 427,564 5,944,522
8 5,944,522 460,700 6,405,222
9 6,405,222 496,405 6,901,627
10 6,901,627 534,876 7,436,503
11 7,436,503 576,329 8,012,832
12 8,012,832 620,994 8,633,826
13 8,633,826 669,122 9,302,948
14 9,302,948 720,978 10,023,926
15 10,023,926 776,854 10,800.780
16 10,800,780 837,060 11,637,840
17 11,637,840 901,933 12,539,773
18 12,539,773 971,832 13,511,605
19 13,511,605 1,047,149 14,558,754
20 14,558,754 1,128,303 15,687,057
21 15,687,057 1,215,747 16,902,804
22 16,902,804 1,309,967 18,212,771
23 18,212,771 1,411,490 19,624,261
24 19,624,261 1,520,880 21.145,141
25 21,145,141 . 1,638,748 22,783,889
26 22,783.889 1,765,751 24,549,640
27 24,549,640 1,902,597 26,452,237
28 26,452,237 2,050,048 28,502,285
29 28,502,285 2,208,927 30,711,212
30 30,711,212 2,380,119 33,091.331
NOTES:
1.
2.
With Compound Interest, principal amount
increases by interest amount and amount due
increases with increasing principal and interest
amounts cumulated through any particular year.
Corona's share of $5,615,000 in Meilo-Roos
Community Facilities District bonds is
$3,525,300, Lumsdaine's share is $491,700, and
Newland's share is $1,598,000.
RAKlbII
CSOO/Sfz:101_,xlsI3525300 (813/00)
M
W
..J
lD
<
.-
0'
w
.-
<
U
o
Ul Z
:J -..J
..J .,<
Oo(/) <0::
(1)0 C)~
ClZ ZW
ZO _LJ..
Den D:::w
m~ ::JC
I-U ~!;(c:
U2 <:i!~
C:2~ Ot/')>
2t;;5ci~ZOo
a:::Ze z.::; ~
00 .,<:JO.-
....m...J!:!:!..J...JaJCk::
Q.Z~t:;::"":I:<
(j')W-Z..JW<t:Q.
W~OWUZZ::J
i=w8::<(oO....<
~.... u:J~w lL I- a: cn 0::
WZ~~>-1-0Wffi
o..-Q)~a..I-ZUO:::l.L
O.........::JZWOWUJ
~ ~ .... rn ::t, :E I- !Z C
WO:C:i!",--o:
<OOw:E:U')W:Z~<
z u.. 0 w.
O...Jw:J rn:!:::!~
O::.~O~O~(/)r'?1l)
OL1.S:-(I) en.....
UO::e::ZQOWC""
WW::JogcnZO::
I:.,OO:'.Ul<<
:::JI-ZO~<Oe:.
CDm<(..J~Ool-
wrn...JT'"g-z
0(1') w'" ...0:: w
w:E r--w:=
o ~o.>-
><~ ~~f-<(
WO ....Za..
zg we
;;u; :Ew
0"" ~a::
c-tD .....0::
~v; fuw
0.... u..
M O:w
N 0::0
.... <
w
>-
o
~
o
~E
N
.,
gl!!.
...
'"
8E
N
...
0-
o~
N
'"
gE
N
'"
8E
N
'"
g~
...
M
0-
o~
N
...
0-
0....
N-
~
0-
o~
N
c
"
E
~~
"
'"
'"
<
.~ ci
oZ
~Gi
: ~
'" ..
<Q.
'" ...
'" .,
o.:i"",
co~
l.O U)~
'" ...
"'0>
o:i-.:i-
'"
"''''
trJ"trJ"
"',...
",0>
cci-ti
-'"
'" "'
1.tilti
.", ,...
"'0>
"'''
'"
"' "'
tr)-tri
'" ,...
",0>
a::i-.i
-'"
"' "'
trit.ri
"',...
"'0>
cci";
-'"
"' "'
ll)-ll'i
"',...
"'0>
cO";
'"
"'"'
tri 10-
"',...
'" 0>
ai..j-
;;;~
Ll'ill'i
'" ,...
'" 0>
ai";
'"
'" "'
tn- Ili
"',...
'" 0>
o::i"<i
-'"
"' '"
IO-Il'i
'"
~
.,
<
~u;
enol
N '"
~ 0).
co-<f
ou;
",.....-
"''''
'1ij
<:'0
Q) C. M
E(Qf/.Ioo
3~-gqo
a.cuooo
g-uCDIL}ll)
cnx"O~T""
WQ)NN
~~~:g~
o.!!! '2
<C:J
N
'"
M
'"
"',
-
-
N
'"
M
"'
"'.
-
N
'"
M
'"
"',
-
-
N
'"
M
'"
"',
-
-
N
'"
M
'"
"',
-
-
N
'"
M
'"
"',
-
-
N
'"
M
'"
"'.
-
-
N
'"
M
'"
"'.
::
N
'"
M
'"
"'.
-
-
N
'"
M
'"
"'.
-
-
,...
-
oi
-
,...
0>
.,;
0>
'"
.,:
'"
e>
'"
-
'"
~
.13 ~
~.~ ~
f/.I >- c: 1.0
0:::: 0 T""
o C CD I
0: "E"O ~
.ge:5Cl
Q) 0 .!a
:i!uo
o
<
'1ij
~
0000 .,0
0000.;'0
tciciMo.....c:ici
,..."''''
",N_
NON....;
"'''''''
0000000
0000000
tcicic<ioooc:i
,.....,.'"
"'N
C'j-N--.:t-
"'''''''
0000000
0000000
u::lo<'icicicic:i
,.....,.'"
'" N_
NC';~-
'" '" '"
0000000
0000000
crio<'ioc:i00
,.....,.'"
'" N_
",-C'i-.:i
"'''''''
0000000
0000000
<ciocoiocioo
...."''''
"'N_
",-",-~
'" '" '"
0000000
0000000
oooodcici
0000000
0000000
ooooocici
0000000
0000000
cicic:icicicici
0000000
0000000
ooooocici
0000000
0000000
cicicicicidci
-.;f.....L{')!.O.....-.;fCO
MNO'lOCOOlO
ocicicir.>>"":r.>>
"'C\lNN.....N.....
,....r--l.OCOMC")CO
O')CO.....M-.;f..........
-.i<OM C"icoicOl.ri
o t--1.O O-.;f COM
..... co. N 0'1 0'1 "'it r--
1.0..... ci ~ - N. t()-
OONO'lO')NCO
t()t()t()-.;f-.;ft()"'it
_ N
00
99
00
e>e>
- -
, ,
N N
"''''
e>e>
M..... N M
0000
0900
0000
O'l-.;f oq- <o:t
............... .....
I I I .
NC\lNN
to l,() to l,()
O'lQ)cnO'l
o
o
oi
(Q
0>
,,;
'"
N
'"
N
'"
(Q
o
,...
-
o
o
oi
'"
0>
",'
'"
-
N
'"
N
'"
'"
o
,...
-
o
o
oi
(Q
0>
,,;
'"
-
N
'"
N
'"
'"
o
,...
-
o
o
oi
(Q
.,
,,;
'"
N
'"
N
'"
'"
o
,...
-
o
o
oi
'"
0>
",'
'"
-
N
'"
N
'"
'"
o
~
o
o
c;;
N
'"
M
'"
"'.
-
~
o
o
c;;
N
'"
M
'"
"'.
-
o
o
c;;
N
'"
M
'"
"'.
::
o
o
c;;
N
'"
M
'"
~
-
~
o
o
c;;
N
'"
M
'"
"'.
-
~
'"
"!
-
..,.
-
'"
-
u;
~
0>
'"
"
o
'"
.,;
N
'"
cO
'"
'"
c;;
o
o
o
.'"
'"
",.
o
u..
U
0:
::<
'1ij
~
'1ij
~
'0
"
'"
~
:0
"
'0
'0
"
o
CD
'0
"
"
'"
'"
'2
:J
'OM
,,0
'" 0
",6
'" '"
,,-
., ,.
xN
w:ll
u-
'C ~
;;; -
a [
- ~
rn 0
- -
" ...
E~
~;g
8: CO_
"",
CIJ'"
0>09
'" ....
-'"
Oai
<0>
a. .......
~~
x'O
" "
. ..
,.,
- -
Co
00
,,6
"''''
:J,
'1ijN
C'"
~O>
~~
~ '"
,Eo.
E.2
"",
'g",
EO;
0-
E "'.
"",
:i!'"
0;,.9
..IN
..J..,.
~ci
0'"
u":
""~
C E
;: 0
2,;
CD '0
0: "
0:: .~
E i!!
e "
- .,
g '1:
d. m
;,;
15
z
'"
a
~
'"
rn
Q.
i3'
o
i3
~
i::.
on
X
'0
~
"
.!!
~
Q
o
X
"
o
,.,
J:!
=<ll
'U
o
w
....
<(
u
i5
'" Z
::> -...J
...J "'<(
Q.Ui <0::
U)C1 ,,0::
Cz ZW
20 _u.
Oal ",W
CO.... ::>0
"!- () ~ ~ c::
!,1;;:; -:;<(
~ <( W
cn~t; 0(1)>-
O '" - 0'. tf.l 0 0
-0 ::1:Z.....
a::ZCCl)Z~OI-
OO.-Jw:5-ltDo::
t;:~~!:::;:o1l:C;::
U)UJ-Z-1W<(t: _
WUOWUZZ3:..J
i=ffig:E<ool-~
D:::l-rsJ-Wu.I-a:::(I)
WZ~...J>-....OW"'
M o.-O!,~~ZUO::~
~ O~""':JZWOWUJ
OJ g:<~Cf)::>~I-~C
<C w 0== I--et:
I- ~c~UJ:E~ffi~<
o ..J W ~ 0 "en -= ~ ~
W Cl)Ucn'::OM......
O:::-UCl) <ecn' LO
Ou..s:-CIJ en.....
Un:::o::ZQOWCI-
WW:JogCf.lZO:::
~ Ul 0 0:: . en <( <(
:J1-::ZO~<Ce:.
mlD<..Jlottgol-
WU)..J"I"'" -z
C en LLJ ~ 0.0:: w
w:!': .....W::
u ~o.
><~ ~I-~
WO ~Zo.
ZO Wo
_0 :;
o"n >W
0..... <(0:::
0(0 0.0::
~lli' WW
~W ~~
('1- 0::: c
... <(
W
>-
o
~
o
~~
'"
'"
~E
'"
'"
~...
~-
...
~'"
~-
'"
~ -
0'"
",-
'"
o~
'"
...
~-
0'"
",-
M
~-
0'"
",-
'"
ce
'"
~
~-
0'"
N-
c
'"
E
..-
.....
",-
..
..
<(
~ 0
oZ
:g'ii
" u
.. ~
'" ..
<a.
..
"
~
u
<
'" ...
"'0>
a::iooi
<0
OJ. co.
'", '"
"'...
<0 0>
cO-<i
~"'
'" '"
1O- 10-
"'...
",0>
gj-.:i
~"'
'" '"
1/')- 1/')-
,'" ...
",0>
a:i-.:i
~"'
'" '"
Ii'l-I.O-
"'...
",0>
c:i..f
"'
'" '"
l.O-u;j
'" .....
",0>
a::i~
~"'
"''''
\tiui
'" ...
",0>
a::iv
~"'
"'.'"
\t)-t.ti
'" .....
",0>
cO ..,f"
"'
'" '"
lrJ- tn-
'" ...
",0>
a::i-.:i
;;;~
..r.o'.I.C:i
"'...
",0>
a::i..,:.
~~
1(; If)
<0
"'"'
aim
N '"
"0>
~.f
'"
0",
1"'---1'...:
<0",
ro
c'C
" c
E ..
" ..
- ..
1l::'.l
~ x
"'w
~o
.....:5
. ~ '"
"00
-g99
000
<0"''''
-0"7.....
CD N N'
""''''
"0>0>
..
o .!!! 'E
<0::>
N
"'
~
'"
"',
;:
0'000
0'00'0
WOMM
.........;-U1CQ
LON.....,....
NN..,r~-
l,()l{)l.O(()
-'0
~ 0
bQ;8
OO>N
"V-r-.:(""J-
",",<0
N
"'
~
'"
"',
~
~
0000
0000
<riciMM
/""-Vl.OaJ
"'N .....
N N-..j'Cf"
U1tOl.O(()
000
o~o
l:5~g
OO>N
'<t- r-: ri
",",<0
N
<0
n
'"
<0,
~
ggg8ggg
<riciMM'r---:....:ci
r---Vl.OaJOCOO
I/') N.....,..... 0(1) N
N"N'Cf- '<t- v",....- c,.;
l.t'>l.t'>l.t'>l.OW(OW
N
<0
~
'"
<D.
~
0000000
oooooC!o
~~~g~;ng
l.t'>N.....r---OOlN
NN-~-V'...fr----ri
ll)l.t'>l.(')(O<O<OW
N
<0
~
'"
<0,
~
~
0000000
oooooC?:o
<riOC1'iMr--:~O
.C;~l.(')~80l~
N'N-~'...fv-r-.:ri
l.t'>ll)ll)l.Oc.ococ.o
N
<0
~
'"
<0.
;:
0000000
0000000
<.ciOMMr-..: '0
r---~I.C')COOCOO
I,(') N.....r---OcnN
r;ffiii~.to-&t
N
<0
~
'"
"',
-
-
0000000
OOOO,=!OO
<ciOMMr--"":O
r---~l.(')COOCOO
lON.....r---OOlN
NN-.;j...fV.r----ri
I,(') l.(')l.(')W l.O<O (0
N
<0
~
'"
<0,
~
~
0000000
ooC!oo~o
~~~g~a;g
l,()N.....,....OOlN
N'N-~.~-";r-.:~-
l.(')\{)I,(')WCO(OCO
N
<0
~
'"
<0,
~
~
0000000
OOOOOC?:O
~~~g~;ng
LON.....r---OcnN
N-N'-.;j"'<'iV.r-.:ri
LOlOl.O<O (0 l.O<O
N
<0
~
'"
<0.
~
~
0000000
0000000
u:iciMM""":"":ci
r---~l,()COOtOO
l,()N.....r---OOlN
N'N-.;j-.;j...ir--:ri
l.n1.Ol.n<OCPt.O<O
.....
~
0;
~N~~;;;~~
~~~~ci~~
.....
0>
<ri
0>
<0
...
",.
~
,..........I.OCOC")t"')<O
Ol<O.....M'V..........
<ci<ciMMMcOui
O.....l,{)O-vCOt"')
......tONOlO'l.~,....
to -cir-.:~N.16
OONO>O'lNCO
I.OtOl.O~'VtO"'"
0>
'"
~
..
~
'0 ~
.. 0
LL~o
r.I) >- C I,()
o ._ 0 .....
OCCON
~~:2~
=E.;;
IV 0 ._
::Euo
.....NC").....NM
000000
999999
000000
cncnC'l-v'OCT~
.......................- .....
NNNNNN
10\0 lO\OlO lO
C)C)cnO)mC)
o
<
ro
~
o
o
o
...
0>
a5
~
...
N
<0
~
'"
<0
0'
'"
...
o
o
o
...
0>
a5
~
...
N
<0
~
N
<0
0'
'"
...
o
o
o
...
0>
a5
...
N
<0
~
N
<0
0'
'"
...
o
o
o
...
0>
a5
~
...
N
<0
~
N
<0
0'
'"
...
o
o
o
...
0>
a5
~
...
N
<0
~
N'
'"
0'
'"
...
o
o
o
...
0>
a5
~
...
N
<0
~
N
<0
0'
'"
...
o
o
o
...
0>
a5
~
...
N
<0
~
N
<0
0'
'"
...
o
o
o
...
0>
a5
:;:
N
<0
~
'"
<0
0'
'"
...
o
o
o
...
0>
a5
...
N
<0
~
N
<0
0'
'"
...
o
o
o
...
0>
a5
...
N
<0
~
N
<0
0'
'"
...
'"
"1
~
...
-
'"
~
~
'"
~
0>
'"
.f
o
'"
.0
N
'"
ri
<0
'"
o
o
o
0'
<0
<0
ri
o
u.
U
0:
::;:
<0
(;
I-
ro
(;
....
'C
C
..
<3
:c
"
'C
'C
C
o
<0
'C
"
~
'"
..
'2
::>
'Cn
cO
",0
..6
.."'
,,~
o.N
x",
Wo>
:g.~
-.; -
a :!
rn2
c
,,'"
E~
~<o
2: co.
~ "'.
",'"
0>.2
"'
...
'"
00;
<(0)
c.. ...-.
~~
x'C
" c'
, '"
'"
Co
09
"0
..'"
::>~
-c<
"'",
Eo>
"
:s
~
~ "
.s c.
E .S
~'"
-g<o
~ ai
o ~
E "'.
"",
::;:..
o
0.-
...J N
...J'"
.: 0
0",
u~
~g
c E
;: 0
e.::
<O'C
0:: "
0: ,!:11
>
E e
g B
.s '2:'
'" "
0"
;,;
(;
Z
'"
'0
N
"
C>
..
a.
6'
o
;;
'C:!
~
"'
><
'"
~
2
"
o
0;
x
"
;;
>-
,.t!
"'<0
.eo
.~:i\
o::u
0'
w
....
<c
()
~ O:i
..J ~<(
~v; (1)0::
"'0 <ca:
o Z C)" ~
zo zw
o III ;;:;0
Ill.... ~
.....U ~~O::
0- _.....<(
-" <<W
U)~~ ~C",::E>
CI (f) - 0 (f) 0
0::: 2:-0Z:EC.....
OC,O"'<::>Z""
1-' 0:1 ..J W .J ..J 0 0::
Q. ;O:E3:"'Ill<
cnw~:z~w<(:::r:':
w U C'. UJ U Z Z .... ..J
;::: a: cc:::E <0 0;;: <
o::~ ~wu......o::>O::
WZ~:..J>l-O""O::
M D..-Q'~~t:ZUf3~
W O.....,...::>ZUJOo::W
..J O::VJv.:Cf.I::>":EI-W.o
~ a.. L5 0;. c :E en ........... a::::
< Ow:E(I')ZZ<
ZOll., WW-
oLrlu.r~8~:E*~
~U:!:::~U)<~~ll)
utX:~:Zoow~"'"
wu..i=>Ogcn 0::
~u:,C~oi(f)~~
::>"',%00)<(<-
"m a:1 <(..J "lO .....
lLl (f)..J T'" g Co Z
CI(f)~4o'I-r:_W
w..::; ....0::::
Uz ow>
x_ -.:r-c.<
Wo """t-D.
ZO Z.o
_o~ Ww
g~ :EO::
ctQ >0::
~'Il)~' <( W
0""" o..u..
'" wW
N 0::.0
'" a:
<(
w
>
o
~
'"
o~
....
o
g~
'"
'"
'" -
0"
",-
'"
~E
'"
I<-
~~
'"
"'
~E
'"
'"
~~
'"
...
.~E
'"
'"
'" -
0"
",-
'"
~~
'"
~
~e
'"
c
"
E
~E
"
'"
'"
<(
.~ ci
oZ
:g'ij
" V
'" -
'" '"
<0.
'"
"
-
V
<
OJ
C:'C
" C
E fa 'in
" '" 'C
- '" C
2}:4l0
:::l ~ CD
enw'C
'" -"
~:S~
o.~ 'c
<0::>
00
'" ~
aiai
'" ..,.
"''''
'<;f-Ifi
I<- I<-
~ ~
"'I<-
<0 '"
cci-.i
<0
"''''
trJ-lli
"'I<-
<0'"
cci"<i
.<<) ~
1.0- Iri
"'I<-
<0'"
cD";
~<O
"''''
lrilt'l-
"'I<-
~'"
"'..;
~~
I()-I.{)-
"'I<-
<0'"
cci."f
<0
"''''
l(j'1ri
"'I<-
<0 '"
a:i"';
~ <0
'" '"
l,()-t,()-
"'I<-
<0'"
cO -.:t'
~ <0
'" '"
..n1rJ-
'" I<-
<0'"
cO"';
;;~
It'illi
"'I<-
<0'"
ai...r
a;~
lli~
"'I<-
<0 '"
cO-O:;
~<O
'" '"
tDlrj
<O~
"'<0
cioi
"''''
"'"
<<;-.i
0<0
~. ,....:
<0<0
M
00
99
00
'" '"
~ ~
, ,
N N
"''''
"''''
N
<0
M
'"
. <0,
~.
~
N
<0
M
'"
<0.
~
o
<0
oj
o
'"
o
'"
M
0000 '0
0000 0
dcil.C'ici.. ..0
OON(O'q'NO
vOQJCO......<DO
'V. <0- Ml(') 0 cri"<:f-
o lflCJ) a)lflCO
'(",).C"')..C"I.N.N.C"l.N.
~
N
<0
M
'"
<0,
~
~
0000000
0000000
tOOMMr--:""':d
r--vI.OCOOCOO
lON......,....OO>N
N.N.....;~"'"I:1'-r-"("').
to 1.0 to (0 (() (0<0
0000000
ooooo~o
~~~g~rog
1.ON......,....OO>N
c-iN" -.:r""<t-<<:t-r----","
1.0 1.0 Lt'l<D <OCO<D
N
<0
M
'"
<0.
~
~
0000000
0000000
<cic:icoicoir--:.,..;ci
,....~\Ocoocoo
l.ON......,....OO'lN
NN-.q""<t".q.,.....ri
l.01.OtOCO(()CO<O
N
<0
M
'"
<0.
~
~
0000000
0000000
00 coicoir--:.,..;ci
l""-"<tLt'lCOOaJO
l.ON......,....OO>N
N.N..q."<i"<i,.....("').
t,()lOLt'l<O(()(O(()
N
<0
M
'"
<0,
~
~
000,0000
ooooo~o
0ocoicoir--: ci
l""-'"I:1'tOaJOaJO
lON......r--.OO>N
N.N....r~.O(ir-"("')-
1.OlO\OI.OCOtoCO
N
<0
M
'"
<0.
~
~
0'0 0 0 0 0 0
0000000
0c:icoicoir--:......:o
,....-.:r1DCOOaJO
t,()N...........OO>N
NN'.q..q."<ir-"ri
1.0 to to co <0 co <0
0000000
0000000
<cic:iMcoir--:.,...;o
,....~1DCOOaJO
1.0 N......,....OcnN
N N <o:t-"'; "<t'r-"ri
l.OtOLt'l<oco<oco
N
<0
M
'"
<0.'
~
~
0000000
0000000
<cidri<"'.ir--:.,..;o
l""-'"I:1'tOcoocoo
Lt'lN.......,....OOlN
N. N- .q- ~. "<i ,..... ri
l.OLt'lI.O<OCOf.OCO
N
<0
M
'"
"'.
~
~
0000000
0,0 0 0 0 ~ 0
~~~~~~g
Lt'lN......r--.OOlN
N' N. '"1:1'.,~. oci'''': ri
1.0 I.n 1.0<0 CO co co
N
<0
M
'"
<0,
0000000
oooo~~~
<0 0 Mcoi,...........o
r---oc:rLt'lCOOCOO
to N.....,....omN
('\l. N -.i "<t. "<t. r-" ri
li"lli"llO<OCOCOCO
~
,.;.
~
ai'
~
ocr...... lOl.O.....ocrtO
(",)Nmoc:o~l.O
dcicicicri......cri
NNNN......N.....
