The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About082295 CC AgendaIn compliance with the Americana with Disabilities Act, if you need sl)ecial 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 enaure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Trtle I1| AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER 30875 RANCHO VISTA ROAD AUGUST 22, 1995- 7:00 PM At approximately 9:45 PM, the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 PM and may continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 PM. Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 95-12 Resolution: No. 95-70 CALL TO ORDER: Invocation: Mayor Jeffrey Stone presiding Reverend Joan Rich Egea, Church of Religious Science Flag Salute: ROLL CALL: Councilmember Birdsall Birdsall, Lindemans, Parks, Roberts, Stone PRESENTATIONS/ Proclamation - Kids Care Fair Day PROCLAMATIONS Proclamation - Women's Suffrage Diamond Jubilee PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that are not listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on an item not listed 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 beforQ the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. R:V~enda%O82296 I 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 Standard Ordinance Adootion Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. Resolution Aoorovina List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A Combinina Balance Sheets as of June 30, 1995 and the Statement of Revenues. Expenditures and Chanaes in Fund Balance. and the Statement of Revenues. Exoenses and Changes in Retained Earnines for the Fiscal year ended June 30, 1995 RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Receive and file the Combining Balance Sheets as of June 30, 1995 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance, and the Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995; 3.2 Approve the transfer of $47,570 in the Police Department budget from the account #001-170-99-5288"Sworn Staff" to account #001-170-999-5234"Rent/Facilities Charge"; 3.3 Approve the transfer of $20,857 in the Police Department budget from account #001-170-999-5288 "Sworn Staff" to account #001-170-999-5281 "Community Service Officers"; 3.4 Appropriate $10,000 in the General Fund Non-Departmental budget to account #001-199-999-5276"Sales Tax Reimbursements"; R:',/~mde%082296 2 4 5 6 Contract Agreement for Street Address Numberino RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve a contract agreement with Mr. Bruce Stewart, renewing an existing contract to provide address numbering services on an as-needed basis. Professional Services Agreement- I-15/!-215 Joint (Temecula:-Murrieta) Corridor Planning RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Award Professional Services Contract for I-15/1-215 Joint (Temecula-~urrieta Corridor Planning Study to JHK and Associates, Inc. 5.2 Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract and the City Clerk to attest. Professional Services Agreement for Assessment Enaineerina Services for the Western Bypass Corridor Assessment District RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 6.2 Approve an agreement between the City and John Egan and Associates, Inc., to provide Assessment Engineering Services for the Western Bypass Corridor Assessment District in the amount of $47,000 and 10% contingency in the amount of $4,700. The Agreement will be subject to the approval of the City Manager and the City Attorney as to final form; Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement and the City Clerk to attest. 7 Contact Amendment No. 9 to Community Facilities District 88-12 Engineerina Services Contract with J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. for the Overland Drive Overcrossing Improvement Proiect RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve Contract Amendment No. 9 to provide additional geotechnical and right-of- way engineering services for CFD 88-12 by J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. (JFD) for the Overland Drive Overcrossing Improvement Project in an amount not to exceed $32,260. R:%Agende~82296 3 8 9 10 11 Release Gradinq Bond in Tract No. 27690 (located at the northeast corner of Winchester and Ynez) RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Authorize release of the grading bond for Tract No. 27690 and direct the City Clerk to so notify the developer and surety. Release Warranty and Labor and Material Bonds in Tract No. 21820 (located at Kahwea Road Via Norte easterly) RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Authorize the release of Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor and Materials Bonds in Tract No. 21820; 9.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the Developer and the Surety. Solicitation of Construction Bids and Aooroval of Plans and Soecifications for the FY 95-96 Slurrv Seal Project (Project No. PW 95-18) RECOMMENDATION: 10. 1 Authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for Project No. PW 95-18, FY 95-96 Slurry Seal Project. Summary Vacation of a Portion of Canterfield Drive and a Portion of Temecula Lane Subject to the Condition that a RealiQned Temecula Lane be Offered for Dedication RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO SUMMARILY VACATE A PORTION OF CANTERFIELD DRIVE AND A PORTION OF TEMECULA LANE WITHIN TRACT NO. 21067 PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY PROVIDED BY CHAPTER 3, PART 3, DIVISION 9 OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAY CODE, SUBJECT TO THE ASSOCIATED OFFER OF DEDICATION OF A REALIGNED TEMECULA LANE R:%Age~da~O8229E 4 12 13 14 15 Solicitation of Construction Bids and ADoroval of Plans and Soecifications for Winchester Road at Interstate 15, Bridge Widenino and Northbound Ramo Improvements (PW 94-21 ) RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve construction plans and specifications and authorize the Public Works Department to solicit public construction bids for Project No. PW 94-21, Winchester Road at Interstate 15, Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements subject to the approval and certification of the right-of-way by Caltrans. Comoletion and Acceptance of the Rancho California Road Benefit District ImDrovements, Project No. PW 91-03 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Accept construction of Project No. PW91-03- RanchoCalifornia Road Benefit District Improvements, as complete; 13.2 Direct the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion; 13.3 Direct the City Clerk to release the Performance and Materials and Labor Bonds; 13.4 Authorize the Mayor to execute the Hold Harmless Agreement with "The Insco/Disco Group." Completion and Acceptance of the Construction of the I-15/Rancho California Road Interchanae Off-RamPS and Sianals, Project No. PW91-04 RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Accept the construction of the 15/Rancho California Road Interchange Off-Ramps and Signals, Project No. PW91-04 as complete; 14.2 Direct the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion; 14.3 Direct the City Clerk to release the Performance Bond and the Materials and Labor Bond. Professional Service Aareement for Geotechnical Observation and Testina with Soil Tech Inc., for Project NO. PW93-09, Parkview Site Rouah Gradinc~ Improvements RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Approve a Professional Service Agreement between the City of Temecula and Soil Tech, Inc. for Geotechnical Observation and Testing for Project No. PW 93-09, Parkview Sire Rough Grading Improvements for $10,124; R:%Agenda\082296 6 16 17 15.2 Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement and the City Clerk to attest; 15.3 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $1,012.40, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount; 15.4 Approve a transfer from the General Fund of $11,136.40to the Capital Projects Fund. Aoorooriation of Funds to General Fund Emergency Relief Department Budaet RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Appropriate an additional $100,895 to the General Fund Emergency Relief Department Budget for expenditures incurred for disaster relief from floods occurring in March 1995. Resolution to Establish Entertainment License Fees RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING ENTERTAINMENT LICENSE FEES FOR THOSE ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS COVERED IN CHAPTER 9.10 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE 18 Unified Proaram Agency Designation for Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials ManaGement RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION 95- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DESIGNATING THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AS A UNIFIED PROGRAM AGENCY FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT R:~Agend.~82296 6 19 Second Readina of Ordinance AdoDtina Conaestion Manaoement Program RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Adopt an Ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 95-11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE CMP LAND USE COORDINATION PROCESS ADJOURNMENT TO TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Closed Session of the City Council pursuant to Government Code Sections:' 54956.9, pending. Litigation, Mittleman vs. City of Temecula " RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS 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 hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. R:~genda%082295 7 20 Planning ADOliCatiOn PA 95-0023, Development Aoreement for Van Daele 79 Venture, LTD. RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Adopt the Negative Declaration for PA95-0023; 20.2 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO, 95- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND VAN DAELE 79 VENTURE, LTD. FOR FINAL TRACT MAPS NO. 22716-FINAL, 22716~2, 227164 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28122 WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199 21 ReQuest to Designate Prooertv at Lvndie Lane and Ynez Road as "No Skateboarding. RollerbladinQ or Similar Activity RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DESIGNATING PRIVATE PROPERTY AT 42145 LYNDIE LANE AND 27555 YNEZ ROAD AS A "NO SKATEBOARDING, ROLLERBLADING OR SIMILAR ACTIVITY AREA" PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 10.36 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE COUNCIL BUSINESS 22 Old Town Specific Plan Amendments RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 Receive report and provide direction to staff. R:~AOende~082296 B 23 24 25 Commissioned Artwork for New Citv Hall RECOMMENDATION: 23.1 Accept the donation of a commissioned original art piece for the new City Hall from Mr. Preecha Nillpraphan and provide direction as to the content of this art work. Proposed Keeo Temecula Clean "Adoot-A-Street" Acknowledc~ement Sian Size RECOMMENDATION: 24.1 Re-evaluate the size of the Keep Temecula Clean "Adopt-A-Street" acknowledgement sign and provide staff direction. Beer and Wine Licenses RECOMMENDATION: 25.1 Provide direction to staff as to the approval authority for Beer and Wine Licenses. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Special Workshop Meeting - Old Town Entertainment Project - August 31, 1995, Rancho California Water District Board Meeting Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California Next regular meeting: September 12, 1995, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. R:~.Oenda~)82286 I TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING ~ *'* .":~':; '...',"~..~ Next in Order: Ordinance: No. CSD 95-01 Resolution: No. CSD 95-09 CALL TO ORDER: President Ronald H. Roberts ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Lindemans, Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Roberrs PUBLIC COMMENT: A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can 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 desire to speak to the Board of Directors on an item not listed 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 before the Board of Directors gets to 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" to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. CONSENT CALENDAR Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1995 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Chanees in Fund Balance for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995 RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Receive and file the Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1995 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995; 1.2 Approve an appropriation of $11,237 to Service Level A account #191-180-999- 5319 "Street Lighting "; 1.3 Approve an appropriation of $35,471 to Service Level B account #192-180-999- 5319 "Street Lighting". R:~,~gende~082296 10 2 Rejection of Bids for Construction of Sam Hick Monument Park Improvements RECOMMENDATION: 2o I Reject all bids and authorize staff to readvertise for construction of Sam Hicks Monument Park Improvements; 2.2 Authorize the City Clerk to return bid bonds to all bidders. Amendments to TCSD Landscaoe Maintenance Contracts RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve a contract amendment of $46,945. with California Landscape, Inc. to provide landscape maintenance services for three (3) new park facilities. 4 Desion Services Contract - Duck Pond Proiect RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Award a design services contract of $23,150 to the Alhambra Group for the preparation of schematic design drawings, construction documents and project administration for the Duck Pond Project. GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT - Bradley DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT - Nelson BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS ADJOURNMENT: Next meeting: September 12, 1995, 8:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. R:~a~genda%082296 11 TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING ,. "· '.., . ,:, .' · ' ' Ne~ i~ Order: Ordinance: No. RDA 95~1 Resolmion: No. RDA 95~6 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Ronald J. Parks presiding ROLL CALL: AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Roberrs, Stone, Parks PUBLIC COMMENT: A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can 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 desire to speak to the Agency on an item not listed 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 before the Agency gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR CombininQ Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1995 and the Statement of Revenues. Expenditures and ChanQes in Fund Balance for the Fiscal ear Ended June 30.1995 RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Receive and file the Combining Balance as of June 30, 1995 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995. R:~,ge~cle%082296 12 AGENCY BUSINESS Authorization to Extend Aareement for RDA Consultina Services RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve an extension of the agreement for consulting services with PMW Associated and authorize the Chairperson to execute an amendment extending the agreement, subject to the approval of the Executive Director and the General Counsel. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'$ 'REPORT AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS ADJOURNMENT: Next Meeting: Temecula, California. September 12, 1995, 8:00 PM, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, R:~Agendm\O82296 13 PROCLAMATIONS/ PRESENTATIONS The City of Temecula PROCLAMATION WIn~EAS, Inland Valley Regional Medical Center, one of America' s 100 top hospitals, is conducting its annual Kids Care Fair on Saturday, September 9, 1995; and WHEREAS, Kids Care Fair is a children's health fair in Southwest Riverside County, offering free immunizations and health checkups to children and health education to families to promote a healthy start in fife; and WHEREAS, Inland Valley Regional Medical Center, in cooperation with Kids Care Fair, is committed to improving the health of children in California, to helping families obtain early health care for their children, and to assisting families in finding the necessary resources for that healthy care; and WHEREAS, Kids Care Fair is sponsored by the American Red Cross, Kaiser Permanente and KABC-TV; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor of the City of Temecula, hereby proclaim September 9, 1995 to be: "Kids Care Fair Day" IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Temecula to be affixed this 22nd day of August, 1995. Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk The City of Temecula PROCLAMATION WIIEREAS, seventy-two years ago the woman suffrage movement began in the United States; and WHEREAS, women organized in the rnid-1800's to gain political power by securing the vote; and WHEREAS, this effort was eloquently guided by such gifted women as Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Lucy Stone, Ida B. Wells-Barnett, Carfie Chapman CaR, Mary Church Terrell and Alice Paul; and WHEREAS, these visionaries conduced 56 campaigns of referenda, 480 legislative campaigns, 47 campaigns to influence State constitutional conventions; 277 campaigns at State party conventions and 19 campaigns with 19 successive Congresses; and WHEREAS, the suffragists succeeded in their determined campaign without firing a shot, throwing a rock or issuing a personal threat; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jeffrey E. Stone, on behalf of the City Council of the City of Temecula, hereby proclaim 1995 to be, "The Woman Suffrage Diamond Jubilee" and call upon the citizens of Temecula to observe the 751h anniversary of woman suffrage with '- appropriate programs, ceremonies and activities. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Temecula to be affixed this 22nd day of August, 1995. Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk ITEM 1 ITEM 2 RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C1TY OF TEMF_L'ULA At,tOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEIvlr~"ULA DOES RESOLVE, DETER_MINE 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 $876,964.79. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. AlPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 22nd day of August, 1995. ATrF_,ST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk [SEAL] R~sos\T3 I STATE OF CALIFO~) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMF_,CULA) I, June S. Greek City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 95- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 22nd day of August, 1995 by the following roll call vote: COUNCILlV~MBERS: NOES: CO~CILMEMBERS: COUNCIL1V~MBERS: June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk R~sos~.73 2 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 08/03/95 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 08/10/95 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 08/22/95 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 08/10/95 TOTAL PAYROLL: TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 08/22/95 COUNCIL MEETING: DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 GENERAL 100 GAS TAX 120 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FUND 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 165 RDA-LOW/MOD 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ (CIP) 220 MARGARITA ROAD REIMB. DIST. 250 CAPITAL PROJECTS - TCSD 280 RDA-CIP 300 INSURANCE 310 VEHICLES 320 INFORMATIONS SYSTEMS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES 380 RDA-DEBT SERVICE 390 TCSD DEBT SERVICE PAYROLL: 001 GENERAL 100 GAS TAX 165 RDA-LOW/MOD 190 TCSD 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 280 RDA-CIP 300 INSURANCE 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES TOTAL BY FUND: 'GENIE~OBERTS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE / RONALD E. BRADLEY, CITY MANAGER 81,659,18 275,552.97 393,114.80 126,637.84 876,964.79 173,071.49 13,252.59 0.00 0.00 329.03 80,272.83 17,758.12 22,1 85.75 25,068.37 302.30 250,255.02 0.00 0.00 130,088.78 14,527.97 0.00 10,267.61 6,900.27 6,048.82 0.00 0.00 $ 750,326.95 73,472.68 12,094.23 412.14 30,487.20 616.99 637.26 1,862.36 366.09 1,716.47 564.82 1,537.57 737.07 2,132.96 126,637.64 876,964.79 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT VOUCHRE:;' 10:57 CITY OF TEMEOULA VOUCHER/CHECK REG]STER FOR ALL PERZODS PAGE FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 100 GAS TAX FUND 165 RDA DEV- LCN/NOD SET ASIDE 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP 300 INSURANCE FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES TOTAL A!e3UNT 19,153.82 2,835.10 32.98 21,075.55 3,848.51 105.03 2,427.32 29.74 15,150,22 8,622.58 442.50 1,489.89 1,886.97 4,558.97 81,659.18 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TENECULA 08/04/95 10:57 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE I VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPT]ON NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 24717 07/S1/95 001995 CHR/STOPHER STUART PART RESEARCH SERVS-MARKETING PRGN 280-199-999-5264 24718 07/31/95 000925 SOUTHWEST SPECIALTIES POLICE MAGNETIC BUSINESS CARDS 001-170-999-5292 7,500,00 942.3~ 7,500.00 942.~4 24719 07/31/95 000160 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT SECOND QTR UZ & ETT PNT 001-2~50 24719 07/31/95 000160 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT SECOND QTR UI & ETT PMT 100-2350 24719 07/31/95 000160 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT SECOND GTR UI & ETT PNT 190-2350 24719 07/31/95 000160 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT SECOND QTR UI & ETT PNT 300-2350 24719 07/31/95 000160 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT SECOND QTR UI & ETT PMT ' 330-2350 24719 07/31/95 000160 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT SECOND QTR U[ & ETT PMT 340-2350 24719 07/31/95 000160 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT SECOND QTR UI & ETT PMT 192-2350 2,835.49 252.96 2,268.03 e64.59 206.54 89.06 93.89 5,810.56 24721 08/01/95 000314 TEMECULA MUSEUM FOUNDAT NO SUPPORTING DOCtJMENTATION 210-190-808-5804 24721 08/01/95 000314 TEMECULA MUSEUM FOUNDAT DRAW #2 CHURCH/MUSEUH PROJECT 210'190-808-580~ 3,010.15' 15,443.56 12,433.41 24724 08/03/95 000680 A M S - T M S DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE 001-100-999-5230 24724 08/03/95 000680 A M S - T N S DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE 001-110-999-5230 24724 08/03/95 000680 A M S - T M S DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE 001-120-999-5230 24724 08/03/95 00O680 A M S - T M S DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE 001-162-999-5230 24724 08/03/95 000680 A M S - T M S DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE 190-180-999-5230 24724 08/03/95 000680 A M S - T M S DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE 001-140-999-5230 24724 08/03/95 000680 A M S - T M S DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE 001-150-999-5230 24724 08/03/95 000680 A M S - T M S DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE 001-161-502-5230 24724 08/03/95 000680 A M S - T M S DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE 001-161-501-5230 24724 08/03/95 000680 A M S - T M S DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE 100-164-604-5230 24724 08/03/95 000680 A M S - T M S DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE 320-199-999-5230 .55 24.10 163.48 119.20 168.52 280.03 121.77 436.17 436.16 435.82 4.12 2,189.92 24725 08/03/95 ABC SEWING & VACUUM REPAIR & SERVICE CiTY HALL VAC 340-199-999-5212 72.88 24726 08/03/95 ADAMS, MELISSA DAY CAMP SUPPLIES 190-183-999-5340 34.28. 34.28 24727 08/03/95 001674 ADKINS, ROBERT STEVEN TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 103.20 103.20 24728 08/03/95 001910 AMERITECH COMMUNICATION CONTRACT COVERAGE-RICOH COPIER 330-199-999-5217 217.18 217.18 24729 08/03/95 001323 ARROWHEAD WATER, INC. BOTTLE WATER FOR CITY HALL 340-199-999-5240 24729 08/03/95 001323 ARROI4HEAD WATER, INC. BOTTLED WATER FOR CITY YARD 100-164-601-5240 194.54 107.78 302.32 24730 08/03/95 ATTWELL, NICKY ANN REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION 190-183o4984 125.00 125.00 24731 08/03/95 001876 BEIJING LONGEVITY, INC. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 120.00 120.00 24732 08/03/95 BONILLA, SILVIA REFUND-RC)ON RENTAL 190-2900 24732 08/03/95 BONILLA, SILVIA REFUND-ROOM RENTAL 190-183-4990 100.00 55.00 155.00 24733 08/03/95 BYRD, MONA REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION 190-183-4982 41.00 41.00 24734 08/03/95 000588 C C A P A CONFERENCE STATE APA CONF:CR,GT,MF:8/5/95 001-161-502-5258 24734 08/03/95 000588 C C A P A CONFERENCE STATE APA CONF:CR,GT,MF:8/5/95 001-161-501-5258 24735 08/03/95 001374 CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF FILING UCC3 RDA BUSINESS LOAN 280-199-999-5250 260.00 570.00 35.00 830.00 VOUCHRE2 0,s~/95 10:57 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 24~6 08/03/95 24737 08/0~/~ 24738 08/03/95 24738 08/03/95 24738 08103195 24739 08/03/95 24740 08/03/95 24741' 08/03/95 24742 08/03/95 24743 08/03/95 24744 08/03/95 24745 08/03/95 \ 08/03/95 24747 08/03/95 24747 08/03/95 24747 08/03/95 24747 08/03/95 24747 08/03/95 24747 08/03/95 24747 08/03/95 24747 08/03/95 24748 08/03/95 24749 08/03/95 24750 08/03/95 24751 08/03/95 24752 08/03/95 24753 08/03/95 24754 08/03/95 24755 08/03/95 24755 08/03/95 24755 08/03/95 ' '5 08/03/95 VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME 000151 CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF C 001655 CAMERON gELDING SUPPLY 000387 000387 000387 CAREER TIL~CK SEMINARS M CAREER TRACK SEMINARS M CAREER TRACK SEMINARS M 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. CASTLE AMUSEMENT PARK 000135 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER 001195 CENTRAL SECURITY SERVIC 000144 COSTCO W~OLESALE CORPOR CRALL~ SHARI S. 002024 CRANER, ROB ROGERS 001636 CREGAR PRINTING 001393 DATA TICKET 001393 DATA TICKET 001393 DATA TICKET 001393 DATA TICKET 001393 DATA TICKET 001393 DATA TICKET 001393 DATA TICKET 001393 DATA TICKET INC. INC. INC. INC. INC. INC. INC. INC. 000155 DAVLIN 002008 DIAL COMMUNICATIONS 000523 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER ELFELT, PENNY 001369 EURO DELl AND HONE CATE 000993 FREEDOM COFFEE, INC. GARRETT, LESA 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT CITY OF TENECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION 95-9& MEMBERSHIP-CA SOC OF CPA REFILL TANKS FOR CUT OFF TORCH DESIGN ADS,RPT:BK,KB,RC:917195 DESIGN ADSwRPT:BK,KB~RC:9/7/g5 DESIGN ADS,RPT:BK~KB,RC:9/7/95 SO. CAL EDISON, 3/9/95 DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP MISC HARDWARE & SIGNS/ST REPAI JULY ALARM SERVS-CRC DAY CAMP SUPPLIES REFUND DEPOSIT FOR pARK RENTAL TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS CITY TOURIBM TENT TICKETS CITATION PROCESSING ~ 1.50/CIT CITATION PROCESSING ~ 1.50/CIT ADMINISTRATION PROCESSING FEE ADMINISTRATION PROCESSING FEE CITATION PROCESSING ~ 1.50/CIT CITATION PROCESSING a 1.50/CIT ADMINISTRATION PROCESSING FEE ADMINISTRATION PROCESSING FEE BROADCASTING COUNCIL MTG 7/25 RADIO FOR POLICE MOTORCYCLES PLAN CHECK FEE FOR PRK VIEW REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION CITY HALL DESIGN MTG-LUNCH BEVERAGE SERVICE - CITY HALL REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES FILE FOLDERS W/POCKETS CALCULATOR TAPE/24 ROLLS MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-140-999-5226 100-1&4-601-5218 001-150-999-5261 001-161-501-5261 190-180-999-5261 300-199-999-5205 190-183-999-5340 100-164-601-5244 190-182-999-5250 190-183-999-5340 190-2900 190-183-999-5330 280-199-999-5264 001-140-999-5250 001-170-999-5250 001-140-999-5250 001-170-999-5250 001-140-999-5250 001-170-999-5250 001-140-999-5250 O01-170-ggg-5250 001-100-999-5250 001-170-999-5610 210-190-626-5802 190-183-4982 001-110-999-5260 340-199-999-5250 190-183-4982 001-162-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-162-999-5220 ITEM AMOUNT 75.00 25.21 125.00 · 125.00 125.00 366.38 713.00 252.80 53.00 200.00 100.00 48.00 447.16 54.00 54.00 34.00 34.00 104.25 104.25 36.13 36.12 800.00 759.33 1,500.00 35.00 60.23 83.17 35.00 121.80 27.48 12.67 53.34 PAGE 2 CHECK AMOUNT 75.00 25.21 375.00 366.38 713.0o 252.80 53.00 200.00 100.00 48.00 447.16 456.75 800.00 759.33 1,500.00 35,00 60.23 83.17 35.00 215.29 VOUCHRE2 08/04/95 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 24756 24757 24758 24759 24760 24761 24762 24763 24764 24764 24764 24764 24764 24765 24765 24766 24767 24768 24769 24770 24770 24771 24772 24773 24774 24775 24776 247'/7 24778 10:57 CHECK DATE 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME HOLTMAN, RAY HOUSE OF FABRICS 000806 HOWARD, BOBBY 001340 INNOVATIVE IMAGES 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL 000860 JOCHUM, LORI 001871 JONES, DEE 001903 KELLEY BLUE BOOK 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE 002023 KING, WENDE 002023 KING, WENDE 000206 KINKO'S OF RIVERSIDE, 000548 KiPLINGER WASHINGTON ED 001282 KNORR POOL SYSTEMS, INC