I<-
'"
,,;
'"
<0
..j
'"
~
......,....ll1CO("')C"l(()
O'! (O......C"l '"1:1'''''''''''
'"I:1'cciri("')("')'gji.O
Ol""-lOO'"l:1'COC"l
,.... co N 0) 0). oct......._
to ci,..... NtO
OONO)CTlNCO
tOl.Ol.O~'"I:1'lOocr
'"
'"
~
'"
~
'0 ~
t1J ctl 9
u.'Co
ctl >0 e 1.0
o ~ 0.....
oeco'
O;::Eti~
~E:SOl
Q) 0 .!!!
::Euo
~ N M
000
000
000
"'''''''
~ ~ ~
, , ,
N N N
"'''''''
"'''''''
N M
000
000
000
.....,. ..,.
~ ~ ~
, , ,
NNN
'" '" '"
'" '" '"
o
<::
OJ
o
....
o
o
,,;
..,.
<0
ri
I<-
~
,,;
o
o
o
...
'"
<0
~
..,.
o
o
o
..,.
'"
<0
~
..,.
o
<0
M
",.
~
..j
N
'"
",'
N
<0
M
N
<0
0'
M
...
N
<0
<'i
N
<0
o
'"
..,.
N
<0
M
N
<0
o
M
..,.
N
<0
M
N
<0
o
'"
..,.
o
o
o
..,.
'"
<0
..,.
o
o
o
..,.
'"
<0
;;
o
o
o
...
'"
<0
~
..,.
o
o
o
...
'"
<0
..,.
o.
o
o
;J;
<0
~
...
N
<0
M
N
<0
o
'"
..,.
N
<0
M
N
<0
'0
M
...
N
<0
M
N
<0
0'
'"
..,.
o
o
o
..,.
'"
",'
~
...
o
o
o
...
'"
",.
;;
N
<0
M
N
<0
o
M
...
N
<0
M
~
o
M
..,.
o
o
o
...
'"
<0
~
...
N
<0
M
N
<0
o
M
..,.
<0
"!
~
...
~
'"
~
co
~
'"
'"
..;
o
'"
,,;
N
'"
ri
<0
'"
o
o
o
o
<0
<0
",'
o
u.
U
Cl:
::;;
iii
o
....
OJ
~
'C
C
'"
i3
"
u
'~
"
'"
15
"
'0
'0
C
o
0)
'0
"
"
'"
'"
'"
::>
'C
C
'"
'"
'"
"<'i
Vo
tljo
o
.g It)
fii;:::
o~
coQi
c: V
" -
E i:'t
.S! _
l5:.E
"I<-
en'"
"'..;
",<0
~'"
0";
<'"
0..9
"l<-
v'"
~ ~.
:>.......
c:~
0'0
" C
'" '"
::>~
cog
Eo
.s!'"
c~
:::N
.E~
~]
C '"
~ 0.
o ~
E.2
"'"
::1:.~
Q.
...J <<l.
..J",
, '"
. 8 .9
"'~
Co
~'"
05:6
a:'"
a: E
E,g
.g-c
"
'" '"
ro os:
o ~
iti
o
Z
M
'0
'"
~
'"
'"
Il.
'"
62
'"
N
t:.
'"
'"
'C
~
..!!
"
o
;;;
;<
"
;;
>-
,~
~05
.0 _
~o
C2~
.....~'" ~. .................
t.... "'0"''''
O. ...1.~>C......0l!..
~ '- .......0.....(1
.jII'...........e..."c...'....
..0..... e. eON0.0.5
........~,... o.........eo
..ON ". ~~C'"'O"'
..OCl~...... ...........03
...~I,.c....C Z. ~........5;~
CO.........O ..., 0.......0..........
...'e.....c.. s, "CI'";)'~''.sO'''
....,....,........ "C",S"C'"
". 'O::OTT......O::..'C".
OOVCH....' ... ........O..V..
.,,10.... ... "CY1;"II:T"~
.......,...........,..
...C..............""..
..JACKSON, DEMARCO & PECKENPAUGH
'T!:....C... O. ......0..
..U,.... ... M....U'..O"',O::
0...""0 ..., 05'CN'l'",U"
,...0......' Q. ..1;O::..C........UO..
..0..... ..cr.....,,,::..
O"C.OQ"Y ". ..COliC"
O::......::OTO....C.. .... "OOC'"
C................".........
e......o....., se.......!!;..
.......o..!!;We 'C"'U'l':C:
0....""0 c. ::0"'''''''
....e...c...I:.... .$T.......C.S
::0........0.. '._ T.......'......
JUST... >C. ,....0....50..
M.O::.....C....... -r'el""
W......'....M..I. TU.....'...
......U.. 11:. "...... "00""55C"
..e..... M. w.....,.,..
A LAW CORPORATION
4 ~Ai:n. ~I.AZ,", . 16'" ~1.00R
POST O,,",,"ICC BOX 19704
IRVINE, CAt.IFOANIA 926Z3-9704
(9....9l 752-8!585
"'AX; 19491 752-0597
yI!;Nru"'.... <::Ol,ll'H-r O"""CIt
280 N. WI!;STI..AKI!; 9I..VO.
SU1T~ 200
wCST\...AKIt Vll..\...AOC:: C....l..t"'O"'NIA 91382
. leOSl 230-0023
"'....x; reosl 230-00e7
...c".... ........,.,...'c;...
. "CT'.CCl
WRITIt....S O."'CCT OlAI.. NUMSC.A.
(949)...m;.u09
mstaoleslnljdp law .com
OUR ~i..c NUMl!Il!:R:
28878
COMMENT LETTER FOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MEETING -- APRIL 18, 2000
REGARDING BUTTERFIELD EAST INTERCEPTOR
STORM DRAIN, ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 159
Submitted by
Michele A. Staples, Esq.
on behalf of James and Mary Corona
and the Corona Family
April 13, 2000
/
JACK50N, DEMARCO & PECKENPAUGH
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page(s)
I. INTRODUCTION ' . .. .. ' .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . ' .. , . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . . . . , . . . .. . . I
II. THE INTERCEPTOR CHANNEL'S DESIGN IS NOT PROPERL Y DICTATED BY
THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING AVAILABLE IN AD 159 SINCE NEWLAND IS
RESPONSIBLE TO CONSTRUCT THE INTERCEPTOR CH.Il"NNEL TO MITIGATE
THE FLOOD HAZARD CREATED ON THE CORONAS' LAND. ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
III. THE CORONAS ARE NOT PROPERL Y ASSESSED FOR THE COST OF THE
INTERCEPTOR CHANNEL ,.............,.............,.......,......... 3
IV. APPRO V AL OF THE RECOMMENDED MOTION WOULD VIOLATE THE
EMINENT DOMAIN LAW. .. . .. . .. .. . . . . . .. , . . .. . .. . .. ' . . .. ' . .. . .. .. , .. . 4
V, APPROVAL OF THE RECOMMENDED MOTION WOULD VIOLATE THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ..,...,.,.....,...........5
VI. CONCLUSION, . . . . . . . , , . , . . , . ' . . . . , , , , , ' . , . . . ' , . . . . . . . . , . . , . ' , . . . , . . , ' 6
JACKS.ON, DEMARCO & PECKENt"AUGH
1. INTRODUCTION
We represent James and Mary Corona and the Corona family (collectively the
"Coronas"). The COTonas own land at the northeast corner of the intersection of Butterfield
Stage Road and Highway 79. The Coronas' land straddles the boundary between the County and
the City of Temecula. About 20 acres of the Coronas' land is within Assessment District 159
("AD I 59") and the remaining 145 acres is outside of ADI59
On April 12,2000, the Coronas received the Submittal to the Board of Supervisors in
which the Riverside County Transportation Department requests that the Board of Supervisors
initiate proceedings to approve the construction of a 70-foot wide open flood control channel all
the way through the Coronas' property and authorize additional funding for the facility, The
channel would bisect the Coronas' land, severely impairing both their ongoing farming operation
and eventual development of the land.
The recommended motion is the latest in a series of actions taken by AD 159 to benefit a
Temecula developer at the expense of the Coronas. By this letter, the Coronas urge the Board to
deny the recommendation and instead require development in the City of Temecula to pay its
own way. As discussed below, the Coronas specifically request that the Board of Supervisors
deny the request to pre-approve the recommended alignment and design of the interceptor
channel. Approval of the interceptor channel at this time would effectively predetermine the
outcome of mandatory hearings and environmental proceedings, thereby subjecting the County to
legal liability for violating the California Environmental Quality Act and the Eminent Domain
Law and for damages to the Coronas.
II. THE INTERCEPTOR CHANNEL'S DESIGN IS NOT PROPERLY DICTATED BY'
THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING A V AILABLE IN AD 159 SINCE NEWLAND IS
RESPONSIBLE TO CONSTRUCT THE INTERCEPTOR CHANNEL TO MITIGATE
THE FLOOD HAZARD CREATED ON THE CORONAS' LAND
Prior to the construction of Specific Plan 219 and Butterfield Stage Road improvements,
stonn water flowed to the north of the Coronas' land . . Butterfield Stage
Road, and through the Specific Plan 219 prope see Document 6, attached. As a result, when
the County first approved Specific Plan 219, it imposed a condition on the project requiring the
developer to construct a flood control channel either on-site or off-site to intercept those flows
~ Documents 3, 4 and 10, attached[)The County likewise imposed mitigation measures on
the project to prohibit increased flood hazards to adjacent or downstream properties and require
that all flood-related hazards must be adequately mitigated (reference EIR 235, pp. 315-321,
incorporated by reference).
The City of Temecula adopted the County's condition ofapproval for Specific Plan 219
that the developer construct the interceptor channel either on-site or off-site, The City first
adopted the condition in 1991 -- the same year that the County approved the supplemental
JACK::',O N, DEMARCO & PECKEr-. PAUGH
assessment for AD ]59, Each time the City ofTemecula has approved amendments to Specific
Plan 219 since then (most recently in ] 999), it has conditioned its approval on the pre-existing
conditions, and has never released Newland of the responsibility to construct the interceptor
facility,
Instead of constructing the interceptor channel, the record indicates that the Newland's
predecessor included the facility on the "wish list" for facilities to be constructed with' funding
from the AD ] 59 supplemental assessmen (see Documents 6 and 9 attachedbDevelopment of
the Specific Plan 2]9 has resulted in filling the natura ramage course t at formerly flowed to
the north .of the Corona Ranch property within AD] 59, across Butterfield Stage Road, through
Specific Plan 219, to Temecula Creek. Butterfield State Road improvements were constructed
by AD 159 to accommodate the development's alteration of the natural drainage pattern,
Newland proceeded to fill and construct homes on land that once served as the drainage area for
the upstream properties, including Corona Ranch.,
Those improvements now act,as a dam blocking storm water that once flowed across
Buttl~rfield Stage Road and Specific Plan 219, A flood hazard has been created on that portiQn of
the Coronas' land within AD ] 59 where none previously existed. The interceptor channel will
serve only to mitigate the hazardous condition created on the Coronas' land by construction of
Specific Plan 219 and the Butterfield Stage Road improvements. It would not benefit the
Coronas' land. Newland realizes a significant financial benefit by having the facilities funded
and constructed by AD 159 and by shifting a disproportionate portion of the financial burden
.onto adjoining property owners, including the Coronas.
The staff report wrongly considers the funds remaining in AD ] 59 to be the sole SQurce of ' .
funding for the interceptor channel. As a result of this error, staff concludes that there is only
one ::inancially feasible option fQr cQnstructing the interceptor channel.
. The alternative recommended is the most burdensome alternative PQssible to the Coronas.
It consists of a 70-foQt wide;] ,ODD-foot long open channel bisecting the Corona Ranch. No
bridges are proposed t.o "link" the severed lands as necessary to mQve farm equipment and other
vehides from one side to the other, No consideration is given to the severance damages that
would be due to the Coronas for the adverse economic impacts to their present and future uses .of
the land. As stated in the correspondence from Newland's attorney, Newland is quickly selling
off i':s remaining land holdings, Who will be resPQnsible for the costs of severance damages to
the Cororias after Newland is gone?
Other feasible alternatives exist that would reduce the burden tQ the Coronas. If the
facility must be placed on the Coronas' land, the impacts to the Coronas would be minimized by
burying the channel at least four feet below ground to allow the Coronas to farm over the top.
The County has rejected one such proposal (Alternative I) as technically infeasible because the
proposed double b.ox culverts buried four feet deep would n.ot have enough "fall" to efficiently
transport sto'rm fl.ows to T emecula Creek.
2
.JACKSON. DEMARCO& PECKEi'<PAUGH
The adverse impacts to the Coronas would be aneviated if the interceptor channel is
constructed on the Newland property. In its staff report, the County has concluded that such an
alignment of the interceptor challllel would work, but rejected one such proposal (Alternative 6)
as too costly in light of the available funding in AD 159. However, those costs could be
significantly reduced if an open channel was to be constructed on the Newland property similar
to the open channel proposed to be sited on the Corona property. No such analysis has been
made. Instead, Alternative 6 cans for construction of more costly buried triple box culverts on
the Newland property.
Clearly, there are feasible alternatives to the one that is recommended for approval that
would reduce the burden to the Coronas.
Newland remains legally responsible for constructing the interceptor challllel as part of
Specific Plan 219. Newland is not entitled to the least expensive alternative for the storm drain,
especially where the least expensive alternative is also the most burdensome to the Coronas.
Therefore, there is no basis for the County to restrict the design of the facility to the amount of
funding available in AD 159.
III. THE CORONAS ARE NOT PROPERLY ASSESSED FOR THE COST OF THE
INTERCEPTOR CHANNEL
The recommended motion would authorize commencement of a change proceeding to
increase the authorized funding for the interceptor channel and issue additional bonds in AD 159.
For 1he following reasons, the Coronas oppose the assessment of costs against their land for the
interceptor channel.
Special assessments cannot be levied against real property that does not benefit from the
improvement being financed. Each property within the area subject to the assessment may only
be assessed a share of the costs of the improvements that is proportional to the benefits it
receives from those improvements, Any supplemental assessment imposed under AD 159 will
need to comply with the substantiv~ and procedural requirements of Proposition 218 (California
Constitution Articles XIII C, XIII D), including notice and election, Since Newland has sold
much of the land it formerly owned within AD 159, there are now numerous landowners within
the area subj ect to the supplemental assessment -- not just the four landowners listed at page 2 of
the staff report.
For several reasons, any assessment imposed on the Coronas' land for the costs of the
inter<:eptor channel under AD 159 is illegal.
First, the proposed interceptor channel does not benefit the Coronas' land, Rather, it
would restore the Coronas' land to the condition that existed prior to construction of Specific
Plan 219 and the improvementsto Butterfield Stage Road that were designed to accommodate
Specific Plan 219, As a result, the Coronas are not properly assessed for the costs of the
~
~
JACK50N, DEMARCO & PECKE1<<>'AUGH
interceptor storm drain.
Second, the cost allocation among the landowners proposed to contribute toward the costs
of the interceptor channel is unfair. All of the Coronas' acreage wIthin AD 159 would be
assessed for the costs of the interceptor channel. Virtually none of that acreage was ever subject
to flooding in a 100-year storm event prior to construction of Specific Plan 219 and Butterfield
Stage Road improvements that blocked the natural drainage channel. The Coronas therefore bear
a disproportionate share of the costs of the interceptor channel.
IV, APPROVAL OF THE RECOMMENDED MOTION WOULD VIOLATE THE
EMINENT DOMAIN LAW
By approving the interceptor channel as proposed, the recommended motion would
effectively predetermine the outcome bfthe mandatory hearing required to be conducted by the
County prior to adopting a resolution of necessity to acquire the Coronas' land'pursuant to the
Eminent Domain Law,
Before it can adopt a resolution of necessity to acquire the Coronas' land by eminent
domain, the County must conduct a hearing and make mandatory findings including a finding
that the project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest
public good and the least private injury, Code of Civil Procedure section 1245,230. By
approving the siting and design of the interceptor channel on the Coronas' land at this time, the
County will illegally predetermine the outcome of the mandatofy hearing.
Siting a 70-foot wide open channel on the Coronas' land would create undue hardship on
the Coronas, The Coronas have not contributed to the flooding condition that has been created
on their land and would not benefit from the interceptor channel. The Coronas would be
burdened with the loss of use of acreage that is now devoted to their ongoing farming operation
and related commercial land uses. The channel would effectively sever their landholding into
two separate parcels.
Newland would realize an undue benefit. Newland would be relieved ofits obligation to
construct the flood control channel as part of Specific Plan 219. A portion of the facility has .
been subsidized by the Coronas who will realize no benefit from it, In addition, Newland has
already profited by building on and selling land that previously provided drainage for the
Coronas' property.
Approving the recommended moiion would preclude public notice and comment on other
feasible alternatives that could accomplish the greatest public good with less private injury. For
example, restoring the natural drainage through Butterfield Stage Road and siting the interceptor
facility on Newland's property would restore the Coronas to the condition they were in prior to
development of Specific Plan 219 and the Butterfield Stage Road improvements. It would also
impose the burden for complying with the flood control condition of Specific Plan 219 where it
4
JACKS 0 N. DEMARCO&. PECKEN PAUGH
belongs _ with the developer of that project. And it would accomplish the goals set forth in the
staffreport to "provide flood protection to Butterfield Stage Road, State Route 79 South, and
downstream properties,"
The Coronas have repeatedly requested that the County consider the alternative of
restoring the natural drainage through Butterfield Stage Road. The Coronas and Leonard
.. Savala, another landowner within AD 159, have provided the County with analyses
demonstrating the technical and economic feasibility of such an alternative. However, the
County has failed to consider the alternative until a few days ago and, although concluding that it
would work, summarily dismissed it as economically infeasible, Upon closer examination, it is
evident that the County is not comparing "apples to apples," In estimating the costs of
"Alternative 6" that would restore the natural flow through Butterfield Stage Road, the County
proposes. a costly underground triple box culvert running through Newland's property. However,
in estimating the costs of the so-called "original alignment" of the interceptor channel, the
County proposes a relatively inexpensive open ditch running through the Coronas' land. As a
result, the lopsided comparison artificially inflates the costs of restoring the natural drainage as
com;Jared to the proposed facility. The only cost difference between siting the facility on the
Coronas' land and on Newland's land is the incremental difference of restoring the flow through ..
culv,erts in Butterfield Stage Road, That cost was recently estimated by KEC Engineering to be
$41],352.
In order to ensure that the project is properly planned and sited in conformity with the
requirements of the Eminent Domain Law, all potentially feasible alternatives must be
considered at the public hearing. Without considering other feasible alternatives, at the
mandatory public hearing, the County cannot find that the proj ect is sited in the manner that will
be jIloSt compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury.
V, APPROV AL OF THE RECOMMENDED MOTION WOULD VIOLATE THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Approvalofthe motion would predispose the outcome of mandatory environmental
proceedings under the California Environmental Quality Act. It is' illegal for the County to
approve the location and design of the interceptor channel without first preparing a subsequent
environmental impact report. A subsequent environmental impact report is required when a
proj ect may have a significant adverse effect on the environment and when there are substantial
changes to a project for which an environmental impact report was previously prepared.
When it authorized the supplemental assessment in 1991, the County did not specify the
location or design of the storm drain and other modifications to the original AD 159 facilities.
Rather, it only generally described the facilities to be funded by the supplemental assessment and
indlded funding for environmental impact reports, feasibility studies and engineering plans
(reference Resolution ofIntention No, 91-553, page 6). The modifications to the AD 159
. facilities, including the proposed interceptor channel, constitute substantial changes to the
5
JACK:30 N. DEMARCO &. PECKENPAUGH
orig:nal project necessitating the preparation of an EIR. The project, as proposed, would have
significant adverse environmental impacts, including (but notlimited to) altering natural
drainage patterns, redirecting flood flows, and converting existing farmland to non-agricultural
use. Our research indicates that no EIR has been prepared to date for the proposed interceptor
charmel.
CEQA prohibits public agencies from approving projects as proposed if there are feasible
altematives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the
significant environmental effects of such projects (Public Resources Code section 21002),
Projects to be carried out by public agencies are subject to the same level of review and
consideration under CEQA as private projects required to be approved by public agencies (Public
Resources Code section 2100 l.l).
By eliminating from further consideration all other potentially feasible alternatives except.
the proposal to construct the storm drain as an open channel through the Coronas' land, the
recommended motion would illegally predetermine the outcome of the mandatory alternatives
analysis required to be conducted by the County pursuant to CEQA,
VI. CONCLUSION
The recommended action effectively removes from public review and comment any
altemative to the interceptor channel besides the proposed project. It also imposes undue.
hardship on the Coronas and undue benefit on Newland. The Coronas urge the Board to deny the
recommended action and instead require development within the City of Temecula to pay its own
way instead of shifting that burden to the County and adjoining landowners, Approval of the
motion would subject the County to legal liability for violating the Eminent Domain Law and the
California Environmental Quality Act, and for damages resulting to the Coronas from the
proposed interceptor channel project.
Respectfully submitted,
\"--~-YJii/iP-d,-{l ~pJ-d
Michele A. Staples
MAS/jaa
Enclosures
3587,,9.1
cc: Mr. Stephen Corona
Mr. George A. Johnson
Tim Davis, Esq., Deputy County Counsel
6
.
JACKSO N. DEMARCO & PECKEN PAUGH
CHRONOLOGY AND SUMMARY OF DOCUMENTS
Submitted on Behalf of the Coronas
No, Description I Date
1. The Developer submitted Specific Plan 219 to the County of Riverside 1987
and omitted the largest drainage flow that existed on BedfordlNewland
development, east to west, between Highway 79 & DePortola Road in
Temecula, CA.
2. The Flood Control advises the Developer that based upon areal 4/6/88
photographs dating back 39 years and topographic mapping dating
back 49 years, the drainage plan regarding DePortola and Butterfield . ,VI
Stage Road "should be reexamined. These matters should be settled
before this specific plan is approved." .
3. The developer's engineers propose an earthen "trapezoidal channel" 5/16/88 ,'^
along Butterfield Stage Road on the Coronas' property. The Coronas
were not informed of this "plan."
4. The Flood Control District advises the developer that its representation 5/26/88 ,
,'^
of the trapezoidal channel "should be considered conceptual with
regard to location and design and the design flow rates and sizes should
be regarded as estimates. This facility should be constructed as a .
permanent facility either onsite or offsite before development of the
downstream area it is meant to protect."
5. A letter from the Flood Control District to the County Road 9/1l/89
Department commenting on the hydrology calculations for the project
stating that "A storm drain will have to be installed from the
intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and De Portola Road to
Temecula Creek since Assessment District 159 is no longer building a
facility in this location." .
6. The District acknowledges "that drainage thought to drain in a 1118/89
southerly direction actually drains onto Bedford's [now, Newland's]
property. The CFS flow for that area needs to be upgraded because the
,Flood Control did not define direction of flow earlier on. An open
channel will be designed for that area." Although continuing to
mention an open channel as a solution, the location is not determined,
7. The Flood Control District informs the developer that "the storm drain 1l/13/89
system in the southeast comer of the [Specific Plan 219] will have to
be completely re-designed due to the absence of an outlet point."
1
JACK~,ON. DEMARCO & f:>ECKEN PAUGH
8. The developer resubmitted the Master Plan of Drainage, still excluding 1/4/90
the southern watershed,
9. Deadline for the "wish list" for the Supplemental Assessment. 1/17/90
10, The City ofTemecula adopts the County Flood Control requirements 1991
for drainage facilities as a condition of approval for amendment to
Specific Plan 219.
II. A letter from the Flood Control District to the City ofTemecula -- 9/23/96 .
"Our district is wrestling with the disposition of approximately 3000
cfs. This is the result of an omission from the infrastructure
constructed by assessment District 159. This flow was planned to be
intercepted upstream from Butterfield Stage Road and routed to
Temecula Creek, across Highway 79, in an open, conCrete lined
channel facility. Consideration must be given to the conditioning of
Tract 24182, and whether these County conditions would require that '.
tract to solve the problem, provided the necessary facility had not been
constructed by Assessment #159." (Coronas were not advised of this
"plan.").
12. A letter from the Flood Control District to the City ofTemecula. 10/16/96
Pressure is being placed on the City and County to allow the developer
to continue their development with the interim basin without
mitigating the flooding hazard created on the Coronas property,
13. RanPac requested a meeting with the Coronas and submitted a plan to 11/8/96
place the channel in the middle of the Coronas property which would
cut the Corona's farm in half.
14. A letter from the Coronas' engineers, Krieger & Stewart, to the 7/30/97
Department of Transportation outlining alternatives for an interceptor
channel that would minimize impacts to the Coronas' current and.
future land uses. Two of the alternatives were ultimately rejected by
the County and one was not studied until a few days ago (restoring the
natural drainage through Butterfield Stage Road with the facility on
Newland's property),
2
JACK50N. DEMARCO&. PECKENPAUGH
15, A memorandum to John DeGange, City of TemecuIa, Project Planner,
from Gerald Alegria, Asst. Engineer. "Conditions of Approval -- Item
32 -- "A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the
initial grading plan check. The study shall identify stomi water runoff -
quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of
the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site,
public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff.
Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving
the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property,
The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of
all facilities. Anv upgrading or uosizing of drainage facilities
necessarY to convev the stonn water runoff shall be provided as oart of
develooment of this oroiect. The basis for analysis and design shall be
astonn with a recurrence interval of one hundred years."
16. . Letter from Coronas' attorney to County requesting CEQA notices and 7/17/97
documents.
17. Letter to the Coronas from George Johnson rejecting two of the 2/17/00
alternatives, and failing to address the alternative of restoring the
natural drainage through Butterfield Stage Road previously requested
by the Coronas.
18. Coronas' letter responding to George Johnson's correspondence 3/14/00
requesting that the County consider the proposed alternative to restore
the natural drainage through Butterfield Stage road with the channel on
the developer's property.'
,
.J
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAl. CORPORATIONS
41530 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE SOUTH. SUITE 120
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92590-4677
MAIN TELEPHONE: (909) 296-5000
FACSIMILE: (909) 296,5006
OffICes in San Diego, and Temecula, CaHfomia
;":." '~:-l ~''-'iC~'~'~: .
[-, C,'()~:'l:!
r:.',' c'. in /-.lhf.:/,'Ji;
January 10,2001
:<,i.:: U:'"ic!aie
SAMua C. AuwlEFF
".. SAliiADEFF@A$i).w(C(Jl;l'~-~'"
. (909) 296-5000
Yesterday &Ji:<2m
. . 9103.00~ t O' .
--.: """Y<: on ~':;C>SS')1Qn' Is'r
,. - -' -.. ',:!.... . ~._"-' I....... . l
. . . ":,-,.,~- '''', 's I t"e c re
' -.." . ,..,...I",..,on e L r on.. r
C'.::: \':e. wiil nothavea proper
,': ~',:,~~'\:' 17th. I am supposed 1
.. [;,:;!h::mlmer on Tuesday. I
Mr. Tony Carstens
County of Riverside
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Mr. Kelly Donovan
County of Riverside
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Re:
Butterfield Interceptor Channel
'..",
Dear Gentlemen:
As you know, we have been working with you concerning the Butterfield Interceptor
Channel ("Channel"). I'know that the Assessment District 159 property owners meeting has
been continued. However, in discussions with Dean Meyer yesterday, we would like the
opportunity, on behalf on Newland Communities, to meet with the appropriate people to discuss
the new alternatives that have been suggested with regard to the Channel. We are hoping that we
c~m have this meeting in the next few days, Please feel free to contact either Dean Meyer or
myself to arrange for the meeting. We assume that the County would want to have the three of
you involved in the meeting and perhaps, any other person that may be necessary in reviewing
this matter. We would IDSO like to suggest that Mr. Stahovich be present for this meeting.
~~
Samuel C. Alhadeff, of "---
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
SCA:sld
cc: Mr. Stuart McKibben
Mr. Dave Stahovich
.\DA T A \CLlENTSINEWLAND COMMUNITIES\CARSTENS LETTER 0 1.1 O.DOC
.8-2z..D1
M.....Ct>.J\J.a.,...DC.
ANOUW r'.llu.......nUl'
BIlJ....."W.CA:.slAl....
J"...",C.'CI~"1"J
J...,.'Ufl;.Dllr>IA,Jl,"
KAIu..\..!;. FIJI!
Jtuc.UM.FWJ;S
HfU,,",ll.FIU..""SZ
ED"'~'~ G>.1.u)W"...
M.Ol...n S. HlroI~tAS<.\"
. WIL.\'.u.t M. Htw....n
f.5cftnJ..cun",
!klU(;Wf.LV'oJl"'II'I
J,>H:-IM..L.l..U.ln
"'.AU.., M.W1I
5.HINL.M..y""..
S"'''"EI'lG.'''''''U'';
. I 0:48am
From-Buchalt- ~emer,Fieldi & Younaer
T-8BS P.007/028 F-OBS
+B48 2S1 1707
JACKSON DENUillCO & PECKENPAUGH
... 1.,\\'" ,:OK,'OK.\T'O:O;
Wun...xl~l'-""tOt'ltE
L"""""K,MI;A""Y
D"V>IJA.OSSt:<TJUoC
lM~l.UD.PICIU~""Uc.>1
J\lIt~~,.C"
G"'c.o),,\".~c.at.
^"':Mof'll.Jllln_
c..Ja,..o.It.R"'MAL
J[NOJt<lASc..o.u"l
N<lDIU:WC.$(:Ml"TZ
MKHlLlA.SfAhIS
D-.lI1NW.ST",wlJ
S"uUl'll. T.v.lnA
~Cr<.<..l!LL.TIDIIS
WllLWIJ.lulIll
,...uLJ;.VA/OH.......ISU,.
JLa.tIIM...W....n..
4 P.l,JUi: PI.AZA. J61'H FlOOA
IItVI~E.C.u.lfO~lA 92ftH
)I)n O,oxCuuD,,,,-I.SlIllllOD
~'B'lAJtt V'Luo'LC........'II."'.. 91)61
Tnfl'.,1?6.1210/IOUJO.OO1)
fA.1l "U..."..1171IJOUlO,OOIl7
P.O. Box U704
lp.vlN't.CA1.IFOlU<llA (262).97D4
HL 949.7S1.8saS
f.u 949.752.DS!17
ww\oY.jdpl4\w.l:om
L.\O'lUl<C;\R.tlf.S",ICIt
1>fC&>\n<lSlL
fltllAMCKITI"'CII
ll;[TlIlill
Ou~ fIll tI",,,,U~
28878
t-p.u.IL:
August 13,200 I
d,uoud@jdpl.w,com
"'lUnll~ [IlueT DloU toIUM.U.:
(949) 851-7404
VIA FACSIMILE AND HAND DELIVERY
Chairman James A. Venable
Riverside County Board of Supervisors
4080 Lemon Street, 14'" Floor
Riverside, California 92501
Re: Agenda Item 13.3
Comment5 on Proposed Colorado Pacific Commllnities Project and
Requestfor Condition of Approval
Dear Chairman Venable and Honorable Board Members:
We represent James and Mary Corona and the Corona family (collectively the
"Coronas") with respect to their propenies located at the northeast eomer of the intersection of
Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79, We request thaI this lener be included in the
administiative record for this matter, The Coronas own property on the north side of Highway
79 across from lhe Colorado Pacific.Project. The Coronas were informed of the Colorado Pacific
Communities Project ("Project") for lhe first time only a few days ago. The Coronas are
concerned about the lack of consideration being given in evaluating the impacts of the Project on
the Assessment District J 59 Butterfield East Interceptor Channel flood conuol facility
("Inlerceptor Channel"), As discussed below, since the Project in ilS current form would creafe
significant environrnenlal impacts and conflict with existing surrounding land uses, the Coronas
request that any approval of the Project be conditioned upon dedication of an easement to the
Riverside County flood Conuol Dislricl for the Interceptor Channcl. The requested easemenl
could easily be accommodated while mainlaining lhe Project densities by minor revisions to
~B-Z2'OI
.ID:49am From-Buchalter ~'mer,Filld, , Yaun'lr
'141 251 1101
T-IIS P.00I/02B F-OIS
.-'
J....CKSO!'i DEMARCO & PECJ<EKPAUGJI
Chainnan Jam~s A. Venable
August 13, 2001
Page 2
roads On the eastern end of the Project, If the County is unwilling to incorporate the requested
easement at this time, the County, at a minimum. should continue this matter to the next Board of
Supervisors' meeting to allow the Coronas to further work with Planning Commission staff and
the Project applicant to address their concerns with the Project,
I. BACKGROUND
The Project consists of subdividing 46 gross acres into 122 residential lots. In or
about June 200 I, the Pianning Commission issued its recommendation that the Board of
Supervisors adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, approve Chan!o\e of Zone No. 06583. and
approve Tentative Tract Map No. 30052, The Coronas did not receive notice of the Planning
Commission hearing,
For over a year, the Coronas and other landowners within Assessment District 159
who have been assessed for the Interceptor Channel flood control facility have been meeting
regularly with representatives of the County of Riverside's Executive Office, Transportation and
Land Management Agency, Flood Control District, and County Counsel's office to devise a
mutually-agreeable Interceptor Channel design and alignment, One of the alternatives previously
proposed by the County included an open channel through the Comnas' land 70 feet wide, 1,000
feet long. and 10 feet deep. This proposed alignment would effectively bisect the Coronas' land,
causing undue hardship and seriously damaging their ongoing farming and commercial
operations and eventual development,
F onunately, twO other feasible alignments were de' eloped. However, one of
them (on the west side of Butterfield Stage Road) was eliminated earlier this year by the
County's approval of incompatible construction of Ralphs Store buildings across the proposed
alignment. The Ralphs Store construction project, as originally pnlposed, could have
accommodated the Interceptor Channel. However, the Project was revised to place buildings
across the alternative Interceptor Cannel alignment without nOlice to the Coronas even though
they had requested notice of any project revisions inconsistent with the Interceptor Channel
alignments (see corrcspondence to the Board of Supervisors datcd October 2, 2000, enclosed and
incorporated by this reference).
The Coronas' engin""r, Bob Krieger, has been working closely with lhe County
Flood Control District to analyze and confirm the feasibility of lotating the Interceptor Channel
facility at an alignment approximately 4,800 feet east of the intersection of Bunerfield Stage
Road and Highway 79. This is the only alignment agreed upon by all oCthe panicipating
; z....----.-.
/
.OB-22-01
. 10:49am From-Buthalt~~emer,Field, , Younler
t941 151 1707
7-B16 P.00I/01B F-016
.J,-\.('KSOK DJ,:M,'<RCO 6.:: PECKEI"P.-\.CGH
Chairman James A, Venable
August J 3.2001
Page 3
Assessment District 159 landowners. Maintaining the integrity of this alignment for a flood
control facility is necessary to accomplish the purposes of Assessment District 159 without
undue harm to the Coronas or any other propeny owner. Nevertheless, the Projec!. as proposed,
would place homes across the alignment, effectively eliminating the alignment.
II. REOUESTED MJTIGA TION MEASURE AND CONDITION OF APPROVAL
Through the Project site, thc agreed-upon alignment for the Interceptor ChalUlel
flood control facility consists of an underground box culven, 30 feet wide, running north to
south, The required setback necessary to accommodate the Interceptor Channel can be easily
accommodated within the project densitics and without interfering with underground utilities by
revising the roads on the eastern end of the Project. In order to alleviate the significant Project
impacts that would otherwise require the preparation of an environmental impact repon ("EIR")
pursuant to the California Environmental Qaulity Act ("CEQA,") the Coronas recommend
including an additional mitigation measure and condition of approval, as follows:
A future nonh-sourh flood control structure is being planned
through the Project site as the Assessment District 159 Buuerfield
East Interceptor Channel at approximately 4,800 feel east of the
intersection of Bunerfield Stage Road and Highway 79, The
developer will provide a drainage easement to the Flood Control
District for the flood control structure, The drainage easement
shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions,
III. VIOLATION OF NOTICE REOUlREMENTS
The Coronas have spent dozens of hours and tens of thousands of dollars over the
past year meeting regularly with County personnel and other landowners within Assessment
District 159 to develop and evaluate the agreed-upon alignment for the Interceptor Channel.
COUnty personnel participating in those meetings, as recently as June 2001, include Dusty
Williams and Stuart McKibbin of the Riverside County Flood Control District, Tony Carstens of
the Executive Office, David Barnhart, George Johnson and Jerry Norris of the Transponation and
Land Management Agency, and Tim Davis of the County Counsel's office, Many of these same
individuals and entities were involved in planning and plan checking the proposed Colorado
Pacific Project. Additionally, Trans-Pacific Consultants, the engineer for the Colorado Pacific
project, developed the conceptual plans for the eastern alignment of the Assessment District 159
Interceptor Channel just last year. Yet. the Project calls for the incompatible construction of
residences across the very alignment that has been the focus of the meetings and analyses on the
Interceptor Channel facility.
08-ZZ"01 .10:49>. Fro.-Buch.lt.. ....r.Fi.ld.' You...r
+141 Z51 IT07
T-816 POIO/OZ8 F-OI6
.J.-\.C.li:SON DeMARCO (\: PJ:;CKE1\."P.:\.UGH
Chairman James A. Venable
August 13. 2001
Page 4
Despite the Coronas' regular meetings wirh County staff and correspondence to
the Board of Supervisors concerning the impacts that the Interceptor Channel's alignment has on
their property, the Coronas received nO notice, written or otherwise, of the Project until a few
days ago when they received notice of the AugUSt 14, 2001. Board of Supervisors hearing.
Accordingly, the County has violated procedural due process requirements here by not providing
the Coronas notice and the opportunity to be heard prior to the August 14,200 I Board of
Supervisors hearing.
Case law is clear [hat where a land use decision will "exceptionally affect" a
property owner Or business user, the COWllY must provide that person with notice and the
opportunity to be heard, Horn v. County of Ventura, 24 Cal.3d 605, 615 (1979); Harris v.
County of Riverside, 904 F.2d 497 (9" Cir. 1990), In theirleners dated April 18, 2000 and
August 3, 2000, the Coronas detailed the impacts to their property rdared to the Interceptor
Channel's alignment, The April 8 and August 3, 2000 leners are enclosed and incorporated by
this reference.
Moreover, one of the essential features ofCEQA is public involvement. 14 Ca\.
Code Regs. S 15201', As stated by the California Supreme Coun, lhe public holds a "privileged
poSition" in the CEQA process, Concerned Citizens ofCosla Meso v, 32"" Disirict Agricultural
Association, 42 Ca1.3d 929 (1986). Therefore, it is of paramount in1portance that the public be
meaningfully involved in the process, A review of recently obtained County records for this
Project indicates that the Coronas' name appears on the County's list of landowners within 600
feet of the Project boundaries that were to receive notice of the COlUUY' s intent to adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") for this Project as well a, the Planning Commission's
public hearing on the Project. However, in violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the
Coronas never received notice of the MND for this Project, which is inconsiStent with the
agreed-upon Interceptor Channel aligrunent. In fact, the Coronas did not become aware of the
Project or the MND until only last week, well after the close of the public comment period on the
MND and after the Planning Commission hearing where the MND and Project were
recommended for approval.
As a result of the lack of notice for this Project, the Coronas have been denied a
meaningful opPortunity under CEQA and due process law to inform the County of the significant
unmitigatt:d impacts of the proposed project and participate in the decision making process,
Accordingly. the Coronas are hopeful that because the County has prejudiced them by waiting
Hereafter citations to 14 Cal. Code of Regs, 9915000 er seq, shall be referred to
as the CEQA Guidelines.
DI-U-Ot
IO:SO.m
Fr~m-Buchalt~~ ~8m8r.Fi8IdE , Yaun,ar
+949 151 ITOT
T-196 P.OII/D1I F-096
J."-CKSON DEM,-'.RCO 6:: PECKENP..-\.t}GU
Chairman James A, Venable
August 13,2001
Page 5
until this late date to notify them of the Project, me County will include in me Project approval
and adopted mitigation measures the dedication of an easement to me Riverside County Flood
Control District for the Interceptor Channel.
IV. AN EIR MUST BE PREPARED FOR THE COLORADO PACIFIC PROJECT
SINCE THE PROJECT MAY HAVE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS TO LAND USE PLANNING AND UTILITIES
The County's MND for the Project concludes that its impacts to land use planning
and utilities would be less than significant, Accordingly, no mitigation is included for these
Project impacts. However, from a fair reading of the MND, it is abundantly clear that the
County's conclusions were based on cursory analyses of these impact arcas. Mr. McKibbin has
confirmed that me MND's analyses do not consider the Project's in~onsistency with the
Interceptor Channel's agreed-upon alignment or the resuhing impacts to the Coronas' land.
Therefore, because a "fair argument" exists that me Project may have significant wunitigated
~nvironmental impacts. the Counry must prepare an EIR and cannOl properly adopt a negative
declaration for the Colorado Pacific project, Public Resources Cod~ lis 21100,21151; CEQA
Guidelines ~~ 15002 (k)(3), 15063(b)(I), 15064(a)(I) & (g)(I), 15362,
As the lead agency for the Project under CEQA. the County "can and must, , .
scrupulously enforce alllegislativcly mandated CEQA requirements," Citizens ofGolera Valley
v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal.3d 553, 563 (1990). "Full compliance with the lettcr ofCEQA is
essential to the maintenance of its important public purpose, . . ' " Resource Defense Fund v.
Local Agency Formation Commission. 191 Ca1.App.3d 886. 897-911 (1987), "If CEQA is
scrupulously followed. the public will know the basis on which its responsible officials either
approve or reject environmentally significant action, and the public, being duly informed, can
respond accordingly to action with which it disagrees." Laurel Heighrs Improvements
Auociarion. Inc. v. Regenrs of rhe Universify of California, 47 Cal.3d 376, 392 (1988).
Moreov.:r~ according to San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. Metropolitan Water District,
71 Cal.App.4th 382 (1999):
"the agency must prepare an fIR whenever substantial evidence in
the record suppons a fair argument that' a proposed project may
have a significant effect on the envirorunenl. [Citations.] 'If such
evidence is found, it cannot be overCome by substalllial evidence to
the contrary.' [Citations.) [~] 'The lead agency's determination is
thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolve conflicts in
the evidence but determines only whether substantial evidence
exists in the record to support me prescribed fair argument.'
OB-ZZ-)I
IO:5Dam From-Buchalter ~em8r.Fiald, & Youn.ar
+B49 Z51 ITDT
H9S POIZlOZB HIS
.T,'I.CRS01< DEM..-'I.R('O &. PECKE""_'I.UGH
Chainnan James A. Venable
August 13,2001
Page 6
[Citation,] The coun's 'function is to determine whether
substantial evidence supponed the agency's conclusion as to
whether the prescribed 'fair argument' could be made.'
[Citation.}"
San Bernardino Valley Audubon Sociery, 71 Cal.App.4th at 389; quoting Gemry v, Ciryof
Murriera, 36 Ca1.App.4th 1359, 1399-1400 (1995); See a/so Leagu,'for Prorecrioll ofOakland's
ArchirecturQI & Historic Resources v, City Of Oakland, 52 Cal.App.4th 896 (1997); Ciri:;;ens'
Committee to Save Our Village v, Ciry ofCloremonl, 37 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1167-1169 (1995);
Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. Ciry of Encinitas, 29 Cal.App,4th 1597 (1994);
Sundstrom v, COUnI of Mendocino, 202 Cal.App.3d 296 (1988); Friends of "S" Street v, Ciry of
Hayward, 106 Ca1.App,3d 988 (1980),
Notably, the "fair argument" standard creates a low Ihreshold for requiring the
preparation of an EIR. eitizens Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley, 22 Cal.App,3d 748. 754
(1990); Sundstrom, 202 Ca1.App,3dat 310, quoting No Oil, Inc. v, Ciry of Los Angeles, 13 Cat.3d
68, 75 (1974) ("No Oil f'), This standard is founded on the principle that because adopting a
mitigated negative declaration has a "terminal effect on the envirorunental review process,"
Citizens of Lake Murray, 129 Cal.App.3d at 440, an EIR is necessary to resolve "uncertainty
created by conflicting assertions" and to "substitute some degree of cenainty , ' ," No Oil I, 13
CaL3d at 85, Accordingly, if substantia! evidence suppOrtS a "fair argwnent" that a project may
have a significant environmental effect', the lead agency must prepare an EIR despite other
substantial evidence which indicates that the project will not have a ,significant impact. Friends
of"B" Streer, 106 Cal.App.3d at 1002,
V, THE PROJECT WILL CREATE SIGNIFICANT UNMITIGATED LAND lISE
AND PLANNING IMP ACTS
The MND slates that a significant impact could occur if the Project results in a
substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area, is inconsistent with existing
and planned surrounding uses, or would disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
, Public Resources Code S 21068 indicates that a .U significant effect on the
environment' means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment." .
CEQA Guidelines S 15382 further defines "significant effect on the environrnent"as a
"substantial, or potentially substantial. adverse change in any of the physical conditions within
the area affected by the project. including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise,
and objects of historic or aesthetic significance,"
OB-ZZ-Ol
lD:5Dam From-Buchalle< ~emer.Fiald, , Youn,er
+B4B 151 1707
T-BBS P.01llD1B F-096
J,~CJ;:50N U,,;MARCO <I< PECJffi~,"UGJ{
Chairman James A, Venable
AugUSt 13, 2001
Page 7
established community, MND, pp" 19-20, However, the MND concludes that the Project's land
use and planning impacts would be insignificant and no mitigation measures whatsoever were
incorporated.
Newnheless. there is overwhelming substantial evid~nce that says otherwise, The
Interceptor Channel must be constructed to satisfy the purposes of Assessment District 159 for the
orderly development of lands in the vicinity ofthe Project site, including the Coronas' property,
In order to maintain the integrity of the Interceptor Channel flood control facility alignment. it is
necessary that construction projects south of Highway 79 and nonh ofTemecula Creek be
consistent with the Interceptor Channel's planning effon, The Project, as proposed, is
inconsistent with, and would therefore eliminate, the only a1ignmem for the Interceptor Channel
agreed to by the landowners in Assessment District 159 who have been assessed for those
facilities. The County has eliminated another alignment for the Interceptor Channel by approving
an inconsistent developmem project earlier this year. Therefore, if the COUnty approves the
Colorado Pacific project as proposed, the only remaining Imerceptor Channel aligrunem which
has been opposed by the Coronas and others, and would create a 70-foot wide chasm dividing the
Coronas' land, causing undue hardship and seriously damaging their ongoing farming and
commercial operations and eventual development. If, on the other hand, the County fails to
construct the Interceptor Channel, it would fail to complete the Assessment District 159 facilities
that are necessary to remove the flood hazard created to the Coronas' land and commercial
buildings by construction of the Bunerfield Stage Road improvements and other development in
the natural drainage channel. Therefore, approval of the Project would create significant
unmitigated land use and planning impacts and an EIR must be prepared.