KOCEE, AMY 001329 KOHLHAAS, JEANETTE 001329 KOHLHAAS, JEANETTE 000384 LAW/CRANDALL, INC. LAWLESS, KARYN MARNELL, NAM CHEN 000219 MARTIN 1-HOUR PHOTO 002011 MARTIN, KATHY 001870 MENK, HELGA MICHALKO, JO ANNE 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS CITY OF TEMEOULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERZOOS ITEN DESCRIPTION REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION ART SUPPLIES-- DAY CAMP TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS RESTORATION OF THE CITY FLOAT CRC POOL CHEMICALS-BULK CHLORI TCSD iNSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD iNSTRUCTOR EARNINGS SUBSCRiPTiON-USE CAR GUIDE TEMP HELP W/E 7/16 LUJAN TEMP HELP W/E 7/23 EVANS TEMP HELP W/E 7/2~ EVANS TEMP HELP W/E 7/23 EVANS TEMP HELP W/E 7/23 LUJAN TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS MISC STATIONERY PAPER SUPPLIES 12 NNTH SUBSCRIPTION MISC POOL SUPPLIES FOR CRC REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD iNSTRUCTOR EARNINGS JAN PROF SERVS-WINCHESTER RD REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION PHOTO DEVELOPING-CIP TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION 2000 SHEETS- Z-PART NCR; BUS, ACCOUNT NUMBER 190-183-4986 190-18~-999-5340 190-183-999-5330 001-100-999-5214 190-182-999-5212 190-183--999-5330 190-183 - 999 - 5330 001-170-999-5261 001 - 140-999-5118 001-165-999-5118 001-165-999-5118 100-164-604-5118 001 - 140-999-5118 190-18~-999-5330 190 - 18~ - 999 - 5330 330-199-999- 5220 001 - 110-999-5228 190-182-999-5212 190 - 183 - 4982 190 - 183 - 999 - 5330 190 - 183 - 999 - 5330 210-165-641-5804 190 - 183 - 4982 190 - 183 - 4980 001 - 165-999-5250 190-183-999-5330 190 - 183 - 999 - 5330 190-183 - 4982 001 - 140-999- 5222 ITEM AMOUNT 70.00 100.00 240.00 ' 860.00 207.42 168.00 72.00 52.00 364,00 75.83 364.00 112,00 448.00 30.18 73.00 64.29 65.00 224.00 280.00 390.00 30.00 6.00 13.80 156.00 48.00 20.00 234.40 PAGE 3 CHECK AMOUNT 70.00 IO0.OO 240. O0 860. O0 207.42 168.00 72.00 52.00 955.50 / 5~ 30.18 73.00 64.29 65.00 504.00 390.00 30.00 6.00 13.80 156.00 48.00 20.00 VOUCHRE2 o~-~4/95 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 24778 24778 24778 24779 24780 24780 24781 24782 24783 2478~ 24783 24783 24783 24783 24783 24783 2_4783 ~3 J3 24783 24783 24783 24783 24783 24783 24783 24783 24783 24783 24783 24783 24783 24783 24783 24783 24783 24783 24783 24783 24783 24785 24785 24785 ' "86 10:57 CHECK DATE 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 VENDOR NUHBER 001384 001384 001384 001868 001438 001438 001676 001243 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000254 000254 000254 000255 VENDOR NAME NINUTENAN PRESS MINUTEMAN PRESS MINUTEMAN PRESS MIYANOTO, SUSAN MO~REY, JOD[ MO~REY, JOOI NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, PALMQUIST, MARY PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PRESS-ENTERPRISE CONPAN PRESS-ENTERPRISE CONPAN PRESS-ENTERPRISE CONPAN PRO LOCK & KEY CITY OF TENEOULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS ITEN DESCRIPTIOR TAX CONTINOUS LETTERHEAD 4PT-I~ TAX TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS DISPATCH RADXOS MORZLE SERVS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARN]NGS PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT PEI'TY CASH RE|MBURESMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT PETTY CASH RE]MBURESNENT PETTY CASH RE1NBURESHENT PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT PETTY CASH REIMBUR~SMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT PETTY CASH RE]MBURESMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT PETTY CASH RE]MBURESMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT CONNUNITY SERV FUND PRGN ADVER CONNUNITY SERV FUND PRON ADS ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION UPDATE AD TCSD- DUPLICATE KEYS ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-140-999-5222 001-163-999-5222 001-163-999-5222 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 320-199-999-5209 190-18~-999-5330 001-100-999-5250 001-110-999-5260 001-110-999-5260 320-199-999-5260 001-150-999-5260 001-110-999-5220 100-164-604-5260 001-140-999-5220 100-164-601-5242 100-164-604-5260 190-180-999-5214 001-162-999-5260 190-183-999-5320 190-183-999-5320 190-183-999-5320 190-183-999-5320 190-183-999-5320 001-150-999-5260 001-150-999-5260 001-110-999-5260 001-100-999-5280 320-199-999-5242 190-180-999-5260 190-181-999-5301 190-182-999-5301 190-180-999-5260 190-183-999-5320 320-199-999-5220 320-199-999-5220 190-183-999-5340 190-180-999-5260 190-180-999-5260 001-140-999-5254 001-140-999-5254 001-165-999-5254 190-180-999-5212 ITEM AMOUNT 18..18 747.50 57.93 138.40 364.00 36.00 98~.00 260.00 6.47 2.20 10.00 16.73 5.98 8.59 5.25 5.50 25.82 30.00 8.15 21.00 50. O0 5.58 21.52 14.00 .20 3.79 8.74 40.00 36.49 8.06 18.43 45.42 20.99 36.48 12.00 32.17 17.19 39.60 47.66 33.25 209,98 107.38- 80.00 3.23 PAGE 4 CNECK ANOUNT 1,058.01 138.40 4O0.00 984.00 260.00 637.26 182.60 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 08/04/95 10:57 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 5 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK - VENDOR VENDOR /TEN ACCOUNT N.UMBER DATE NUMBER NAHE DESCRIPTION NUMBER /TEM AMOUNT CHE~ AMOUNT 24787 08/0)/95 001988 PRODUCTION CONSULTING & CAL DISABLED ACCESS GUIDEBOOK 001-162-999-5228 24787 08/0~/95 001988 PRODUCTION CONSULTING & FREIGHT 001-162-999-5228 24787 08/03/95 001988 PRODUCTION CONSULTING & TAX 001-162-999-5228 53.95 15.00 4.18 73.13 24788 08/03/95 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C BLUEPRINTS-SAM HICKS PRK 280-199-8,05-5804 24788 08/03/95 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C BLUEPRINTS-PRK VIEW 210-199-128-5802 24788 08/03/95 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C BLUEPRINTS FOR WALCOTT CORR 210-165-637-5804 135.77 21.33 465.48 622.58 24789 08/03/95 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER 02-79-10100-1 VATER SERVS 190-180-999-5240 55,66 55 24790 08/03/95 000426 RANCHO INDUSTRIAL SUPPL KLEEN MIST DISPENSER 340-199.-999-5212 24790 08/03/95 000426 RANCHO INDUSTRIAL SUPPL TOILET TISSUE/SOAP/TOWELS 340-199-999-5212 24790 08/03/95 000426 RANCHO INDUSTRIAL SUPPL MULTI FOLD TOWELS/TOILET TISSU 190-180-999-5212 47.41 218.78 112.53 378.72 24791 08/03/95 001241 REED, JiM BOOT REIMBURSMENT 190-180-999-5243 95.00 95.00 24792 08/03/95 RHODES, DEBRA REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION 190-183-4982 28.00 28.00 24793 08/03/95 000266 RIGHTWAY PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL 190-180-999-5238 24793 08/03/95 000266 RIGHTWAY PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL 190-180-999-5238 24793 08/03/95 000266 RIGHTWAY PONTABLE TOILET RENTAL-RIVERTO 190-t80-999-5238 24793 08/03/95 000266 RIGHTWAY PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL 190-180-999-5238 24793 08/03/95 000266 RIGHTWAY PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL-RIVERTO 190-180-999-5238 62.89 125.78 62.89 220.10 22.50 24794 08/03/95 RIOS, RODOLFO REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION 190-183-4982 65.00 65.00 24795 08/03/95 000269 RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY PAPER SUPPL FOR COPIERS 330-199-999-5220 24795 08/03/95 000269 RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY 11X17 WHITE COPY PAPER 330-199-999-5220 24795 08/03/95 000269 RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY TAX 330-199-999-5220 171.86 172.50 13.37 357.73 24796 08/03/95 000815 ROWLEY, CATHERINE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 192.00 192.00 24797 08/03/95 RUSTLERS INC; REFUND-SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900 IO0.00 100.00 24798 08/03/95 000704 s K S, INC/INLAND OIL FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 100-164-601-5263 24798 08/03/95 000704 S K S, ZNC/INLAND OIL FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-163-999-5262 24798 08/03/95 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-165-999-5263 24798 08/03/95 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES ~90-180-999-5263 24798 08/03/95 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-170-999-5262 24798 08/03/95 000704 S K S, IHC/INLAND OIL FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-110-999-5263 24798 08/03/95 000704 S K S, INC/IHLAND OIL FUEL FOR CiTY VEHICLES 001-162-999-5263 299.36 142.55 44.70 191.38 77.21 12.15 92.03 859.38 24799 08/03/95 SAWYER, JO ANNE REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION 190-183-4982 20.00 20.00 24800 08/03/95 002022 SHAFER, SHARON TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 24801 08/03/95 SILVETT, TONI REFUNO-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION 190-183-4984 24802 08/03/95 001994 SNYDER PUBLISHING CO. ART OF TAKING MINUTES BOOK 001-120-999-5228 24802 08/03/95 001994 SNYDER PUBLISHING CO. TAX 001-120-999-5228 518.40 240.00 21.00 1.63 518.40 240.00 22.63 VOUCHRE2 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 24803 24803 24803 24803 24803 24803 24803 24804 24804 24805 24806 24807 24807 24807 24807 24807 24807 24~07 24807 24807 24807 24807 24807 24808 24809 24810 24810 24810 24810 24811 24812 24812 24813 24814 24815 10:57 CHECK DATE 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 08/03/95 VENDOR NUMBER 000537 000537 000537 000537 000537 000537 000537 001589 001589 000282 002015 000294 000294 000294 000294 000294 000294 000294 000294 000294 000294 000294 000294 000294 000294 000465 001546 000825 000825 000825 000825 000307 000320 000320 000420 001921 000326 001437 VENDOR NAME SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON - SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON - SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON - SOUTHERN CALZF EDISON ' SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON - SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON - SOUTHERN CALIF'EDISON - SOUTHERN CAL]F TELEPHON SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON SOUTHERN CALIF. MUNICIP STAR WAY PRODUCTIONS STATE FUND - SAN FRANC] STATE FUND - SAN FRANC] STATE FUND - SAN FRANC] STATE FUND - SAN FRANCI STATE FUND - SAN FRANC[ STATE FUND - SAN FRANCI STATE FUND - SAN FRANCI STATE FUND - SAN FRANCI STATE FUND - SAN FRANC[ STATE FUND - SAN FRANC[ STATE FUND - SAN FRANC] STATE FUND - SAN FRANC] STATE FUND * SAN FRANC] STATE FUND - SAN FRANCI STRADLEY, MARY KATHLEEN STRAIGHT LINE GLASS TEMECULA CYCLES TEMECULA CYCLES TEMECULA CYCLES TEMECULA CYCLES TEMECULA TROPHY CO. TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS TRANS-PACIFIC CONSULTAN TRANSAMERICA INFORMATIO UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE, VIRACK, MARYANN CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PER/ODS ITEM DESCRIPTION 2-00-397-5026 ELECT SERVS 2-00-397-5059 ELECT SERVS 2-00-397°5042 ELECT SERVS 2-00-397-5067 ELECT SERVS ~-77-795-0002-01 ELECT SERVS 66-77-795-8082-01 ELECT SERVS ~-~-584-8087-02 ELECT SERVS INSTALLED CELLULAR PHONE HANDHELD CELLULAR PHONE-TCSD LEAGUE REGISTRATION-SOF B/VOLB SPRING JITTERBUG DANCE CONTEST ~ORKERS' CONP-JULY 95 WORKERS~ CUMP-JULY 95 I~ORKERS~ COMP-JULY 95 ~a3RKERS' COMP-JULY 95 ~/ORKERS' CONP'JULY 95 I~C)RKERS' CONP-JULY 95 WORKERS' CONP-JULY 95 WONKERS' COMP'JULY 95 ~/ORKERS~ CONP-JULY 95 WORKERS~ CONP-JULY 95 WORKERS~ CONP'JULY 95 ~ORKERS~ CONP-JULY 95 ~ORKERS~ COMP'JULY 95 WORKERS~ COMP-JULY 95 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS IMPROVEMENTS TO MEET HEALTH 36,000 MILE SERVICE ON CYCLE PARTS REPLACEMENT/LABOR;MOTORC REPAIRS ON POLICE MOTORCYCLE TUNE UP & SERVICE ON CYCLE ACRYL]C BOX ~/C]TY LOGO MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES-PLANNING MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES PROF SVCS FOR JUNE 1995 METROSCAN SOFT~ARE-SUBSCRIPTIO UNIFORM MA]NT. FOR TCSD TCSD XNSTRUCTOR EARNINGS ACCOUNT NUMBER 191-180-999-5319 190-18Q-999-5240 :~.0-199-999-5240 193-180-999-5240 191-180-999-5319 190-181-999-5240 340-199-999-5240 190-180-999-5242 190-180-999-5242 190-183~999-5380 190-180-999-5250 001-2370 100-2370 165-2370 190-2370 191 - 2370 192 - 2370 193 - 2370 194 - 2370 280-2370 300-2370 320-2370 330-2370 340-2370 001-1182 190-183-999-5330 190-180-999-5212 001-170-999-5214 001-170-999-5214 001-170-999-5214 001-170-999-5214 001-100-999-5250 001-161-999-5220 001-161-999-5220 210-165-655-5802 320-199-999-5211 190-180-999-5243 190-183-999-5330 ITEM AMOUNT 3,670.74 3,6~0.46 3,507.30 2,321.38 95.35 1,31,0.27 32.22 171.32 273.69 504.00 100.00 4,076.08 1,324.26 32.98 2,586.96 82.42 11.14 105.94 29.74 104.65 11.53 30.12 11.21 313.61 8~.43 384.0O 635.00 215.45 322.87 332.73 215.45 697.68 171.01 500.00 190.00 397.50 20.85 192.00 PAGE 6 CHECK AMOUNT 14,607.~ 445.01 504.00 100.00 8,805.07 38~.00 635.00 1,086.50 697.68 671.01 190.00 397.50 20.85 192.00 VOUCHRE2 08/04/95 10:57 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 24817 08/03/95 24817 08/03/95 24818 08/03/95 24819 08/03/95 24820 08/03/95 24821 08/03/95 24821 08/03/95 24822. 08/03/95 24823 08/03/95 24823 08/03/95 VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME 000379 i~ DEAN DAVIDSON CO, 000379 W DEAN DAVIDSON CO. 00134~2 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY, WERNET, STEPHANIE 000466 WHITEHEAD, RHONDA 001601 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES 001601 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES 001874 WILLIANS, KAREN 000345 XEROX CORPORATION B]LLI 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI CITY OF TEMEOULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION KITCHEN EQU/PNENT ]NSTALLATION RESTROOM FACILITY F]NAL PNT BLDG. MAINT. SUPPLIES-CRC REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION TCSD ZNSTRUCTOR EARNINGS JUN SERVS-OLD T(311 SPECIFIC PL JUN SERVS-OLD TOteM SPECIFIC PL TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS METER USAGE FOR 4/26-5/26/95 5021 COPIER LEASE-JULY 95 CRC TOTAL CHECKS ACCOUNT NUMBER 190-180-999-5250 210-190-136-5802 190-182-999-5212 190-183-4982 190-183-999-5330 280-199-999-5248 280-1270 190-183-999-5330 330-199-999-52~9 190-182-999-5239 ITEM AMOUNT 675 .,00 150,00 185.38 23.00 128,00 200. O0 200.00 196.00 1,064.13 117.8~ PAGE 7 CHECK AMOUNT 825.00 185.38 23.00 128.00 400.00 196.00 1,181.97 81,659.18 VOUCHRE2 PAGE 12 ¢'~q/95 13:51 CXTY OF TENECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGXSTER FOR ALL PERIODS FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 100 GAS TAX FUND 165 RDA DEV- LOU/NOD SET ASIDE 190 CONHUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 210 CAPITAL INPROVENENT PROJ FUND 280 REDEVELOPNENT AGENCY - CIP 300 INSURANCE FUND 320 INFORNATION SYSTENS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES TOTAL ANOtJNT 80,983.48 10,417.49 296.05 30,779.51 13,094.03 22,080.72 3,969.72 272.56 733.15 103,119.80 387.73 6,203.57 1,725.31 1,489.85 275,552.97 VOUCHRE2 08/11/95 13:51 CITY OF TENECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGXSTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 1 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME ITEM ACCOUNT ]TEN CHECK DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 24825 08/03/95 SILVETT, TONI REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION 190-183-4984 240.00 240.00 570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 001-2070 570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 00028~ FEDERAL 100-2070 570858 08/10/95 00028~ FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 165-2070 570858 08/10/95 00028~ FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 190-2070 570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS)' 000283 FEDERAL 191-2070 570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 192-2070 570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 193-2070 570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 00028~ FEDERAL 194-2070 570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (]RS) 00028~ FEDERAL 280-2070 570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (iRS) 000283 FEDERAL 300-2070 570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (]RS) 000283 FEDERAL 320-2070 570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 330-2070 570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (]RS) 000283 FEDERAL 340-2070 570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 NED]CARE 001-2070 570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 00028~ MEDICARE 100-2070 570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 165-2070 570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 190-2070 570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (iRS) 000283 NEDICARE 191-2070 570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (]RS) 000283 NEDICARE 192-2070 570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 NED]CARE 193-2070 570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 NEDICARE 194-2070 570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 00028~ MEDICARE 280-2070 570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 300-2070 570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 320-2070 570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 00028~ MEDICARE 330-2070 570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 340-2070 585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX CEDD) 585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX CEDD) 585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 24830 08/10/95 000724 A & R CUSTOM SCREEN PRI 000444 SDI 001-2070 000444 SOI 100-2070 000444 SDI 190-2070 000444 SD] 280-2070 000444 STATE 001-2070 000444 STATE 100-2070 000444 STATE 165-2070 000444 STATE 190-2070 000444 STATE '191-2070 000444 STATE 192-2070 000444 STATE 193-2070 000444 STATE 194-2070 000444 STATE 280-2070 000444 STATE 300-2070 000444 STATE 320-2070 000444 STATE 330-2070 000444 STATE 340-2070 SPTS AWARDS-SWEATSHIRTS/T-SHIR 190-183-999-5380 11,548.70 1,908.40 3,850.77 92.14 ?3.80 246.05 64.54 174.93 124.14 344.39 105.98 135.09 2,769.67 442.31 13.44 1,069.42 21.39 23.58 63.85 13.36 54.55 21.62 57.94 23.38 69.80 68.05 8.00 150.49 2.17 3,065.79 442.11 8.72 740.65 17.52 9.33 43.05 14.00 37.95 36.50 87.69 18,97 16.18 951.91 23,348.28 4,767.17 951.91 24831 08/10/95 001625 A BETTER CONFERENCE, IN CONFERENCE FEES 001-110-999-5260 178.92 178.~92 VOUCHRE2 i:)-'~'4/95 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUfiBER 24832 24832 24832 24833 24834 24835 24835 24835 24835 24835 24835 24835 24835 24835 24835 24836 24839 24840 24841 24841 24842 24843 24844 24845 24846 24847 24848 24849 24850 24850 ~0 13:51 CHECK DATE 08110195 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 VENDOR NUMBER 000534 000534 000534 001515 001895 000116 000116 000116 000116 000116 000116 000116 000116 000116 000116 001281 001375 000747 001947 001947 001943 001998 001006 001006 001006 VENDOR NAME A F JOHNSON CO., INC. A F JOHNSON CO., INC. A F JOHNSON CO., INC. A S A P TRUCK TRACTOR & A T & T - VAN NUYS A V P VISION PLANS A V P VISION PLANS A V P VISION PLANS A V P VISION PLANS A V P VISION PLANS A V P VISION PLANS A V P VISION PLANS A V P VISION PLANS A V P VISION PLANS A V P VISION PLANS AGNIHOTRI, VARSHA ALHAMBRA GROUP AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC AMERICAN RED CROSS AMERIGAS AMERI'GAS B R W, INC. BECKER, LYNN BLYSMA, SHIRLEY BONETTI, PATRICIA BORTON, MAX BOYD, CAROL BRANDT, JULIE BRANUMo MELISSA BURTRONICS BUSINESS SYS BURTRONICS BUSINESS SYS BURTRONICS BUSINESS SYS CITY OF TEMEOULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PER/OOS ITEM DESCRIPTION 6 - XL 726 BTF RAIN GEAR 10 - XL 726 AHS RAIN GEAR TAX WEED ABATEMENT SERVS FY 94-95 7'30 375 7992 001 LONG DIST SER 000116 AVP 000116 AVP 000116 AVP 000116 AVP 000116 AVP 000116 AVP 000116 AVP 000116 AVP 000116 AVP REVE AUG 95 COeRA PAYMENT REFUND- TCSD CLASS CANCELATION DESIGN SERVICES PER CONTRACT EARTH~RKS CONF:MIKE WOLFF:8/19 MEMBERSH I P -M. FAGAN: 7/95 - 7/96 REFUND- TCSD CLASS CANCELATION PROPANE FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES PROPANE FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES APR PROGRESS PMT-TRAFF]C SIGMA REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION REFUND- TCSD CLASS CANCELATION RE - l SSUE/TCSD ]NSTRUCTOR EARN I REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS CANCEL REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS COPIER MAINT CONTRACT/#5671 MT TONER 611 FOR RP6092 FREIGHT ACCOUNT NUMBER 100-164-601-5218 100-164-601-5218 100-16~-601-5218 001-162-999-54~0 320-199-999-5208 001-2310 100-2310 165-2310 190-231'0 280-2310 300-2310 340-2310 001-2310 001-2310 001-1180 190-183-4975 280-199-805-5802 001-165-999-5261 001-161-501-5226 190-18~-999-5310 001-162-999-5263 190-180-999-5263 210-165-645-580~ 190-183-4984 190-183-4982 190-183-999-5330 190-183-4980 190-183-4975 190-183-4975 190-183-4975 330-199-999-5217 330-199-999-5220 330-199-999-5220 ITEM AMOUNT 69.80 72.80 11.05 18,902.00 .- 5.16 · 465.02 79.97 4.18 72.40 13.49 2.44 16.70 1.52 1.52- 9.75 50.00 614.43 75.00 82.00 105.28 2 08.04 161.75 338. O0 82.12 4 Z. O0 80. O0 38.0 0 75.00 25.00 25.00 92.98 82.00 4.27 PAGE 2 CHE~ AMOUNT 153.65 18,902.00 5.16 663.95 50.00 614.43 75.00 82.00 105.28 369.79 338.00 82.12 42.00 80.00 38.00 75.00 25.00 25,00 VOUCHRE2 08/11/95 13:51 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS PAGE 3 VOUCHER/ CHECK NL~qBER 24850 24851 24852 24853 24854 24854 24855 24855 24855 24855 24855 24856 24856 24857 24857 24857 24858 24859 24859 24860 24860 24860 24860 24860 24860 24860 24860 24860 24861 24862 24862 24863 24864 24864 24864 24864 24864 CHECK DATE 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 VENDOR NUMBER 001006 000134 000413 0O2000 002000 002000 002000 002000 000135 000135 000138 000138 000140 000140 000140 000140 000140 000140 000140 000140 000140 002030 001193 001193 001275 001535 001535 001535 001535 001535 VENDOR NAME BURTRONICS BUSINESS SYS TAX BYRNE, CAROL C B C ] PROFESSIONAL DE CALIFORNIA DEPT OF FISH CALVARY CHAPEL CALVARY CHAPEL CARTER COMleJNICATION PR CARTER COMMUNICATION PR CARTER COMMUNICATION PR CARTER COMMUNICATION PR CARTER CUMNUNICATION PR CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER CENTRE, THE CENTRE, THE CENTRE~ THE CHAPMAN, LEE CITICORP NORTH AMERICA CITICORP NORTH AMERICA COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDEN COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDEN COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDEN COLONIAL LIFE& ACCIDEN COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDEN COLONIAL LiFE & ACCIDEN COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDEN COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDEN COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDEN COLTON COURIER CONP USA, INC. COMP USA, INC. COMPUSERVE, INC. CREEKSIDE TEXACO, INC. CREEKSIDE TEXACO, iNC. CREEKSIDE TEXACO, INC. CREEKSIDE TEXACO, INC. CREEKSIDE TEXACO, INC. ITEM DESCRIPTION REFUND- TCSD CLASS CANCELATION STATE LAWS/BUILD DEPT:T.ELMO 1ST BRIDGE EXTENSiON:LD95-O03S REFUND-SECURITY DEPOSIT REFUND-ROOM RENTAL MICROPHONE, BLACK CABLE ASSY, HELMET, MOTORCYCLE WINDSCREEN FOR DYNAMIC NICROPH FRE I GHT TAX ADOPT A STREET PROGRAM NO PARKING SIGN FOR FIRE DEPT WKSHP:WXNDONS FOR CITY HALL WKSHP:~INDOWS FOR CITY HALL WKSHP:~INDCY,,/S FOR CITY HALL REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION LEASE PMT FOR TELEPHONE SYSTEM LEASE PMT FOR TELEPHONE SYSTEM 000140 600 A&S 000140 600 A&S 000140 800 A&S 000140 800 A&S 000140 CANCER 000140 CANCER 000140 CANCER 000140 CANCER 000140 CANCER NOTICE OF INVITING BID AD MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES SUBSCRIPTION-COMPUTER MAGAZINE RE-ISSUE/CITY VEHICLE MAINT RE-ISSUE/CITY VEHICLE NAINT RE-ISSUE/CITY VEHICLE MAINT RE-ISSUE/CITY VEHICLE MAINT RE-ISSUE/CITY VEHICLE MAINT ACCOUNT NUMBER 330-199-999'52Z0 190-18]-4975 001-162-~-5261 280-199-807-5802 190-2900 190-183-4990 001-170-99~-5214 001-170-~-5214 001-170-~9~-5214 001-170-~-5214 001-170-999-5214 100-164-601-5244 100-164-601-5244 001-150-999-5261 320-199-999-5261 001-161-999-5261 190-183-4982 320-2800 320-199-999-539! 001-2330 190-2330 001-2330 190-2330 001-2330 100-2330 165-2330 190-2330 ~8o-233o 001-120-999-5254 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999'5228 001-163-999-5214 001-163-999-5214 001-163-999-5214 100-164'601-5214 100-164-604-5214 ITEM AMOUNT 6.36 25.00 110.00 1,191.00 ZO0.O0 100.00 26.00 75.75 22.50 2.81 9.63 188.56 80.81 25.00 25.00 25.00 60.00 1,306.35 121.22 39.75 39.75 18.75 162.00 154.74 33.53 6.47 89.64 6.47 242.00 362.88 182.79 16.67 80.35 18.50 452.15 31.83 93.00 CHECK AM{XJNT 185,61 110.00 1,191.00 300.00 136.69 269.37 60.00 1,427.57 551.10 Z4Z.O0 545.67 16.67 VOtJCHRE2 "95 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 24864 24865 24865 24865 24866 24866 24866 24866 24866 24867 24868 24869 24870 24871 2 24873 24874 24874 24875 24876 24876 24877 24878 24879 24879 24879 24880 24881 24881 24881 24881 24881 13:51 CHECK DATE 08/10/~5 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 VENDOR NUMBER 001535 000155 000155 000155 000156 000156 000156 000156 000156 001922 000395 000161 001056 000478 000165 000165 001135 001002 001002 001989 000993 000184 000184 000184 000177 000177' 000177 000177 000177 CITY OF TENECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VENDOR %TEN NAME DESCR]PTZON CREEKSIDE TEXACO, INC. LUBE, OIL AND FILTER SERVICE DAVLIN DAVL]N DAVL]N BROADCASTING OF COUNC%L MTGS. RECORDINGS OF PC MEETINGS RECORDINGS OF PC MEETINGS DENTICARE OF CALIFORNIA 000156 DENTICARE OF CALIFORNIA 000156 DENTICARE OF CALIFORNIA 000156 DENTICARE OF CALIFORNIA 000156 DENTICARE OF CAL]FORNIA 000156 DEN-ANIN DENT-ADV DENTICAR DENT-REV DENTICAR DIEGEL, CHAD REFUND-FORFEIT FEE/BASKETBALL DILLON TELEPHONE CONPAN PAY-PHONE RENTAL-CITY HALL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CO PROVIDE COMM SERVS-PER AGRMNT EDEN SYSTEMS, INC. CREATE COMPUTER REPORT ELITE ELECTRIC ELITE ELECTRIC REFUND- PARK RESERVATION FEE REFUND- PARK RESERVATION FEE EXCEL LANDSCAPE REPAIRED BROKEN MAIN-SPT PRK FAST SIGNS SIGNS FOR 4 JULY PARADE FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES FIRST CARE INDUSTRIAL M PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 5473 6664 0391 012.$ GT FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 5473 6664 0391 0125 GT FOX NETWORK SYSTEMS, IN CHARGED 7~ TAX-S/B 7.75X FREEDOM COFFEE, INC. BEVERAGE SERVICE - CITY HALL G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 699-0128 GEN USAGE G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 699-2509 GEN USAGE G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 699-9159 GEM USAGE GLANTON, JANE REFUND- TCSD CLASS CANCELATION GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GENERAL SUPPLIES FOR CRC GENERAL SUPPLIES FOR CRC MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES; FINANCE KEI CALENDAR, PAD CRC MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES; FINANCE ACCOUNT NUMBER 100-16~-601-5214 001-100-999-5250 001-161-501-5250 001-161-501-5250 001-2.~0 001-1180 001-2'340 001-1180 001-2..'~ 190-18~-4994 320-199-~-5208 280-199-999-526~ 320-199-999-5211 190-2900 190-183-4988 190-180-999-5415 190-183-999-5370 001-161-502-5250 001-110-999-5230 001-150-999-5248 001-161-999-5261 001-161-999-5272 320-1970 340-199-999-5250 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 190-18~-4975 190-182-~-5220 190-182-~-5220 001-140-999-5220 190-182-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 I TEN A!I3UNT 27 .-~ 796.25 80.17 153.24 - 15.00 8.39 8.39 7.84 40.00 ZO0.O0 55,000.00 405.00 100.00 50. O0 40.78 216.25 20.25 15.25 15.00 395. O0 216.00 53.08 88.17 1,105.02 28.57 354.78 Z2. O0 381.82 15.44 81.95 4.01 107.89 PAGE 4 CHECK AM(XJNT 1,029.64 31.78 40.00 200.00 55,000.00 405.00 150.00 40.78 216.25 35.48 15.00 611.00 53.08 88.17 1,488.37 22.00 591.11 VOUCHRE2 08/11/95 13:51 C/TY OF TENECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS PAGE 5 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 24882 24883 24884 24884 24884 24884 24884 24884 24884 24884 24884 24884 24884 2488~ 24885 24885 24885 24885 24885 24885 24885 24886 24887 24888 24889 24890 24890 24890 24890 24890 24891 24891 24892 24892 24893 24893 24893 24894 CHECK DATE 08/10/95 08/10/~5 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 VENDOR NUMBER 000178 001609 000430 000430 000430 000430 000430 000430 000430 000430 000430 000430 000430 000430 000186 000186 000186 000186 000186 000186 000186 001517 000963 000806 000194 000194 000194 000194 000194 000199 000199 001667 001667 001667 VENDOR NAME GOLDEN STATE TRADING CO GREATER ALARM COMPANY, GROUP AMERICA" VOLUNTA GROUP ANER I CA ' VOLUNTA GROUP AMERICA - VOLUNTA GROUP AMERICA - VOLUNTA GROUP AMERICA - VOLUMTA GROUP AHERICA - VOLUNTA GROUP AHER]CA - VOLUNTA GROUP AMERICA - VOLUNTA GROUP AMERICA - VOLUNTA GROUP AMERICA" VOLUNTA GROUP AHERICA - VOLUNTA GROUP AMERICA - VOLUNTA HANKS HARDWARE, INC. HANKS HARDWARE, INC. HANKS HARDWARE, INC. HANKS HARDWARE, INC. HANKS HARDWARE, INC. HANKS HARDWARE, INC. HANKS HARDWARE, INC. HEALTH & HUMAN RESOURCE HERMRECK, JAHES HOGAN, DAVID HOWARD, BOBBY I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS INNERARITY, MONIKA INNERARITY, MONIKA INTERNAL REVENUE SERVIC INTERNAL REVENUE SERVIC KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE KELLY, LANA ITEM DESCRIPTION NISC COffi>UTER SUPPLIES ALARM NONITORING/JUL-AUG/STORG 000430 VL ADVAN 000430 VOL LIFE 000430 VOL LIFE 000430 VOL LIFE 000430 VOL LIFE 000430 VOL LIFE 000430 VL REVER 000430 VOL LiFE 000430 VOL LIFE 000430 VOL LIFE 000430 VOL LIFE 000430 VOL LIFE SUPPLIES FOR THE CRC MISC HARDWARE SUPPLIES MISC SUPPLIES FOR PLANNING DEP NAINTENANCE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL SUPPLIES FOR THE CRC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES-PARKS SPORTS PROGRAMS SUPPLIES EAP SERVZCES REFUND- TCSD CLASS CANCELATION STATE CONF/REIMB:HOGAN:7/13-16 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 000194 DEF COMP 000194 DEF COMP 000194 DEF COMP 000194 DEF COMP 000194 DEF COI4P REFUND- TCSD CLASS CANCELATION REFUND- TCSD CLASS CANCELATION 000199 IRS GARN 000199 IRS GARN TEMP HELP W/E 7/30 EVANS TEMP HELP W/E 7/30 EVANS TEMP HELP W/E 7/30 EVANS REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION ACCOUNT NUMBER 320-1~-~R-522.1 :~.0-1~-~-5250 001-2510 001-2510 100-2510 190-2510 192-2510 ::~.0-2510 001-25~0 001-25i0 100-2510 190-2510 192-2510 340-2510 190-182-~<~-5301 001-161-502-5242 001-161-gg9-5242 340-199-9~-5212 190-182-999-5301 190-180-9~-5212 190-183-~9-5380 001-150-~99-5250 190-183-4982 001-161-502-5258 190-183-999-5330 001-2080 100-2080 190-2080 192-2080 280-2080 190-183-4982 190-183-4980 001-2140 100-2140 001-165-999-5118 001-165-999-5118 100-164-604-5118 190-18~-4982 TEN AMOUNT 4372'{ 35.00 B0.40- 156.85 19.15 ,47.71 6.00 .69 184.05- 136.55 11.40 29.41 6.00 .69 3.98 21.26 80.46 73.98 111.08 408.8.