Siting a 70-foot wide open channel on the Coronas' land would create undue
hardship on the Coronas, The Coronas have not contributed to the flooding condition that has
been created on their land and that the Interceptor Channel is to remedy. The Coronas would be
burdened with the loss of use of acreage that is now devoted to their ongoing farming operation
and related commercial land uses, The channel would effectivcly 'ever their landholding into two
separate parcels, Therefore, the Proposed project would create significant unmitigated land use
and planning impacts. The lead agency musr accept conflicting evidence from a quali fied cxpen
showing a significanl impact may occur, as the agency cannot weigh compcting evidence. See
Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Board of Supervisors, 183 Cal.App.3d 229,249 (1986); Brentwood
ASSOCiation for No Drilling v. City of Los Angeles, 134 Cal.App,3d 491, 504 (1982) (emphasis
added,) Also, statements made by members of the public supponed by adequate factual
foundation constilUle substantial evidence. See Oro Fino Gold Mining Corporation v. County of
El Dorado, 225 Cal.App,3d 872. 882 (1990); Citi7.ens Association for Sensible Development of
Bishop Are" v. County of In yo, 172 Cal.App.3d 151. 173 (1985).
OB-~Z-OI.IO:Slam From-Buch.ller -'mor.Fiold., Younur
+949 ZSI 1107
T-B96 POl4/0ZB F-096
~
J.\.ChSO": DEMARCO &. PECJU:NP_\.UGH
Chairman James A, Venable
August 13, 2001
Page 8
Additionally. the approval of the Project and adoption oflhe MND would
effectively predetermine the outcome of the mandalOry hearing required 10 be conducted by the
County prior to adopting a resolution of necessity to acquire the Coronas' land pursuant to the
Eminent Domain Law,
As the County is undoubtedly aware, before it can adopt a resolution of necessiry
to acquire the Coronas' land by eminent domain, the County mUSt conduct a hearing and make
mandatory findings including a finding that the project is planned or located in the manner that
will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least'private injury, Code of Civil
Procedure ~ 1245,230. By approving the proposed Project in its current form (which would result
in causing the siting of the Interceptor Channel on the Coronas land), the County will illegally
predetermine the outcome of the mandatoI)' hearing. This approach is improper. In
Redevelopment Agency v. Norm's Slauson, 173 Cal.App.3d 1121 (J 986)("Norm's Slauson"), the
court held that an agency's contracts with a developer for construction of a condominium project,
before instituting condemnation proceedings. was a gross abuse of discretion, and that the
subsequent adoption of a resolution of necessity to justify the prior decision was an example of
"rubber stamping":
"1n the inStant case, it seems clear that the hearing "hich led to the
adoption of the resolution of necessity was a sham and the Agency's
policy making board simply' rubber stamped' a predetermined
result.
"By the time the Agency actually conducted a hearing to determine
the 'necessity' for taking the property in question. it had, by virtUe
of its contract with the developer an issuance of revenue bonds,
irrevocably commined itself to take the property in question,
regardless of any evidence that might be present~d at that
hearing. . . .n
..
Norm Slauson, 173 Cal.App.3d at 1127,
In order to ensure that the project is properly planned and sited in conformity with
the requirements ohh. Eminent Domain Law, all potentially feasible alternatives must be
considered at the public hearing. Without considering other feasible alternatives. at the
mandatory public hearing, the County cannot find thatlhe project is sited in the manner that will
be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury.
.D8-~2-01
lQ:51am From-Bucnaltef.Nemer.Filldi , YounKer
+849 251 1707
1-998 P.015/029 F-098
.JACKSO],,\ DEM.~CO ...\: PECE:E:!'o"P.-\.UGH
Chairnlan James A, Venable
August 13, 2001
Page 9
VI. THE PROJECT WILL CREA TE UNMITIGATED UTILITIES IMP ACTS
The MND states that the Project' 5 impacts to storm water drainage facilities,
services and plans would be less than significant, However, by proposing to site residences across
the agreed-upon alignment for the Interceptor Channel facilities on the eastern end of the Project,
approval of the Project will jeopardize the construction of the Interceptor Channel and will have
serious consequences to the Coronas' land,
Last year, County staff requested that the Board approve staffs proposal to site the
Interceptor Channel as an open ditch through the middle of the Coronas' land. The maUer was
ultimately withdrawn from the Board's agenda due to opposition raised by the Coronas and lack
of consensus among the Assessment District 159 landowners for such a burdensome facility (see
correspondence to Board of Supervisors dated April 8 and August ~,2000). Earlier this year, the
County approved an inconsistent development project thereby eliminating one of the two other
alignments identified for the Interceptor Channel. If the Board approves the Colorado Pacific
Project as currently proposed, it would eliminate the only other alternative alignment identified
for the Interceptor Channel. and the only alignment that is agreeable to all of the Assessmem
District 159 landowners who have been assessed for the flood control facility. Such a decision
necessarily would result in the siting of the Interceptor Channel in a manner that bisects the
Coronas' land as advanced by Coumy stafflast year, or else the failure to construct the facility as
necessary to meet the requitements of Assessment District 159 and alleviate the flood risk created
on the Coronas' land by the construction of Butterfield Stage Road improvements and other
development in the natural drainage channel. As a result, approval of the Project would expose
the County to significant severance damages Or inverse condemnation award due 10 the serious
consequences to the Coronas' land. Since the Project. as proposed, conflicts with plans for
necessary storm water drainage facilities, approval of the Project would create significant
urimitigatcd utilities impacts and an EIR must be prepared.
VB. THE PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURE WOULD REDUCE UNMITIGATED
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO INSIGNIFICANCE
The Project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts, including
(but not limited 10) conflicting with surrounding land uses and necessary storm drain facilities,
Accordingly, the County must either prepare an EIR for the Project or implement additional
mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance. CEQA
prohibits public agencies from approving projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or
feasible mitigation measures available ",hich would substantially lessen the significant
envirorunental effects of such projects, Public Resources Code S 21000, The requested
mitigation measure and condition of approval se! forth above can be implemented consistent with
. 08-ll-1I1 '10:51... Fro.-Buch.1tor.No.or,Fiold. 'Younur
'949 l51 1707
1-896 P.016/0l8 F-096
JAChSO!'O DEMARCO &: PECKJ'ro.-PAl.'GII
Chaimlan James A. Venable
August 13, 2001
Page 10
the Projecl objeclives by revising roads on the eastern end of Ihe Project site, By including the
requested mitigation measure and condition of approval. thc Project's significant environmental
impacts would be reduced to a level of insignificance.
VIII, CONCLUSION
In order \0 avoid significanl, unmitigated environmental impacts thaI would
otherwise require the preparation of an EIR for Ihe Colorado Pacific project, the Coronas request
mal the above requested miligation measure be incorporated in the MND and the Condirions of
Approval for Ihis Projccl, Otherwise, the maner should be continued to allow for consideration
and miligalion of the Projecl's impacts to the Assessment District 159 Interceptor Channel and the
resulting impacts to the Coronas. Tbis is only fair, considering thai me Coronas only became
aware of Ihis maner recently due the C<;>unt)l' s failure to provide adequate notice,
Your efforts toward incorporating Ihe recommended mirigation in any Project
approval are greally appreciated, We thank you for your consideration of this request.
Very truly yours,
;/:~.~
DWS/jaa
Enclosures
4222;..1.2
cc: Stephen Corona (w/encls,)
Katherine Lind, Deputy County Counsel (via messenger) (w/encls.)
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
z
0 10
;:
<
"
2
" 11
0
u
~
<
z 12
~
o.w
.J'
.J~ 13
-.
"'<
<0
.Jz
,- 14
0
.\.&~
u..~ 15
u..
Ul-
0;
<"
"'~ 16
.J.
<:
>
. 17
3
;;
<
3
0 18
w
.
:;
3 19
<
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"
Board of Supervisors Meeting
September 25, 2001
. Item 13.1
Ron Goldman
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, Ron Goldman of
Planning Staff. This is a change of zone in the tract map in the
Temecula area, specifically located on the south side of Highway
79. It was continued from last month to discuss some issues with
the adjacent property owner. The project proposes the
subdivision of 46 acres into 120 lots. What's happened since the
last hearing is that the map has been redesigned. Admitted No. 2
was submitted and the area in question has been redesigned in
this area here and it resulted in a net reduction of two lots and
with that we think all of the issues have been solved and we're
prepared to recommend adoption of mitigated negative declaration,
approval of the tract map and approval of the change of zone.
Thank you.
Supervisor Venable
Okay any questions Supervisor, or you want to open for public
hearing or what.
Supervisor Buster
Just a question about the two lot reduction. The developer is
absorbing that. No County flood control involvement, or cost
involvement?
Ron Goldman
That's my understanding, yes.
1
C:\Data\Clients\BOARD OF SUPERVISORS\9.25.01 (Colorado Pacific) .doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
,
0 10
~
<
-
2
- II
0
u
"
<
, 12
~
~.
~.
~~ 13
~<
<0
",
Q 14
, ~
~d
. ,
~-
~. 15
w-
Q~
<-
=~ 16
~~
<:
>
~ 17
3
~
<
3
Q 18
.
~
.
3 19
<
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Supervisor Venable
Okay we'll open for public hearing. We have two speakers, the
first will be Sam AIRadeff and following Sam will be Michelle
Staples.
Sam Alhadeff
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and Board Members. We represent
Colorado Pacific, the developer of this particular project. At
the hearing on August 14 there was a request by the Corona family
for a redesign ot this particular map to provide for some
drainage. They raised some other questions in a letter of August
13 and would be my sincere desire that as a result of the
revision of the map to accommodate their request for a certain
drainage pattern and condition that they would respectfully
withdraw their letter of August 13 concerning the issues that
they had raised. Supervisor Buster you are correct, there is no
additional cost to the County. This developer met on a number of
occasions with staff at the County. I wish to thank Staff of the
County met with the Corona family and their counsel and is
agreeable to absorbing all of the costs. The only request we
would have if, as and when. If, as and when this project is ever
built that we would be, if there was an opportunity to be
reimbursed through a financing mechanism, that's all we would
request. If, as and when, but we're certainly, that's our modest
request.
I am happy to answer any questions. We think we've
addressed all of the issues that were raised in the letter.
Unfortunately, Ms. Staples sent a letter dated today to the
Board. We did not get a copy, but the copy that was handed to me
by Mr. Johnson it appears that we have done the revised lot
2
C:\Data\ClientS\BOARD OF SUPERVISORS\9.25.01 (Colorado Pacific) .doc
1
2
::
4
c'
.'
6
.,
,
B
9
z
0 10
~
<
"
0
.
" lJ.
0
0
"
<
z 1"
~ <.
...
"'.
"'~ 13
Ii:
<0
~z
, . 14
Q
~
'de:
, z
... 1"
...
Ill. "
Q~
<"
"'~ 16
"'"
<~
.
>
" 17
~
Jii
<
~
Q 1B
.
"
:;
~ 19
<
20
21
2"
..
23
24
2"
,}
26
27
2B
configuration they requested and that's the revised map that Ron
referred to.
I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Supervisor Venable
I don't see any Sam so.
I'll call you back, thank you very
much. Michele.
Michele Stap1e~
Good afternoon, Michele Staples representing the Coronas. We
submitted two comment letters, so I'll keep my comments brief.
Mr. Alhadeff is correct, the Coronas' engineer has worked
cooperatively with Colorado Pacific's engineer to redesign the
program, the project. We have put the interceptor channel in a
road now, so It has minimum impact on this project. However,
today I also requested, as I did in our last letter, that there
will also be a condition of approval requiring that that area be
kept free from obstruction and that an easement be conveyed to
the flood control district for that facility. The first part of
that request is vitally important. What happened with another of
these interceptor channel alignments in the vicinity of the south
of Butterfield Stage Road and on the southwest corner, was that a
tentative map was approved for a project that did not show any
obstruction, any lot obstructing the channel alignment. We
submitted a letter supporting that project as proposed. However,
it was later changed without notice to my client and buildings
were constructed that precluded that alignment. We need to have
a condition on this project that prevents that from happening
again. I would request that the Board in approving this project
also approve a condition that that area be kept free from
obstruction.
3
C:\Data\Clients\BOARD OF SUPERVISORS\9.25.01 (Colorado Pacific) .doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
z
0 10
"
<
"
~
" 11
0
u
"
<
z 12
~
...
"'"
"'~ 13
-"
"'<
<0
-'z
,- 14
0
\d d
, z
~- 15
~"
"'-
o~
<"
'"~ 16
"'"
<~
>
" 17
,
.
<
,
'0 18
.
"
Si
, 19
<
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Supervisor Venable
Okay thank you Michelle.
MiChelle Staples
Thank you.
Supervisor Venable
Uh...
???
Ms. Staples can you come back to the microphone, I have a
question for you. In your letter you asked for much more than
just the drainage easement be kept free of building and
obstructions, you're revising your request to simply indicate
that today?
Michelle Staples
Yes, that's a minimum of what we absolutely what we need.
???
Does staff a problem with that sort of condition? Staff does
not. So I don't either.
Michelle Staples
Thank you.
Supervisor Buster
I don't have any problem with that. Is that tantamount to saying
we're going to select that as the drainage easement.
???
No, however,
Supervisor Buster
So we haven't done that?
???
No we have not.
4
C:\Data\Clients\BOARD OF SUPERVISORS\9.25.01 (Colorado Pacific) .doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
z
0 10
"
<
"
~
" 11
0
u
.
<
z 12
~
~w
~.
~~ 13
~~
<0
~z
'0 14
0
~d
~~
~. 15
~-
Q~
<"
~~ 16
~~
<~
>
~ 17
"
.
<
"
0 18
w
~
i
" 19
<
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Supervisor Buster
Haven't selected it yet.
???
No you have not and I would not recommend that you do that.
Supervisor Buster
Do you have a reason to attach a condition that would if in deed
this has not been selected as the drainage easement.
???
As to the originally requested the wording it was fixing this is
the option. But she's revised the request now to simply ask that
this easement be kept free of building an obstructions, and that
does not fix the easement. You may put this channel wherever you
like.
Supervisor Buster
All right, in the alternative is it possible to have better
notification procedures so if there is some proposal that does
obstruct this area that there is notice to at least the
neighbors. I mean, Corona her clients are just across the
street, you know are across 79, so is that another possible way
to handle this rather than a cumbersome method of.
???
Well the problem is that notice isn't always required for things
like building permits. So my concern is that someone could
actually build in there without this requirement and we would
never be notified.
???
But it doesn't foreclose any option in a way that you've outlined
Ms. Staples' request.
5
C:\Data\Clienta\BOARD OF SUPERVISORS\9.25.01 (Colorado Pacific) .doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
z
0 10
"
<
"
~
" 11
0
u
"
<
z 12
~
.
~.
0-1'
0-10 13
"
ci~
<0
o-Iz
,- 14
0
\d
i...~
~, 15
"'-
0;:;
<"
o:~ 16
0-1"
<~
>
" 17
,
;;
<
,
0 18
.
"
:;
, 19
<
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Supervisor Venable
No it does not, not as it has been narrowed today.
???
Thank you Michele.
Michele Staples
Thank you.
Supervisor Venable
Next Sam.
Sam Alhadeff
Maybe it will help the Board, given the narrow construction I do
want to thank Ms. Staples for her construction of this easement
that the only thing we are going to build there is a road and I
don't believe that's an obstruction, so we don't have a problem.
Supervisor Venable
Okay, does anyone else from the public like to speak on this
item. If not we'll close the public hearing. Supervisor Buster
Supervisor Buster
I'll move approval with that additional condition, I guess it is.
Supervisor Venable
Please vote. That motion is carried 5-0. Takes us to item 13.2.
6
C:\oata\ClientS\BOARD OF SUPERVISORS\9.25.01 (Colorado Pacific) .doc
1
2
3
4
, - 5
6
7
8
9
%
0 10
~
<
'"
~
'" l.l
0
u
~
<
% 12
0
...
-'
... 13
01
<:
-'
, ~ 14
" l
.u,
u, " 15
III
"
<:
'" 16
-'
<:
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Board of Supervisors Meeting
September 25, 2001
- Item 13.1
Ron Goldman
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, Ron Goldman of
Planning Staff. This is a change of zone in the tract map in the
Temecula area, specifically located on the south side of Highway
79. It was continued from last month to discuss some issues with
the adjacent property owner. The project proposes the
subdivision of 46 acres into 120 lots, What's happened since the
last hearing is that the map has been redesigned. Admitted No. 2
was submitted and the area in question has been redesigned in
this area here and it resulted in a net reduction of two lots and
with that we think all of the issues have been solved and we're
prepared to recommend adoption of mitigated negative declaration,
approval of the tract map and approval of the change of zone.
Thank you.
Supervisor Venable
Okay any questions Supervisor, or you want to open for public
hearing or what.
Supervisor Buster
Just a question about the two lot reduction. The developer is
absorbing that. No County flood control involvement, or cost
involvement?
Ron Goldman
That's my understanding, yes.
1
C:\Oata\Clients\BOARD OF SUPERVISORS\9.25.01 (Colorado Pacific) .doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
.
0 10
.
<
"
~
" 11
0
u
~
<
. J.2
5
~w
~.
~~ 13
~<
<0
~.
'3 14
"
.d
~~ 15
~.
~-
Q~
<"
x~ 16
~~
<~
.
>
~ 17
~
~
<
~
Q 18
~
~
i
~ 19
<
20
:~1
22
23
24
25
:!6
27
28
Supervisor Venable
Okay we'll open for public hearing. We have two speakers, the
first will be Sam Alaadeff and following Sam will be Michelle
Staples,
Sam Alhadeff
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and Board Members. We represent
Colorado Pacific, the developer of this particular project. At
the hearing on August 14 there was a request by the Corona family
for a redesign of this particular map to provide for some
drainage. They raised some other questions in a letter of August
13 and would be my sincere desire that as a result of the
revision of the map to accommodate their request for a certain
drainage pattern and condition that they would respectfully
withdraw their letter of August 13 concerning the issues that
they had raised. Supervisor Buster you are correct, there is no
additional cost to the County. This developer met on a number of
occasions with staff at the County.
I wish to thank Staff of the
County met with the Corona family and their counsel and is
agreeable to absorbing all of the costs. The only request we
would have if, as and when. If, as and when this project is ever
built that we would be, if there was an opportunity to be
reimbursed through a financing mechanism, that's all we would
request.
If, as and when, but we're certainly, that's our modest
request.
I am happy to answer any questions. We think we've
addressed all of the issues that were raised in the letter.
Unfortunately, Ms. Staples sent a letter dated today to the
Board. We did not get a copy, but the copy that was handed to me
by Mr. Johnson it appears that we have done the revised lot
2
C:\Oata\Clients\BOARD OF SUPERVISORS\9.2S.01 (Colorado Pacific) .doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
~
0 10
"
~
~
" 11
0
u
"
<
~ 12
5
~.
~.
~~ 13
'.
~<
<0
~3 14
0
~
Idd
~~
~. 15
~-
Q~
<"
~~ 16
~~
<~
>
~ 17
~
=
<
~
0 18
.
~
i
~ 19
<
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
configuration they requested and that's the revised map that Ron
referred to.
I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Supervisor Venable
I don't see any Sam so.
I'll call you back, thank you very
much, Michele.
Michele Staple~
Good afternoon, Michele Staples representing the Coronas. We
submitted two comment letters, so I'll keep my comments brief.
Mr. Alhadeff is correct, the Coronas' engineer has worked
cooperatively with Colorado Pacific's engineer to redesign the
program, the project, We have put the interceptor channel in a
road now, so lt has mtnimum impact on this project. However,
today I also requested, as I did in our last letter, that there
will also be a condition of approval requiring that that area be
kept free from obstruction and that an easement be conveyed to
the flood control district for that facility. The first part of
that request is vitally important. What happened with another of
these interceptor channel alignments in the vicinity of the south
of Butterfield Stage Road and on the southwest corner, was that a
tentative map was approved for a project that did not show any
obstruction, any lot obstructing the channel alignment. We
submitted a letter supporting that project as proposed. However,
it was later changed without notice to my client and buildings
were constructed that precluded that alignment. We need to have
a condition on this project that prevents that from happening
again. I would request that th~ Board in approving this project
also approve a condition that that area be kept free from
obstruction.
3
C:\Oata\Clients\BOARO OF SUPERVISORS\9.2S.01 (COlorado Pacific) .doc
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
z
0 10
~
<
"
~
" l.l
0
u
~
<
z 12
S
o.~
,.,-
,.,~ 13
ci~.
"'0
-'z
0 14
~
,d
..~
..- IS
OJ"
,,~
"'"
"'~ 16
,.,~
<:
>
~ 17
~
;;
<
~
0 18
~
~
.
~ 19
<
~:o
21
22
23
24
~:5
26
2:7
28
Supervisor Venable
Okay thank you Michelle.
Miehel~e Staples
Thank you.
Supervisor Venable
Uh..
111
Ms. Staples can you come back to the microphone, I have a
question for you.
In your letter you asked for much more than
just the drainage easement be kept free of building and
obstructions, you're revising your request to simply indicate
that today?
Michelle Staples
Yes, that's a.minimum of what we absolutely what we need.
117
Does staff a problem with that sort of condition? Staff does
not. So I don't either.
Michelle Staples
Thank you.
Supervisor Buster
I don't have any problem with that. Is that tantamount to saying
we're going to select that as the drainage easement.
11?
NO, however,
Supervisor Buster
So we haven't done that?
???
No we have not.
4
C:\Data\Clients\BOARO OF SUPERVISORS\9.25.01 (Colorado Pacific) .doc
4
5
6
7
8
9
z
0 10
~
<
"
2
" 11
0
u
"
<
z 12
0
~
...
..l"
..l~ 13
ci~
<0
->z
';; 14
"
,d
."" ~ 15
...
"'-
"'~
<"
"'~ 16
..l.
<~
.
>
. 17
"
"
<
"
0 18
.
.
i
" 19
<
~~O
21
22
23
24
:~5
26
~~7
28
1 Supervisor Buster
2 Haven't selected it yet.
3 _ 7??
No you have not and I would not recommend that you do that.
Supervisor Buster
Do you have a reason to attach a condition that would if in deed
this has not been selected as the drainage easement.
?11
As to the originally requested the wording it was fixing this is
the option. But she's revised the request now to simply ask that
this easement be kept free of building an obstructions, and that
does not fix the easement. You may put this channel wherever you
like.
Supervisor Buster
All right, in the alternative is it possible to have better
notification procedures so if there is some proposal that does
obstruct this area that there is notice to at least the
neighbors.
I mean, Corona her clients are just across the
street, you know are across 79, so is that another possible way
to handle this rather than a cumbersome method of.
111
Well the problem is that notice isn't always required for things
like building permits. So my concern is that someone could
actually build in there without this requirement and we would
never be notified.
111
But it doesn't foreclose any option in a way that you've outlined
Ms. Staples' request.
5
c:\nata\Clients\BOARD OF SUPERVISORS\9.25.01 (Colorado Pacific) .doc
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
,
0 ),0
"
<
"
~
" :ll
0
u
"
<
, Jl2
~
..-
....
...0 ~~3
"
ci~
<0
...,
,- 14
0
~
,d
I u. ~
~. 15
"'-
,,~
<"
"'~ 16
...~
<~
.
~
~ 1.7
~
;;
<
~
0 18
w
~
'i
~ 19
<
20
21
22
23
24
25
~!6
27
28
Supervisor Venable
No it does not, not as it has been narrowed today.
??1
Thank you Michele.
Michele Staples
Thank you.
Supervisor Venable
Next Sam,
Sam Alhadeff
Maybe it will help the Board, given the narrow construction I do
want to thank Ms. Staples for her construction of this easement
that the only thing we are going to build there is a road and I
don't believe that's an obstruction, so we don't have a problem.
Supervisor Venable
Okay, does anyone else from the public like to speak on this
item.
If not we'll close the public hearing. Supervisor Buster
Supervisor Buster
I'll move approval with that additional condition, I guess it is.
Supervisor Venable
Please vote. That motion is carried 5-0. Takes us to item 13.2.
6
C:\Oata\Clients\BOARD OF SUPERVISORS\9.2S.01 (Colorado Pacific) .doc
..
.,-"
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
A LIMITED ltA8!lITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
43460 RIDGE PARK DRIVE, SUITE 270
TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA 92590
MAIN TELEPHONE: (909) 699,7556
FACSIMILE: (909) 699-6191
Offices in San Diego and Temecula. California
November 29, 200 I
HA HAND DELIVERY
SAMua C. AlHAllEFF
SAUiADEFF@AslAw1.COM
9103.0001
Ms, Debbie Ubnoske
Planning Director
City ofTemecula
P.O, Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Re: Planning Application No. 01-0109 - General Plan Amendment
Planning Application No. 01-0102 - Paloma del Sol Specific Plan
Amendment No.8
Planning Application No. 01-0117 - Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24188,
Amendment No.4 (collectively, "Action")
Dear Ms, Ubnoske:
We want to thank you and your staff for working with us in the above-referenced
applications, We appreciate the professional cooperation, patience and courtesy extended by
every staff member, specifically Matthew Harris and Ron Parks in working through certain
di fficuit issues.
Last night I made reference to certain letters which I asked to be included within the
record for the proceedings, First, I read from a letter dated February 17, 2000 from the County
of Riverside to the Corona Ranch. A.copy of that letter is attached. Please include this letter to
bt: incorporated in the record, Seco~d, I mentioned a series of letters that were referenced in the
hearings that were held related to the Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 in Planning Applications
as follows:
P A99-0284 (Development Plan)
PA99-0286 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29431)
P A99-0285 (Specific Plan Amendment); and
P A99-0283 (Development Agreement)
There were a series of letters that I asked to be incorporated in the record last night from
those particular planning actions and the proceedings that took place. The letters that I
referenced were as follows:
C:~Data\ClientslNewland\UBNOSKE LTR ((,29.()I.doc
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
Ms. Debbie Ubnoske
November 29, 2001
Page 2
1. November 3, 1999 letter from Newland Communities to Carol K. Donahoe;
2. November I, 1999 letter from Dennis O'Neil to Peter Thorson;
3. November 4, 1999 letter from Paul Thompson of Albert A. Webb & Associates
assessment engineers for Assessment District 159 to Shawn Nelson;
4. November 4, 1999 letter from Richard T. Robotta of the Keith Companies to Dean
Meyer; and
5. A compilation of reports and analyzes that were submitted to Carol Donahoe dated
October 26,1999.
The above-referenced documents were the ones that I referred to and asked me made a
part of the official record of these proceedings. For your convenience, I have attached the above-
referenced letters with the exception of item no. 5, which was listed as attachment number 7 to
the November 9, 1999 staff report.
Sincerely,
SL~~Of
Alhadeff and Solar, LLP
SCA:dll
Enclosures
MEMBER OF COMMERCIAl LAW AFFIUATES.lNDEPENDENrBUSlNESSAND l..mGA.OON LAw FIRMS IN PRINCIPAL CiTJES WORlDWIDE"
. a~/24/2a"'''' 16: "'2 87763'355-
FtS-2<l-IJO THU 02:5<\ PM RIV q. .<ECIff1V1: 01-1-11,1:.
'.'
RR BROWN OJ >;7!-z.- <'.'-;;; :;: >r;: PAGEj77!!~')')'::
1-/IlI tiU. I {i:"CJIO'qiOO'Vb':JJ<m. -r-t'l W
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
. TRANSPORTATION AND
LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY
'fiansportation Department
Dnfd Eo Bamh~ft .
Dir<r:tor t1IT-.sf"'WIl....
Fe'btlJ3ry 17, 2000
CERTIFIeD HAIL #p 310 675 430
Cerona Ranch
33:320 State Highway 79
Temecula. CA 92592
Att'antion: Steve Corona'
RE: Butterfield East Intercepwr Storm Drain
De:lr Mr. Corona:
J am writing this letter as a follow up to the December 10, 1999 meeting we had ~t the .
F10lJd Control District offices. The purpose of that meeting was to discuss the various
altematives we studied for the Butterfield East Interceptor ;5lorm Drain Facility. I .
appreciated the opportunity.to hear your concerns, and as a result, J gained a better
understanding of the history surrounding this project and lhe various alternatives.
Attached is a table that summarizes the three options we discussed. .
au' are well aware. the Butter1ield Interc:eptorwas included as,an Assessment
. ~ict No. 159tacllil:v, to be located atihe eastern Assessment IStrict boundary, to
i~cept the tributalY dralnaqe tlows arid provide 1Iood protection ~~ Buttar1ield Sta..,g,e .
~~. State Route 79 South, and downstream properties. The onglOal AD 159 concept
was to construct an open cnanne/ atthe eastem AU l~S boundary. Because you own
property upstream of the AD Interceptor alignment east of the'AD boundary, you
requested we study other altematives. You are ctirrently farming all of your property
and.,advised the Interceptor would'dis~pt your farming operation. With your input, we
agreed to analyze several other alternatives. I,.et me summarize the two other options
we discussed, whIch seemed potentially feasible:
AltematJve No. 1 examined the possibility of constructing the Interceptor on the same
alignment as the original option (the eastern AD 159 boundary), but lowering the
chanlnel and Constructing a box under your property. You expressed an openness to
this option as long as 1) you could conlinue your farming operations uninterrupted, and
2) the Flood Control District would accept this option as a solution: The,intent was to
provide four feet of rover over the box, so you could continue your farming over the top
of the, futility. During our meeting. Flood Control District representatives questioned the.
feasibility of this option. Firsl of all, they doubt the tributary flows can actually be'
oroperly collected by the underground box. Secondly, by lowering the facility to place it
J.Ot\O LC'mOd S(recc. Sdl flo~r .. R~nidc:.. Clt.'ocnl.1. Sl!SOl .. (909) ?SS-61.l0
P.O. 8'.:1 1090" R.rvC'nUk. C.llJ'l,)l11i:.1 92502.1090 .. FAX (909) 9H-611l
~212a/2~~~ 1~:~2 ~776)1,)'::
I-I'.lh~4-UU THU lJ~::,:, rn KI'II.\) .l.t\:UII VI:. Urr 11:1:.
f'P. ePIJ~Jtl CIJ ,,;:1 ;:.:1;.",..
J"HA (ft). 1 :-i';;",.~,~-;_._'
PAGE. "'.J.
r. U.J
Mr. Steve Corona
Februar'l17.2000
Page 2
underground makes the slope of the box culvert too flat and creates ongoing
maintenance problems. Therefore. this option doesn't seem practical.
The other option we discussed was Altemative No.5, a dual system with an open
c:hanne' located along your easterly propertybo1JrJdary to intercept a majority of the'
drainage from the eas~ along with a smaller underground system at the eastem AD
t'oundary to called the smaller flows from the north and east, above De Portola Road
and east to Calle Contento. You expressed your preference for this alternative.
Under Alternative No.5, aIr of your property wifl be flood protected. The property you
own outside the AD boundary would benefit under this alternative and would therefore
b,;? required to pay Its proportionate share of the costs.
You discussed your desire to defer any assessments on your property until yourfarmiog
operation develops into some. other Use. This would require some other party to
advance your costs. While I understand your desire, the County doesn't have the
financial capacity or ability to advance fund your share. One way to reduce your costs
is to dedicate the right-of-way needed to coiJstruct the facility. Other than that. I have
not been able to come up with any other cost.saving solutions.
!!iou a
j.Jrt:' e outsi
willin to recommend Altemative No.5.
concurrence.
- ~
Your cooperation is needed to make the Interceptor a reality.
I lexlk forward to receiving your positive response so we can proceed in a cooperative
manner. Please feel free to contact me if you nave any questions or require any
additional information. .
Sincerely.
~~d~
George A. Johnson
Deputy Director of Transportation
GAJ:sa
cc: SUpervisor Bob Buster
Bob Krieger
Tony Carstens
Dave B;:unhart
Kelley Donovan
Frank Peairs
~Gii!I
NEWl AND
COMMUNITIES
~
,
!
j \\"L.\o'\O C.\LlrnR~L\
_..)9:1 Yna RoaJ
'::"jje:!53
I "cula. n 9~391.4",)~
9.1~.tj9..\.;l512
ro. 9119.,,~q':Jfi12
,. .ie((tn paseocldsol.com
r:,..,aS<oJ'I'OI.com
f,
L
L
I.
November 3,1999
,
Carol K. Donohoe, AICP
Associate Planner
CITY OF TEMECULA
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula,CA 92590
Subject: Paseo del Sol- Planning ApplicatIon: PA99-0284 (Development
Plan), PA99-0286 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29431), PA99-D285
(Specific Plan Amendment) and PA99-0283 (Development
Agreement)
Dear Carol:
A~ a foIlow up to the information forwarded to you.on October 26, 1999 and
subsequent meetings ,with City Staff and City Attorney, we hereby submit the
foIlowing correspondence in response to the.appeal filed by Corona Ranch:
1. Letter from Dennis O'Neil to Peter Thorson dated November 1, 1999
stating our positions.
i) The develoP!TIent of the Paseo del Sol commercial site and Specific
Plan No.7 will have no impact on upstream properties or their
exposure to flood control hazards.
ii) Newlandhasprovided evidence of compliance with all drainage
and flood control conditions.
iii) There is no need to conduct any further environmental review or
prepare any subsequent reports.
2.
Letter from Paul Th6mpson of Albert A. Webb Associates, Assessment
Engineers for Assessment District 159 to Shawn Nelson dated November 1,
1999. >
i) This letter indicates there is an authorized "$2.2 million for design
and construction of the Interceptor Channel or a substitute facility"
through AD 159.
ii) In addition there is authorized but unissued bond capacity on the
Paseo del Sol property.
~.~
Carol Donohoe
Nov~mber 3, 1999
Page two
3. Letter from Richard T. Robotta of The Keith Companies dated October 29,
1999 which summarizes the technical history of Specific Plan 219 (Vail
Meadows) and EIR 235 as it relates to drainage issues.
In Summary:
1. The Paseo del Sol project has met all the conditions placed on the project
throughout the entitlement process and more specifically as it relates to
drainage. . .
2. The Paseo del Sol project has constructed,anipterim detention basin and
has been conditioned that the basin or equivalent facility shall remain in
place until such time that upstream drainage facilities are constructed.
3. There exists $2.2 million of authorized bonds through AD 159 for the
design and construction of the Butterfield Interceptor ChanneL
4. Newland Communities supports the use of authorized but unissued bond
capacity on the Paseo del Sol property.
5. There is no evidep.ce to support the appeal of the pending applications nor
need for any new:Conditions or the preparation of further environmental
documentation.
We thank the City Staff for their efforts and time spent on these matters. We are
respectfully requesting that this correspondence, along with the compilation of
reports and analyses as submitted to you under cover letter dated October 26,
1999, be filed with the City Oerk and made a part of the official record of the City
Council relating to the subject planning applications and appeaL -
.
Very truly yours,
NEWLAND COMMUNmES, LLC
-~~
--
Dean R. Meyer
Director of Engineering & Development
cc: Jim DeIhamer
(
f'.
r':
i,
L
r
i.
i.,
..
..-,
HEWITT & McGUIRE, LLP
ArrORNEYSAT LAw
DEA..... DUifN-RANKIN
. CHARLES:S. EXON
WILLIAM E. HALLE
.ANDREW K. HARTZELL
HUGH HEWllT
JOHN D. HUDSON
19900 MAcARTIlUR BOULEVARD. SUITE 1050
IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92612
(949)798-0500' (949) 798-0511 (FAX)
EMAIl.:counsd@hewiu:mcguire.com
MARK R. McGUIRE
DENNIS D. O'NEIL
JAY F_ PAlCH1KOFF
PAUL A. ROWE
WILLIAM L TWOMEY
JOHN P. YEAGER
WRITER'S DIRECT DiAl, (949) 79..0734
EMAll: doneil@hewiu:mcboWre.com
November I, 1999
<
Peter M. Thorson
City Attorney
City ofTemecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Re:
Planning Application PA99-0284 (Development Plan),
PA99-0286 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29431), Planning
Application No. P A99-0285 (Specific Plan Amendment)
and Planning Apolication No. PA99-0823 (Develooment Agreement)
Dear Peter:
Our law firm repre~ents Newland Communities, the developer of the Paseo del Sol
Master Planned Community. Newland has received notice that the owners of the Corona Ranch
have appealed some or all of the applications referenced in this letter. The stated grounds for the
appeal are: (i) "the applicant has failed to come into compliance with the development criteria and
conditions placed on the project"; (Ii) "the project itselfis out of compliance with conditions of its
approval"; and (iii) " . " the California Environmental Quality Act requires preparation of a
subsequent EIR for a project, and precludes reliance on an addendum, when substantial changes
occur to the circumstances under which a project is to be undertaken, or new information shows that
project impacts will be substantially more severe."
As they have in the past with prior Paseo del Sol Specific Plan Amendments, the
Coronas contend that the construction of Butterfield Stage Road has effectively blocked drainage
through this area, creating significantly increased flood hazards to upstream properties than was
previously identified in the EIR for (Paloma) Paseo del Sol. Furthermore, they point out, a planned
upstream storm water interceptor facility ("Butterfield Interceptor Channel") to mitigate this problem
has not yet been constructed. However, even assuming the Coronas' contentions are correcl, they
have no bearing on compliance with prior land use entitlement conditions or whether a Supplemental
ElR ("SEIR") should be prepared in connection with the pending planning applications. This is
11.01-99 10019-00002
- S'\152\CORR\9'lIOOOO8.LTR.wpd
j'
r"
,
!
i.
L
r
L
f"
[
L
[:
,.
L
I'
~ ..
Peter M. Thorson
November I, 1999
Page 2
because the development of the Paseo del Sol commercial site and the Specific Plan No. 7
Development Plan will have no impact on upstream properties or their exposure to flood control
hazards. This follows from the fact that no storm water from the Paseo del Sol project is directed
upstream. The approval of Specific Plan Amendment No.7 and related development applications
will have no physical consequences at all on the property owned by the Coronas and there are
absolutely no new significant adverse environmental effects to analyze in a SEIR. Simply stated,
there is no nexus or relationship to the pending planning applications and drainage issues on Corona
Ranch.
AD 159 has provided many public improvements of regional significance in the South
Temecula area. Thus, the construction of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79 South in 1993 was
not intended to benefit solely one property owner, but rather to'improve the overall traffic circulation
of the region to the benefit of all people living in this end of town. The Corona Ranch is included
within AD 159 and along with Paseo del Sol and otherpropei,tfes,have been assessed to pay for these
regional public improvements. , . ,.
Butterfield Stage Road, which is already completed, and the Butterfield Interceptor
Channel facility, which has not yet been constructed, are improvements under the control of the
County of Riverside and/or Assessment District No. 159, not Newland Communities. EIR No. 241
was certified by Ihe Riverside County Board of Supervisor when AD 159 was formed in 1988. Any
issues the Coronas have regarding flood concemsshould be directed to Assessment District No. 159
and the County.
The Butterfield Interceptor Channel is to be built to the east and upstream from the
Paseo del Sol community and its purpose is to collect waters flowing from these undeveloped areas
and divert them into Temecula Creek. Newland has been working diligently with both AD 159 and
the County of Riverside for over three years in an attempt to facilitate and accelerate the construction
of the Butterfield Inlerceptor Channel. The Coronas playa key role in the Butterfield Interceptor
be,cause they must agree on its location and the cost AD 159 will pay for Iheir land. Newland will
continue to cooperate with the County and the Coronas to insure this flood control channel is
constructed. ~
In the meantime, in satisfaction of the development conditions required by both
Riverside County Flood Control and the City ofTemecula's Public Works Department, Newland'
has constructed an approximately twenty acre interim detention basin at the northwest comer of
Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79. South. This basin was designed and constructed pursuant
to Riverside County Flood Control and City ofTemecula review and approval. Further, the basin
fully protects the Paseo del Sol community during rare storm events in which water may enter from
areas to the east. To give you a sense of the rarity of the storm event that might cause water to enter
Ihe basin, you should know that during El Nino of recent years this twenty acre facility remained dry.
1I"1I-99 10019-??oo2
. S~152\CORR\99100008.L TR.wpd
Peter M. Thorson
November I, 1999
Page 3
.on February 2, 1998, the Planning Commission approved revisions to Newland's
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24182 ("VTM 24812") and, based upon staff analysis, found the
project to be in conformity with the previously certified Environmental Impact Report. The
l:Ontinued presence of the detention basin was assured in the conditions of approval for VTM 24182
to remain in place until upstream drainage facilities are installed to mitigate off-site flows.
In general, CEQA limits later environmental review for subsequent land use
approvals to issues or impacts which were not addressed in prior environmental documentation. The
. .
intent ofCEQA is to allow public agencies to rely on prior environmental documentation, unless the
project itself or other circumstances have changed significantly since its adoption and these changes
have a negative impact on the environment which cannot be mitigated. Under Public Resources
Code Section 21166 (CEQA Section 21166) and Cal. Code of Regs. 15162 (CEQA Guideline
Section 15162), a supplemental EIR is not necessary unless major revisions are required to the
original EIR as a result of:
(a) substantial changes in the project which have aD. increased negative
impact on the environment;
(h) substantial changes in the circumstances of the project which have an
increased negative impact on the environment; or
(c) new information which was not available when the original EIR was
prepared which indicates that the project has a substantial adverse
imPll.ct>,yhich cannot be mitigated. .
The CEQA statutes and guidelines are very clear on what the test is for requiring a supplemental
EIR. Once an EIR has been prepared for a project, no further environmental review may be required
wlless one of these specified triggering events occur.
A public agency's discretion to require a subsequent or supplemental EIR is very
limited once an EIR has been prepared for a project. The statute is phrased in prohibitory language:-
An agency shall not require a supplemental EIR unless one of the statutory exceptions exist. The
policy behind the statute is to avoid repeating the CEQA process when environmental review has
been completed and the time for challenging that process has expired (Fund for Environmental
Defense v. County of Orange (1988) 204 Cal. App. 3d 1538, Long Beach Savings and Loan
Associatio1J.Y. LOEg.Beach Redevelopm.ent Agency (1986) 188 Cal. App. 3d 249, Bowman v. City
of Pet alum a (1986) 185 Cal. App. 3d 1065). CEQASection 21166 is designed to provide a degree
of certainty and finality once environmental review has been completed for a project. Even a
substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact does not require the preparation of
a subsequent EIR if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the impact to a level of
11-01-99 10019-??oo2
- s:\! S2\CORR\991 00008.L TR.wpd
Peter M. Thorson
November I, 1999
P2ge 4
insignificance. (Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco. Inc. v. Regents of the
University of California ("Laurel Heights IF') (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112.) Court cases uphold the
presumption against the preparation of subsequent EIR. (Snarled Traffic Obstructs Progress v. City
and County of San Francisco, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9211.) rfimpacts resulting from changes
to the project do not differ significantly from those described in the project ErR, a further ErR is not
required (Bowman).
A city may not, therefore, require a further EJR unless it finds, on the basis of
substantial evidence, that one of the three exceptions to the" rule against requiring a further EIR
exists. In this case there is no evidence to support such findings. All reasonable doubt will be
de,~ided in favor of the city (Laurel Heights).
A city may prepare an addendum to a prior ErR to document its decision that a
subsequent EIR is not required. CEQA Guideline Section 15164(b)( e). This Guideline reflects case
law approving use of an EIR addendum to determine whether a'subsequent or supplemental EIR
might be required. In the Bowman case, the court upheld the City's use of an ErR addendum to
evaluate changes to the project. The court held that using an addendum as a mechanism for
determining whether a further ErR should be required was an appropriate way to fill in a procedural
gap in CEQA and the Guidelines. Nothing in CEQA or the Guidelines requires that the city conduct
an investigation to ferret out changes in circumstances or new information. CEQA and the
Guidelines do not mandate any specific procedure for cities to follow in determining whether a
supplemental EIR is required. The Guidelines simply provide that a brief explanation of the decision
not to prepare a supplementalEIR pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15162 should be included
in :m addendum to an EIR, the city's required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record.
Newland has provided you with legally supportable evidence of compliance with all
drainage and flood control conditions. The appellants have offered no evidence of noncompliance
with the conditions of the project approval, any significant changed circumstances, or new
info)rmation which was not considered in the original project EIR as further reviewed in prior and
the current Addendum. Finally, there is absolutely no connection between the planning
11~1.99 IOOI9~OOO2
'S:\~5Z\CORR\<)<)IOOOO8.L TR.wpd
,"
~
r
r--~
J
~
-,
J
.
P,eter M. Thorson
November 1, 1999
Page 5
applications currently pending before the City Council and storm drain issues impacting the Corona
Ranch. Therefore, we submit there is no need in the case of the pending planning applications to
consider adding new conditions or conduct further environmental documentation.
DDO/mer
cc:
James M. Delhamer
Mayor and Members ofthe City Council
11-01-99 10019-00002
-S:\IS2ICORR\99100008.L TR.wpd
Very truly yours,
~<!)~
Dennis D. O'Neil
fun.
~ .
. .
1
r
I
n
G
U
["' ..
o
I ~
U
ALBERT A.
"'EBB
A"S"!;oCIATES
ENCINI:DW/C CONSIlLTM"TS
[] Corpar2la He>dlj1lllnCn
37&8 McCr.l)'5llllel
Riv=idc. CA 9ZS06
(909)686-1070
fa (909)1S8-12S6
[] Rq:ianaI OlrlC<:
21481 RaadJoClllif.Rooa.Sl8.I06
TtmCtUb, CA ru90
(llO?)694-nSD
fax (9091 699-ID32
W,Q. 89-4308
File No. 3851.08
NIlVembt:T4,1999
Mr. Shawn Nelson
City Manager
City ofTemeculn
43200 BIl~inl'SS Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
.
RE: '" ~""..m"nr District No. 159 - Butterfield East Intereeptor ChllIlnel
Dear Mr, Nelson:
T am the Assessment DivisiOn Manager with Albert A. Webb Associates,
Assessment Engineers for Assessment District No. 159 (A. D. 159''). I am providing the
fc.lIowing information to assist the City ofTcmecula. in undetstatuiing the background of
W.e Butterfield East Interceptor Cluumel (the ~1nterceptOr ChAnnel") and to help to
identify potential fuIvHng for its construction.
A. D. IS9 was originally fonned in 1988 to fund certain regional public
[J ttnprovemenrs and other infrasuucrure within the Di~tric[ Boundaries. In 1991, a
S\llpplementa1 district was fonned to increase the funds available for the cost of the
I'
I . otiginal A. D. 159 improVctnN1~. and to add new District improv,.",.-. such as the---
L
Interceptor ChAnn,,1 ApPIOximatcly $2.2 million was specifically identified by 1he
supplemr:ntal district lIS necessary for the de:.;gn and construction of the Inten::cptor
ChAnnAl This $2.2 million was assessed to four of tIw property owners within the
D:i$trict and spread to these 0VIllC%'S based on benefit received lltld allllCa1ed on acreage.
Cl:msequemly, Paseo del Sol received about 82% of the "~~'~m....t wi1h the remllining
three owners n:cciving about 18%.