$ 217.81 338.35 24. O0 158.43 240.00 1,289.36 86.44 561.00 75.00 29.18 ZO.O0 22.00 125.(:G 125.62 72.80 72.80 72.80 28.60 CHECK AMOUNT ~7.~ 35.~ 460.80 ~ J 338.35 24.00 158.43 240.00 2,040.98 42.00 251.25 218.40 28.60 VOUCHREZ C-""1/95 13:51 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER 24895 08/10/95 000206 24896 08/1~/95 000209 24896 08/10/95 000209 24897 08/10/95 000945 24897 08/10/95 000945 24898 08/10/95 001534 24898 08/10/95 001534 24899 08/10/95 001671 · 24900 08/10/95 000380 24901 08/10/95 24902 08/10/95 001690 24902 08/10/95 001690 24903 08/10/95 ~ 08/10/95 24905 08/10/95 24906 08/10/95 001384 24906 08/10/95 001384 24906 08/10/95 001384 24906 08/10/95 001384 24906 08/10/95 001384 24906 08/10/95 001384 24907 08/10/95 001654 24908 08/10/95 001214 24909 08/10/95 000239 24909 08/10/95 000239 24909 08/10/95 000239 24909 08/10/95 000239 24909 08/10/95 000239 24910 08/10/95 001354 24911 08/10/95 001151 24912 08/10/95 24913 08/10/95 000246 '3 08/10/95 000246 VENDOR NAME KINKO'S OF RIVERSIDE, I L & M FERTILIZER, INC. L & M FERTILIZER, INC. L P S COMPUTER SERVICE L P S COMPUTER SERVICE LA K~STERS OF FINE TRAV LA MASTERS OF FINE TRAV LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL S LAIDLA~ TRANSIT, INC. LAMBERT,.LORETTA LAUTZENHISERtS STATIONE LAUTZENHISER'S STATIONE MAIORANO, YVONNE MARNELL, NAN CHEN MCKOY, CYNTHIA MINUTEMAN PRESS MINUTEMAN PRESS MINUTEMAN PRESS MINUTEMAN PRESS MINUTEMAN PRESS MINUTEMAN PRESS MONTEREY SYSTEMS~ INC. MORNINGSTAR MUSICAL PRO OLSTEN STAFFING SERVICE OLSTEN STAFFING SERVICE OLSTEN STAFFING SERVICE OLSTEN STAFFING SERVICE OLSTEN STAFFING SERVICE P c MAGAZINE PACIFIC EQUIPMENT & IRR PEREZ, PATRICK PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE CITY OF TEMECULA VOtJCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS I TEN DESCRIPTION NISC COPY SUPPLIES NISC VEHICLE IqAINT. NISC. I~AINTENANCE SUPPLIES REPAIR OF HP LASERJET IIisi MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES ADDITIONAL CHRGS:MJM/GFOA CONF ADDITIONAL CHRGS:MJN/GFOA CONF HAZ-NAT STORAGE/DISPOSAL BUS TRANSPORT TO SEA WORLD REFUND-S~/IMMING LESSONS CUSTC)M MINUTE BOOKS CtJSTON MINUTE BODKS REFUND- TCSD CLASS CANCELATION REFUND-S~/IMMING LESSON REFUND-St41MMING LESSONS BUSINESS CARDS-M,BERG 500 QTY BOX BUS. CARDS; TAX CORRECTION NOTICE - NCR TYPESETTING FEE TAX MICROFILMING SERVS & STORAGE SOUND SYSTEMS ALONG PARADE RT TEMP HELP W/E 6/4 GRAGE TEMP HELP W/E 6/04 GRAGE TEMP HELP W/E 6/25 GRAGE TENP HELP t~/E 6/25 GRAGE TEMP HELP-VICKI GRAGE $9.00/hr SUBSCRIPTION:4 QTRS TCSD CUSHMAN VEHICLE REPAIR. RE FUND - FOR FE I T FEE - BASKETBALL 000246 PER REDE 000246 PER REDE ACCOUNT NUMBER 330-199-999-5220 100-164-601-5218 100-164-601-5218 320-199-9~9-5250 320-199-9q~-5221 001-110-999-5258 001-1170 100-164-601-5430 190-183-999-5340 190-18'3-4975 001-120-~99-5220 001-120-999-5220 190-183-4980 190-183-4975 190-183-4975 001-162-999-5222 001-162-999-5222 001-162-999-5222 190-180-999-5222 190-180-999-5222 190-180-999-5222 330-199-999-5277 190-183-999-5370 001-162-999-5118 001-161-999-5118 001-161-999-5118 001-162-999-5118 001-161-999-5118 320-199-999-5228 190-180-999-5214 190-183-4994 001-2130 100-2130 ITEM AMOUNT 144.71 55.82 10.42 369.15 70.00 60. O0 450.00 398.47 12.50 753.30 17.13 22. O0 22.00 25.00 41.21 38.25 2.96 60.92 30.00 7.05 838.05 900.00 637.20 302.40 291.60 203.52 378. O0 49.95 290.93 40.00 202.31 65.19 PAGE 6 CHECK AMOUNT 144.71 459.83 130.00 450.00 398.47 12.50 77'0.43 22.00 22.00 25.00 180.39 838.05 900.00 1,812.72 49.95 290.93 40.00 VOUCHRE2 08/11 / 95 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 13:51 CHECK DATE VENDOR NUMBER VENDOR NAME CITY OF TENECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ]TEN DESCRIPTION 24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEESt RETIRE 0002/,6 PER REDE 24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 0002/,6 PER REDE 24913 08/10/95 0002~6 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 0002/,6 PERS RET 24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 0002~6 PERS RET 24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 0002~6 PERS RET 24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS CENPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS CEMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS CEMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS CEMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS CEMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 AETNA SO 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 AETNA SO 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 AETNA SO 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 AETNA SO 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 CIGNA 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 CIGNA 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 CIGNA 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH ]NSUR. PRE 000245 HELTHNET 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 HELTHNET 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 HELTHNET 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 HELTHNET 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 HELTHNET 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH ]NSUR. PRE 000245 HELTHNET 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 HELTHNET 24915 08/10/95 OO0245 PERS (HEALTH IHSUR. PRE 000245 KAISERSO 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 KAISERSO 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 KAISERSO 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 KAISERSO 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH iNSUR. PRE 000245 PACIFICR 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PACIFICR 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PACIFICR 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PACIF[CR ACCOUNT NUMBER 190-2130 280-2130 001-2390 100-2390 165-2390 190-2390 191-2390 192-2390 19~-2390 194-2390 280-2390 300-2390 320-2390 330-2390 340-2390 001-2390 100-2390 165-2390 190-2390 191-2390 192-2390 193-2390 194-2390 280-2390 300-2390 320-2390 330-2390 340-2390 001-2090 100-2090 165-2090 280-2090 001-2090 100-2090 300-2090 001-2090 100-2090 190-2090 193-2090 280-2090 330-2090 340-2090 001-2090 100-2090 190-2090 340-2090 001-2090 100-2090 190-2090 192-2090 ITEM AMOUNT 3.3~ 1.00 12,018.71 2,047.56 76.42 - 2,927.21 84.61 294.08 68.91 232.65 102.60 268.09 333.89 52.71 9.48 13,49 ,46 .93 1.40 .23 .78 .46 .9~ .93 2.09 922.05 39.21 57.49 57.49 398.07 22.96 38.27 3,828.32 1,234.83 1,853.27 296.00 185.90 148.00 381.12 753.96 565.42 349.60 65.24 683.42 381.39 619.24 156.77 PAGE 7 CHECK AMOUNT 19,010.15 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TENECULA P""'~/95 13:51 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AIKXJNT 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PAC]F]CR 194-2090 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PERS CHO 001-2090 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PERS CHO 100-2090 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH ZNSUR. PRE 000245 PERS CHO 190-2090 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PERS CHO 280-2090 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR, PRE 000245 PERS DED 001-2090 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PERS-ADN 001-2090 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 TAKECARE 001-2090 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 TAKECARE 100-2090 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR, PRE 000245 AETNA SO 001-2090 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH [NSUR. PRE 000245 BLSNIELD 001-2090 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR, PRE 000245 HELTHNET 001-2090 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH ]NSUR, PRE 000245 HELTHNET 100-2090 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH ]NSUR, PRE 000245 HELTHNET 190-2090 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 HELTHNET 280-2090 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 HELTHNET 340-2090 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 KAISERSO 001-2090 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 KAISERSO 190-2090 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 KAISERSO 340-2090 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PAClFICR 001-2090 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PACIFICR 100-2090 '~-015 08/10/95 000245 PERS CHEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PC 001-2090 5 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PERS CHO 001-2090 e5 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PERS REV 001-2090 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 TAKECARE 001-2090 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 TAKE(ARE 100-2090 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 TAKECARE 165-2090 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 TAKECARE 190-2090 24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 TAKE(ARE 280-2090 101.90 2,560.01 38.40 .17 .05' 943.56 98.82 1,085.45 643.26 121.17 20.45 275.88 13.46 55.18 9.76 8.10 5.92 15.77 5.25 35.26 121.24 43.05 822.98- 34.10 12.90 9.97 2.24 9.96 18,509.64 24916 08/10/95 001958 PERSLONG TERM CARE PRO 001958 PERS L-T 100-2122 51.70 51.70 24917 08/10/95 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURESNENT 001-161-502-5260 24917 08/10/95 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT 001-110-999-5260 24917 08/10/95 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT 001-199-4070 24917 08/10/95 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT 190-180-999-5260 24917 08/10/95 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT 190-183-999-5320 24917 08/10/95 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT 190-18~-999-5340 24917 08/10/95 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT 100-164-601-5215 24917 08/10/95 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT 001-140-999-5258 24917 08/10/95 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT 001-140-999-5220 25.79 57.03 1.48 41.75 11.24 4.56 11.79 57.15 25.86 2~6.65 24918 08/10/95 000580 PHOTO WORKS FILM & PHOTO DEVELOPING 001-161-502-5224 24918 08/10/95 000580 PHOTO ~/ORKS FILM & PHOTO DEVELOPING 001-161-502-5224 24918 08/10/95 000580 PHOTO 14C)RKS FILM PROCESS]NG FOR REC DIV 190-180-999-5301 53.83 64.59 15.56 133.98 24919 08/10/95 002009 POOR SPORTS TEAM SALES DEBEER TCZ90-RF SOFTBALLS 190-183-999-5380 24919 08/10/95 002009 POOR SPORTS TEAM SALES TAX 190-18~-999-5380 897.00 62.79 959.79 24.__920 08/10/95 PORTER, STEVEN REFUND- TCSD CLASS CANCELATION 190-18~-4982 70.00 70.00 VOUCHRE2 08/11 / 95 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 24921 24921 24922 24922 24922 24922 24923 24923 24923 24923 24923 24923 24923 24923 24923 24924 24925 24926 24927 24928 24929 24929 24929 24929 24929 24929 24929 24930 24930 24930 24930 24930 24930 24931 24932 24933 24934 13:51 CHECK DATE 08/10/95 08/1~/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 VENDOR NUMBER 000254 000254 001938 001938 001938 001938 001537 001537 001537 001537 001537 001537 001537 001537 001537 000255 001695 000382 000947 000262 000262 000262 000262 000262 000262 000262 000907 000907 000907 000907 000907 000907 001680 001365 001675 000271 VENDOR NAHE PRESS-ENTERPRISE CONPAN PRESS-ENTERPRISE CONPAN PRICE, JOAN F. PRICE, JOAN F. PRICE, JOAN PRICE, JOAN F. PRINCIPAL HUTUAL, INC. PRINCIPAL MUTUAL, INC. PRINCIPAL MUTUAL PRINCIPAL MUTUAL PRINCIPAL MUTUAL PRINCIPAL MUTUAL PRINCIPAL MUTUAL PRINCIPAL MUTUAL PRINCIPAL HUTUAL PRO LOCK & KEY PRO-CIVIL ENGINEERING, QUERIDO, RAYMOND RAGING WATERS RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER RANCHO CAR WASH RANCHO CAR WASH RANCHO CAR WASH RANCHO CAR WASH RANCHO CAR WASH RANCHO CAR WASH RAY GRAGE AND ASSOCIATE RIVERSIDE CO. DEPT. OF RIVERSIDE CO./GSA BUILD ROBERT BEIN, WH FROST & CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION RECRUITHENT ADS-RECREATION NEWSPAPER SUBSCRIPTION 1YR MINUTE CLERK; COI4HITTEE NTGS. MINUTE CLERK; COltlTTEE MTGS. MINUTE CLERK; COIq4[TTEE HTGS. MINUTE CLERK; COMHITTEE MTGS, 001537 DENTALPM 001537 DENTALPM INC. 001537 DENTALPM INC. 001537 DENTALPM INC. OO1537 DENTALPM INC, 001537 DENTALPM INC, 001537 DENTALPM INC. 001537 DENTALPM INC, AUG 95 COBIL~ PAYMENT TCSD LOCKSMITH SERVICES RETENTION PAYABLE-PALA RD PRJT REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION TEEN EXCURSION:RI3MISSION TICKE MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-05-61906-1 WATER SERVS 01-06-84300-1 WATER SERVS WATER SERV 6/19-7/19/95 WATER SERV 6/19-7/19/95 WATER SERV 6/19-7/19/95 WATER SERV 6/19-7/19/95 WATER SERV 6/19-7/19/95 CITY VEHICLES WASHING SERVS CITY VEHICLES WASHING SERVS CITY VEHICLES WASHING SERVS CITY VEHICLES WASHING SERVS CITY VEHICLES WASHING SERVS CITY VEHICLES WASHING SERVS JUN 95 PLAN CHECK SERVS JUN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVS RIGHT OF WAY SVC- AGREEMENT MAY 95 PLAN CHECK SERVS ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-150-999-5254 190-180-999-5228 001-161-999-5250 100-164-602-5250 280-199-999-5250 001-100-999-5250 001-2340 100-2340 165-~ 190-2340 280-2340 300-2340 330-2340 340-2340 001-1180 340-199-999-5212 210-2035 190-183-4982 190-183-999-5350 001-120-999-5220 340-199-999-5240 100-164-601-5240 190-180-999-5240 190-181-999-5240 190-182-999-5240 191-180-999-5240 193-180-999-5240 001-162-999-5214 '001-162-999-5263 001-165-999-5214 190-180-999-5214 100-164-603-5214 100-164-603-5214 001-162-999-5248 001-162-999-5250 280-199-602-5700 001-162-999-5248 ITEM AHOUNT 332,01 102.45 100.00 50.00' 50,00 50.00 1,467.14 461.34 14.59 386.35 43.75 14.58 22.11 72.92 124.64 25.00 395.15 35.00 203.88 21,55 9.94 15.63 4,324.71 105.79 2,242,845 172.17 2,820.59 20.00 61.24 95.00 4.00 96.62 .02 214.07 125.00 283.53 268.00 PAGE 9 CHECK AI4OUNT 250.00 2,607.42 25.00 395.15 203.88 21.55 9,691.69 276.88 214.07 125.00 283.53 266_00 VCXJCHRE2 P'~4/95 13:51 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 10 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME ITEM ACCOUNT XTEM CHECK DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 24935 08/10/95 ROBILOTTA, CAROL 24936 08/10/95 SAMPSON, BRIAN REFUMD-TCSO CLASS CANCELLATION 190-183-4980 REFUND-SWIMMING LESSON CANCEL 190-183-4975 22.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 24937 08/10/95 002034 SAN DIEGO, CITY OF 24937 08/10/95 002034 SAN DIEGO, CITY OF MAINT & INSTALL POLICE RADIOS 001-170-999-5250 MAINT & INSTALL POLICE RADIOS 001-170-999-5250 571.61- 19.11 590.72 24938 08/10/95 SCOTT, CAROL REFUND- TCSD CLASS CANCELATION 190-183-4975 25.00 25.00 24939 08/10/95 SHOFFEITT, PATTI 24940 08/10/95 000751 SKILLPATH, INC. REFUND-SWIMMING LESSORS 190-183-4975 GRAMMAR SEMINAR:HOGAN:9/18/95 001-16i-502-5261 25.00 99.0O 25.00 ~.00 24941 08/10/95 000537 24941 08/10/95 000537 24941 08/10/95 000537 24941 08/10/95 000537 24941 08/10/95 000537 24942 08/10/95 001589 24942 08/10/95 001589 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON - SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON - SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON - SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON - SOUTHERN CALXF EDISON - SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 08/10/95 000303 SYSTEM 2/90 ELECT SERVS FOR ST LIGHTS ELECT SERVS FOR ST LIGHTS ELECT SERVS FOR ST LIGHTS Z-01-202-T530 ELECT SERVS 2-01-202-7603 ELECT SERVS CELLULAR PHONE-BUILD & SAFETY PAID TWICE/CK 24804 & 24316 WALL PLATES FOR EMP ~ORK AREAS 191-180-999-5319 192-180-999-5319 193-180-999-5240 192-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 001-162-999-5208 190-180-999-5242 190-180-999-5220 8,937.39 13.97 186.20 21,615.61 3,768.35 228.43 171.32- 75.60 34,521.52 57.11 73.60 24944 08/10/95 000305 TARGET STORE MISC SUPPLIES FOR REC CLASSES 190-180-999-5301 109.29 109.29 24945 08/10/95 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 001-2125 24945 08/10/95 001547 TEAHSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 100-2125 24945 08/10/95 0O1547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 190-2125 24945 08/10/95 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES. 193-2125 24945 08/10/95 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 194-2125 24945 08/10/95 001547 TEAHSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 280-2125 24945 08/10/95 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 300-2125 24945 08/10/95 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 320-2125 433.83 86.95 143.38 18.50 4.62 11.10 4.62 18.50 721.50 24946 08/10/95 000825 TEMECULA CYCLES REPAIRS TO POLICE MOTORCYCLE 001-170-999-5214 437.26 437.26 24947 08/10/95 000168 TEMECULA FLOWER CORRAL FLOWERS FOR EMPLOYEES · 001-2170 97.52 97.52 24948 08/10/95 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY CO. PLAQUES SOFTBALL PROGRAM 190-183-999-5380 24948 08/10/95 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY CO. TAX 190-183-999-5380 872.39 67.61 940.00 24949 08/10/95 000515 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER PROVIDE COMM SERVS-PER AGREEMN 280-199-999-5264 24950 08/10/95 000642 TEMECULA, CITY OF - FLE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX 001-1020 24950 08/10/95 000642 TEMECULA, CITY OF - FLE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX 190-1020 24950 08/10/95 000642 TEMECULA, CITY OF - FLE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX 300-1020 24950 08/10/95 000642 TEMECULA, CITY OF - FLE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX 280-1020 24950 08/10/95 000642 TEMECULA, CITY OF - FLE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX 340-1020 24_..._950 08/10/95 000642 TEMECULA, CITY OF - FLE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX 165-1020 45,000.00 3,759.62 644.16 37.50 72.75 62.50 68.75 45,000.00 4,645.28 VOUCHRE2 08/11/95 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 24951 24952 24952 24952 24952 24952 24952 24952 24952 24953 24953 24953 24953 24954 24954 24954 24954 24954 24955 24955 24955 24955 24955 24956 24956 24956 24956 24957 24958 24959 24960 24961 24962 13:51 CHECK DATE 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 08/10/95 VENDOR NUMBER 001065 001065 001065 001065 001065 001065 001065 001065 000389 000389 000389 000389 000325 000325 000325 000325 000325 000326 000326 000326 000326 000326 002003 002003 002003 002003 000409 001209 000345 VENDOR NAME TIDNUS, CAROLYN U S C N/PEBSCO (DEF. C U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF. C U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF. C U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF, C U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF. C U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF, C U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF. C U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF. C U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA) U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA) U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA) U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA) CITY OF TENEOULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION REFUND' TCSD CLASS REFUND 001065 DEF CONP 001065 DEF r.,13qP 001065 DEF CUMP 001065 DEF CUMP 001065 DEF CUMP 001065 DEF COMP 001065 DEF CONP 001065 DEF CONP 000:589 PT RET/R 000]89 PT RETIR 000389 PT RETIR 000389 PT RETIR UNITED MAY OF THE INLAN 000325 U~ UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN 000325 UW UNITED WAY OF THE [NLAN 000325 UW UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN 000325 UW UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN 000325 UW UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE, UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE, UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE° UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE, UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE, UNITROL CORPORATION UN[TROL CORPORATION UN[TROL CORPORATION UN[TROL CORPORATION VALLEN SAFETY SUPPLY, [ VAULT INC., THE WELLING, DEBRA WOOOING, BERYL XEROX CORPORATION BILLI YANTIS, EVELYN UNIFORMS FOR PUBLIC WORKS UNIFORM MAINT, FOR TCSD FLOOR MAT RENTAL AND CLEANING FLOOR MAT RENTAL AND CLEANING FLOOR MAT RENTAL AND CLEANING 100 WATT SIREN DRIVER 80104 AMPLIFIER/EXCHANGE FOR FREIGHT TAX 2 FILTERS FOR TMX-410 STORAGE FOR MICROFILM REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION REFUND- TCSD CLASS CANCELATION 12 MONTH MAINT. CONTRACT 5012 REFUND- TCSD CLASS CANCELATiON ACCOUNT NUMBER 190-183-4982 001-2080 100-2080 190-2080 194-2080 280-2080 300-2080 320-2080 ~.0-2080 001-2160 100-2160 190-2160 280-2160 001-2120 100-2120 165-2120 190-2120 280-2120 100-164-601-5243 190-180-999-5243 190-181-999-5250 190-182-999-5250 190-181-999-5250 001-170-999-5214 001-170-999-5214 001-170-999-5214 001-170-999-5214 100-164-601-5218 330-199-999-5277 190-183-4982 190-183-4975 330-199-999-5217 190-183-4975 ITEN AMOUNT 48.00 2,16~.98 105.58 387.00 5.00 19.70 5.00 312.50 87.50 510.30 60.00 1,128.48 16.26 56.80 6.50 .75 17.00 .95 23.50 20.85 34.50 38.23 25.12 109.00 50.00 4.82 12.32 28.71 20.0O 20.00 25.00 117.84 25.00 PAGE 11 CHECK AMOUNT ~8.00 3,087.26 1,715.04 8Z.00 142.20 176.14 28.71 20.00 20.00 25.00 117.84 25.00 TOTAL CHECKS 275,552.97 VOUCHRE2 PAGE 3 QB..z'11/95 1A:38 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 1'~3 CONNUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 210 CAPITAL INPROVENENT PROJ FUND 280 REDEVELOPNENT AGENCY - CIP 300 INSURANCE FUND 320 ZNFORNATION SYSTENS SUPPORT SERVICES AIKIUNT 72,956.19 28,617.77 815.58 18,669.:~ 2.~,371.65 18,3A6.40 13,697.74 2,574.15 TOTAL 393,114.80 VOUCHRE2 08/11/95 14:38 CITY OF TENECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK .NUMBER 24965 24966 24966 24967 24967 24969 24969 24969 24969 24969 24969 24969 24969 24970 24970 24970 24971 24971 24971 24971 24972 24973 24973 24974 24974 24975 24976 24976 2497'7 2497'7 24978 24978 24979 24980 24980 CHECK DATE 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08122195 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/Z2/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM NUMBER NAME DESCR]PTIOR NU!iER AMOUNT 001281 0019/,3 001943 001516 001516 000123 000123 000123 000123 000123 000123 000123 000123 000638 000638 000638 000126 000126 000126 000126 001996 001924 001924 001945 001945 001693 000164 000164 001056 001056 000820 000820 001207 001207 ALHAMBRA GROUP B R ~, INC. B R g, INC. BARTOR-ASCHNAN ASSOCIAT BARTOR-ASCHNAN ASSOCIAT BURI(~ WILLIANS & SO!lENS BURKE MILLIANS & SORENS BURICE MILLIAMS & SORENS BURKE MILLIAMS & SORENS BURICE glLLIAI4S & SOREMS BURKE MILLIAI, IS & SOREMS BURKE ~ILLIAIqS & SORENS BURKE MILLIANS & SORENS CALIFORNIA DEPT OF CONS CALIFORNIA DEPT OF CONS CALIFORNIA DEPT OF CONS CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA CONP PLUS DAVID M. GRIFFITN & ASS DAVID M. GRIFFITH & ASS E. A. MENDOZA CONTRACTI E. A. MENDOZA CONTRACTI EDMONDSON CONSTRUCTION ESGIL CORPORAT%ON ESGIL CORPORATION EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE K R W & ASSOCIATES K R ~ & ASSOCIATES KINDER CARE LEARNING CE HARTIN J. JASKA, INC. HARTIN J. JASKA, ]NC. DESIGN SERVICES-NARGARITA PARK 210-190-119-5802 HAY PROGRESS PNT-TRAFFIC SIGMA 210-165-645-5804 JON PROF SERVS-TRAFFIC SIGNAL 210-165-6~5-5804 JUN SERVS-TRAFF]C ]lIPACT STUDY 280-199-999-5248 JUN SERVS-TRAFF]C litPACT STUDY 280-1270 JUN 95 LEGAL SERV$ JUR 95 LEGAL SERVS JUN 95 LEGAL SERVS JUN 95 LEGAL SERVS SERVICE FEES THROUGH MAR 95 PROF SERVS-CLAIMS SERVICE FEES THRU 04-30-95 HAy 95 PROF SERVS-CLA]MS 001-1280 001 - 130-999-52~6 190-180-999-52~6 280-199-999-5246 300-199-999-52O7 300-199-999-5207 300 - 199 - 999 - 5207 300-199-999-5207 COLLECTED SMl FOR STATE COLLECTED Slql FOR STATE COLLECTED SHI FOR STATE 001-2280 001-2290 001-162-4229 AUG LANDSCAPE HAINT-PARKS AUG LANDSCAPE HAINT-SR CNTER AUG LANDSCAPE HAINT-C.R.C. AUG LANDSCAPE HAZNT-MEDIANS 190-180-999-5415 190-181-999-5415 190-182-999-5415 191-180-999-5415 COMPENSATION STUDY 001-150-999-5248 DIF STUDY HAY/JUNE 1995 DIF STUDY - EXPENSES 001-140-999-5248 001-140-999-5248 JUL PROGRESS PMT-SPT PRK PRJT 210-190-137-5804 JULY PROGRESS PNT-IOX RETENTIO 210-2035 RETENTION DUE-WINCHESTER PRJT 210-2035 MAY 95 PLAN CHECK SERVS JUN 95 PLAN CHECK SERVS JUL LANDSCAPE HAINT-SLOPE AREA JUL LANDSCAPE HAINT-SPT PRK 001-162-999-5248 001-162-999-5248 193-180-999-5415 190-180-999-5415 JUN PLAN CHECK SERVS 001-163-999-5249 k'ORKERS' CONP CHARGE INV 95.30 001-1182 REFUND OF GRADING SURIETY 001-2670 JUL PRGSS PNT-PALA CONN PRK RETENTION W/H DRAW # 11 210-190-120-5804 210-2035 4,100,00 3,3~5.32 1,470.27 6]7.40 637.40 182.78 23,478.78 141.75 10,132.67 4,668.07 2,211.50 2,786.98 4,031,19 1,265.05 2,765.10 201.51- 13,547.61 242.52 1,670.81 815.58 8,690.00 388.62 133,500.00 13,350.00- 30,168.71 4,714.24 12,0~3.05 18,669.33 7,605.64 2,600.00 84.43- 1,500.00 9,762,00 976.20- CHECK AJ4OUNT 4,100.00 6,815.59 1,274.80 47,633.72 3,828.6~ 16,2/o.52 2,166.66 9,078.62 120,150.00 30,168.71 16,757.29 26,274.97 2,515.57 1,500.00 8,785.80 VOUCHRE2 0~z11/95 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 24981 24981 24982 24982 24983 24984 24984 24985 24985 24985 24986 24987 24988 24988 24988 ,8 24988 24989 24990 24990 24991 24991 24991 24991 24991 24991 24991 24992 24993 24994 24994 24994 24994 24995 14:38 CHECK DATE 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 08/22/95 CITY OF TENECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT 001067 001067 000230 000230 001713 000235 000235 001383 001383 001383 001585 001675 000269 000269 000269 000269 000269 000269 000271 001897 001897 001990 001990 001990 001990 001990 001990 001990 000314 0019~ 000332 000332 000332 000332 000621 NITY'L[TE, INC. NITY'LZTE, INC. GREY TABLES 36' X 72' FREIGHT NUNI FINANCIAL SERVICES FY 93/95 ASSlIT NAIL NOTICE NUNI FINANCIAL SERVICES OVRPNT-INV 933916 NORRIS-REPKE, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES 0 C B REPROGRAPH]CS, IN BLUEPRINTS-PARIS/JEW 0 C B REPROGRAPH]CS, IN OVER-CHARGE-PER AGREEMENT P M W ASSOCIATES, INC. P M W ASSOCIATES, INC. P M W ASSOCIATES, INC. STAFF DEVEL WKSHP:JULY 13 STAFF DEVEL ~tCSHP:JULY 13 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PAUL GARDNER CORPORATIO RETENTION PAYABLE-WINCHESTER R RIVERSIDE CO./GSA BUILD RIGHT OF WAY SERVICES AGREEMEN RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY WHITE COPY PAPER PINK COPY PAPER BLUE COPY PAPER BUFF COPY PAPER GREEN COPY PAPER TAX ROBERT BEIN, WM FROST & JUN PRGSS PMT-WALCOTT CORRIDOR RONALD L. HARRIS CONSTR JUL PRGSS PMT-MORAGA RD WIDENI RONALD L. HARRIS CONSTR RETENTION W/H INVOICE 2 SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNAT SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNAT SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNAT SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNAT SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNAT SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNAT SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNAT HP SCANJET 3C SCANNER HP AUTO DOC FEEDER TAX COMPLAINTS DESK FOR WIND(3~S MISCROSOFT PROJECT V4 MICROSOFT PROJECT V4-UPGP, ADE TAX TEMECULA VALLEY MUSEUM MUSEUM & ST.CATHERINE DRAW if3 TRANSTECH ENGINEERS, IN JUN SERVS'TRAFFIC SIGNAL DESIG VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATI VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIAT/ VANDORPE CHOU ASSOC/ATI VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATZ NAY 95 PLAN CHECK SERVS JUN 95 PLAN CHECK SERVS PLAN CK SERVS-FIRE STATION JUL 95 PLAN CHECK SERVS WESTERN R/VERSIDE COUNC AGRMNT-CONSULT SERVS SWAPD NOD 190-180-999-5220 190-180-999-5220 190-180-999-5250 190-180-999-5250 280-199-807-5802 210-190-626-5802 210-190-626-5802 001-150-999-5261 001-110-999-5261 001-150-999-5248 210-2035 280-199-602'5700 330-199-999-5220 330-199-999-5220 330-199-999-5720 330-199-999-5220 330-199-999-5220 330-199-999-5220 210-165-637-5802 210-165-625-5804 210-2035 320-1970 320-1970 320-1970 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 520-199-999-5221 210-190-808-5804 210-165-659-5804 001-162-999-5248 001-162-999-5248 210-190-626-5802 001-162-999-5248 210-165-633-5802 1,0~8.00 52.00 4,359.10 249.66~ 5,727.50 1:065.83 91.34' 606.70 606.70 1,452.40 6,/di2.20 1,211.43 2,632.00 167.80 83.90 83.90 83.90 236.49 3,413.00 33,764.00 3,376.40' 909.00 435.00 104.16 148.00 772.00 125.00 80.99 1,770.00 1,186.81 8,575.24 1,140.51 1,000.00 12,500.00 PAGE 2 CHECK AMOUNT 1,100.00 4,109.Z~ 5,727.50 974.49 2,665.80 6,482.20 1,211.43 3,287.99 3,413.00 '30,387.60 2,574.15 9,683.75 1,770.00 11,900.56 12,500.00 TOTAL CHECKS 393,114.80 ITEM 3 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Manager/City Council Genie Roberrs, Director of Finance August 22, 1995 Combining Balance Sheets as of June 30, 1995 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance, and the Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995. PREPARED BY: Tim McDermott, Assistant Finance Director RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Receive and file the Combining Balance Sheets as of June 30, 1995 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance, and the Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995. Approve the transfer of $47,570 in the Police Department budget from account//001- 170-999-5288"Sworn Staff" to account #001-170-999-5234"Rent/Facilities Charge". Approve the transfer of $20,857 in the Police Department budget from account #001- 170-999-5288 "Sworn Staff" to account #001-170-999-5281 "Community Service Officers". Appropriate $10,000 in the General Fund Non-Departmental budget to account #001- 199-999-5276 "Sales Tax Reimbursements". DISCUSSION: The attached financial statements reflect the unaudited activity of the City for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1995. These statements may not reflect all year end closing entries. Please see the attached financial statements for analytical review of financial activity. Over the past several months an analysis has been performed of amounts that were charged to the County in during 1992 and 1993 for the Police Department's use of City office space. The result of this analysis showed that the City had overcharged the County by approximately ~43,000. A budget transfer is thus required for this amount due back to the County. 