\. \~"~NQ:::D ..,..('."i;tl~l;u:rJ~IT...\R:"'GO' ~QJ~9'~","Ut J
crvu- El'~OlHEEIUNO -PlANNING - ASSESSMarr, sPEaAL TAX CONSUI.TING - W^TER RESOUlI.CES ENGlNEaUNa
At this date, there is authorized but' unissued bond capacity on the Pasco del Sol
property totaling approximately $4.9 million. Under Assessment District law, authorized
bonds can only be released by lhe agency administering the District and any actual
assessment debt issued agWnst a property remains an obligation of the property Until paid.
Further, an Asses!lIILent District may build improvements outside Or its bllund<lries if
those improvements are to the benefit ofpropmies within the District.
In tin going meelings with River$ide County officials, Newland .Communities
indicated that they would support lISing a portion of me authorized but unissued bond
capacity on its property to provide funds in excess of the authorized $2.1 million for the
dtlllign and COJ1lllnlction of the Interceptor Channel or a :lUbstitule facility such as a
detention basin.
I trust this information has been helpful to you and I am available to answer any
questions you may have. Pleas~freeto call meat (909) 781.619u.
Sin=cly,
ALBERT A. WEBB. ASSOCIATES
..~~
Paul Thompson
PTJjs
MSSESSMl1NnAssEll..~MENT_OAT"'IIUVCO\.W'S\AOIm.F.tTf.R."'_~ .....
I'
I
I
f
i
i
i
I
i
L
,
I..
r
. .
The Keith Companies -n<:.c
November 4, 1999
1VIr. Dean Meyer
NEWLAND COMMUNITIES
27393 Ynez Road, Suite 253
Temecula CA 92591
Re: Paseo del Sol: Appeal of P.A. 99-0283, 99-0284, 99-0285, 99-0286
Butterfield Stage Road at Highway 79 Drainage Issues
Dear Mr. Meyer:
The Keith Companies has been informed that the aforementioned planning applications for
the commercial development within Pas~o del Sol near HighWay 79 and Margarita Road
have been appealed by the Corona Ranch owners. Further, it is our understanding that the
appeal is based on issues involving compliance with development criteria and conditions as
they relate to flooding concerns at the northeast comer of Butterfield Stage Road and
Highway 79 approximately 1 mile to the east upstream of the referenced applications. It is
the intent of this correspondence to define the development criteria and conditions as they
relate to drainage for Paseo del Sol (formerly Vail Meadows) by relating the history of the
drainage approvals and thereby show compliance with said development criteria and
conditions.
In 1988, the Engineer of Work for Vail Meadows, Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates,
and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District engaged in
oorrespondence dated April 6, 1988; May 16,1988; and May 26,1988 which discuss and
developed the master plan of drainage for the Vail Meadows project. As a part of the
approved master plan of drainage a large offsite basin immediately to the east (approx. 1190
acres) was identified as a part of the Vail Meadows approval (refer to attachment 1, 2 and
3). The offsite basin's drainage was mitigated by the construction of twin 120-inch culverts,
which exist today in Butterfield Stage Road and easterly in DePortola Road.
Also in 1988, Assessment District 159 ,which consbucted many substantial regional
facilities in the south T emecula area, was approved and its E.I.R. No. 241 was certified.
This E.I.R. and the associated A.D. 159 dounnents identified a large basin (approx.2239
acres) further to the east which would require the construction of a channel. This
channel known as the Butterfield Interceptor Channel diverts flows upstream of
Butterfield Stage Road to the south towards Temecula Creek. As you know, AD. 159
has provided many public improvements of regional significance in the south T emeu.lla
area including Butterfield Stage Road, Highway 79 and T emecula Creek. However, the
Inland Empire Division
22690 Cactus Avenue.
Suite 300
Moreno Valley
California 92553.9024
t 909.653.0234
f: 909.653.5308
www.keilhco.com
. Page 2
-"ITKC
)
construction of the Butterfield interceptor channel Was never accomplished by the AD. In
1H96, when Newland Communities purchased the Paseo del sol project, The Keith -
Companies discovered that the Butterfield interceptor channel had not been constructed.
With Newland wanting to move forward with the development of Paseo del Sol and
evidence that the construction of the interceptor channel improvements were subject to
delay, interim flood mitigation altematives were identified and approved on the Newland
pmperty to protect it and potentially other downstream properties from flooding.
Ultimately an interim detention facility was designed and constructed pursuant to
Riverside County Rood Control and City of T emecula review and approval. (see
at1achments 4, 5, 6, and 7).
On February 2, 1998 the City of Temecula Planning Commission approvEid revisions to
Newland's Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24182 (VTM 24182) and confinned the continued
pp3sence ofthe interim detention facility with Condition 27 stating that.... the basin or an
equivalent facility shall remain in place until such time that upstream drainage facilities are
constructed..: (see attachment 8).
In condusion, 'and in our opinion evidenced by the aforementioned approvals, Newland is in
OJmpliance with all development criteria and conditions particularly as they relate to flooding
or drainage issues at Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79.
Should you have any questions regarding this subject, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
.
THlE KEITH COMPANIES,INC.
7.~~$ -4..
RIGhard T. Robotta, P.E.
President-Inland Empire Division .
RTR:ml
Enclosures
-.
cc: Mr. James Delhamer
\lKBT}103011NET_0\911.o1~J.doc
,
,
I
I
,
I
,
---.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
TRANSPORTATION AND
LAND MANAGEilJENT AGENCY
./ . ~,,'f OF RIVE"l.,r.
-",/ ." o~""':---:" 0
{' ..,' .v.." ~ ". ,~.
,,,#1 ,.,.
!:( //. \~
'~\~.'- ':
r ," ". fti.... "
~I. ~
L~ ~.
.,'0+':"011 ~r;..
. '~""'lANOlA"~"
---..;.c.;...:..--- .
December 11, 200.1
Transportation Department
DOI"itt E. Bamhan
Dire(:tor of Transportation
Mr. William G. Hughes, Director
City of Temecula Public Works Dept.
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
RE: Butterfield Interceptor Channel, Assessment District No. 159
Dear Bill:
,:ler your request, I am sending you this letter to briefly summarize the on90in9 discussions, .
between the County and the property owners affected by the Butterfield Interceptor Channel.
For almost two years now, the County has been meeting with Newland Communities, the
Corona Family, and Leonard Savala in an effort to come to an agreement on a preferred
alternative for the Butterfield Interceptor Channel.
Assessment District No. 159 contemplated placing the Interceptor at the easterly boundary of
AD No: 159, which would. include the Savala property and only 20 acres of the Cororia's land..
The Corona Family and Mr. Savala indicated the' proposed AD No. 159 alignment was not.
acceptable to them. Additional alignments were suggested by'the property owners and have
subsequently been studied by the Riverside County Flood Control District. As a result of the
study effort, it appears the property owners unofficially support an alternative' to place the . '
Interceptor along the east edge of the Corona property. Unfortunately, to date we have not J .
been able to develop a financing mechanism to construct the suggested Interceptor. '.
If you are interested, we can forward you a copy of the Flood Control Report summarizing the
alternatives studied. If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
'v/:" a
1~JOh n
Deputy Direct of Transportation
GAJ:sa
cc: Sam Alhadeff, Newland Communities
Michele Staples
Steve Corona
Leonard Savala
Dusty Williams, Flood Control District
Rhonda King, Executive Office
r'{J.47~ ~~Um'"t"'" J--D.
t8,": U :;~ '=~ ~ ~ '~~ fJ V
;,.'.;!,; \.1:, ~ l..:.. 1....:.); J 9
4080 Lt:mon StreeL.8th Floor. Riverside. California 92501 . (909) 953-6740
P.O. Bo.t 1090 . Riverside. California 92502.1090' FAX (909) 955.6711
Dee
21
01 03:26p
SAVALR
p.2
.
Fax. :714-ESI-Q247
Dee 18 '01
14:48
P.01
. -...-
!'
'i
.......
;;
.....
,
_'., ,_'. .d~ .'
.~--.~:> -,"-"
t:
av~lit'.: ,:
::b6~STBJdil'6~.co;;:t~t...
';~E~EoR~i:."s::NGINEERING. .
.~~ .i-"..
. . ~
1'-
J
....
'!
.:.
"
,".'
".:.
.... .~
< ~"
,':
:.',;"
.. ~. .:. ...
.;>..
..,;;
.',
.;.-
'j
J:
:;.
"..'.'
-:~
"
::~..
!'-''''
".
,.
.'~
",,
..,'
.,
..,
";"
.,
4':
'.-~ . '--
'.' ,
~~ ~
,':' .
". .~~~.
f~
'.
. ~. ......
::.....
: ;::F';'
.......
: >-~:::
.~,
."
~:~:..:~-i.,~
'~..' ,. i ~H.~; >,
" "i -: " .. .., I'"
'.' .' ~':. :. ~ . ./., ''',' . r." . . '.~. F:"
.~.+:.....:::!--.:.~.~::..~.~ ,,:,.,~~'ri : .:.; I~ ;.~:"... ~:~ ~~ ~~'~~~r:~
.. ..... 'J r:lrr~l~ffi:..'ii?'
I:"{ t>l"~ i, f"~'"Th '" ~
~)i,., -il".:i ~ ~ ~lJ,:, .\1
..'
~.~~. :
, '
':',
i:; . ,"
~ -,""..", ,ell':;"
'5~
,?I?lI?nnl kllT 15'17 T'l'I1RX NO 90681 1P:l002
Dee
,
,
,.;
,.
"
".
..
,'.
..:~
~:
;'-,
.>'
~..
.:~.
1:.
,.
,,:' M
;,..
.'
,'"
.:!.
:;";
" ...:,
"
i"
.'
. ~~~
.;
::-:~ -, . -'.-.
':';''-:;"' :_'~~j~" .' ! ~ I." -, .:_:,'
'. :ilf~I"#lt;ihf~~~~~-i~U.ld';~;~';;~ib..the~\iite:~d.f~d',~hjS'~rOjee;to'j~ co~~~~sio,~. .If'
.' '.' 3heY.;ar~''al1'6}it.cd((}::coritJnue;huildi'r>g,'a'1a:wsuit{Herhaps ,8 ClaSs . actiorir""m, have -td'
:."~egjRt!~:~01~i:~>:'-,>".. " ..........'....;'...1.. : . .'. ..' .:'; ,.' ". . .
::,;", :-,' :....:~ d ":;"'.-'.,-" . .. .'
21
01
03:27p
SAVRLA
Fax:714-6SJ-0247
. ! ".:,-~
,
/
.l
. :.} .
'.:
:.:~>. ".
.'.
:j
.!t:~.::;
,-".....1'
..'...:......:...
.~ .~j~.
"
....N
:::.:"
....':;.: .
; . .'~;';~ ~{: ',;
". .," .
;,:~t:~'" c
:."
"."
.-}
.: .':.~.;;~-'
,-' ..
~ : :~;,~
.~r;r
. ,.
. r....
. .....
.',
.'.;
.:.';
:~: ::,.:;'
'.'
'.
". .....
". ~ "- -:'
-'-~'..', .~.
";."":.:;;.::.1'3' .'.'
,
{J.~;'~-: : ".1:'
::~) '.~
.V
, M:~.
,'~ . ~.
.:.'
~;..:
.:'.:;.
..~~':.:Hri';
'.E, .
lt~ ..~:' \;.,;
:,. ..,.....
;:i<:~L:::.
'" ;..':
~l
~,
-
.~~.':j/.
~:
.;J.~;'
:'.,'
.....
'.'.
~ .1'
...3, .
:'v,_
.'
'.... ~
'. ..:....;,,' .' ~
:;r;~..~~:.:: ~~.
..,"
. .... .1."
...:
.~ . ...
.. "~'y;
)
'.
.;.-
.~. .
". - !;...~,t.
. .' ; :': : ~:~~
;/.:.
.....
:. .~;
'. _," :~
......,
;,:'
;'~'
.,
....:",.
. "',
,:,
. ;:
.';
'..;.'
= ~-' .
'.
.,"
: .
~
....
. '.~
"f. I; 't.':
.,
-
,..
:".-=
.,
. ~~ .:.
-
. '~ '.',
,,' ~. /.
..;.
Dee 13 '01
Ja:SQ
I'
! !
......
..;
"",--'
... ~
"
...-.' .,
,,::,';:g:f';. ~
f.'; % " ~. ~':..'~.':., ~.: ~>j~
.:' ~
'f ....
~ 7.; ,
.~ ::~.:.
. . ':~ ',...
"f.:;:~ }
.;...:,
. . ;. ~
...,...::....:.;....
.,: ";"f'):
,.'.;
....j....;.
'. ~.' ,t' ...
J
f".
.r.'
, .
'1,.
1"-:
.... .~
.
.. .~'. ;:; . ',' ,. '.. .~
',t t.:': .~ ~~:; ~:. .:.;, :;
f;.(-:.. : ': ,,';: "', .'
.~.~.:....:~:~~~;:i -l.
. ..,....:;i:.i.
:i '~: <'
~ : !';.,{ :..
f . ~ i .,'
.;-.'
:.i'.':'
.' .~ ;"f. ....:
>:
....;.,.
....-
.: ~
. ,~; :~_ ,i.'
.r: . .'.,.
. } . '.' ~:
':..."......
:':5::.
;. . -:: \: "!-" ~.,:
.:,:
.. .;.
~: ..
, .
....:';...
,:-'.'.
.:~.-:.;
.",.'
-j'.
"".
.t' ~
, . ,:~;}..~:..;: .-,
, .' .. ..,~ . : : ~
~.
. ~ .~~;. '^
;/.. .. ::';;'~. ;;
..'...: .'~ .::- . '.:'..': .'~
':- ~...' . ~:',,~'i~. .'.. ":
. .... '.-. . .~
:~,:.'. ~4.~.~ ; "" . 'r: ,
'!:<. " !.1:{;f "~
- ~ .~,.~~ ~.':':~: ~ ...
~J-,": ..,........
....;':.;~:..~.~ ,.~t;!:~:..:..>.
':;';"~f ~ 0 ;i:~}'.
.';'. ::;;;.:~:..~.\ ~,;.
.":-'. .Jt~ \:..:~'
i".,
.~~,.'
'.
}". :;~
.~. .:~
.i~>
"r:
. :"~:' ':: ~ ',.i:':-)
:\'l :~.J~?:f
t.!.
)'''.
.::; :.:.~~AA~.~~1;' ,~-~:
:{--:;". ',.'
. ,;. .~::~...~(,~ ~
. '>.:-'
'f'::'
.~ ._;..
: .'~~ _~F~~':. "
",'
',.:.
.......
,'.'
.'
".:-t
-'
';;~.
. ~ ::.
I
,,:.
.', ~
i.,
" .
~ .,'::;:
.r' i;-;~
L,,1
",: '~~'l( 1 .'
";'l'
::/.",'.1.-
..,", :\~::
'-. ':~ :,~;.:
'.". ..., ;--::.
~~: .' ;
.....
::'<i
r""
'J'.. '1'
.':'
,..
,~.
- .' ~.
-: <-.
:. ~....:
","
:.':';l.:...
:;: ",
)':'1
i'
'Xi:
~:
..i
<,
';'
..;....
.'
,!'.,
~." .;:. ....
~',
-.
..
.~.:.
:. .~~; ~
.. .,.........
P_O?
.,
"
.
,.
p.3
, .;.~.
"
'-.,..'
"J
-:;
j~
..
"j' '.
',. ::::_ ;.~ i~'.,<. ::.' , y ,
, :,
;r~
,,~
'".
..-.
:':'
..;.
.'
(~
~..
':~ .
',"
..
...
'.,.'
.,
;,; 'ilirl~ti}t;~:
::' .~\),r~;~Hf
~.i- '.':t~-'fi'~'1.f;:'
:". J::....'~:.:. ~ ,.
~.;
'.r
.f
)
',{
;:".
"
,::
,
~j
:.
.'
.~ '.
,,;
f.
;:,
'-:;,i-
. ~.{
:.<
. .~,
.:.-~:
f;.
.',
..~'.
'.\,
. ~...
.
'q'
, :;~:
..!.
<~
,'..
!;',,;
:,:i
,
',,:
.
:. r ::':: ~'.';t,
','
..: ~.
'';
, :; . .:;:,.~..:!!;,~;"':.~;.t[..
.......... ,........ ...^ ........, f"),...-.....
"
IlEWITf & O'NEIL LLP
TInA M. COCHRAN
DEAN DUNN-RANKIN
SANDRA A. GALLE
WILUAJ..t E. HALLE
ANDREW K. HARTZELL
HUGH HEWITT
LAWRENCEJ. HILTON
AITORNEYSATLAw
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAC (949) 798-<>734
EMAIL: doneil@hewiuoneal.com
JOHN D. HUDSON
SlEVEN B. IMHOOF
DENNIS D. O'NEIL
- JAYF. PALOIIKOFF
PAUL A. ROWE
WILUAML TwOMEY
JOHN P. YEAGER
19900 MAcAR11IUR BoULEY ARD, SUITE 1050
IRVINE, CAUFORNJA 92612
(949)798-0500 . (949)798-0511 (FAX)
EMAIL: OOWlSCt@bewjttonei1.com
January 3, 2002
)lIA OVERNIGHT MAIL
Hon. Mayor and Members of the City Council
City ofTemecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Re: Planning Application No. P AOl-0109 (General Plan Amendment), Planning
Application No. P AOI-0 I 02 (Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.8),
Planning Application No. PAOI-0117 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24188,
Amendment No.4) , ,
Dear Mayor Roberts and Members of the City Counci,l:
cj
This law firm represents Newland Communities ("Newland''), the developers of
the Paloma del Sol Spedfic Plan No. 219 (now known as Paseo del Sol) master planned
community. The Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No. 219/EIR 235 and Development Agreement
was originally approved by the Riverside Coimty Board of Supervisors in September of 1988.
This was prior to incorporation of the City of Temecula and inclusion of the Paloma' del Sol
property within the new Temecula municipal boundaries.
Since the formation of the City of Temecula, the City Council approved an
Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement for Paloma del Solon January 8, 1993
(the "Development Agreement''). Newland has processed a number of Specific Plan No. 219
amendments and tract maps and addenda to EIR 235 consistent with the terms of the
Development Agreement. Newland has now pending before the City Council the above-
referenced Specific Plan Amendment No.8 and related Planning Applications and request for
certification of Addendum No.4 to EIR 235.
Newland is in receipt of copies of the letters to the Temecula Planning
Commission dated November 7, 2001 and November 28, 2001 signed by Darren W. Stroud, an
attorney with the law firm of Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh, representing James and Mary
Corona and the Corona family objecting to Newland's pending Planning Applications. I have
been given copies to read and asked by Newland to respond to the Coronas' assertions as spelled
out in attorney Stroud's letters. Newland also wants me to make a request that the "hold" on the
508 unit multi-family tract in Paloma del Sol, as explained later in this letter, be released.
January- 3. 2002
10019-??oo2
S:\152ICORRI/JI120003.L lRdoc
City of Temecula
January 3, 2002
Page 2
The Coronas' Obiections and Newland's Response
The Coronas object to the approval of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan
Amendment No.8 and pending land use Planning Applications on a number of grounds and
request the City to:
1. Enforce the conditions of Specific Plan No.219 Amendment No. I
requiring construction of flood control facilities prior to issuance of building permits; and
2. Enforce the mitigation measures required by EIR 235.
In the absence of such enforcement, the Coronas state that a subsequent EIR
~hould be prepared prior to consideration of the pending Specific Plan Amendment No.8 and
I'lanning Applications. The Coronas want the hydrology and drainage for the area evaluated in
order to mitigate the alleged increase flood hazards to the Coronas' land resulting from
development of the Paloma del Sol project and construction of Butterfield Stage Road. The'
Coronas object to Newland's Planning Applications because, they claim, development of Paloma
del Sol creates a drainage issue for their property.
However, all of the hydrology studies for Newland's property tell a different
~:tory. The facts are that the drainage on Newland's property runs from the northeas(to the
wuthwest and is directed into the Temecula Creek, Channel through approved and AD 1 S9
<:onstructed storm drain facilities. Newland's property does not divert any drainage onto the
Coronas property, which is located upstream of Paloma del Sol to the southeast. Rather the
drainage affecting the CoronaS comes from the north and east of their property. The drainage
pattern is also affected by Assessment District 159's construction of Butterfield Stage Road.
, , AD 159 understood these factors and provided for the Butterfield Interceptor Channel to direct
the flow across the Coronas' property at the eastC)fly boundary of AD 159. AD 159 built the
downstream facilities, but unfortunately did not build the Butterfield Interceptor Channel.
So, the Coronas complain of a drainage problem that arises from water flowing from east and not
from Newland's property, which is located to the northwest. It is this failure on the part of
AD 159 to construct the Butterfield Interceptor Channel that constitutes the basis for the
Coronas' storm water drainage problems on their property and really has nothing to do with the
development of Paloma del Sol.
the Coronas' Contentions and Newland's Response
Admittedly, there is some evidence that during heavy storms the surface waters
which have historically sheet flowed from the northeast to the southwest comer of the Corona
property accumulate and cause a ''ponding'' condition to exist on an area at the southwest comer
of the Corona property. TIlls is the area where the Butterfield Stage Road intersects State
Highway 79. The Coronas contend that the construction of the Paloma del Sol project has
{:ffectively blocked drainage across their property, creating significantly increased flood hazards
to their and to upstream properties. They argue, a planned upstream storm water interceptor
facility (the Butterfield Interceptor Channel) to mitigate this flooding on their property has not
January 3, 2002
10019-??oo2
S:\152ICORRIOI120003.LTRdoc
,
City of Temecula
January 3, 2002
Page 3
yet been constructed. The Coronas claim Newland is responsible for solving this problem and
the City should not approve discretionary land use entitlements for Newland until the Butterfield
Interceptor Charmel is built.
The Coronas continue to ,refer to an April 6, 1988 letter from the, Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, a May 16, 1988 letter from the
developers' engineers (Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates) responding to the Flood
Control April 6, 1988 and a letter from the Senior Civil Engineer at the County Flood Control
District dated May 26, 1988. These letters were prepared at the time the developer of the
Specific Plan No. 219 planned community was seeking the original entitlement permit approvals
fi:om the County of Riverside.
The April6, 1988 letter from Riverside County Flood Control raises issues
regarding the potential for diversion of storm water from its natural tributary drainage course.
lbe developers' engineers' response letter dated May 16, 1988 acknowledges the need for'
construction of flood control facilities to intercept the storm waters tributary to this area. The
May 26, 1988 letter from the senior civil engineer at the Riverside County Flood Control District
' to the Riverside County Planning Departinent states the problems raised in the April 6, 1988
letter have been largely corrected by the applicant. Further, the May 26, 1988 letter points out
the need for a permanent flood control facility onsite or off site before development downstream
occurs.
It is this May 26, 1988 Flood Control'District "comment letter" the Coronas have' '
been' relying on to support their position. However, the Assessment District 159 EIR described
tlle Butterfield Interceptor Channel as the mitigation' measure needed to resolve any flooding
caused by the Construction of Butterfield Stage Road. The Butterfield Interceptor Charmelis the
"off site" solution to handling the storm water on the Coronas' property. An interim detention
basin has been constructed on approximately 20 acres of the southeast portion of Paloma del Sol.
Pursuant to Condition 40 of Tentative Tract 24182, this "onsite" detention basin must remain in
place until such time that the Butterfield Interceptor Charmel or some other adequate facility is
built to convey off site storm flows to the Temecula Creek.