3. One Community Service Officer was added in the beginning of the fiscal year to provide additional police services in areas such as parking enforcement and business outreach. The Police Department finds it more cost effective to carry out these programs using a Community ServiCe Officer rather than Sworn Staff. 4. Due to a 5.4% increase in sales tax generated within the area covered by the CFD 88- 12 sales tax reimbursement agreement, the amount of reimbursement owed to property owners for 1994-95 is slightly higher than originally projected. As such, an additional appropriation of ~10,000 is required. FISCAL IMPACT: As is presented in the attached financial statements, there are adequate funds available in the Police Department budget to cover the two requested transfers. There are also adequate General Fund reserves available for the $9,863 appropriation request. ATTACHMENTS: Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1995 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995 Combining Balance Sheet (Internal Service Funds) as of June 30, 1995 Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995 b", o Xr""~ X c m.ul-- m.uI-. E o 's E E E,- = ~ .=e ,> .'- << ITEM 4 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL: CITY ATI'ORNEY City Council/City Manager Anthony Elmo, Chief Building Officia~ August 22, 1995 Contract Agreement for Street Address Numbering RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve a contract agreement with Mr. Bruce Stewart, 3155 Mr. Vernon Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501, (909) 784-8484, which renews an existing contract to provide address numbering services on an as-needed basis. DISCUSSION: The Building and Safety Department has utilized the services of a consultant to provide the City with the service of assigning street address numbers for new development projects. Staff has utilized Mr. Bruce Stewart to perform these services and recommends this contract be renewed for Fiscal Year 1995-1996. Mr. Bruce Stewart has agreed to provide this supplemental service on an as-needed basis for compensation at the rate of twenty ($20) dollars per hour, the same compensation awarded in the previous contract. Mr. Bruce Stewart has had experience with the County of Riverside and has provided street addressing under the program which has also been established in the City. FISCAL IMPACT: Monies have already been appropriated in the Fiscal Year 1995-1996 budget in Account #001-162-999-5250, Other Outside Services, for this service. Sufficient funds exist to complete this project within this existing account. V:\TONY~AGENDA~94-95.STW 8/3/95 Ma .' PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement was made and entered into this 1st day of Iuly 199~, by and between the City of Temec~dn ("City"), a municipal corporation, and Bruce Stewart, an address numberin~ service ("Consultant"). The parties herao mutually agree as follows: 1. Services. Consnltant shrill perform the t~nh set forth in Exhibit A attached hereW. Consultant shall complete the m.dc~ accoxding to the schedule set forth in E~ch~it A. 2. Performance. Consultant sbnll at all times, fajth~xlly, industri nlly and to the best of his ability, experience and talent, perform all m.~lc~ described herein. 3. Payment. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, rates set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first 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. ' 4. Amendments. This Agreement may be mended so long as such amendment is in writing and agreed upon by both the City Council and Consultant. 5. Ownership Of Documents. Upon satisfactory completion of, or in the event of termination, suspension or abandonment of, this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings and notes prepared in the course of pwviding the services W be pe~ormed pursuant w this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, roused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. 6. Termination. The City may terminate this Agreement without cause so long as wriRen notice of intent to terminate is giv6n to Consultant at least ten (10) working days prior to the termination date. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be paid for the services performed. 7. Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City of Temecula, its officers, officinls, employees and volunteers from and agnin~ any and all claims, demands, losses, defense cost, 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 Consultants acts or omissions under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City. V:~V/I~AOR.4B.STB 8. Stares of Consultant. Consultant is an indepeMem contractor in all respects in the performance of thi.~ Agreement and shall not be ¢xmsidered an employee of the City for any purpose. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the pe~ormance of thi~ Agreement. Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay ~lsries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for perfoming 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. 9. Term. This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 1995, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30,19¢26. 10. Subcontracts. The Consultant shah not enter into any' subcontram for services to be rendered toward the completion of the Consultant's portion of thi.~ Agreement without the consent of the City. At all times, Bruce Stewart shall be primarily responsible for the performance of the tasks described herein. 11. Default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreemere, the City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Default shall include not performing the tasks described herein to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Manager of the City. Failure by the Consultant to make pwgress in the performance of work hereunder, if such failure arises out of causes beyond his control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, shall not be considered a default. Any disputes regarding performance, default or other matters in dispute between the City and the Consultant arising out of this Agreement or breech thereof, shall be resolved by arbitration. The arbitrator's decision shall be final. Consultant shall select an arbitraWr from a list provided by the City of three retired judges of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. The arbitration hearing shall be conducted according to California Code of Civil Proc~ure Section 1280, et seq. City and Consultant shall share the cost of the arbitration equally. 12. Notices. Notices shall be given pursuant to this Agreement by personal service on the party to be notified, or by written notice upon such party deposited in the custody of the United States Postal Senrice addressed as follows: V:~Wi~AOR~B.~FE a. city: City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecnla, CA 92590 Bnsce Stewart 3155 ML Vernon Avenue Riverside, CA 92501 The notices shall be deemed to have been given as of the date of personal service, or three (3) days after the date of deposit of the same in the custody of the United States Postal Senrice. 13. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and any documents or instrument attached hcreto or refcrred to herein integrate nil terms and conditions mcntioned hcrein or incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect to the subject matter hereof. In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of thk Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall prevail. 14. Liability. Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay .~laries, 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. Consultant shall maintain limits of insurance no less than as listed below. In addition, insurance certificates and endorsements must be completed and attached. Automobile Liability: $300,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. V:%WP~A~3R-~5.5'I~ The parties hereto have executed thi.~ Agreement on the date and year above written. CONSULTANT Title ATTEST: CITY OF TI~viECULA By: Jeffx~ E. Stone, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter Thorson, City Attorney V:~WP~AGR-~.STE ~ITA TASKS TO BE PHRFO~ It is agreed that Mr. Bruce Stewart will provide address numbering on an u-needed basis for residenti:~l and comm61'cial development throughout the City of Temecula. EXtlmITB PA~ SC~-~UL~ It is agreed that Mr. Bruce Stewart, 3155 Mt. Vernon Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501, (714) 784-8484, will provide address numbering on an E-needed basis for residentinl and commercial development throughout the City of Temecula at the rate of twenty ($20.00) dollan per hour. V:\Wl%~OR-OS.STE ITEM 5 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager (~Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 22, 1995 I-15/I-215 Joint (Temecula-Murriete) Corridor Planning Study'- Contract Award to JHK and Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council award Professional Services Contract for I-15/I-215 Joint (Temecula- Murrieta) Corridor Planning Study to JHK and Associates, Inc. DISCUSSION: On May 11, 1995, the Joint (Temecula-Murrieta) Transportation Committee voted unanimously to recommend the City Councils of the two cities enter into a contract with JHK and Associates, with the amount no to exceed $74,991. Their recommendation was based on the recommendation of the interview panel composed of the representatives of the two cities, Caltrans and WRCOG. The City of Temecula is the lead agency in this project. The source of funding for the proposed project is the Federal STP Planning funds of 88.53%, with the balance of 11.47% being shared equally by the two cities, or $4,300.74 by each City. The purpose of the study is to determine the most efficient way of moving traffic along the corridors of the two Interstate Routes and to establish a priority list of projects to accomplish this goal. Investigation of sources and the availability of funding for these projects are likewise within the scope of this study. An Agreement for the Federal funding of the study has been previously approved by the City Council as well as Caltrans, and is on file with the City Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT: The City of Temecula's pro-rata shares of the cost of this project is included in this year's Capital Improvement Program recently approved by the City Council. The Federal portion of - 1 - r :\agd rpt\95~0822~jhk.psa the cost are likewise included in the budget for this project and will be received as reimbursement for the expenditures. Attachments: 1. Exhibit A - Study Area Map 2. Exhibit B - Agreement for Professional Services - 2- r:%agd rpt%95~0822~jhk.pse AGI~h'~-MENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of ,19._ · between the Cities of Murrieta and Temec~j!a, municipal corporations, herei,~r referred to as "Cities" and the following consultant: JHK &Associates. Inc.. hereinafter referred to as JHK The parties hereto mutually agree as follows: SERVICES, Consultant f ~ I shall perform the tasks set forth in Exh~it A attached hereto which describes 1-15/I-2~5 Corridor Study. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule set forth in Exhibit A. JHK will be responsible for the completion of Engineering Services as set forth in F. xhibit A. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the best of his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein. PAYMENT. The Cities agree to pay Consultant monthly at the hourly rate set forth in Exhibit 'B " attached hereto, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount will not exceed SEVENTY FOUR THOUSAND. NINE HUNDRED. NINETY ONE ($74.991) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved by the Cities. Consultant will submit involves monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shah be submitted on or about the first 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. SUSPENSION. TERMINATION OR ABANDONMENT OF AGREEMENT. The Cities may, at any time, suspend, terminate or abandon 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. Within thirty-five (35) days after receiving an invoice from the Consultant, the Cities shall pay Consultant for work done through the date that work is to be ceased based upon the hourly rate set forth in the Exbihit If the Cities suspend, terminate or abandon a portion of this Agreement such suspension, termination or abandonment shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. BREACH OF CONTRACT. In the event that Consultant is'in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, the Cities shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Default shall include not performing the tasks described herein to the standard of care of the Industry. Failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder, if such failure arises out of causes beyond his control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, shall not be considered a default. lof6 EXHIBIT B 6: s 10. ff the Cities determine that the Consultant defaults in the performance of any terms or conditions of this Agreement, the Cities shall serve the Comultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have ten (10) days af~ 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 Cities shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to termlna,~ this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may entitle at law, in equity or under this Agreement. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on . and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than ,19._, OWNERSHIP OF DOCUlV~.NTS. Upon satisfac~ry completion of, or in the event of terminstion, suspension or abandonment of this Agreement, all instruments of service, including original documents, designs, drawings and notes prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the Cities and may be used, rensed or otherwise disposed of by the Cities without the permi-~sion of the Consultant. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the Cities a wholly independent contractor. Neither the Cities nor any of their officers, employees or agents shall have control over the conduct of the Consultant or any of the Consultant's officers, employees or agents, except as herein set forth. The 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 Cities. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except as provided in the Agreement, Cities shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for Cities. Cities shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep informed of State and Federal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance .' of its services pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations. The Cities, and their officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. NOTICE. Whenever it shall be necessary for either party to serve notice on the other respecting this Agreement, such notice shall be served by certified mail, postage prepaid, and return receipt requested, addressed to the Directors of Public Works, of the Cities of Murrieta located at 26442 Beckman Court, Murrieta, California 92562 and Temecula located at 43174 Business Park Drive. Temecula, CA 92590 and Serop Der-Boghossian at 1650 Iowa Avenue. Suite 100. Riverside. CA 92507-2472 unless and until different addresses my be furnished in writing by either party to the other. Notice shall be deemed to have been served seventy-two (72) hours after the same has been deposited in the United States Postal Services. This shall be valid and sufficient service of notice for all purpose. 2of6 11. 12. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any pan thereef, nor any monies due hereunder, without the prior written consent of the Cities. Upon termination of _this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be for satisfactory services rendered pursuant m the terms herein prior to termlnntiOn. LIABILITY INSURANCI:-. The Consultant shall msimnin insurance acceptable to the Cities by an admitted insured, in full force an effect throughout the term of this contract, against clnim.~ for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, his agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Insurance is to be placed with insurer with a Best's rating of no less that A:VII. The cost of such insurance shall be included in the Consultant's bid. The Consultant shall provide the following scope and limits of insurance: Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad Insurance Services Office form Number GL 0002 ('F_..,d. 1/72) covering Comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office form number GL 0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability; or Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage ("occurrence" form CG 0001)o Insurance Services Office form no. CA 0001 (Ed. 1/78) covering Automobile Liability, code I "any auto' and endorsement CA 0025. Worker's Compensation Insurance as required by Labor Code of the State of California an Employer's Liability insurance. 4. Errors and Omissions insurance. Minimum Limits of Insurance, Consultant ( shall maintain limits of insurance no less than: JHK ) General Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Worker's compensation as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers Liability litnits of $1,000,000 per accidenL 4. Errors and Omissions Insurance: $1,000,000 per occurrence. 3of6 Cs Other Insurance Provisions. Insurance policies required by this contract shall contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisiom: a. All Policies. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to siaie thin coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the Cities via United Stses First Class Mail. be General 1 .iability nnd Automobile ! iability Cover'4ge. The Cities of Murrieta and Temecula, their officers, officials, employees and volumeera are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premiges owned, occupied or used by the Consultant, or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage ghal] contain no special ]imitations on the scope of protection afforded to the Cities, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. With regard to claims arising from the Consultant"s performance of the work described in this contract, the Consultaat's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respe~-'ts the Cities of Murrieta and Temecula, their officers, officials, employees and volunteen. Any insurance or self-insurance mnintained by the Cities, their offic~Ts, officials, employees and volunteers shall apply in excess of, and not contribute with, the Consultaat's insuraace. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the Cities, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, within the limits of the insurer's liability. Worker's Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Cites of Murrieta and Temecula, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by the Consultant for the Cities. Verification of Covera2e. Consultants shall furnish the Cities with certificates of insurance effecting coverage required by this clause. The certificates for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates are to be on forms provided by the Cities and are to be received and approved by the Cities before work commences. The Cities reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. Consultants shall include all subconsultants as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates for each subcontractor. All coverage for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein. 4of6 Any deduc~bles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Cities. At the option of the Cities, either: the insurer shall reduce or elimin~,,. such deductibles or self imured retentions as respects the Cites of Murrieta and Temecula, their officers, officials, employees; or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim adminisWdfion and defense expenses. 13. INDI~.MNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless the Cites of Murrieta and Temecula, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense cost, or liability of any kind or nature which the Cites, their officen, 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 wrongful or negligent performance under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the Cities. 14. ENTIRE AGRF. EMENT. This Agreement and any documents or instrument attached herew or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect to the subject mn__._er hereof. In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of this Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall prevail. EFFECTIVE DATE AND EXECUTION: This Agreement shall be effective from and after the date it is signed by the representatives of the Cities. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. 5of6 IN W1TNF~S WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused thi~ Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CONSULTANT By: Serop Der-Boghossian Associated Vice Presidem Regional Offices City of Murrieta City of Temecula , Mayor , Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: , City Attorney , City Attorney ATTEST: ATIEST: , CityClerk , City Clerk 6of6 ITEM 6 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager ---'Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 22, 1995 Professional Services Agreement for Assessment Engineerin~ Services for the Western Bypass Corridor Assessment District PREPARED BY: John Pourkazemi, Assistant Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve and authorize the Mayor to execute an Agreement between the City and John Egan and Associates, Inc., to provide Assessment Engineering Services for the Western Bypass Corridor Assessment District in the amount of $47,000and 10% contingency in the amount of $4,700. The Agreement will be subject to the approval of the City Manager and the City Attorney as to final form. BACKGROUND: The scope of work for John Egan and Associates, Inc. is described in the attached proposal. Construction of the Western Bypass Corridor is included in the current Capital Improvements Program. John Eagan and Associates, Inc. with Noel Christianson have a total combined more than 60 years experience with Assessment Districts. Based on the Request For Proposals process with five (5) respondents, they were considered the most qualified for the project. FISCAL IMPACT: The total cost for the Assessment Engineering for Western Bypass Corridor shall be paid for by properties within the proposed Assessment District. Attachment: 1. John Egan and Associates, Inc. Contract r:\agdrpt%95\0822\egan.agr ATTACHMENT NO. 1 John Egan And Associates, Inc. Contract PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement was made and entered into this 22nd day of August, 1995, by and between the City of Temecula ("City"), a municipal corporation, and John Egan and Associates, Inc,, an individual ("Consultant"). The parties her·to mutually agree as follows: Services. Consultant shell perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit "A" attached her·to. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule set forth in Exhibit "A". Performance. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the best of his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described her·in. Payment. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, at the hourly rates set forth in Exhibit "B" attached her·to, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount will not exceed $47,000.00for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved by the City Council; provided that the City Manager may approve additional payment not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the Agreement; but in no event more than $10,000. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first 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. e Amendments. This Agreement may be amended so long as such amendment is in writing and agreed upon by both the City Council and Consultant. e OwnershiD of Documents. Upon satisfactory completion of or in the event of termination, suspension or abandonment of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, and notes 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. Termination. The City may terminate this Agreement without cause so long as written notice of intent to terminate is given to Consultant at least three (3) days prior to the termination date. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be paid for the services performed. e Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense cost, 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 acts or omissions under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City. -1- r:\rfp%O32%jea.agr ekg 10. 11. Status of Consultant. Consultant is an independent contractor in all respects in the performance of this Agreement and shall not be considered an employee of the City for any purpose. No employee benefits shall-be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except 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. Term, This Agreement shall commence on August 22, 1995, and shall remainand continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 1996. Default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this. Agreement, the City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Default shall include not performing the tasks described herein to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Manager of the City. Failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder, if such failure arises out of causes beyond his control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, shall not be considered a default. Any disputes regarding performance, default or other matters in dispute between the City and the Consultant arising out of this Agreement or breech thereof, shall be resolved by arbitration. The arbitrator's decision shall be final. Consultant shall select an arbitrator from a list provided by the City of three retired judges of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, inc. The arbitration hearing shall be conducted according to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1280, et sea. City and Consultant shall share the cost of the arbitration equally. Notices. Notices shall be given pursuant to this Agreement by personal service on - the party to be notified, or by written notice upon such party deposited in the custody of the United States Postal Service addressed as follows: City: Attention: City Manager City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Consultant: John Egan And Associates, Inc. Attention: John Egan, POE., Principal 25814 Business Center Drive, Suite A Redlands, California 92374 The notices shall be deemed to have been given as of the date of personal service, or three (3) days after the date of deposit of the same in the custody of the United States Postal Service. -2- r:%rfp%032%jee.agr ekg 12. 13. 14. 15. Entire Aoreement. This Agreement and any documents or instrument attached hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect to the subject matter hereof. In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of this Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall prevail. Leoal Resoonsibilities. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of State and Federal 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 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. Assignment. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without the prior written consent of the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be the value to the City of the services rendered. ;. LiabiliW Insurance. The Consultant shall maintain insurance acceptable to the City in full force and effect throughout the term of this contract, 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, his agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Insurance is to be placed with insurer with a Beets' rating of no less than A:VII. The costs of such insurance shall be included in the Contractor's bid. The Consultant shall provide the following scope and limits of insurance: A. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: Insurance Services Office Form No. GL-0002 (Ed. 1/73) covering Comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office Form No. GL-0404 covering Board Form Comprehensive General Liability; or Insurance Services office Commercial General Liability coverage ("occurrence" Form No. CG-0001 ). 2. Insurance Services Office Form No. CA-0001 (Ed. 1/78) covering Automobile Liability, Code 1 "any auto" and Endorsement CA-0025. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by Labor Code of the State of California and Employers' Liability insurance· 4. Errors and Omissions insurance. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits of insurance no less than: -3- r:~rfp~O32~jee.agr skg General Liability: el ,000,000combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability: Workers' Compensation as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers' Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 4. Errors and Omissions Insurance: $1,000,000 per occurrence. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductible in excess of $1,000 must be declared to and approved by the City. Other Insurance Provisions. Insurance policies required by this contract shall contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions: All Policies. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, concealed by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City via United States First Class Mall. be General Liability and Automobile Liability Coverages. 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, lease, 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. With regard to claims arising from the Consultant's performance of the work described in this contract, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or employees or volunteers shall apply in excess of, and not contribute with, the Consultant's insurance. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers officials, employees or volunteers. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. Workers' Comoensation and Emolovers' Liability Coverage. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its -4- r:\rfp%O32%jea.agr ekg officers, officials, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by the Consultant for the City. Verification of Coveraoe. Contractor shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance effecting coverage required by this clause. The certificates for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates are to be on forms provided by the City and are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. Consultant shall include all subconsultants as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials and employees; or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. 16. Licenses. Consultant and subconsultant shall obtain all necessary licenses, including but not limited to, City Business Licenses. The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above written. .' CONSULTANT CITY OF TEMECULA By: By Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk -5- r:~,rfp~O32~jee,agr ekg EXHIBIT "A" TASKS TO BE PERFORMED r:~.rfp%O32~jea.agr skg Project Description The City of Temecula desires to form assessment district(s) for the proposed Western Bypass Corridor. The Corridor is an 88-foot, full-width fight-of-way secondary highway which extends from Cherry Street to Interstate 15. The provisions of the 1913 Municipal Improvement ~,ct are to be utilized with funding through the Improvement Bond Act of I915. The project is to be divided into phases. Phase I is from Interstate 15 to Vincent Moraga Drive including the bridge crossing over Murrieta Creek. Phase II will be from ~ Vincent Moraga Drive to Cherry Street. Current direction from the City is that the assessment district shall be formed for Phase I. Completion of all assessment proceedings for Phase I is anticipated, however, the City has reserved the right to delete Phase II from the assessment district proceedings and the scope of work. At this point, the contract is'to include preparing the boundary maps, assessment district diagrams and Engineer's Report for Phase II, but not proceeding with notices and public hearings. Project Goals and Objectives The goal in the formation of this proposed district is to fai~y and equitably assess the proposed users of the Western Bypass Corridor who will derive benefit from its construction. The district is to cover all costs associated with the design, construction and assessment district formation, as well as all incidental costs including bond discount and reserve funds. Since under the 1913 Act the assessment is levied before the work is done, it is very important that the engineer as well as bond counsel pay extra attention during the formation of the district so the project can be accomplished within the mount of the assessment. This also requires the attention of the design engineer as well as the City in contract administration and inspection so it can be assured that completion of the project is within the assessment amount and does not exceed the contingencies provided for. The establishment of the district boundaries requires an experienced assessment engineer free of outside prejudices who can independently and objectively establish the area of benefit for the district as required by the 1913 Act. As assessment engineers, we feel the key will be communication with City staff as well as design engineers and bond counsel and other members of the finance team in analyzing the project and establishing the district boundaries. We commit to providing an equitable assessment district boundary on a basis that is fully defensible by the City in accordance with the benefit provided by the proposed bypass corridor. With this goal in mind, and in working with the professionhis included on the City's team, a successful formation of this assessment district will be realized. Scope of Services As the selected consultant, JEA will assist the City of Temecula in ~nalizing the scope of services to be performed under this contract. The following detailed items of work are proposed to be accomplished in accordance with the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 and the 1915 Improvement Bond Act. Initial Scoping Session - This is proposed to be a meeting with City staff as well as finance team members to confirm the project schedule, financial considerations and details as well as procedural requirements. This meeting will also serve to clarify the specific responsibility of each party. It is obviously very important for the City to have a financial consultant and bond counsel selected well in advance of this session. Our past experience with differing bond counsels indicates that each bond counsel may have slightly varying preferences to such items as the boundary maps or assessment diagrams, and it is very important that the assessment engineer and the bond 'counsel work in concert so that the work products are in a format that are in accordance with the requirements of each party. be Review Existing Data - JEA proposes to review the preliminary cost estimate and construction plan as well as the existing traffic model in order to provide the basis for establishing the assessment district boundary. A typical traffic model wil/' contain zones. A printout matrix of the zones would be obtained to determine the origin and destination of trips within the area covered by the model. This would be an equitable way of not only projecting expected traffic volumes on the Western Bypass Corridor, but also the assignment of benefit based on the amount of trips from and to each zone potentially utilizing the corridor. Proposed Boundary - The third step would be to establish a proposed district boundary both for Phases I and II. 'Subsequent to the establishment of the proposed boundary, we would propose to meet with the bond counsel to review the methodology of arriving at the proposed boundary and the assumptions made to ensure his/her concurrence. Obtain Assessment Rolls and Mapping - Following concurrence' from bond counsel, the next step would be to obtain tapes from the County of Riverside of the o~nership rolls for both Phases I and II for the parcels within the proposed boundary. In addition, we propose to obtain the record maps and assessors maps of the proposed area from the County of Riverside. In addition, we will obtain the GIMS mapping for this area as we propose to use these County maps as a base for the district boundary maps and for our overall assistance in preparing the assessment diagrams. We also generally obtain copies of the City's general plan and zoning information maps to assist uS in the precise establishment of the assessment district boundaries. We assume this general plan information is available from the City of Temecula. Maps and Diagrams - The next task iS preparation of the proposed boundary maps, assessment diagram and debt limitation report for Phases I and II. The boundary maps are projected to be on a base of the County GIMS maps cut to approximately 18" x 26" sheets. The mapping title sheet will include an index map, the required signature spaces and certificates. An index map will be prepared showing both Phases I and II assessment districts for easy reference. It is possible, based on the proposed project, that there will be some overlap from Phase II district onto Phase I district. However, this will be dependent upon the final determination of the assessment engineer in conjunction with the bond counsel. The debt limitation report will be prepared in spread sheet format for both Phases I and II. Engineer's Report - Finally, the Preliminary Engineer's Report for both Phases I and II will be prepared in accordance with the provisions of the 1913 Act. This report preparation will be under the direction of the assessment engineer. As stated previously, this phase of the work is of utmost importance from the standpoint of being accurate, equitable and defensible. Our past experience with assessment district public hearings has shown that the fate and success of a district often times hinges on the assessment engineer's abilities to explain methodologies used to determine the assessment district boundaries and proposed assessments at the public hearing and to demonstrate the "fairness" of said methodology. The report will consist of the plans and specifications of the proposed improvements, maps and descriptions of the lands, easements and property necessary to be acquired, the itemized estimate of improvements, acquisitions and incidental expenses, diagram of the district showing lots and parcels as they exist at the time of adoption of the Resolution of Intention, and the proposed assessment of the estimated cost and expenses against the properties benefitting, as well as a listing of the parcels cross-referenced by the number shown on the assessment diagrams and further described by description. In addition, the Notices of Improvement which must be published will also be prepared and submitted along with the Engineer's Report. Public Meetings and Hearings - The assessment engineer will attend three public hearings required by the Act to confirm the assessment district. In addition, this proposal includes attendance at three "all-hands" meetings in accordance with Addendure No. 1 of the RFP and a property owners meeting. We propose that the "all-hands" meetings be broken down as' follows. A kick-off meeting with staff and fmancial consultants prior to beginning of the work. A meeting with bond counsel to review proposed methodology and boundary. A meeting with staff and financial consultants prior to the first public hearing. In addition to these meetings, we'have found it beneficial for assessment districts of some magnitude to have the agency hold a special property owners meeting, either on a Saturday or in the evening. If held on a weekend, this could be in the form of an open-house type meeting where the property owners are free to come in and discuss certain aspects of the district on an informal basis with 'the assessment engineer and get all questions answered prior to the actual public hearing. We have found that this method reduces protest time in the public hearing by answering the detailed questions of the assessment district procedures and methodology prior to the hearing. Unpaid Assessments - The final step after recording of the diagrams and assessments is the preparing and filing of the unpaid assessment lists with the City Treasurer or other designated staff member. This occurs 30 days subsequent to the recording of the assessment. D. CONCLUSION AND PROPOSED FEE Attached at the conclusion of this proposal is a graphic schedule of all tasks required to accomplish the project as proposed herein with the accompanying hours for each task. The time estimate presumes immediate staff review of data submitted to the City staff or their consultants. Time is not included for bond counsel review, nor for advertising and public hearing for the 1931 Debt Limitation Report. The following assumptions are made and hereby incorporated in this proposal to the City of Temecula. 1. The bond counsel is proposed to prepare all resolutions. 2. There is to be no petition preparation or circulation for this 1913 Act. The bond amortization tables for all parcels are to be provided by the bond ' underwriter. The Construction, engineering, and right-of-way costs are to be provided to the assessment engineer at no cost. 5 City staff will perform all necessary advertising and posting in accordance with requirements of the Act(s). City staff will perform al/necessary mailings of notices and recording of documents. In accordance with the previously mentioned graphic schedule, and the work mentioned under scope of services in this proposal, JEA proposes to complete all services referred herein on a time and materials basis in accordance with our current Schedule of Fees for a tota/cost not to exceed. $47,000. For purposes of estimating costs, a rough preliminary district boundary was assumed. The initial rough size included those parcels bounded by the city limit on the east, Murrieta Creek and 1-15 on the east and south, and the Cherry Street city limits on the north. This area incudes 300-400 parcels with a direct benefit. Different tiers of benefit would most Likely be established for a project of this magnitude due to the fact that a large roadway does benefit a large area (although to varying degrees). A/so for a project of this magnitude to be financed, the costs to the various parcels must be such that the property can support the burden. The rough boundary area for purposes of this proposa/was enlarged to include the axea west of 1-15 and east of Murrieta Creek which includes 600-700 parcels. The actual district boundaries will be established from the research and data obtained and could vary greatly from the above assumptions. These assumptions are pregnted only as a basis for proposing the engineering costs which are based on the above mentioned enlarged area. Enclosed in the Appendices heroin is our current Schedule of Fees, our current insurance policy coverages, copies of current resumes for key personnel, and Addendure No. 1. EXHIBIT "B" PAYMENT SCHEDULE r:\rfp~O32\jea.agr skg JOHN EGAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SCHEDULE OF FEES IU'LY, 1994 pRINCIPAL ENGINEER SENIOR ENGINEER PROJECT ENGINEER SENIOR DESIGNER/PLANNER ASSOCIATE ENGINEER DESIGN ENGINEER DESIGNEPUDKAFTER DRAFTER/ENGINEERING ASSOCIATE CADD OPERATOR DRAFTER I/ENGINEERING AIDE COMPUTER OPERATOR/PROGRAMMER ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISOR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT CLERICAL LrrILITY CLERK/TECHNICAL AIDE RESIDENT ENGINEER INSPECTOR LICENSED SURVEY SUPERVISOR SURVEY CREW, 2-MAN SURVEY CREW, 3-MAN MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES COMPUTER SERVICES MILEAGE DIRECT EXPENSES IN-HOUSE REPRODUCTION SUBCONTRACT SERVICES & FEES NOTE: FEES SUBJECT TO REVISION IULY 1ST OF EACH YEAR $118.00fHOUR $ 95.001HOUR $ 90.00fHOLrR $ 75.00/HOUR $ 66.00/HbUR $ 57.00/HOUR $ 57.00/HOUR $ 50.00/HOUR $ 50.00/HOUR $19.00/HOUR $ 61.00/HOUR $ 55.00/HOUR $ 50.00/HOUR $ 30.00/HOUR $ 20.00/HOUR $ 95.00/HOUR $ 66.00/HOUR $ g7.00/HOUR $150.00/HOUR $195.00/HOUR $70.00/HOUR $0.30/MILE AT COST COST + 10~ ITEM 7 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECR~ CITY MANAGE Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 22, 1995 Contract Amendment No. 9 to Community Facilities District 88-12 Engineering Services Contract with J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. for the Overland Drive Overcrossing Improvement Project PREPARED BY:(~ Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve Contract Amendment No. 9 to provide additional geotechnical and right-of-way engineering services for CFD 88-12 by J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. (JFD) for the Overland Drive Overcrossing Improvement Project in an amount not to exceed $32,260. BACKGROUND: Caltrans( Division of Structures) requested a geotechnical investigation to include additional borings to aid in the design of the bridge because' of the following conditions: 1 )The bridge, specified in the Project Study Report, was scheduled to be 700 feet in length, however, Caltrans extended the bridge length by 150 feet during the final design stage. 2)Additionally, the soil conditions are extremely variable which would require a more detailed geotechnical analysis. A special meeting was held to discuss eliminating the need for additional borings by requesting that steel piles should be used in lieu of concrete piles. The meeting was artended by JFD, Geofon(Soils Engineer), McDaniel Engineering Company, Inc.(Structural Engineer), and Caltrans. Caltrans reviewed the structural report and still requested additional borings due to the extended length of the bridge and the extreme variability in the soil conditions (See attached memo). Caltrans has also requested that right-of-way mapping be performed as part of the project requirements. The required right-of-way mapping includes: four(4) fee parcels for the State, two (2) fee parcels that are located on the easterly side of I-15 and two (2) fee parcels on the westerly side of I-15; four (4) fee parcels for the City for Overland Drive, two (2) fee parcels that are located between Jefferson Road and I-15 and two (2) fee parcels between Ynez Road and I-15 (See attached maps). It should be noted that the scope of services within the original contract for Overland Drive Overcrossing Improvement Project did not include the number of fee parcels for right of way mapping or the production of legal description and plats. The following items of work are necessary to complete the engineering plans and specifications for the Overland Drive Overcrossing: -1- r.\agdrpt%95%O822~CFD88-12.Ad9tajp ITEM 1: RIGHT-OF-WAY MAPPING Prepare an updated version of the current Caltrans right of way map depicting the area of the proposed Overland Drive Overcrossing. At this crossing, acquisition of right-of-way is required from four (4) separate and existing parcels. Partial boundary surveys will be required in order to accurately tie the proposed right-of-ways to the existing property lines. The results of the field survey will be shown on the State right-of-way maps. Subtotal: $6,170 ITEM 2: LEGAL DESCRIPTION and PLATS Legal descriptions and plats will be prepared for processing by the City for each of the parcels described below. A. Four (4) fee parcels for I-15 right-of-way. B. Four (4) fee parcels for Overland Drive right-of-way. One (1) easement parcel of the proposed parking area under the bridge on the easterly side of I-15. One (1) storm drain easement for the proposed channel on the easterly side of I-15. E. Four (4) bridge pile maintenance and access easements. EMWD sewer re-alignment to include quitclaim of existing alignment, description of new alignment and access from the southerly side of Overland Drive on the westerly side of I-15. Subtotal: $10,500 Item 3: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS The underground soil in the vicinity of the columns supporting the bridge is extremely variable. Caltrans has requested and required that additional borings be conducted at each column location within Caltrans right-of-way. The work will be performed by the project soils consultant and include four (4) additional borings, laboratory analysis and traffic control. Subtotal: $15,590 TOTAL AMOUNT: $32,260.00 -2- r,~agdrpt%95~0822%Cl=D88-12.Adglajp FISCAL IMPACT: All of the above costs are eligible for funding through Community Facilities District 88-12. Adequate funds are available within the budget of the District. The total cost of this element of the project is summarized below: A. Approved Contract $ 622,534 B. Amendment per CO #424 17,800 C. Amendment No. 4 9,320 D. Amendment No. 7 106,888 E. Proposed Amendment No. 9 32.260 Total: $ 788,802 Funds are available from Account No. 600-165-999-6201 Attachment: Amendment No. 9, J.F. Davidson Associates r.%egdrpt~95\0822~CFD88-12.Adg/ajp AMENDMENT NO. 9 J.F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES CONTRACT ORDER NO. 0155 The Agreement dated December 13, 1990 between the City of Temecula, and J.F. Davidson Associates (herein referred to as "Agreement") is hereby amended as follows: RE: Professional Design Service for CFD 88-12, Overland Drive Overcrossing Section I The Scope of Work is hereby amended by adding the following activities: I. Scope of Services The following work will be performed as a result of a change in the right-of-way mapping and geotechnical requirements. The following items of work are necessary to complete the engineering plans and specifications for the Overland Drive Overcrossing. ITEM 1: RIGHT-OF-WAY MAPPING Prepare an updated version of the current Caltrans right-of-way map depicting the area of the proposed Overland Drive Overcrossing. At this crossing, acquisition of right-of-way is required from four (4) separate and existing parcels. Partial boundary surveys will be required in order to accurately tie the proposed right-of-ways to the existing property lines. The results of the field survey will be shown on the State right-of-way maps. 'Subtotal: $6,170 ITEM 2: LEGAL DESCRIPTION and PLATS Legal descriptions and plats will be prepared for processing by the City for each of the parcels described below. A. Four (4) fee parcels for I-15 right-of-way. B. Four (4) fee parcels for Overland Drive right-of-way. C. One (1) easement parcel of the proposed parking area under the bridge on the easterly side of I-15. D. One (1) storm drain easement for the proposed channel on the easterly side of I-15. E. Four (4) bridge pile maintenance and access easements. F. EMWD sewer re-alignment to include quitclaim of existing alignment, description of new alignment and access from the southerly side of Overland Drive on the westerly side of I-15. Subtotal: $10,500 -4- r.%agdrpt~95%O822%CFD88-12.Ad91ajp ITEM 3: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS The underground soil in the vicinity of the columns supporting the bridge is extremely variable. Caltrans has requested and required that additional borings be conducted at each column location within Caltrans right-of-way. The work will be performed by the project soils consultant and include four (4) additional borings, laboratory analysis and traffic control. Subtotal: $15,590 TOTAL AMOUNT: $32,260.00 Section 2 Compensation shall be for all services described in this Amendment and shall not exceed. Thirty Two Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Dollars ($32,260). All of the above costs are eligible for funding through Community Facilities District 88-12. Adequate funds are available within the budget of the District. The total cost of this element of the project is summarized below: A. Approved Contract $ 622,534 B. Amendment per CO #424 17,800 C. Amendment No. 4 9,320 D. Amendment No. 7 106,888 E. Proposed Amendment No. 9 32,260 Total: $ 788,802 Section 3 All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain the same. The parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 9 to the Agreement on the Date and year above written. .rj. r,%agdrpt%95%0822~CFD88-12.Adglajp CONSULTANT CITY OF TEMECULA Y' / J.F. Davidson Associ~es, ~-c By: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, Peter M. Thorson ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk -6- r.\agdrpt~95~0822~,CFD88-12.Ad91ajp 3L!'h-e~-19cJ5 15:42 FRDrl Memorandum ~R- D~NWEAVBR- 8 ProjeCt DeveloJm~nt Riverside Co. ACtn: Frank Lehr 6941999 P. 82 Qste: June 2, 1995 FIle: 900.10.08 08-Riv-15- 6.2 5 Overland Drive 0C Br. No. 56-0792 & ~r. No. 56C-0449 EA 35a601 From: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING SERVICE CENTER DIVISION OF STRUCTURES Subject: Revised GeotechnicaZ Report {without aclditlonal borings} We have completed a cursory review of r3~e revised Geotecbnical · Report and met with the consultants involved with the proposed geoCechnical reccm~nendations- After fur~herdiscussionswith the Office of Structures Construction end the Office of Structural -----~,oundaCions, we cannot concur with the recommeadation that no additional borings are necessary with the switch to steel piles and revised lengths. potential for erratic pile driving, lack of boring information at all structure support locations, and lack of boring information extending below pile tip elevations- While we concur with the application of steel piles for erratic driving conditions, we feel i= is unacceptable to drive any piles a~ this site without additional boring information. Depending on the pile driving contractor and the actual equipmen~ used, there is still the potential for steel ~iles to be driven either below the proposed specified pile tip elevations and into uncharted ground, or ~o be stopped high due to unplanned friction- The difficulty of knowing if the driven steel piles have achieved adequate support, witbout subjecting the projec~ Co construction deltys, contract change orders, and ~otential claims, appears to be a significant problem. The Division of Structures reoontaends thaC additional borings be taken to provide boring information 6~ all structure support locations- At the very least, additional borings shall be provided within Calcrans R/W limits at Abutment 1, Bent 3, and Ben~ 5. These borings shall be of adequate depth co provide information at leas~ 10 feet below the specified pile tip elev~Cions- JL1~-19c35 15:43 FRO~ Don Weaver June 2, 1995 Page Two J. F. DAUII~ I:~IATES TO 6941999 P. 83 Please contact CraigChetelainat (916) 227-8374 if you have any questions. TSCMASM- RUT, Chief Externally Financed~ojects Branch Craig Chatelain Liaison Engineer jack Abcarious - McDaniel Engr. John Canty - J.F. ~avidson AsSOC. M DeSalvatore - OSF M Beaucham~ - OSC File June 15, 1995 J. F. Davidson Associates 3880 Lemon st., Ste 300 Riverside, California 92501 - GEOFON ~ . """ f t,J C O ~t 15 ~j S~ A T E 0 5552 CF=RRff0~ AVE.. SUITE B, CYPi:tt~S$. CA 90630 ?r-LEPI-iONE. (714)220-2777 · (330} 926-7582 FAX- (7141220-1208 Attention: Subject: Dear John: .Mr. John Canty Caltrans' Jtme 2, 1995 Letter Overland Drive Geotechaic. al Report Cost EstLmate for Additional Borings GEOFON Project No. 90-339.10 We completed our geotechmcal report on the Overland Crossing in accordance ~vith our scope of work and submi~ed our final revision on may 27, 1995. Our borings z. ud cone penetration te~s indicate that the soil conditions across the 850 ft long bridge are extremely variable. In their June 2, 1995 memorand,tun providing a review of the final geotechnical repo~, Ca!trans recommended that additional borings be perfomed at each of the suppo~ locations due to the extremely variable soft conditions. This letter provides revised cost estimate for additional geotechrdcal work required by Caltrans. COST ESTLMATE Due to extreme!y variable conditions, Caltrans recommends one bor'mg at each support location. Due to changes in bent/abutment locations the fo!iowlmg additional bo_dngs are proposed. Locations of the proposed borings are shown m Fi~2re 1. Cost estimate to peffo~.'m the additional work required by Caltrans is as follows: Caltrsn~ PenmAt / Utility Check Mob-Demob Drill 4 borm~ to 70 feet Mud, s~mpling tubes, mi~. Engineer Log Borings Tr~ic Control Laborator), Testing ,~_ualysis / Report. Auto Cad (Log of Test Bori~.