The 1999 Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No. 7
Some members of the City Council will recall this is not the first time the
Council, the CityAttomey and the City staff have reviewed these issues raised by the Coronas.
In fact, the City has considered a number of applications for modifications to the Paloma del Sol
Specific Plan and tract maps over the years as chronologically listed in the staff report. As they
have in the past, the Coronas, through their legal counsel, resubmit the same documents and
arguments each time Newland's applications for Paloma del Sol are submitted to the Temecula
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. The Coronas continue to assert that it
is illegal for the Planning Commission and City Council to approve the modifications to the
Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and tract maps without enforcing the purported conditions of
approval requiring the construction of flood control facilities to protect their land. Nevertheless,
the Plarming Commission and the City Council have in every case approved Newland's
January 3. 2002
10019-??oo2
S,I I S2ICORRIOII20003.L TRdoc
,
City ofTemecula
J:muary 3, 2002
Page 4
applications to amend the Specific Plan 219 and modify tract maps for Paloma del Sol because it
has been determined that the Coronas' arguments are without merit.
Most recently, in October 1999, the Coronas appealed the Planning Commission's
approval of four planning applications submitted by Newland for Paloma del Sol. They based
tlleir appeal entirely on their claim that Newland should be required to build the Butterfield
Interceptor Channel. The staff deterinined that the EIR for Assessment District 159 had
addressed the issue by requiring the Butterfield Interceptor Channel as a mitigation measure to
intercept the tributary drainage flows and provide flood protection to Butterfield Stage Road,
State Route 79 South, and downstream properties. The staff further determined there was no
nexus between the Butterfield Interceptor Channel and Newland's four planning applications.
The staff was clear that the Butterfield Interceptor Channel was to be built by Assessment
District 159, and Newland had "no control Over the timing of that process." Accordingly, the
staff recommended deuial of the Coronas' appeal. On November 9, 1999, the City Council
concurred with the staff's analysis and denied the Coronas' appeal.
The Pending Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.8
On November 28, 2001, consistent with their prior actions involving revised
entitlement permits for Paloma del Sol, the:; Planning Commission recommended approval of
Specific Plan 219 Amendment .No. 8, the related Planning Applications and certification of
Addendum No.4 to the final EIR. The Planning Coinmission accepted the staff's answer to
, altorney Stroud's letters as stated in their November 2'8, 2001 report to the Planning Commission
as follows:.
"Public Works Department staff believes the issue of timing and
construction of the flood control facilities has already been addressed.
Moreover, staff believes the current planning actions being proposed have
no affect on the timing and' construction of the flood control'
, improvements."
The Coronas cannot point to any other significant difference or to any change in
circumstances that would require the City to reach a different result. Newland's valuable
dl~velopment vested rights set forth in the Development Agreement are being challenged becanse
Assessment District 159 cannot, without the cooperation of the Coronas, construct the Butterfield
Interceptor Channel which is its responsibility to do. Because the City has already rejected the
Coronas' objection to four nearly identical planning applications and the Coronas did not
challenge the City's decision in court in timely manner, the Coronas are now estopped from
making their objections anew before the City Council.
Newland submits this matter and the issues raised by the Coronas have been
thoroughly researched, analyzed and reviewed by the City Attorney and staff. The objections the
Coronas raise to Newland's current Specific Plan Amendments and Planning Applications are
almost identical to their objections to the four planning applications approved, by the City
Council in November of 1999. Full environmental analysis in compliance with the California
January 3, 2002
10019-00002
s,' 152\CORRIOI120003.L TR.doc
City ofTemecuia
January 3, 2002
Page 5
Environmental Quality Act has occurred, Notice,public hearings and due process has been
satisfied. There is no evidence in fact or in law to support the Coronas' contentions.
Assessment District No. 159
Assessment District No. 159 ("AD 159'') was formed in 1988 to fund certain'
regional public improvements and other infrastructure systems within the AD 159 boundaries. In
1991, a supplemental district was approved to increase funds available for the cost of the original
AD 159 improvements and to add new district improvements, including the Butterfield
lllterceptor Channel. The Butterfield Interceptor Channel was planned to be constructed on the
Corona property east of Butterfield Stage Road at the easterly boundary of AD 159. The
Butterfield Interceptor Channel is to be built to the east and upstream from the Paloma del Sol
community and its purpose is to collect waters flowing from these undeveloped areas and divert '
them into Temecula Creek. Butterfield Stage Road was constructed above grade in 1994-1995
as an Assessment District 159 project. Contrary to the Coronas' contention, Butterfield Stage
Road was not built by Newland.
Butterfield Stage Road and the Butterfield Interceptor Channel facility are
improvements under the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside and Assessment District
No. 159, not Newland Communities or the City of Temecula. Many of the other AD 159
improvements, including the construction of Butterfield Stage Road, the widening of'SR 79, the
modifications to Temecula Creek and the installation and sizing of the associated drainage
ulcilities, were dependent on the Butterfield intercePtor Channel being built. In hindsight, the'
Butterfield Interceptor Channel probably should have been built before Butterfield Stage Road.
For reasons not known to Newland and surely not under the control of Newland, this did not
happen. As a matter of fact, once Butterfield Stage Road was built by AD 159, the ponding the
Coronas complain about would occur after a heavy rainfall. This condition would exist on the
Corona property regardless of whether or not any development ever happened on the Paloma del
Sol land.
As originally contemplated. the improvements AD 159 were to build cost about
$1lO8 million. The Paloma del Sol, Specific Plan No. 219, property has been taxed to pay itS fair
share of the improvements. To date,' the Paloma del Sol property has been assessed
approximately $27 million for the improvements. This payment included construction of the
portion of the Temecula Creek Channel that is designed to accept flow from the Butterfield
Interceptor Channel. Newland recognizes its obligation as one of the major landowners in
AD 159 to participate in the completion of the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. Newland has
remained willing to cooperate in any good faith effort to resolve outstanding design and funding
issues associated with getting the Channel built. To date, the Coronas refuse to accept their fair
share of this obligation.
Butterfield Interceptor Channel
All of the interested parties, including the Coronas, agree that AD 159 was, and is,
responsible for building the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. The Coronas playa key role in the
January 3. 2002
10019-??oo2
S:\152ICORR'D1120003.L TRdoc
City of Temecula
January 3, 2002
I'age 6
construction of the Butterfield Interceptor Channel because they must agree on its location and
make the land available for this improvement at a reasonable price. To this end, Newland has
heen working diligently with the Coronas and the County of Riverside for over five years in an
attempt to facilitate and accelerate the construction of the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. The
County has analyzed various alignments for the Channel and has examined additional
alternatives at the request of the Coronas.
The original design was an open trapezoidal channel across the Savala and
Corona properties at the east end of the AD 159 boundaries. The Butterfield Interceptor Channel
would then continue under SR 79 and extend south to Temecula Creek. The costwas estimated
at $3.5 million. The Coronas have objected to and resist the original design because the facility,
they say, would adversely impact their current farming operations. In an attempt to provide a
system that would not interfere with the Coronas' agricultural uses, a subsurface covered box
c.ulvert was studied but this was determined to be infeasible.
The County Flood Control District looked at another design alternative suggested
by the Coronas' engineers consisting of two channels. This dual channel system would include
an open channel located along the easterly boundary of the Corona property to intercept the
majority of the drainage from the east along with a smaller underground facility at the eastern
boundary of AD 159. The dual channel system is estimated to cost $8.7 million and would
benefit all of the remaining 160 acres of the Corona property not originally included in the
AD 159 boundaries. '
The Coronas have stated their preference for the dual channel alternative, but
maintain their current farming operations could not support this level of funding. Methods of
providing deferred assessments have been offered and suggestions that the Coronas dedicate the
necessary right of way for the dual channel system to reduce costs have been rejected.
The goal sought to be achieved in the meetings with the County and the Coronas
of finding a method to fund the Butterfield Interceptor Channel and then be able to apportion the
costs of the improvements on an equitable basis has so far failed. This is due, in large part, to the
Coronas' desire that they receive all of the benefits of a stonn water protection system for all of '
their property without being willing to accept any of the costs of constructing these facilities.
Supplemental EIR
The attorney Stroud for the Coronas argues that a supplemental EIR must be
prepared to address increased flood hazards.
In general, the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") limits later
environmental review for subsequent land use approvals to issues or impacts which were not
addressed ill prior environmental documentation. The intent of CEQA is to allow' public
agencies to rely on prior environmental documentation, unless the project itself or other
c:ircumstances have changed significantly since its adoption and these changes have a negative
impact on the environment which cannot be mitigated. Under Public Resources Code Section
January 3. 2002
IV019.oo<102
S:\152ICORR\OJ 120003.LTR.doc
;
City ofTemecula
January 3, 2002
'!'age 7
21166 (CEQA Section 21166) and Cal. Code of Regs. 15162 (CEQA Guideline Section 15162),
21 supplemental EIR is not necessary unless major revisions are required to the original EIR as a
result of:
(a) substantial changes in the project which have an increased negative
impact on the environment;
(b) substantial changes in the circumstances of the project which have
an increased negative impact on the environment; or
(c) new information which was not available when the original EIR
was prepared which indicates that the project has a substantial adverse impact wIllch Cani10t be
mitigated.
lbe CEQA statutes and guidelines are very clear on what the test is for requiring a supplemental
EIR. Once an EIR has been prepared for a project, no further environmental review may be
required unless one of these specified triggering events occur.
A public agency's discretion to require a subsequent or supplemental EIR is very
limited once an EIR has been prepared for a project. The statute is phrased in prohibitory
language, An agency shall not require a supplemental EIR unless one of the stlitutory exceptions
exist. The policy behind the statute is to avoid repeating the CEQA process when environmental
review has been completed and the tinJe for challenging that process has expired (Fund for
Environmental Defense v. County of Orange (1988) 204 Cal. App. 3d 1538, Long Beach Savings
a,~d Loan Association v. Long Beach Redevelopment Agency (1986) 188 Cal. App. 3d 249,
Bowman v. City of Petaluma (1986) 185 Cal. App. 3d 1065). CEQA Section 21166 is designed
to provide a degree of certainty and finality once environmental review has been completed for a
project. Even a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact does not require
the preparation of a subsequent EIR if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the impact
to a level of insignificance. (Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Frclncisco, Inc. v.
Regents of the University of California ("Laurel Heights Il") (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112.) Court
cases uphold the presumption against the preparation of subsequent EIR if impacts resulting
from changes to the project do not differ significantly from those described in the project ErR, a
rullther EIR is not required (Bowman).
A city may not, therefore, require a supplemental or focused EIR unless it finds,
011 the basis of substantial evidence, that one of the three exceptions to the rule against requiring
a further EIR exists. In this case as it was in November of 1999, there is no evidence to support
such findings. All reasonable doubt should be decided in favor of the city (Laurel Heights).
A city may prepare an addendum to a prior EIR to document its decision that a
subsequent.EIR is not required.' CEQA Guideline Section 15164(b)(e). This Guideline reflects
case law approving use of an EIR addendum to determine whether a subsequent or supplemental
EIR might be required. In the Bowman case, the court upheld the City's use of an EIR
addendum to evaluate changes to the project. The court held that using an addendum as a
January 3, 2002
IOC'19-OOOO2
S:\152ICORRIOI120003.lTRdoc
City of Temecula
January 3, 2002
:Page 8
mechanism for determining whether a fiu1her EIR should be required was an appropriate way to
fill in a. procedural gap in CEQA and the Guidelines. Nothing in CEQA or the Guidelines
requires that the city conduct an investigation to ferret out changes in circumstances or new
:information. CEQA and the Guidelines do not mandate any specific procedure for cities to
follow in detennining whether a supplemental EIR is required. The Guidelines simply provide
Ithat a brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA
Guideline Section 15162 should be included in an: (i) addendum to an EIR, (ii) the city's
required fmdings on the project or (iii) elsewhere in the reCord. On this point the planning staff
report and position adopted by the Planning Commission states:
"With regard to environmental analysis, Planning staff does not believe
that the planning actions as-proposed have any significant environmental
affect on flood hazard issues. Moreover, staff believes the proposed
Addendum to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan EIR adequately addresses
potential -environmental impacts associated with the proposed project.
Therefore, staff does not believe that additional environmental analysis is
necessary."
Even assuming the Coronas' contentions are correct, they have no bearing on
eompliance with prior land use entitlement conditions or whether a supplemental EIR should be
prepared in connection with the pending Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment and related
l'lanning Applications. This is because Specific ]'lan Amendment No.8 and the Planning
Applications under review will.have no impact on upstream properties or therr exposure to flood
f:ontrol hazards. The existing Paloma del Sol approximately 20-acre detention, basin in
Tract 24182 will protect downstream properties from any storm water drainage entering from the
toast. This follows from the fact that no storm water from the Paloma del Sol project is directed
upstream. The approval' of Specific Plan Amendment No.8 and related Planning Applications
will have no physical consequences at all on the property owned by the Coronas and there are
absolutely no new significant adverse environmental effects to analyze in a subsequent EIR.
Simply stated, there is no nexus or relationship to the pending Paloma del Sol Planning
Applications and drainage issues on the Corona property.
Interim Detention Basin and Hold on 508 Multi-family Units
On February 2, 1998, the City Council, in approving Paloma del Sol Planning
Application No. PA 96-0258 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24182), added Condition No. 40
rlealing with an interim detention basin located on approximately 20 acres at the southeastern
portion of Tentative Tract 24182. The condition required Newland to set aside and maintain this
area entitled for 188 residential lots as a storm water detention basin until such time that
upstream drainage facilities are constructed to convey off site storm flows to an adequate outlet
l1ris condition constitutes Newland's "onsite" mitigation to protect properties to the west of
Butterfield Stage Road in the event of an extreme storm episode when storm waters could breech
Butterfield Stage Board.
January 3. 2002
1(1019-00002
S:\152ICORR'01120003,LTR.doc
City ofTemeclila
January 3, 2002
Page 9
In an attempt to address the concerns of the Coronas and provide further
. incentives for Newland to continue in its efforts to resolve the Butterfield Interceptor Channel
matter, the City Council on November 16, 1999 placed a "hold" on Planning Areas 6A and 6B of
Parcel Map 29431, Parcels 6 and 7, consisting of 508 multi-family units in the Paloma del Sol
project. Even though Newland was advised by counsel and the staff acknowledged there was no
legal requirement to accept this limitation, Newland recognized the need to show its good faith
willingness to continue the efforts to work towards a resolution of the storm water drainage
problem in this area. Newland accepted this restriction and offered the collateral of 508 multi-
family units as an "equity holding." It was clearly the intent of the City and Newland as
:reflected in the City Council meeting minutes that this would be an interim cOndition.
Newiand must now respectfully request the City Council release the hold on the
:508 multi-family units in Planning Area 6A and 6B of Parcel Map29431. Newland has
negotiated in good faith with the County and the Coronas on numerous occasions since the City
Council imposed this development restriction on their property in November of 1999. As
pointed out earlier in this letter, the Coronas have failed to agree on the various design
alternatives and funding options for building the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. Newland
remains willing to work with the County and the Coronas to resolve the issue of building the
Butterfield Interceptor Channel. However, it would no longer be appropriate and constitute a
<leuial of Newland's property rights protected by the Paloma del Sol Development Agreement to
further interfere with Newland's opportunity to develop Planning Areas 6A and 6B.
Conclusion
The Coronas have offered no evidence of noncompliance with the conditions of
the Paloma del Sol project approvals, any significailt changed circumstances, ornew information
which was not considered in the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No. 219 and EIR 235 as
fiJither reviewed in prior and in' the current Specific Plan Amendment No.8" reiated Planning
Applications and Addendum No.4 to EIR 235. The AD 159 Butterfield Stage Road
construction, and not Paloma del Sol, has caused the storm drain ponding to exist on the Corona
property. The Coronas have a remedy by taking action against the County or they can cooperate
in allowing the Butterfield Interceptor Channel to be constructed by AD 159. Nevertheless, the
Coronas continue to pursue groundless efforts to manipulate the City's land use discretionary
powers to their advantage while threatening the property rights of Newland.
There is absolutely no connection between the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan
Amendment No.8 and Planning Applications currently pending before the City Council and
storm drain issues raised by the Coronas. Any issues the Coronas have regarding flood concerns
should be directed to Assessment District No. 159 and the County of Riverside, not the City and
Newland. This has consistently been the position of Newland. Newland has been willing and
continues to be willing to work with the Coronas and the County on a solution to the storm water
drainage issues impacting the area, but the Coronas need to demonstrate a greater willingness to
cooperate in the process. Newland has acted in good faith in the negotiations and under the
circumstances must request the City Council release the hold on the 508 multi-family uuits
imposed on Newland over two years ago.
January 3. 2002
10019.()()()(J2
S:\IS2\CORR'D1120003.LTRdoc
,
.
City of Temecula
January 3, 2002
Page 10
While the issues of the design, funding and construction of the AD 159
Butterfield Interceptor Channel seem to be languishing, Newland is incurring significant costs of
maintaining an interim detention basin that protects their and other properties westerly of
Butterfield Stage Road. This interim detention basin also prevents Newland from developing
188 lots already entitled under the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. It is this major restriction on
Newland's development rights and not the hold on developing the 508 multi-family Units which
will continue to provide the incentive for Newland to work towards a solution for constructing
tile Butterfield Interceptor Channel.
,
In summary:
.
Newland has vested property and development rights under the tenns of
the Paloma del Sol Development Agreement which is binding on the City.
.
Any flooding that might occur on the Coronas' property is caused by the
construction of Butterfield Stage Road by AD 159 and can be resolved by
the construction of the Butterfield Interceptor Channel by AD 159. The
Coronas' remedy lies with the County and AD 159.
.
There is no caus,al relationship or "nexus" between Specific plan No. 219,
Amendment No.8 and related Planning Applications and storm drainage,
issues raised by the Coronas on their land.
.
There are no substantial. changes in the Paloma del Sol project, 'changed
circumstances or new information having an adverse impact on the
environment requiring a supplemental EIR.
Newland has met with the County and the Coronas to work on solutions
for construction the Butterfield Interceptor Channel, but the Coronas are
,unwilling to accept their fair share of the costs.
.
.
Newland respectfully requests the City to release the hold on the 508,
multi-family dwelling Units in Planning Areas 6A and 6B. Continuing the
hold would provide no public purpose and is legally unsupportable.
.
Newland has satisfied its obligation to protect its and other properties
westerly of Butterfield Stage Road by maintaining the interim detention
basin or equivalent facility which must remain in place until such time as
upstream drainage facilities are constructed.
January 3. 2002
10019-??oo2
S:\152ICORRIOI12000J.LlRdoc
,
Ci~y ofTemecula
January 3, 2002
Page II
On behalf of Newland, I therefore submit there is no need to consider adding new
conditions or to require further environmental documentation and respectfully request the City
C01uncil accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve Specific Plan 219
Amendment No.8, the related Planning Applications and certify Addendum No.4 to EIR 235.
FUlther, Newland no longer consents to the hold on developing the 508 multi-family units in
Planning Areas 6A and 6B of Parcel Map 29431 and requests to be released from this hold.
Very truly yours,
~0)~
Dennis D. O'Neil
DDO/c1t
cc: James M. Delhamer
Dean Meyer
Sam Albadeff
Peter M. Thorson
)
Janumy 3. 2002
10019-00002
S:\152\CORR\OII20003.LlRdoc
,
, .
'..
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
)
A LIMITED LlABa.J1YPARTNERSHIP INClUDING A PROFESSIONAl. CORPORAnoN
43460 RIDGE PARK DRIVE; SUITE 270
TEMECUlA, CAliFORNIA 92590
MAIN TELEPHONE: (909) 699-7556
FACSIMILE: (909} 699-6191
Offices In San Diego and Temecu/a, Califomia
January 4, 2002
SAI.IJEL C. AuwlEFF
SAlHADEFFliilASLAw1.COt.l
The Honorable Ron Roberts
Mayor, City of Temecula
Temecula City Hall
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula. CA 92589-9033
9103.001
Re: Planning Application No. P AOI-O 109 (General Plan Amendment)
Planning Application No. PAOI-OI02 (paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.8)
Planning Application No. P AOI-O II7 (Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24188 Amendment,
No.4) (Collectively "Actions'')
~
Dear Mayor Roberts:
The purpose of this letter is to support a request that we will make on behalf of our client
Newland on the Actions referenced above at the City Council Meeting on Tuesday, January 8,
2002. The request is that the City Council delete a condition that was imposed with regard to a
prior application made by Newhind Communities (''Newland'') in November of 1999 involving
what is generally referred to as Amendment No. 7 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. The
action was taken on November 9, 1999. A copy of the official minutes of that action is attached
as Exhibit I herein. The specific condition read as follows:
-
-
Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to approve staff recommendation
with amending the SpeCific Plan as it relates to Home Depot as
follows: that Mayor Ford and Councilman Lindemans continue to
serve on the subcollllllfttee that is to meet with the proponents and
opponents in an effort to create a reasonable compromise; that the
City will have the ability to withhold approval of building permits
within Tract No. 24182, with the exception of Phases I and 2, as
identified by Deputy City Manager Thornhill; that once a
reasonable compromise has been negotiated, the matter would be
addressed at a City Council public hearing; and that the
subcommittee will report to the City Council at its November 16,
1999, City Council meeting.
C:\WINDOWS\DcsktopIDatalOientsINewland CommuniticslRoberts Ltr 01.03.iJ~.doc
-.
~
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
The Honorable Ron Roberts
January 4, 2002
Page 2
The transcription of the City Council meeting has been attached as Exhibit 2 to this letter.
The transcription of the minutes of the meeting of November 9 provides clarification as to the '
specifics of the motion. There is a discussion by Councilman Comerchero that he believes the
Council should hold up certain building permits on Map 24183 and 24182 with the exception of
phases 1 and 2. His exact quote is as follows: "... We hold up building permits there until such
time as this issue is resolved or comes back to the Council in public hearing for the Council to
make a determination that there is sufficient progress made to release those building permits."
Later in that same discussion Councilman Stone makes the following motion:
~
"I move that we approve the Specific Plan Anlendment
(Amendment No.7) with respect to the Home Depot development
that Mr. Lindemans and Mr. Ford continue to act as a
subcommittee to meet with the proponents and opponents in
coming to a reasonable compromise. The City will have the
discretionary approval of building permits within the parcels that
Mr. Thornhill will identify whereby the; either the ultimate
improvements thatare negotiated are built or the City Council sees
significant improvement in their negotiations to come up with a
, reasonable compromise, where we will have a public hearing and
the Council has the discretionary ability tO'go ahead and approve
the building permits as the Council sees fit."
Exhibit No.3.
Subsequently on November 16, the City Council had another hearing to discuss this
matter. At that hearing the motion was made to substitute certain parcels. The motion was made
by then Councilman Lindemans as follows:
"...moved to have the City, hereby, release the 218 lots in Tract
24182~3 and 4, as described in the Conditions of Approval,
approved by the City Council o~ November 9,1999, and
substitute, in its place, Planning areas 6A and 6B of Parcel Map
29431, Parcels 6 and 7;consisting of 508 multi-family units."
-
-
A copy of the November 16, 1999 minutes is attached as Exhibit 4. The transcript of the
, November 16 hearing clarifies the situation and Councilman Lindemans points out that he now
has two problems that the staff did not have or see any nexus and that 188 lots were sufficient
and there doesn't need to be a hold on anything else. Please understand that he is referring to
what the staff had suggested at those hearings. Mr. Thornhill goes on to state:
"I think that's a legal opinion, but 1 think that's what we stated in
the staff report that we felt there was no nexus and we, the only
,.