~) Total 30 hrs drill rig @ $150/hr 30 hrs ¢j' $60 / hr I day @ $I ,890 $1,000 500 4,500 300 i ,800 1,890 1,100 3,500 !,000 $15,590 le~b.d~ Mr. Joh~ Canty J. F. Davidson, Inc. GEOFON Project No. 90-339 page-2 Appro.~imately lialf of the total cost is outside costs, which includes a portion of the mob-demob, d-'il[ing, tr_~c control and Auto Cad work. The quo.tation for shoulder closure from Traffic Control Service is enclosed- The cost estimate ~ based on the .~sumption that no hazardous materials are present and all permitls are obt_~ined before the start of the field work so that the drilJing can be completed in one mobilization. GEOFON will apply for Celttans permit. However, the City will be res~ponsible for obtaining landowners' permission. We can sr, n-t the work on yO'.Lr -~ritten authorization. The drilling can be performed within one week of obtaining Caltrans and lando~mers' permission. Obtaining of Cal~ans' per,FA~ may take up to 2 to 3 weeks. Landowners' permission may take longer ;~,~]ess the 1993 permi-~sion can be used, We can complete the laboratory ~esting, analyses and report within four weeks of completion of the field work We request a change order of $15,590 to..co_mplete this work. the opport~mi~y to se.n,e on your design team for this project. questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. We appreciate If you have any Yours Sincerely. GEOFON, INC. Shah Ghanbari, P.E. Chief Operating Officer Figure 1 Quotation from Traffic Control Service, Inc. cc: Ja~k .AZscarius, McD,r, ie!s Engineering let, Sb.d~Jc TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE, inc. RENTAL & SALES SAFETY EQUIPMENT GATE FAX "'1 'i'raf.fic Co:~.:roi Se~'v~cs. Inc. is D193sed to ~ffer our quote for the followinG equlDment: .. I .............. J ,,t,e ~ ./ have ~.y qu~-','6oas, please do no~ besi-~t¢ to Bive me a call. TRAFHC CONTROL SEeKVICE. iNC. ' ANAltEl,%1 1881 g~u r Lr,., An~¢im, CA 92805 . no _; _RiVE,'dSIDI'.' 1155 W. ~ Caa~na Dr., ~v~f:~dc, CA 925G2 ~AN MARCOS 92~ _R~ch~fol Dr, S~ Marcos. CA 92069 'J NE~Vt~LL 23925 San Fern,rode R4, iqewha~, CA 91321 , ~ ~ACI~MENTO gSg5 'FhSs Ct, Sacramento, CA95828 71a!937-0422 Fax 714/937-1070 909/693-7575 FaX 909t683-2306 619/480-1177 Fax 6t9/4g0-478,1 g05/255-8'733 Fax 8051255-1955 916/387-9733 Fax 916/387-973'I, In Southern Californi~ 8001222-TCSI r_n Nonhem California SO0,'g84-TCSI !l II i I I Iii : i ITEM 8 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNE~~C~~ FINANCE DIRE CITY MANAG CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Council/City Manager //Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 22, 1995 SUBJECT: Release Grading Bond in Tract No. 27690 PREPARED BY:/~lbert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council AUTHORIZE release of the grading bond for Tract No. 27690, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so notify the developer and surety. BACKGROUND: On April 6, 1994, the City Council approved Tract Map No. 27690, a one (1) lot commercial subdivision for condominium purposes. This map is a re-subdivision of Parcel 2, of Parcel Map No. 23335. The site is occupied by a medical office building and the requisite street improvements were constructed under Assessment District No. 161. The developers are: Temecula Medical Park Development, G. P. Existing drainage facilities were deficient and the conditions of approval of Final Tract Map No. 27690 included the recording of an Agreement for Payment of Drainage Improvement Fees and the posting of a $20,000 bond. The agreement was recorded with the County Recorder as Instrument No. 198078 on May 13, 1994 and American Motorists Insurance Company posted Bond No. 3SM 801 370 00 for $20,000 per the development conditions of approval. This bond shall remain in place until the conditions of the agreement are met and the City Council authorizes release of the bond. As a condition of the approval of the precise grading plan for this site, American Motorists Insurance Company posted Bond No. 3SM 798 374 00 for $25,000 on behalf of the developer. The site was described as "Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 23335". Public Works Staff has inspected the site for conformance with the approved precise grading plan and an offsite driveway approach and recommends the release of this grading bond only. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: Location Map r. ~rpe\g5 ~OS22VT~rTSgOS. m~ VICINITY MAP &'r~ ~ _.---.---- ~ - ~TsLo-t_,~ 0 (N~l~ 874,7f WINCHESTER ROAD`,? ( State HIghway 79 ) TRACT NO. 27690 Location Map ITEM 9 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY ' FINANCE DIREC CITY MANAGER~~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager .,Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 22, 1995 Release Warranty and Labor and Material bonds in Tract No. 21820 PREPARED BY: ~t Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council AUTHORIZE the release of Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor and Material bonds in Tract No. 21820, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of tile Board of Supervisors, the Developer and the Surety. BACKGROUND: On June 13, 1990, the City Council approved Final Tract Map No. 21820 and accepted Improvement Agreements and Faithful Performance and Material Labor Bonds as filed by: Mesa Homes 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 201 Temecula, CA 92591 for the installation of street improvements and water systems, and subdivision monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company as follows: 1. Bond No. 3S 741 681 00 in the amount of $153,500to cover street improvements. 2. Bond No. 3S 741 784 00 in the amount of $44,500 to cover water system improvements. 3. Bonds No. 3S 741 681 00 and 3S 741 784 00 in the amounts of $56,750 and $22,2500, respectively, to cover material and labor amounts for street and water system improvements. 4. Bond No. 3S 741 682 00 in the amount of $11,000 to cover subdivision monumentation. - 1 - r: ~aidrpt~95\O822~tr21820. ~ n The following items were completed by the developer in accordance with the approved plans: 1. Required street and water system improvements. 2. Required Subdivision Monumentation. On December 17, 1991, the City Council accepted the public improvements, initiated the one- year warranty period authorized reduction in the Faithful Performance Bond amounts to the 10% warranty level as follows: Streets: $15,350 Water System: 4,450 Total: $19,800 The warranty period has run, any required repairs to the public improvements have been made, and no claims for labor and materials have been filed. Therefore Public Works Staff recommends release of the Faithful Performance warranty amounts as follows: Street and water system improvements $19,800 Also recommended for release are the Labor and Material bonds as follows: Street Improvements: Bond No. 3S 741 681 O0 $56,750 Water System: Bond No. 3S 741 784 O0 $22,250 The affected streets for this development are portions of Via Norte and Kahwea Road. Via Norte was included in the Riverside County Maintained-Road System prior to incorporation and accepted into the City Maintained-Street System by and at incorporation. Kahwea Road will be accepted into the City Maintained-Street System with several other streets by resolution over the several upcoming City Council meetings. Fiscal Impact: None Attachment: Location Map -2- r:~agdrpt\95\Og22\tr21820.fm WCINITY M.4P NO ~on~ Sc~,E PARCEL MAP NO® 21820 ^:\ Location Map ITEM 10 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Manager/City Council Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 22, 1995 Solicitation of Construction Bids and Approval of Specifications for the FY95-96 Slurry Seal Project (Project No. PW-95-18) the Plans and PREPARED BY: ~ Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for Project No. PW95-18, FY95-96 Slurry Seal Project. BACKGROUND: With the Pavement Management System (PMS) in place, a five (5) year Siurry Seal Program has been formulated. Slurry Seal is used primarily as a preventive maintenance measure where an asphalt concrete surface has become dry or brittle. A slurry seal placed over A.C. pavements in this condition replace the fine materials and oil's. This treatment will prolong the life of the existing asphalt from five (5) to seven (7) years. All streets within the City were physically inspected, evaluated and prioritized during the implementation of the Pavement Management System. Based on these priorities, streets were grouped into areas that would provide for the most cost effective projects while providing maintenance where it would be most beneficial. The following projects represent the five year Slurry Seal Program. FY94-95 See Attachment "A" 20.3 Miles FY95-96 See Attachment "B" 18.9 Miles FY96-97 See Attachment "C" 25.0 Miles FY97-98 See Attachment "D" 22.0 Miles FY98-99 See Attachment "E" 22.0 Miles 108.0 Miles Completed The work to be performed will also include crack sealing; treating of all oil stains and replacement of all striping and street legends. r:~agdrpt\95\O822~pw95-18S.bid/ajp Upon authorization and approval, Project No. PW95-18, will be advertised for twenty-one (21) days, with the bid opening on September 13, 1995. This project has an estimated construction time of sixty (60) working days to complete. The Plans, Specifications and Contract Documents have been completed and the project is ready to be advertised for construction. These Plans and Specifications are available for review in the City Engineer's office. All plans used in the construction of this project are City of Temecula Standard Plans approved by the City Council in November, 1991. The Engineer's estimate for this project is $250,000. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in the Public Works Department Street Maintenance Account 100-164- 601-5402. r:~agdrpt\95\O822~pw95-18S .bid/nip A TTA CHMENT A Slurried Streets ..... ATTACHMENTB A TTA CHMENT C s ~ Slurried Streets A TTA CHMENT D ~ Slurried Streets A TTA CHMENT E .,-Z Slurried Streets ITEM 11 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 22, 1995 Summary Vacation of 8 Portion of Canterfield Drive and a Portion of Temecula Lane Subject to the Condition that a Realigned Temecula Lane be Offered for Dedication PREPARED BY.' ~, Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 95-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, TO SUMMARILY VACATE A PORTION OF CANTERFIELD DRIVE AND A PORTION OF TEMECULA LANE WITHIN TRACT NO. 21067 PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY PROVIDED BY CHAPTER 3, PART 3, DIVISION 9 OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAY CODE, SUBJECT TO THE ASSOCIATED OFFER OF DEDICATION OF A REALIGNED TEMECULA LANE. BACKGROUND: On October 26, 1993 the City Council awarded the construction contract for Pala Community Park to Martin J. Jaska, Inc. The 28.6 acre park is located along the Southerly side of Temecula Creek approximately 1500 feet north .of the intersection of Pala Road and Loma Linda Road. The Park has been designed such that access and water service will be constructed within portions of Temecula Lane and Loma Linda Road that were previously dedicated. The proposed vacated portions of Canterfield Drive and Temecula Lane were accepted for right-of-way purposes on November 23, 1993, but not accepted into the City-maintained street system. The original street alignment for Canterfield Drive and Temecula Lane was dedicated as part of Tract 21067, however, Pala Community Park was designed after the streets were recorded. Therefore, the vacation of a portion of Canterfield Drive and Temecu|a Lane and the offer of dedication of a realigned Temecula Lane are required before the acceptance of the Pala Community Park by the City. Upon acceptance of the Pala Community Park by the City, staff will recommend acceptance of the realigned Temecula Lane into the City maintained street system. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 95- with Exhibits "A-D", Inclusive r:XsgthlatX95\Og22~nlan~.va~ RESOLUTION NO. 9~- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, TO SUMMARILY VACATE A laORTION OF CANTk;RFI~:f-r} DRIVE AND A PORTION OF ~ LANE WITHaN TRACT NO. 21067 IrtlRSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY PROVIDED BY CHAFFER 3, PART 3, DIVISION 9 OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAY CODE, SUBJECT TO THE ASSOCIATED OFFER OF DI~BICATION OF I~ALIGNED ~ The City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and order as follows: WItERF~AS, Streets and Highway Code Section 8330 ~ provides for a method by which City streets may be summarily vacated; and WHEREAS, Streets and Highway Code Section 8333 provides that the City Council may summarily vacate a street easement if the easement has been superseded by relocation and there are not other public facilities located within the easement and said circumstances apply to the easement in the present case; and WHEREAS, the legal description for these portions of Canterfield Drive and Temecula Lane are set forth in Exhibit "C" , attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the map for these portions of Canterfield Drive and Temecula Lane are set forth in Exhibit "D", attached hereto; and WtlEREAS, the portions of Temecula Lane as depicted in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto, has been offered for dedication to the City of Temecula on Tract No. 21067; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Temecula as follows: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds as follows: (a) That the City Council intends to summarily vacate that portion of a street easement in the City of Temecula, described as follows: That portion of the streets shown as Canterfield Drive and Temecula Lane westerly of Loma Linda Road between Pala Road and Little Ranch Road, as shown on Tract No. 21067 on file in the office of the County Recorder of Riverside County. That portion is more particularly described in Exhibits "C" and 'D' which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. (b) Said easement is no longer necessary because the street has been relocated; and (c) Vacating the street easement is consistent with the General Plan adopted by the City of Temecula on November 9th, 1993. Section 2: The easement described in Exhibits *C* and *D" which arc attached hcrcto and incorporated herein by this reference is hereby vacated and shall no longer constitute an casement or right-of-way of the City of Tcmccula and shall revert back to the property owner. Section 3: This vacation is subject to the condition that the ~ owner offer for dedication for a public street and right-of-way the land described in Exhibits *A' and 'B*, attached hereto. Section 4: The City Clerk shall cc~ify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROV!~, AND ADOFrED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of August, 1995. Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor ATFF, ST: June S. Greek City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby ccrtif-y that Resolution No. 95- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of August, 1995, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMF, MBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL1VfF-MBF3,S: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: r:.~agdxpt~95\0S22~xemlam:.vac EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION NO. 95- SUBJECT OFFER OF DEDICATION - ROAD PURPOSES (Legal Description attached) r:.~a~lrpt~95~O822~mlan~.va~ ETTTBZT LBGAL DESCR]:F~ZON C,~FTERFIELD DRIV~ ~ TEI~CUL~ L~rE PARCEL 1 (CANTRRFIELD DRIVE] AN EASEMENT FOR STREET, DRAINAGE, SANITARY SEWER AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, LYING OVER A PORTION OF LOT 88 OF TRACT NO. 21067; AS FILED IN BOOK 231, PAGES 41 TO 48 INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF SAID RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF LOT riD" (CANTERFIELD DRIVE) AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 88 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE N03°24'06"E 4.33 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 270.00 FEET, A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS S06°52'08"E; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10'50'52"; AN ARC DISTANCE OF 51.12 FEET TO A TANGENT LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE N72'17'00"E 51.79 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 392.50 FEET, A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS S76 ' 40 ' 01 "W; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05'42'12" AND ARC DISTANCE OF 39.07 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT LINE, BEING THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT "D", A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS S70 ° 57 ' 49"W; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE, N86 ° 35"54"W 110.54 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 2 (TEMECULA LANE) AN EASEMENT FOR STREET, DRAINAGE, SANITARY SEWERAND PUBLICUTILITY PURPOSES IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, LYING OVER A PORTION OF LOT 87 OF TRACT NO. 21067 AS FILED IN BOOK 231, PAGES 41 TO 48 INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF SAID RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT "D" (CANTERFIELD DRIVE) AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 87 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF LOT "D", S86°35'54"E 141.61 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 392.50 FEET, A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS S61°05'18"W, SAID POINT BEING THE T.P.O.B.; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12°44'54'', AN ARC DISTANCE OF 87.33 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 330.00 FEET SAID CURVE ALSO BEING THEWESTERLY LINE OF LOT "H" (TEMECULALANE) AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP. A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT FOR THE 392.50 FOOT RADIUS BEARS S48°20t24"W AND THE 330.00 FOOT RADIUS BEARS S75°39'37"W; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID 330.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 21°55'08"; AN ARC DISTANCE OF 126.24 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 87, A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS S53 ' 44 ' 29"W; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE N53'36'08"W 119.07 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 452.50 FEET, A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS S47'50'46"W; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17'52'53", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 141.22 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID SOUTH LINE OF LOT "D", A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT' BEARS S65 ' 46 ~ 39"W; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE S86°35'54"E 69.20 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. o~n E. Stevenson, R.C. E. Doc: 94022CFD.LEG #22446 Expires 9/30/97 No. 22446 *~~?~,~7~'L EXHIBIT "B" TO RESOLUTION NO. 95- SUBJECT OFFER OF DEDICATION - ROAD PURPOSES (Map attached) r:xagdrpt~95\OS?..2~zmlmm.v~ ~fi.YU~EOFL~T881 LOT 88 \ w'LY UNE OF LOT e7 I \' CL EX. 30' EASEMENT TO R.C.W.D CURVE DELTA RADIAL TAN 1 1 [r50'52' 270.00 25.64 2 0~42'12" 392.50 19.55 3 12'44'54" 392.50 43.85 ¢ 21'55'08' 330.00 63.90 ~ 1752'53' 452.50 71.19 L-ARC 51.12 39.07 87.33 126.24 141.22 UNE BEARING LENGTH 1 N0~24'06'E 4.33 2 N7~17'00'E 51.79 3 N86'35'54" W 110.54 4 N86'35'54'W 69.20 5 N5,.,t'36'OS"W 119.07 ES e/3o/e7 EXHIBT PREPARED BY, 16165 Mc!XINOTT EAST. $1.IE C SCALE: 1": 100' DRAWN BY: KH. ABDO DATE: SUBJECT, TI~AC'r NO 21 O67 CHECKED BY: 3F SHEET w.o.# EXHIBIT "C" TO RESOLUTION NO. 95- Subject Summary Vacation - A Portion of Canterfield DHve and a Portion of Temecula Lane. {Legal description attached) EXHIBIT LE~ DESCRII~ION VACATION OF A PORTION OF-~RFIELD DRIV~ VACATION OF ~ PORTION OF TF,!~CUL~ L~NE PARCEL A (CANTERFIELD DRIVE): BEING THAT CERTAIN PORTION OF LOT "D" IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN AND DEDICATED FOR STREET PURPOSES PER TRACT NO. 21067 ON FILE IN BOOK 231, PAGES 41 TO 48 INCLUSIVE RECORDS OF SAID RIVERSIDE COUNTY, AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF CANTERFIELD DRIVE AND TEMECULA LANE, AS SHOWN IN SAID TRACT NO. 21067; THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF CANTERFIELD DRIVE S86'35'54"E 49.45 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S03 ' 24 ' 06"W 30'. 00 FEET; THENCE S43'01'49"W 23.11 FEET; THENCE S82°39'31"W 30.00 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET, A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS S 82 ' 39 ' 31 "W; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLF. OF 02'49 '26", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 14.79 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT LINE, A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS S85°28'57"W; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S85 ° 28 ' 57"W 30.00 FEET; THENCE N45 ° 33 ' 28"W 19.70 FEET; THENCE N86°35'54"W 27.07 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 392.50 FEET, A RADIAL THOUGH SAID POINT BEARS S61°05'18"W; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09'52'31", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 67.65 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT LINE, A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS S70 ° 57 ' 49"W; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE. S86 ° 35 ' 54"E 149.31 FEET; THENCE S03°24'06"W 30.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL "B" (TEMECULA LANE]: BEING THAT CERTAIN PORTION OF LOT "H" IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN AND DEDICATED FOR STREET PURPOSES PER TRACT NO. 21067, ON FILE IN BOOK 231, PAGES 41 TO 48 INCLUSIVE RECORDS OF SAID RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF CANTERFIELD DRIVE AND TEMECULA LANE AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT NO. 21067; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF TEMECULA LANE (BEING A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET) THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10°15'33", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 53.72 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT LINE, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE N82°39'31"E 30.00 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 270.00 FEET, A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS S82'39'31'W; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 46' 15'32, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 217.99 FEET TO A NON-TANGENT LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE N53 ° 36 ' 01"W 90.25 FEET TO A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 470.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11°26'47'', AN ARC DISTANCE OF 93.90 FEET TO A TANGENT LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE N42'09"14"W 22.45 FEET TO A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 392.50 FEET~ THENCE-NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00'29"38", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 3.38 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 330.00 FEET, A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT FROM RADIUS 392.50 FEET BEARS S48'20"24"W AND A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT FROM RADIUS 330.00 FEET BEARS S75'39"37"W~ THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09'49"20", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 56.57 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT LINE~ THENCE ALONG SAID LINE N85°28 '57"E 30.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF TEMECULA LANE AND A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET ~ THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND CENTERLINE THOUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02°49"26, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 14.79 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Doc: 94022VAC.LEG #22446 Expires 9/30/97 EXHIBIT 'D" TO RESOLUTION NO. 95- SUBJECT SUMMARY VACATION A PORTION OF CANTERFIELD DRIVE AND A PORTION OF TEMECULA LANE (Map Attached) r:%agdrpt%95\08?.2%temlane .vac '!,'R.A.C.r NO 21067 M.B 231/41-4-8 W"LY UNE: OF LOT 87 ] LOT 8B B UNE BEARING LENGTH CURVE DELTA RADIAL L-ARC 1 N86.35'54"W 149.31 1 09'52'31" 392.50 67.65 2 N03'24.'06" E .,t:).00 2 46'15'32' 270.00 217.99 3 N4.,:T01 '49'E 23.11 3 11'26'47' 4.70.00 93.90 4. N5,.T'36'01'W 90.25' 00'29'38' 3.38 5 ~. 392.50 N4.2'09'14"W 22.45 6 7 6 5 09'49'20' 330.00 5,5 N4.5"'33'28"W 19,70 6 02'4.9'26' 300.00 14.79 7 N86'35'54"W 27.07 7 10' 15'33' 300.00 53.72 8 N85'28'57" E 30.00 9 N82'39'31'E 30.00 10 N86'35'54"W 4.9.45 i I -,.' t. STZ~~ '.-/ E:XPIRE:S 0/3O/67 EXHIBT PREPARED BY, ;t,FiJ!=CT, TRACT NO 21067 M,B 231/4.1 STREET, DRAINAGE AHD SCALE: 1': 100' DRAWN BY: KH. ABDO DATE: CHECKED BY: ::IF SHEb .w.o.t ITEM 12 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 22, 1995 Solicitation of Construction Bids and Approval of the I~lans and Specifications for the Winchester Road at Interstate Route 15, Bridge. Widening and Northbound Ramps Improvements, (Project No. PW94-21 ) PREPARED BY: ~f Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the construction plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit public construction bids for Project No. PW94-21, Winchester Road at Interstate Route 15, Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements subject to the approval and certification of the right-of-way by Caltrans. BACKGROUND: On December 18, 1990, and agreement was approved for professional engineering services with J. F. Davidson Associates, Inc. for Community Facilities District 88-12 (Ynez Corridor). The second major project of this agreement within the district is the design of Winchester Road at Interstate Route 15, Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements (Project No. PW94-21 ). The general Items of work to be completed consist of the following: widen Winchester Road Bridge at Interstate Route 15; a northbound loop entrance ramp; a northbound exit ramp with auxiliary lane; relocation and reconstruction of existing utilities and parking lot area in the Palm Plaza shol~ping center; and landscape and irrigation improvements. The plans, specifications and contract documents have been completed and approved by Caltrans and the project is ready to be advertised for construction. It is anticipated that the right-of-way will be acquired and certification issued by Caltrans prior to awarding a contract for the construction of the proposed improvements. The estimated construction cost for this project is $3,500,000. The plans are available for review in the City Engineer's office. FISCAL IMPACT: The project is being funded from the Redevelopment Agency and available State Funds. r:.~agdtpt~95\O822~4-21.b/d/ajp ITEM 13 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATI'ORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 22, 1995 Completion and Acceptance of the Rancho California Road Benefit District Improvements, Project No. PW91-O3 PREPARED BY: ¢~ Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council accept construction of Project No. PW91-03- Rancho California Road Benefit District Improvements, as complete and direct the City Clerk to: 1. File the Notice of Completion and release the Performance Bond, and; 2. Release the Materials and Labor Bond. Authorize the Mayor to execute the Hold Harmless Agreement with the "The Insco/Dico Group". BACKGROUND: On November 12, 1991, the City Council approved the Margarita Village Specific Pian/Rancho California Road Reimbursement Agreement with the developers of the Margarita Village Specific Plan (Bedford Properties, Marlborough Development Corporation, Margarita Village Development Company and TAYCO) to reimburse the City of Temecula for construction of improvements required by the Margarita Specific Plan. The cost incurred by the City of Temecula for surveying, soils, inspection, and construction for the base bid shall be reimbursed to the City through the approved agreement at the building permit stage. On December 17, 1991, the City Council awarded a contract for the Rancho California Road Benefit District Improvements, Project No. PW 91-03 to Oliver Brothers for $499,716.85. The work included the construction of street, storm drain, and traffic signal improvements on Rancho California Road between Ynez Road and Margarita Road. On April 14, 1992, the City Council had also awarded a contract to Oliver Brothers for Project No. PW91-04, I-15/Rancho California Road Ramps and Signals. r,~aBdrpt~95'M)822~pw9 ! -03. acc/aj!~ In October of 1992, the Contractor completed the work for Project No. PW91-03 in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, however, the Contractor filed bankruptcy right after the construction was completed. The City attorney finalized the takeover agreement with the Surety (The Insco/Dico Group) for Project No. PW91-03 on July 7, 1993. However, delays in finalizing Project Nos. PW91-03 were caused by changes in project management within the Surety company. The construction retention for this project will be released on or about thirty-five (35) days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded. The Hold Harmless Agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney. This Agreement holds the City harmless, by the Surety, if any claims are filed as a result of this project. FISCAL IMPACT: The Contract amount for this project was $499,716.85. Contract Change Orders No. 1 through 9 were approved for a total amount of $94,056.10. The total construction cost is $593,772.95. This project is funded through the Margarita Village Specific Plan Reimbursement Agreement. Attachments: 1. Notice of Completion 2. Contractor's Affidavit 3. Hold Harmless Agreement r: ~agdrpt\95\O822~pw91-03 .acc/ajp RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO: ~ CLERK CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Bueineee Perk Delve Temecula, CA 92590 SPACE ABOVE Tl'lt UNE FOR RECORDER'S USE NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: 1. The City of Temecula is the owner of the property hereinafter described. 2. The full address of the City of Temecula is 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. 3. A Contract was awarded by the City of Temecula to Oiiver Brothers to perform the following work of improvement: PW91-03 - Rancho Califomia Road Benef~ District. 4. Said work was completed by said company according to plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works of the City of Temecula and that said work was accepted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on August 1995. That upon said contract the INSCOIDICO Group was surety for the bond given by the said company as required by law. 5. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, and is described as follows: PROJECT PW 91-03. Dated at Temecula, California, this day of ,1995. JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) SS I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California and do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing NOTICE OF COMPLETION is true and correct, and that said NOTICE OF COMPLETION was duly and regularly ordered to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside by said City Council. Dated at Temecula, California, this day of ,1995. JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk R:\CIP~.PROIECTS~t91 ~w91-03~omHetn. not/a~ CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR'$ AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE PROJECT NO. PW91-03 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD BENEFIT DISTRICT This is to certify that i~D~i~ co~2ktr~ OF CkLIF0~IA , ( h · r · i n a f t e r t h · "CONTRACTOR") declares to the City of Temecula, under oath: that heat has paid in full for all materials, supplies, labor, services, tools equipment, and all other bills contracted for by the CONTRACTOR or by an of the CONTRACTOR's agents, employees or subcontractors used or in contribution to the execution of it's contract with the City of Temecule, with regard to the building, erection, construction or repair of that certain work of improvement known as PROJECT NO. PW91-03 situated in the City of Temecula, State of California, more particularly described as follows: RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD BENEFIT DISTRICT The CONTRACTOR declares that it knows of no unpaid debts or claims arising out of said Contract which would constitute grounds for any third party to claim a stop notice against of any unpaid sums owing to the CONTRACTOR. Further, in connection with the final payment of the Contract, the CONTRACTOR hereby disputes the following amounts: Description Dollar Amount to Dispute NONE -0- Pursuant to Public Contracts Code §7200, the CONTRACTOR does hereby fully release end acquit the City of Temecula and all agents end employees of the City, end each of them, from any and all claims, debts, demands, or cause of action which exist or might exist in favor of the CONTRACTOR by reason of l~ayment by the City of Temecula of any contract amount which the CONTRACTOR has not disputed above. Dated: CONTRACTOR Signature SUSAN M. MOORE, VICE PRESIDENT (Print Name and Title) HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT TO: THE CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 PROJECT: PW91-03 I Rancho California Road Benefit District ' SURETY: INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, Indemnity Company of California, as surety, executed that certain Faithful Performance Bond, designated as Bond No. 229562P, naming Oliver Brothers, as principal, and the City of Temecula, as obligee; WHEREAS, Indemnity Company of California, pursuant to its bond, is obligated to pay claims and demands for labor and materials ordered by Oliver Brothers, and utilized in the performance of said work of improvement; WHEREAS, Indemnity Company of California has received claims for labor and materials utilized in connection with said project; and WHEREAS, Indemnity Company of California contends that, upon receipt of said claims, it is entitled, by virtue of its rights of subrogation and assignment provisions of its General Indemnity Agreement with Oliver Brothers, to receive any and all monies payable to the contractor in connection with said work of improvement. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: The City of Temecula, not withstanding any claim to the contrary from Oliver Brothers, or any other party, shall release all remaining contract retentions which would otherwise be available to Oliver Brothers, and agrees to disperse said retention in the amount of $58,435.26 directly to Indemnity Company of California. Indemnity Company of California agrees to defend and hold the City of Temecula harmless from any claim demand or liability of any kind whatsoever, including counsel fees, which may result from any claim against or on account of the funds paid to Indemnity Company of California in consequence of this agreement. This agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the parties with respect to the contract retentions pertaining to the work of improvement for which the bond was posted, and this agreement may not be changed except by writing executed by the parties hereto. DATED: BY: INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA Lee C. Fiebiger, Sr. VicEPresident DATED: THE CITY OF TEMECULA BY: TITLE: ITEM 14 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 22, 1995 Completion and Acceptance of the Construction of the I-15/Rancho California Road Interchange Off-Ramps and Signals, Project No. PW91-04 PREPARED BY: f~f Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council accept the construction of the 15/Rancho California Road Interchange Off-Ramps and Signals, Project No. PW91-04 as complete and direct the City Clerk to: 1. File the Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and; 2. Release the Materials and Labor Bond. Authorize the Mayor to execute the Hold Harmless Agreement with the "The Insco/Dico Group". BACKGROUND: On November 12, 1991, the City Council approved the Margarita Village Specific Plan/Rancho California Road Reimbursement Agreement with the developers of the Margarita Village Specific Plan (Bedford Properties, Marlborough Development Corporation, Margarita Village Development Company, and TAYCO) to reimburse the City of Temecula for construction of certain improvements to the I-15/Rancho California Road Interchange. The costs incurred by the City of Temecula for surveying, soils, inspection, and construction of the project shall be reimbursed to the City through the approved agreement at the building permit stage. On April 14, 1992 the City Council awarded a contract for the construction of traffic signals, ramp widening, median modifications, lane re-configuration, and landscape improvements at the 1-1 5/Rancho California Road Interchange, Project No. PW91-04 to Oliver Brothers for $526,681.36. r:.~agdtpt~95~tO827.~pw91-O4.a~/ajp Improvements constructed with this project include: 1. Widening the northbound and southbound off-ramps; 2. Installing traffic signals at the on and off-ramps intersections; 3. Re-paving and restriping the approach ramps to the bridge on Rancho California Road; Median modifications on Rancho California Road to provide for increased turning lanes at Ynez Road and Front Street; Widening and installation of a free right turn lane from Rancho California Road to southbound Ynez Road; Modification of the traffic signals at Front Street and Ynez Road to accommodate connection with the newly installed signals on the bridge; and 7. Landscaping of the shoulders and medians within the project limits. In October of 1992, the Contractor filed bankruptcy before the construction was completed. The remaining items of work that need be completed before the project could be finalized consisted of a pedestrian access ramp and some associated concrete construction. The City Attorney finalized the takeover agreement with the Surety (The Insco/Dico Group) for Project No. PW91-03 and PW91-04 on July 7, 1993. However, delays in finalizing this project were caused by changes in project management within the Surety company. The remaining work items for were finally completed by the Contractor working on behalf of the Surety on March 7, 1995. The construction retention for this project will be released on or about thirty-five (35) days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded. The Hold Harmless Agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney. This Agreement holds the City harmless, by the Surety, if any claims are filed as a result of this project. FISCAL IMPACT: The Contract amount for this project was $526,681.36. Contract Change Orders No. 1 through 23 were approved for a total amount of $130,310.39. The total construction cost is $656,991.75. This project is being funded through Federal Aid Interstate (FAI) and the Margarita Village Specific Plan Reimbursement Agreement. Attachments: 1. Notice of Completion 2. Contractor's Affidavit 3. Hold Harmless Agreement r:Xagdrpt\95\O822~pw91-04.-cc/ajp RECOFIDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO: CTrYCLERK CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 SPACE ABOVE THIS UNE FOR RECORDER'S USE NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: 1. The City of Temecula is the owner of the property hereinafter described. 2. The full address of the City of Temecula is 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. 3. A Contract was awarded by the City of Temecula to Oliver Brothers to perform the following work of improvement: PW91-04 - Construction of traffic signals, ramp widening, median modifications, lane re-configuration, and landscaping improvements at the I-151Rancho California Road Interchange. 4. Said work was completed by said company according to plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works of the City of Temecula and that said work was accepted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on August 22, 1995. That upon said contract the INSCOIDICO Group was surety for the bond given by the said company as required by law. 5. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, and is described as follows: PROJECT PW 91-04. Dated at Temecula, California, this day of · 1995. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California and do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing NOTICE OF COMPLETION is true and correct, and that said NOTICE OF COMPLETION was duly and regularly ordered to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside by said City Council. Dated at Temecula, California, this __ day of · 1995. JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk R:\CIP~RO,IECTS~pw9 1 \pw~ 1 -O4\completn .not/ajp BY: 4- .6-95 j 3:31t~,d; CITY OF T~'CtL~--, 7/7 _ :~ CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ~~,c~~/ CONTRACTOR'$ AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE PROJECT NO. FW91-04 - I-1 51RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD RAMPS AND SIGNALS This is to certify that I~D~I~ cozeLm~ OF Ck~IFO~IA , { h · r · i n a f t e r .' t h e "CONTRACTOR') declares to the City of Temecula, under oath, that he/it has paid in full for all materials, supplies, labor, services, tools equipment, and all other bills contracted for by the CONTRACTOR or by an of the CONTRACTOR's agents, employees or subcontractors used or in contribution to the execution of it's contract with the City of Tsmecula, with regard to the building, erection, construction or repair of that certain work:of improvement known as PROJECT NO. PW91-04 situated in the City of Temecula, State of California, mo;e particularly described as follows: WIDENING OF OFF RAMPS AND INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS ' INTERSTATE 15 AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD ' The CONTRACTOR declares that it knows of no unpaid debts or claims arising out of 'said Contract which would constitute grounds for any third party to claim a stop notice against of any unpaid sums owing to the CONTRACTOR. Further, in connection with the final payment of the Contract, the CONTRACTOR hereby disputes the following amounts: Descri pti on Dollar Amount to Dispute Pursuant to Public Contracts Code §7200,the CONTRACTOR does hereby fully release and acquit the City of Temecula and ell agents and employees of the City, and each of them, from any and all claims, debts, demands, or cause of action which exist or might exist in favor of the CONTRACTOR by reason of payment by the City of Temecula of any contract amount which the CONTRACTOR has not disputed above. Dated: CONRAD WOZNEY, SR. CLAIMS ANALYST (Print Name and Tit~s) HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT TO: THE CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 PROJECT: PW91-04 / I-15/Rancho California Road Ramps & Signals SURETY: INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA' WHEREAS, Indemnity Company of California, as surety, executed that certain Faithful Performance Bond, designated as Bond No. 229562P, naming Oliver Brothers, as principal, and the City of Temecula, as obligee; WHEREAS, Indemnity Company of California, pursuant to its bond, is obligated to pay claims and demands for labor and materials ordered by Oliver Brothers, and utilized in the performance of said work of improvement; WHEREAS, Indemnity Company of California has received claims for labor and materials utilized in connection with said project; and WHEREAS, Indemnity Company of California contends that: upon receipt of said claims, it is entitled, by virtue of its rights of subrogation and assignment provisions of its General Indemnity Agreement with Oliver Brothers, to receive any and all monies payable to the contractor in connection with said work of improvement. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: The City of Temecula, not withstanding any clai'm to the contrary from Oliver Brothers, or any other party, shall release all. remaining contract retentions which would otherwise be available to Oliver Brothers, and agrees to disperse said retention in the amount of $155,623.34 directly to Indemnity Company of California. Indemnity Company of California agrees to defend and hold the City of Temecula harmless from any claim demand or liability of any kind whatsoever, including counsel fees, which may result from any claim against or on account of the funds paid to Indemnity Company of California in consequence of this agreement. This agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the parties with respect to the contract retentions pertaining to the work of improvement for which the bond was posted, and this agreement may not be changed except by writing executed by the parties hereto. DATED: INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA BY: Lee C. Fiebiger, Sr. Vice-President DATED: THE CITY OF TEMECULA BY: TITLE: ITEM 15 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works\City Engineer August 22, 1995 Professional Services Agreement for Geotechnical ObServation and Testing with Soil Tech Inc., for Project No. PW93-09, Parkview Site Rough Grading Improvements PREPARED BY: Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects <~Jim D. Faul, Assistant Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Approve the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Temecula and Soil Tech, Inc. for Geotechnical Observation and Testing for Project No. PW93-09, Parkview Site Rough Grading Improvements for $10,124.00, authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement; Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $1,012.40, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount; and 3. Approve a transfer from the General Fund of $11,136.40to the Capital Projects Fund. ' BACKGROUND: On August 8, 1995, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved the award of a construction contract for Project No. PW93-09, Parkview Site Rough Grading Improvements to Kunze, Incorporated. These services are required in conjunction with the rough grading improvements. A request for proposal (RFP) for Professional Services was prepared for the Geotechnical Observation and Testing portion of this project. The three (3) geotechnical firms that submitted proposals were Soil Tech, inc., Leighton & Associates, and Geosoils. The proposals were reviewed and a contract was negotiated with Soil Tech, Inc., who was selected to provide the required services. The geotechnicai consultant will perform geological mapping, slope stability analysis, grading observation and testing, and preparation of a final report as stated in exhibit "A" of the contract. -1- r:~aldq~t\95\0822~ow93-09 48n FISCAL IMPACT: This project is being funded through an operating transfer from the General Fund. The subtotal amount for this portion of the project is ~11,136.40, which includes the contract amount of $10, 124.00plus the 10% contingency amount of $1,012.40. For the geotechnical services being provided as part of this contract, an additional $11,136.40 needs to be transferred from the General Fund to the Capital Improvement Fund, account number 210-199- 128-5804. ATTACHMENT: Professional Services Agreement -2- r:~agdrpt\95\0822~ow93-0t) .tin PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement was made and entered into this 22nd day of August, 1995, by and between the City of Temecula {"City"), a municipal corporation, and Soil Tech, Inc., a California Corporation ("Consultant"). The parties hereto mutually agree as follows: Services. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit "A" attached her.to. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule set forth in Exhibit "A". ' Performance, Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the best of his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Payment, The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, at the hourly rates set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount will not exceed $10,124,00for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved by the City Council; provided that the City Manager may approve additional payment not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the Agreement; but in no event more than $10,000. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first 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. e Amendments. This Agreement may be amended so long as such amendment is in writing and agreed upon by both the City Council and Consultant. e 0wnershiD of Documents. Upon satisfactory completion of or in the event of termination, suspension or abandonment of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, and notes 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. Termination. The City may terminate this Agreement without cause so long as written notice of intent to terminate is'given to Consultant at least three (3) days prior to the termination date. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be paid for the services performed. e Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and save harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense cost, 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 acts or omissions under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City. - 1 - r:\cip%projects~pw93\pw93-09\soiltech.agr/ajp 10. 11. Status of Consultant. Consultant is an independent contractor in all respects in the performance of this Agreement and shall not be considered an employee of the City for any purpose. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultam in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultam for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultam for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. Term. This Agreement shall commence on August 22, 1995, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 1996. Default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Default shall include not performing the tasks described herein to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Manager of the City. Failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder, if such failure arises out of causes beyond his control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, shall not be considered a default. Any disputes regarding performance, default or other matters in dispute between the City and the Consultant arising out of this Agreement or breech thereof, shall be resolved by arbitration. The arbitrator's decision shall be final. Consultant shall select an arbitrator from a list provided by the City of three retired judges of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. The arbitration hearing shall be conducted according t~ California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1280, et seq. City and Consultant shall share the cost of the arbitration equally. Notices. Notices shall be given pursuant to this Agreement by personal service on the party to be notified, or by written notice upon such party deposited in the custody of the United States Postal Service addressed as follows: City: City of Temecula Attention: Ronald E. Bradley, City Manager 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Consultant: Soil Tech, Inc. Attention: H. Wayne Baimbridge 41607 Enterprise Circle North Temecula, California 92590 The notices shall be deemed to have been given as of the date of personal service, or three (3) days after the date of deposit of the same in the custody of the United States Postal Service. -2- r:\cip\projects~pw93~pw93-O9\soiltech.agr/ajp 12. 13. 14. 15. Entire Aareement. This Agreement and any documents or instrument attached hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect to the subject matter hereof, In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of this Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall prevail. Leoal Resoonsibilities. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of State and Federal 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 Consultam shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations· The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultam to comply with this section· Assianment. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without the prior written consent of the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be the value to the City of the services rendered· Liability Insurance. The Consultant shall maintain insurance acceptable to the City in full force and effect throughout the term of this contract, 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, his agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Insurance is to be placed with insurer with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VII. The costs of such insurance shall be included in the Contractor's bid. The Consultam shall provide the following scope and limits of insurance: A. Minimum Scooe of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: Insurance Services Office Form No. GL-0002 (Ed. 1/73) covering Comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office Form No. GL-0404 covering Board Form Comprehensive General Liability; or Insurance Services office Commercial General Liability coverage ("occurrence" Form No. CG-0001 ). Insurance Services Office Form No. CA-0001 (Ed. 1/78) covering Automobile Liability, Code 1 "any auto" and Endorsement CA-0025. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by Labor Code of the State of California and Employers' Liability insurance· 4. Errors and Omissions insurance. -3- r:\cip~projects\pw93~pw93-09\soiltech.agrlajp Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits of insurance no less than: General Liability: $1,000,000combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage· Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability: Workers' Compensation as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers' Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 4. Errors and Omissions Insurance: $1,000,000 per occurrence. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductible in excess of $1,000 must be declared to and approved by the City. Other Insurance Provisions. Insurance policies required by this contract shall contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions: All Policies. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, concealed by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City via United States First Class Mall. General Liability and Automobile Liability CoveraQes. 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, lease, 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. With regard to claims arising from the Consultant's performance of the work described in this contract, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or employees or volunteers shall apply in excess of, and not contribute with, the Consultant's insurence. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers officials, employees or volunteers. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. -4- r:\ciP~Projects~pw93~pw93-09\soiltech.agrlajp 16. Workers' Comoensation and Emolovers' Liability Coverage. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by the Consultant for the City. Verification of Coveraoe. Contractor shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance effecting coverage required by this clause. The certificates for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates are to be on forms provided by the City and are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. The '-City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies. of all required insurance policies, at any time. Consultant shall include all subconsultants as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials and employees; or the Consultam shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. Licenses. Consultant and subconsultant shall obtain all necessary licenses, including but not limited to, City Business Licenses. The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above written. -5- r:\cip~projects~pw93~pw93-Og\soiltech.agrlajp CONSULTANT CITY OF TEMECULA By: By Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk -6- r:~cip~projects~pw93~pw93-O9\soiltech.egrlejp EXHIBIT "A" TASKS TO BE PERFORMED r:\cip%projects~pw93~pw93-O9%soiltech.agr/ajp EXHIBIT '~- (ESTIMATED COST BREAKDOWN) (Parkview Site Grading - PW93-O9) DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES Pre-Project Meeting Project Geotechnical Engineer Project Engineering Geologist Senior Technician , Geologic Mapping & Inspection i Slope Stability Analysis Certified Engineering Geologist (Field Mapping) Staff Engineer (Calculations & Report of Findings) Laboratory Testing Direct Shear (In-situ, 3 pts. for cut slopes) Direct Shear (Reinold, 3 pts. for fill slopes) Compaction Testing During Grading Operations Senior Soil Field Technician(s) Estimated 8 hours per day 20 Work Days, full-time Observation & Testing (Rough Grading Operations) Reduced Rate Laboratory Testing Maximum Density Curve (ASTM-D-1557, Method A) Expansion Index Soluble Sulfate R-Value Testing for Pavement Design Final Grading/Geologic & Slope Stability Report Staff Engineer(Report Wdting and Data Collating) Staff Geologist (Prepare Geologic Field Data for Drafting) Drafting (Plot Plan Showing Cleanout and Test Locations) Project Geotechnical Engineer (Review) Project Engineering Geologist (Review) Company Principal (Review) Preparation of Final Report for Distribution Hourly Rate/ E-Umatad Unit Costs Hrs/Unit Costs Total Costs $ 95.00 I $ 95.00 $ 85.00 I $ 85.00 $ 39.00 I $ 39.00 Pre-Project Meeting $219.00 Rates/Costa Hours/Units Total Co~ta $ 85.00 8 $ 680.00 $ 75.00 4 $ 300.00 $ 120.00 I $ 120.00 $ 210.00 I $ 210.00 Geology/Slope Stability $1,310.00 Ratas/Costa Hours/t.lni~ Total Costs $ ~39.00 160 $ 6,240.00 $ 110.00 4 $ 80.00 4 $ 30.00 4 Compaction Testing Rates/Cos~ Hours/Unll $ 75.00 7 $ 65.00 1 $ 40.00 6 $ 95.00 2 $ 95.00 2 $ 125.00 1 $ 35.00 4 FinalReport $ 440.00 $ 320.00 $ 120.00 Upon Request $~12~00 Total Cos~ $ 525.0O $ 65.00 $ 240.00 $ 190.00 $ 190.00 $ 125.00 $ 140.00 $1,475.00 For cost estimating purposes, the daily rate for one technician (based on an &O-hour day) will be $312.00. Please note: The above costs are based on an assumed scope of work from the proposed project schedule submitted herein and this ~rm's past experience on similar projects. Hours and tests may vary depending on the actual work schedule, types of tests required, testing and observation frequency, contractors performance and unanticipated geotechnical conditions. Geotechnicat Consulting and Testing Services will be performed as stated above and invoiced bi- monthly on a time-and-materials basis. Additional work beyond that represented herein will not be conducted without pdor authorization from the Client. SOIL TECH, INC. EXHIBIT "B" PAYMENT SCHEDULE r:\cip~projects%pw93\pw93-O9\soiltech.agr/ajp II II I I I II I!1 Stilt_ ~ SCHEDULE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES (JANUARY 1995) LABORATORY TESTING FEES, (continued) Direct Shear, in-situ sample, natural moisture, 3 points* .............................................................120.00 Direct Shear, imsitu sample, natural moisture, 3 points, residual' ..............................................360.00 Direct Shear, imsitu sample, saturated, 3 points' ........................................................................150.00 Direct Shear, imsitu sample, saturated, 3 points, residual' ..........................................................390.00 Hydrometer Analysis (minus No. 10 sieve material) ......................................................................65.00 Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content Relationships a) ASTM 13-1557, (Method A) ..........................................................................................110.00 Check Point .....................................................................................................................50.00 b) ASTM 13-1557, (Method B, C) ......................................................................................130.00 Check Point .....................................................................................................................60.00 -' c) ASTM 13-1557, (Method D) ........................................................