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
The Honorable Ron Roberts
January 4, 2002
Page 3
reason we imposed that condition restricting those lotswas to
insure that there would be some attempt to resolve these issues."
Councilman Lindemans then goes on to make a motion to release the original 218 lots
and put in its place the 508 multi-family unit lots iti Pllmning Area 6A and 6B, i.e., Lots 6 and 7
of Parcel Map 29431. A copy of the transcription of those minutes is attached as Exhibit 5.
, The request we make tonight is to modifY the conditions and remove the hold that was
placed on the Planning Area 6A and 6B of Parcel Map 29431. There are three primary reasons
that we make this request. '"
(I) There continues to be no showing of any nexus between these actions and any
impact on the Coronas' property.
(2) Newland believes that it has met the test of "significant improvements in their
negotiations to come up with a reasonable comptomise"; and
.....,
(3) , As Mr. Dennis O'Neil points out in his letter {a copy of which is attached as
Exhibit 6), the Coronas and any other PartY are adequately collateralized with the hold on 188
lots of the Paseo del Sol Tract 24182.
We will adopt, for purposes of this letter all of the staff reports and prior proceedings'
involving the lack of nexus as to our first point '
As to the second point, we would respectfully submit thefoUowing in support of our
request.
(I) A copy ofa George Johnson, Deputy Director of Transportation letter to William
Hughes, the Director of Public Works Department of the City, dated December 11, ~1
(attached as Exhibit 7). The specific sentence is:
"As a result of the stUdy effort, it appears the property owners
unofficially support an.alternative to place the interceptor on the
east edge of the Corona property. Unfortunately i to date we have
not been able to develop a financing mechanism to construct the
suggested interceptor."
(2) A copy of a George Johnson, Deputy Director ofTranspottation letter to the
Corona Ranch dated February 17,2000 (attached as Exhibit 7a). The specific sentences are:
"As you are well aware, "the Butte.rfield interceptor was
included as an Assessment District 159 facility, to be located at the
eastern Assessment District boundary, to intercept the tributary
,
~
......,
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
)
The Honorable Ron Roberts
January 4, 2002
Page 4
drainage flows and provide flood protel;tion to the Butterfield
Stage Road, State Route 70 south, and downstream properties.
The original AD 159 concept was to construct an open channel at
the eastern ADI59 boundaty. Because you own property upstream
of the AD Interceptor alignment east of the AD boundary, you
requested we study other alternatives."
"If you are Willing to place the req~ fll1lUicial burden on the
remainder of your property outside the current AD 159 boundaries,
the Transportation Department is willing to recomniend
Alternative No.5. However, to proceed we Will need your written
concUrrence." .
It is very clear from years of records and the o~ganization of Assessment District 159
("AD 159") the cost for the construction of the interceptor channel was to be borne by those
affected members of AD159, as proposed by the assessment engineer. There are a number of
documents that have been previously submitted to the City and Mr. O'Neil's letter points out
again; the amoUnt that Newland would be required to contribute under AD 159. It is undisputable
that Newland has always been prepared to allow the appropriate liens on its property and the
requisite bonds be sold for its financial share of the interceptor channel. As the attached
February 17,2000 letter of George Johnson makes clear; the AD159 has only a limited amount
of funds for the channel. The original channel design and construction has been rejected and
continues to be rejected by the Coronas. They desire an alternative channel. When you review
the transcript of the proceedings at the City you Will find that what they were requesting Was that
Newland cooperate and agree With them as,to an alternative location for the channel. The
challenge has always been the additional funding. Newland desires not only their 19.1 +/_ acres
in AD159 be included but the balance of their entire property, approximately 145,+/- acres be
included. As the letter of February 17,2000 points out, unless the Coronas are Willing to burden
their additional property to get the financing necessary for such an improvement th~ are
insufficient funds available in AD159. However, that is not the responsibility of Newland.
(3) The basis fOr reason No.2 is a comml!llication form the Coronas and their
representatives to other agencies, for Cixample a letter submitted by Michelle Staples dated
August 13,2001 to Chairman Venable and the Riverside County Board of Supervisors
discussing the same issue. Please note at the time Ms. Staples and her firm was trying to make
the Same arguments on another project, which they are making on the Newland project. The
project that they were discussing was a project being developed by Colorado Pacific, in the
County of Riverside. 'The letter is instructive because it points out at Page 2, in part, as follows:
"The Coronas' engineer Bob Kreiger has been working closely
With the County Flood Control District to analyze and confirm the
feasibility of locating the interceptor channel facility and an
alignment approximately 4,800 feet east of the intersection of
,
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
The Honorable Ron Roberts
January 4, 2002
Page 5
Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79. This is the only
alignment agreed upon by all of the participating Assessment
District 159. owners." ,
A copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit 8.
Finally, Michelle Staples at the hearing on the same item discussing the Colorado Pacific
project Item 13.1 of the Board of Supervisors hearing on September 25,2001, states as follows: .'
"Mr. Alhadeffis correct, the Coronas' engineer has worked Cooperatively with Colorado
Pacific's engineer to redesign the program, the project." She then goes on to state that Colorado
Pacific has agreed to assist to make a portion of its property available for this relocated
alignment. We submit that the parties have cooperated and agreed to an alignment, that a project
owned by Colorado Pacific alloWedli portion of its property to be burdened by such portion of
the alignment and that all that remains to be found by the Coronas is the funding. This funding is
not the responsibility of Newland except as is required for its pro rata share under the
Assessment District. A transcript of Ms. Staples'comments is attached as Exhibit 9.
Finally as to reason No.3 in support of our request we adopt Mr. O'Neil's letter, a copy
of which has been previously attached as EXhibit 6.
~
If there are any questions, please do not he"sitate to contact me.
Sinc7)
{LtA..-
Samuel C. A.lhadeff of '-^
Alhadeffand Solar, LLP
SCA:sld
Enclosures as noted
CC: Mr. Gary Thornhill
Ms. Debbie Ubnoske
Mr. Mathew Harris
-
..
..
,
. .Nolle~ber 9, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council
' "
Home
This is Temecufa
Page I ofli=
City Services
Inside City Hall
Recreation
Help
.~~........~
". ,
City Council Minutes
~ ~ack to City Council Minutes M~in Index Page
MINUTES OF A REGUlAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 9,1999
,The Open Session of the City Council meeting convened at 7:00.P.M.
Present: Council members: ComercMro, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone, and Ford.
Absent: Councilmember: None.
PRELUDE MUSIC
The prelude music was provided by Jennifer Taft.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Pastor Tim Buttrey of Temecula Valley Christian Center.
ALLEGIANCE
Thl3 salute to the Rag was led by Councilman Roberts.
:......)
PRESENT ATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
Women's Club Million Dollar Goal
A Certificate of Achievemenl was presented to Ihe Women's Club, which was accepted by Ms. Terry Blanton,
President of the Women's Club, who briefly reviewed the organizations 1999 accomplishments.
Introduction of Nakayama Delegates
Mal/or Ford introduced the Nakayama delegates and presented to each a remembrance from the City of
Temecula. , ,
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. JlJthough the Vail Ranch1Redhawk Annexation did not pass, Mr. Elton Ward, 45322 Callesito Burgos, relayed
his dismay with the outcome but expressed appreciation to the City Council and City staff for the outstanding,
effolrts put forth in order to apprise the residents of Vail Ranch and Redhawk of the annexation. Mt. Ward thanked
those residents that voted in support of the annexation and extended a special thanks 10 the mell:ltlllrs of the
T ernecula Annexation Group for their efforts and devotion.
B. Ms. CeCe Axton, 30619, Sierra Madre Drive: representing the Temecula Valley Council PTA, introduced the
Council PT A members in attendance and thanked the City Council for its support. Referencing the City's generous
contributions, Ms. Axton briefly highlighted the'CounciI PTA's achievements and successes and extended
appreciation 10 City staff for their continued assistance. On behalf of herself and the Council PT A, Ms. Axton
thanked and extended appreciation to Mayor Ford and Councilman Lindemans for their invaluable contributions to
the City. At this time, Ms. Axton introduced Ms. Cheryl Eckhardt who, in tum, presented to the City a Certificate of
Apprecialion for its continued support.
Councilman Lindemans suggested that the PT A Council explore the possibility of televising its Board meetings
and encouraged the PT A Council to continue discussions with City staff regarding the installation of prefabricated
overc:rossings.
Because of her devotion, Ms. Eckhardl informed the City Council that that PT A Council honored Ms. Axton with
the National Continuing Service Award.
C. Mr. Sam Pratt, 40470 Brixton Cove, relayed his support of the PT A as well as the installation of prefabricated
overcrosslngs. Mr. Pratt expressed his opposition to the Johnson Ranch Project and encouraged the City
Councilmembers to review relative information submitted.
http://www.ci.temecula.ca.us!citvhall/minnt_/lo00U:_..<__.. . ^^^^ . .
o
. Nove'riJ.ber 9, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council
. ,
Page 2 of 1 i=:',-::
D. Mr. Chuck Blackedge, 40325 Windsor Road, owner of Balloons Galore, relayed his concerns with regard to
Ordinance No. 98-10 which restricts the usage of balloons particularly as it pertains to height. Mayor Pro Tern
Stone requested that the Council be provided a copy of this Ordinance and noted that Mr. Blackedge's concerns
will be addressed.
cn'Y COUNCIL REPORTS
A Councilman Roberts commended Councilman Lindemans on his perseverance with regard to the Overland
OVI~rcrossing and commented on the effectiveness of it. '
B. Advising that lAFCO has been contacted 10 discuss the possibility of solely proceeding with the annexation of
VaU Ranch without the need for another election, Councilman CQmerchero relayed his support of such action, if
possible, and requested that the matter be agendized for the December 7, 1999, City Council meeting.,
C. In an effort to promote driver/public awareness, Councilman Comerchero advised that a group was formed to
address this Issue and that he will report to the City Council of the groull'S findings. ..
D. Councilman Comerchero advised that the Temecula Valley School qistrict recognized the City, at a recent
football game, for Its contribution to the Chaparral High School lighting project.
E. From personal and recent experience, Councilman Lindemans encouraged all to get periodic health
examinations.
F. Echoing Councilman Lindemans' encouragemenl of periodic health examinations, Mayor Pro Tern Stone
wished Mr. Lindemans a happy and healthy retirement.
G. Commenting on the succesS of the City's Operation ERASIT Program, Mayor Pro Tern Stone commended the
dedicated Police Officers ,on a job well done.
........J H. Mayor Pro Tern Stone as well commended Councilman Lindemails on his perseverance with the Overland
' Overcrossing. Although recognizing the frustrations of the residents Impacted by the construction of the Missing
, Link, Mr. Stone reminded the residents that although the City will assist with'expediting the completion of this
Improvement, this project as well as the new Pala Bridge Project are ,being handled by' the County.
I. Mayor Pro Tern Stone advised of discussions with the City Manager, the Fire Department, and the County of
pemlitting paramedics to perform ,the emergency procedure of a tracheotomy on an adult and/or child and that he
will n~port to the Council of the outcome.
J. Noting that the City had contributed $10,000 to Race for the Cure (Susan G. Kamen organization), Mayor Pro
Tern Stone encouraged the public to attend and advised that 75% of local monies raised will benait the local
arena. =
K. Mayor Pro Tern Stone requested that slaff provide information with regard to student participation and potential
continued City contributions and participation' In the Teen Project program. ,
.
~
L. To further address the expediency of the paramedic units, Mayor Ford requested that the use of Global
Positioning System be immediately addressed.
M. Roiterating Mayor Pro Tern Stone's earlier comments, Mayor Ford advised that the improvements at lower 79
South are being handled by the County of Riverside and that the City will assist the County, where possible, in
order to assure expedient completion of the project.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda.
http://~NW.cLtemp.c:nl~I':~11c::,J,..;f,d.....l1/......:.....4-__/f n.nn. E~_u"'~ _ ,.. .. I'ol'o_~ .
. Nove'mber 9. 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council
. .
Page 3 ofll---
2 Minutes
) RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the lJ1inutes of October 5, 1999.
3 Resolution Approving I.Ist of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resoluiion entitled:
.'
RESOLUTION NO. 99.102
A RESOLUTION OF TllE CITY COUNCIL OF TllE CITY OF TEMECULA AU.OWING CERTAIN ClAIMS AND DEMANDS Ml
SET FORTllIN EXHIBIT A
4 CUy Treasurer's Report as of September 30.1999
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of September 30, 1999.
5 Uability Insurance Renewal
RECOMMENDATION:
~
5.1 Approve the City of Temecula Uability Insurance Policy Renewal with Insurance Company of the
Wesl in the amount of $81,650 for'generalliability and automobile physical damage insurance for the
period of December 1,1999; through December 1, 2000. '
6 Extension of the prohibition on Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages to Bridlevale Homeowner's
Association property pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section 9.14.030
' - .
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 99-103 _
A RESOLUTION OF TllE CITY COUNCIL OF TllE CITY OF TEMECULA EXTENOING TllE PROHIBITION ON CO~PTlON
OF ALCOHOUC BEVERAGES TO BRlDLEVAlE HOMEOWNER'S MlSOCIA nON PROPERTY PURSUANT TO TEMECULA
MUNICIPAl CODE SECTION 9.14.030
,',
7 Agreement affecting Real Property at 28820 Single Oak Drive, Temecula, providing for Deferral of
Development Impact Fee .~
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Approve an agreement with Chemicon Intemational, Inc. that provides for the deferral of
Development Impact Fees over a fIVe-year period.
8 Reluase Faithful Perfonnance Warranty and Labor and Materials Securities in Tract No. 23371-1 (located
northwesterly of the intersection of Rancho California Road at Meadows Parkway)
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Authorize release of the Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor and Materials Securities for
public improvements for the Interior streets in Tract No. 23371-1;
http://www.ci.temecuIaca.uStcityha1llminUtesll9<JQMinllt...... 1 naoo ......
l'!"ov711lJ,~er~, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council
Page 4 of I i -::-:.~
8.2 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the developer and the surety.
.
) 9 Release Faithful Perfonnance Warranty and Labor and Materials Securilles In Tract No. 23371-2 (located
northwesterly of the intersection of lIIIeadows Parkway at Rancho California Road)
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Authorize release of the Faithful Perfonnance Warranty and Labor and Materials Securities for
public improvements for the Interior streets in Tract No. 23371-2;
9.2 Direct the City Clerk 10 so notify the developer and the:surety.
10 Proposed State Sales Tax Shift (SMART Fonnula)
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1 Approve and support the letter of opposition identifying the City's position to the proposed fiscal
refonn plan by the State Controller.
Because of the negative impact this Fonnula would have on the City, Mayor Ford relayed the City's opposition.
11 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 99-27
RECOMMENDATiON:
11.1 Adopt an ordinance entiOed:
~
ORDINANCE NO. 99-27
AN ORDINANCE OF TIlE ciTY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF TEMECULA, CAUFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF TEMECULA AND EU ULL Y AND COMPANY FOR PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCA TED EAST OF ,YNEZ ROAD, WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND SOUTH OF'OVERLAND DRIVE
(PLANNING APPUCATlON NO. PA99.(274)
MOTIION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to approve Consent Calendar lIem Nos. 1-11. The motion was seconded
' . by CC1uncilman Roberts and voice vola reflected unanimous approval.
At 7::;2 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula
Rede'ielopment Agency. After a short recess, the City Council reconvened at 8:20 P.M., and resumed with
regularly scheduled City Council business. '
PUBL.lC HEARiNG
~
.'
12 Pllanning Application No. PA99.()285 (Amendment No.7 to Specific Plan No. 219 _ Paloma del 501),
Planning Application No. PA99.()283 (De'ielopmentAgreement for the Villages at Paseo del Sol _
Community'Shopping Center), Planning Application No. PA99.()284 (Development Plan _ Appeal) and
Planning Application No. PA99.()286 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29431 -Appeal)
RECOMMENDATiON:
12.1 Adopt a resolution entiOed:
RESOLUTION NO. 99-104
A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF TEMECULA FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT NO ADDITIONAL
ANALYSIS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO TIlE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CAUFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF
1970, AS AMENDED AND TIlE GUlDEUNES PROMULGATED TIlEREUNDER REGARIllNG PLANNING APPUCATlON NOS.
PA99.Q285 (AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO SPEClAC PlAN NO. 219); PA99.Q283 (DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE
VIlLAGES AT PASEO DEL SOL, COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER); PA99.Q284 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA99.Q286
(TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29431)
12.2 Read by tiOe only and introduce an ordinance entiOed:
http://www.ci.temeculacauslcityhalUminutesll999MinuteslllOQQQ.htm
NOVE'mber,9, 1999 Regular Meeting of the TemecuIa City Council
. '.
Page 5 of II--
)
ORDINANCE NO. 99-28
AN DRDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECUlA APPROVING PLANNING APPUCATlON NO. PAS9.
0285 (AMENDMENT NO.7 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219). WHICH AMENDS LAND USES WITHIN PLANNING AREAS I, 6, 8, 27
AND 36: AMENDS THE AUGNMENT AND CONFlGURAnoN OF CAllPANULA WAY BETWEEN DE PORTOLA AND
MEADOWS PARKWAY: AMENDS THE ALLOCATION OF ACREAGE WITHIN PLANNING AREA 1 FROM 32.3 ACRES TO 35.0
ACRES; AMENDS THE ALLOCATION OF ACREAGE WITHIN PLANNING AREA 6 FROM 36.3 ACRES TO 34.3 ACRES;
DMDES PLANNING AREA 6 INTO PLANNING AREA SA (22.3 ACRES, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 268 UNITS) AND PLANNING
AREA 6B (12 ACRES, VERY HIGH DENSITY RESlDEtmAL, 13-20 DUlAC, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 246 UNITS), RESULTING IN
AN OVERALL REDUCTION OF DWEWNG UNITS FROM 590 TO 5IIlI; AMENDS THE TEXT TO PROVIDE FOR THE
DevELOPMENT OF A SENIOR COMMUNITY WITHlN PlANNING AREA 8; AND AMENDS THE DESIGN GUIDEUNES TO
INCORPORATE THE VIlLAGE VIGNETTES AND SENIOR AMENItIES; BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY
CLERK
12.3 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled
ORDINANCE NO. 99.29
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMEClAA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT ENTITLED VIlLAGES AT PASEO DEL SOL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PLANNING AREAS l(a) & l(b) OF
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO. ,7 ' ,
12.4 Deny the appeal of Planning Application No. PA99-0284 (Development Plan) and Planning
Application No. PA99-:0286 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29431);
12.5 Uphold the approval by the Planning Commission of Planning Application No. PA99-o284
(Development Plan) and Planning Application No. PA99-0286 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29431);
12.6 Adopt a resolution enliOed:
y
RESOLUOON NO. 99-105
A RESOLUOON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECUI.A DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING APPUCATlON ,
NO. PAS9.o284 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PLANNING APPUCAnoN NO. PAS9.o286 (TENTATIVE PARCEL'MAP NO.
29431), AND UPHOLDING THE APPROVAL OF THESE PROJECTS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BASED UPON THE
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON
FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK '
, Deputy City Manager Thornhill reviewed and clarified the detailed staff report (as per agenda materials);
referenced staffs opinion that there is not a nexu between the Buttemeld Sta e Road I erce tor Chann,el and
the f,J ses bef e I nciI this even in . ac;lvised that the Channel was to be constructed and nded
IfiroLlgh AD No. 159 and that Newlan ommumties has no control over the timing of this process; commented on
the bonding capacity of the Assessment District; and noted that due the lateness in receiving Ms. Staples' fax, he
has not had the opportunity to review the infonnalion (copies of which were provided to the Councilmembers). Mr.
Thomhill relayed the Corona's concern that this project or any Mure project be approved without Newland
Communities fulfilling its commilmentto install the Interceptor channel. Mr. Thornhill recommended denial of the
appeal and approval of the remaining applications. _
-
City Attorney Thorson pointed out that because Mayor Ford does not own any properties within 2,500' of the
subject site, because Mr. Ford's employer dQlls' not own any undeveloped properly within the applicable 2,500'
radius, and because of relationship of this project to AD No. 159, Mayor Ford may participate In the discussion and
may vote with regard to this issue. ..
In light of the lateness of some of these reports, City AttomeyThorson, for Mayor Pro Tem Stone, advised that
staffl. response to drainage issues on the appeal are summarized in the staff report; that the extensive Newland
Communities submittal is summarized in a cover letter; and that the fax from Ms. Staples is, in large, summarized
on pages 1 and 2 of the proposal.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Stone, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that the construction of
Butterfield Stage Road by AD No. 159 and the raising of it by one or two feet was built according to plans and
speciI1cations and that the two 120. pipes do not adequately mitigate the concerns of both two basins.
) Gouncilman Lindemans referenced the May 26, 1988, (of record), particularly commenting, as per his
' lterpretation, on the CIty's responslbRity to ensure that the interceptor channel is constructed.
By way of overheads, Mr. Bany Burnell, T&B Planning, 3242 Haltaday, #100, Santa Ana, representing Newland
Communities, reviewed the request; referenced and relayed his understanding of a letter dated May 26,1988 (of
http;//www.ci.temecuIacauslcityhalllminutesl1999Minuteslll0999.htm_ 1 ?Ir:./nl
.N.oV~ll1b~r? 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council
record); and noted the following:
Page 6 ofll::::=
That the maximum bonding capacity is $4.9 million;
()
That, as requested by the Flood Control Disbic1, a drainage structure was designed to intercept a
large amount of off-sile storm runoff that approaches the project from the east;
That AD No. 159 was formed in 1988 with its own Environmental Impact Report (EIR) processed
through the County; that a supplemental Disbict formed in 1991 at which time the Butterfield Stage
Road east interceptor channel was originally considered;
That the assessment, at that time, was detennined at $2.2 million in order to protect the 38 acres
owned by the Coronas/Savalas; that the cost of such a facility escalated to $3.5 million (Alternative
No.1) which included a box culvert to protect future farming (38 acres);
That the current proposal requests the protection of 202 acres, which encompasses the entire
Corona, Savala, and Lumsdaine properties for $5.8 million; that this recent proposal cost has been
increased to $6.2 million;
That the conditions of approval for the Vail Meadows Specific Plan never intended the protection of
202 acres; ,
That the Assessment District was approved and the EIR was adopted prior to the approval of the
Vail Meadows EIR;
That the Assessment Disbict listed the 38 acres as undeveloped/unplanned land and the 202 acres
as agriculture land;
~
That the construction of Butterfield Stage Road created an impact on approximately 5 to 6 acres of
the Corona property; that such construction did not create flooding to the east of the Assessment
District; that the interceptor channel was intended to mitigate concerns with regard to the 5 10 6
acres;
That the area to the east of the Assessment Disbict (140 acres) has historically flooded.
Mr. Rich Robato, representing Newland Communities, further clarified. the location and hydrology of the two
existil1g basins and advised that the two 120. pipes were installed by Newland Communities to assist with the
water flow for Basin No.2; and that Newland Communities has been assessed 82% of Basin No.1. In closing, Mr.
Robato noted that the Assessment District has failed to fulfill its function.
Ms. Michelle Staples, 2100 SE Main Streei. Suite 104, Irvine, representing the Coronas, reviewe~e request;
referenced and relayed her understanding of a letter dated May 26, 1988 (Of record); commented on the Coronas'
compromise (as per faxed material) which wo~!d allow the Home Depot project to proceed; and noted the
following: __
That a new flood hazard has been creat~d at the commercial corner (79 South) as a result of the
new building in and developing on the natural channel;
That the City has never relieved the develop