~; ................................150.00 Check Point .....................................................................................................................80.00 d) California Impact (CALTRANS 216) .............................................................................120.00 Minimum Electrical Resistivity .......................................................................................................40.00 Moisture Content ....................; ........................................................................................................8.00 Organic Content ............................................................................................................................30.00 pH ...........................................................................................................................................10.00 Permeability .........................................................................................................................On Request R-Value: a) CALTRANS 301 ............................................................................................................210.00 b) With Cement, Lime or other additives .................................................................On Request Sieve Analysis, without wash, 3/4" Max ........................................................................................55.00 Sieve Analysis, washed, 3/4" Max ...............................................................................................100.00 Sieve Analysis, ~200 wash ............................................................................................................55.00 Specific Gravity (+ No. 4 Sieve Material) ................................................................-.2 ....................70.00 Specific Gravity (- No. 4 Sieve Material) .......................................................................................80.00 Triaxial Compression Test ..............................................................................· ......................On Request · Unit Weight and Moisture Content (undisturbed ring samples) .....................................................15.00 Sample Pick Up and Delivery (per hour) .......................................................................................45.00 Special Tests and Sample Preparation (per hour) ...........................................................................45.00 · Add $20.00 per specimen for remolded tests AGGREGATE TESTING Cleanness Test (per coarse aggregate) ............................' ...........................................................$100.00 Clay Lumps and Friable Particles (per aggregate) ...........................................................................70.00 Crushed Particles (per coarse aggregate) ........................................................................................70.00 D u rability (per aggregate) ............................................................................................................125.00 LA Abrasion (Coarse aggregate 1.5" or less in size) a) 100 Revolutions ...........................................................................................................110.00 b) 500 Revolutions ...........................................................................................................150.00 Light Weight Pieces (per aggregate) .....................................................~ .......................................150.00 Organic Impurities in Fine Aggregate ............................................................................................45.00 Sand Equivalent (average of 3 test points) ......................................................................................65.00 Scratch Hardness (per coarse-aggregate) ........................................................................; ...............65.00 Sieve Analysis, without wash (per aggregate) ................................................................................55.00 S~IL_ l=~r=M, ~m'= SC:~- ~ ear,, SCHEDULE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES (]ANUARY 1995) HOURLY PERSONNEL CHARGES 31 Principal ....................................................................................................................................$125.00 Registered Environmental Assessor (REA) .................................................7 ..................................100.00 Geotechnical Engineer, (GE) ............................; ...........................................................................110.00 Engineering Geologist, (REG) .......................................................................................................110.00 Project Engineer, (RCE) ..................................................................................................................95.00 Project Geologist, (RG) .................................................................................................: ................95.00 Staff Engineer .................................................................................................................................75.00 Staff Geologist ................................................................................................................................75.00 Manager of Operations ..............................................................................: ...................................65.00 Field Supervisor ........................................................................................: ....................................60.00 Laboratory Supervisor ....................................................................................................................60.00 Senior Technician (Lab. / Field) .....................................................................................................50.00 Technician, (Lab. / Field) ...............................................................................................................45.00 Drafti n g Services ............................................................................................................................45.00 Word Processing ............................................................................................................................45.00 Clerical Services .............................................................................................................................35.00 Deputy or Special Inspector .................................................................................................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 ............................$0.45 Nuclear Density Gauge, per day ...................................................................................................12.50 Manometer Equipment, per survey ..............................................................................................:. 20.00 Postage or special delivery services ....................................................................................Cost + 15% Cost + 15% Outside Services ................................................................................................................. Additional copies of reports, based on clerical time and materials, per hour ................................35.00 Per Diem, per day per person ....................................................................................$30.00 + Lodging Note: 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 requesL SOIL TESTING Atterberg Limits a) Liquid Limit ..................................................................................................................$50.00 b) Plastic Limit ....................................................................................................................50.00 c) Plasticity Index ..............................................................................................................100.00 d) Shrinkage Limit ...............................................................................................................80.00 C.B.R. (3 points, excluding optimum moisture / max. density curve) ..........................................300.00 Chloride content ............................................................................................................................30.00 Consolidation, max. 5 points without rate data' ...........................................................................85.00 Consolidation, single point without rate data' .................................: ............................................55.00 Consolidation, per additional loading point ..................................................................................20.00 Consolidation, rate data per load increment ..................................................................................40.00 I 1 I il i i I ili sol_ -r'ec]-~ fie.. SCHEDULE OF PROFESSIONAL FEE 0ANUARY 1995) LABORATORY TESTING FEES, (continued) Compressire Strength, Brick, 5 required ...................................................................................45.00 ea Other Specialty Testing (i.e., not frequently-conducted) ......................................................On Request ASPHALTIC CONCRETE TESTING Film Stripping (ASTM) ..................................................................................................................$80.00 Centrifuge Kerosene Equivalent, Coarse or Fine (each) ...............................................................125.00 Specific Gravity (Compacted Sample) ............................................................................................45.00 Stabilometer Test (Sample Mixing - set of 3) ...................................' ............................................270.00 Premixed Sample (Set of 3) ..............................................................................................170.00 '- Extraction, % Bitumen & Sieve Analysis ......................................................' ................................150.00' Marshall Test, per Core Specimen, (stability & flow) ..................................................................150.00 Marshall Test, Maximum Density Only .......................................................................................150.00 Marshall Test, (Sample Preparation - Set of 3) ..........~ ...................................................................275.00 Evaluation of On-Site Failures ..............................................................................................On Request Other Specialty Testing (i.e., not frequently conducted) ......................................................On Request ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL TESTING 418.1/SM5520F ...........................................................................................................................$40.00 8015 ('I'PH), Gasoline ....................................................................................................................75.00 8015 (TPH), Diesel ..................................................................................: .....................................85.00 8015/8020 ...................................................................................................................................145.00 239.1/7420, Total Lead (Soil) .........................................................................................................10.00 239.1/7420, Total Lead (Water) ...............................................................................: .....................40.00 8010 ...........................................................................................................................................90.00 8020 (BTXE) .......................................................................................................: .........................;. 75.00 7000, 'I'FLC Metals ......................................................................................................................190.00' Photo-Vac, (Per Day) ....................................................................................................................100.00 MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES Coring Field Samples of Concrete, A.C., Masonry, etc ........................................................On Request Reinforcing Steel, Structural Steel & High Strength Bolt Testing .........................................On Request Por~tand or Aspbaltic Cements, Liquid Asphalts, Emulsions & Siurry Seals .........................On Request Roofing Observations and Tes~ ...........................................................................................On Request Densi~' of Sprayed Fireproofing .............................................................................................$55.00 ea Asbestos P.L.M. Analysis ...........................................................................................................35.00 ea il m ii ii L S~L, Tee:H, lear_. SCHEDULE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES (JANUARY 1995) LABORATORY TESTING FEES, (continued) Sieve Analysis, with wash (per aggregate) ....................................................................................110.00 Sieve Analysis, -#200 material Coer aggregate) .............................................................................55.00 Soft Particle (per aggregate) ................................~ ...........................................................................65.00 Soundness, (5 cycle, sodium sulfate) a) Fine Aggregate ..............................................................................................................225.00 b) Coarse Aggregate .........................................................................................................200.00 Specific Gravity and Absorption a) Fine Aggregate ................................................................................................~ ...............60.00 b) Coarse Aggregate ...........................................................................................................55.00 Unit Weight (loose and compacted) ...........................................................~ ................................100.00 CONCRETE TESTING Concrete Mix Design (review calculations only) .......................................................................$120.00 5plircing Tensile Test, 6"x6" beam .................................................................................................75.00 Flexural Strength, 6"x6" beam .......................................................................................................45.00 Beams Cured but not tested (less than 28 days old) .......................................................................25.00 Splitting Tensile Test, 6"xl 2" cylinder ...........................................................................................75.00 Compression Tests, Hold Samples, 6"xl 2" cylinder ......................................................................18.00 Cylinders Canceled, Not Tested (less than 28 days old) ................................................................10.00 Compression Tests (Gunite) ...........................................................................................................18.00 Density Tests on Concrete Cylinders (unit weight) ........................................................................50.00 Slump Cone Rental ..............................................................................................................On Request Compression & Bond Strength of Joint Fillers ......................................................................On Request Batch Plant Certification .......................................................................................................On Request On Request Trial Concrete Design Mix .................................................................................................. Cement Content of Hardened Concrete .......................; ......................................................On Request Shrinkage Testing (ASTM/State Methods) .............................................................................On Request Other Specialty Testing (i.e., not frequently conducted) ......................................................On Request MASONRY TESTING Compression Test, Hold Samples, Mortar or Grout Cylinders ................................................$18.00 ea Compression Test, Masonry Unit, 3 required (Net area also requires absorption & unit weight tests) .................................................65.00 ea Absorption Test, Masonry Unit, 3 required (Net area also requires unit weight test) ..........................................................~ ..............45.00 ea 45.00 ea Unit Weight, Masonry Unit, 3 required .................................................................................... Moisture Content, Masonry Unit (as received), 3 required .......................................................45.00 ea Lineal shrinkage, masonry unit, 3 required ...............................................................................85.00 ea Tensile Test on Masonry Block ........................................................................:' .....................125.00 ea 85.00 ea Shear Test on Masonry Core ..................................................................................................... Compression Test on Masonry Core ........................................................................................45.00 ea Compression Test of Masonry Prisms 8"xl 6" (other sizes on request) ....................................125.00 ea Diamond Sawing of Masonry Units, if required ......................................................................20.00/cut Modulus of Rupture, Brick, 5 required .....................................................................................45.00 ea SC31I_ Ter'l-!, INr__. ITEM 16 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Manager/City Council Genie Roberrs, Director of Finance Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works August 22, 1995 Appropriation of Funds to General Fund Emergency Relief Department Budget PREPARED BY: Allie Kuhns, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council appropriate an additional $100,895 to the 1994/95 General Fund Emergency Relief Department Budget for expenditures incurred for disaster relief from floods occurring in March 1995. DISCUSSION: As part of the mid-year budget review, Council approved a $200,000 appropriation to the General Fund Emergency Relief Department Budget to cover winter storm damage identified by Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) Incident Number 1044. These storms occurred in January 1995, and FEMA Incident Number 1044 is specific to these storms. A total of $178,478 has expended to repair the storm damage sustained under Incident Number 1044. During the March storms, subsequent to FEMA Incident Number 1044, various areas of Temecula incurred additional flood damage. FEMA again established a means of reimbursement through FEMA Incident Number 1046, and a total of $122,366 has been expended for repairs to storm damage conjunctive to this Incident Number. After both phases of the winter storms of 1995, a total of twenty-four (24) projects were identified, and Damage Survey Reports (DSR) were assigned by FEMA to allow for future reimbursement. To date, a total of $290,024has 'been submitted to FEMA for reimbursement to cover flood damage repairs. Thus, with the $200,000 original appropriation and total identified costs of $300,895, an additional appropriation of $100,895 is necessary. FISCAL IMPACT: The amount of $100,895 will be appropriated to the General Fund Emergency Relief Department Budget to the specific funds designated in the attached spreadsheet. This will provide a total of $300,895 in this fund for the purpose of repairing damage incurred during the winter storms of 1995, designated by FEMA Incident Numbers 1044 and 1046. Approximately 93.75 percent of the total costs incurred should be reimbursed by FEMA and the State of California Office of Emergency Services. Attachment Z o ,,f ~ o.0 --- ,_ Bow Z I-- rr r~ >.- 0 Z nl LLI I- n Z Z LI.I U-Xu~ Z 0 won.. OF-O < F-- ).. -- ~0~ L.I.I I- I.u n × I.IJ ITEM 17 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Manager/City Council Genie Roberrs, Finance Officer August 22, 1995 Resolution to Establish Entertainment License Fees PREPARED BY: Allie Kuhns, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING ENTERTAINMENT LICENSE FEES FOR THOSE ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS COVERED IN CHAPTER 9.10 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE DISCUSSION: During the June 14, 1994 Council Meeting, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 94-16, adding Chapter 9.10, "Special Licenses - Bars, Night Clubs, Dance Halls, Poolrooms, Etc.," to the Temecula Municipal Code. This ordinance has addressed concerns expressed by the City Council regarding the need to enforce controls over certain entertainment activities in the City by requiring these activities to apply for the license. Through the application process, the Police Department becomes involved and conducts a criminal background check to ensure that the following conditions exist: Ae The application fulfills the specific requirements for such license as set forth in chapter 9.10 of the Temecula Municipal Code. The applicant has not made any false or misleading statement in his/her application. The licensed business has not been operated in an illegal, improper, or disorderly manner. The licensed business has not been operated in a manner that is detrimental to the public health, public morals, or public order. In conjunction with the application process, applicants will be required to pay a fee of $115.00. This fee covers the application investigation ($70.00), fingerprint fees ($42.00- payable to the County of Riverside) and supplies ($3.00) which are used to complete the background check, and will be paid to the Temecula Police Department. Once established, the entertainment license application process will provide the only means available for the Temecula Police Department to conduct a background check on businesses prior to allowing them to operate. No other business license or permit application process allows for investigations or background checks. FISCAL IMPACT: The license fee collected will cover the cost of the Temecula Police Department's background investigation. ]~E~OLUTION NO. 9.$- A RESOLUTION OF ~ C1TY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABT,T~H1NG ENTERTAINMENT LICENSE FEES FOR THOSE ENTERTAINMENT ESTABT-T,~IMENTS COVERlet} IN CHAFrER 9.10 OF THE TEblECIJLA MUNICIPAL CODE The City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and order as follows: WHEREAS, City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94-16 requires the owners of certain entertainment establishments to obtain a special license; and, WHEREAS, it is necessary for the Temecula Police Department to conduct a criminal background investigation in conjunction with the license application process; and, WHEREAS, them is a need to reimburse the Temecula Police Department for the costs incurred in conducting the background investigation, NOW, TitE!!EFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Temecula orders as follows: Section 1: There is hereby established a Special License Fee in the amount of $115.00. Section 2: The Temecula Police Department shall collect this fee in conjunction with the Department's Special License application process. Section 3: The funds collected for this fee shall be deposited in the Receiving Account of the General Fund on a weekly basis. Section 4: The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 22nd day of August, 1995. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] ITEM 18 TO: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFIC ,.-~r~ CITY MANAGERE~'~.,~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT FROM: DATE: City Manager/City Council ~,~Shawn D. Nelson, Director of Community Services August 22, 1995 SUBJECT: Unified Program Agency Designation for Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management PREPARED BY: Phyllis L. Ruse, Development Services Administrator RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a Resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DESIGNATING THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AS THE UNIFIED PROGRAM AGENCY FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION: In 1993, Senate Bill 1082 (SB 1802) was passed in an effort to consolidate duplicative regulatory programs. SB 1082 mandates that administration of six- specified hazardous waste and hazardous materials regulatory programs be consolidated under a Unified Program Agency, and that the Agency be certified by the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency. The six regulatory programs to be consolidated are: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Hazardous Waste Generators Underground Storage Tank Operation Hazardous Materials Inventories and Release Response Plans Acutely Hazardous Materials Handling Hazardous Materials Management Plans and Inventory Aboveground Storage Tank Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans The Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) currently administers a consolidated regulatory program for hazardous waste/materials handling and related emergency planning, including programs I through 5 above, for the City of Temecula. The sixth program component, the Aboveground Storage Tank Spill Prevention Plan, is administered by the three Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Santa Ana, Colorado and San Diego). The DEH is working with these Boards to coordinate efforts and develop an agreement for the Boards to continue the oversight of the program on behalf of the unincorporated County and covered Cities, including Temecula. Adoption of this Resolution is an administrative procedure allowing the DEH to complete the required certification through the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency. The DEH will continue to provide the same services to the City of Temecula as in the past with no changes. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE C1TY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DESIGNATING THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, DEPAR~ OF ENVIRO~AL HEALTH AS THE UNIFn~ PROGRAM AGENCY FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT WIn~EAS, Chapter 6.11 of Division 20 of the California Health and Safety Code (HSC) requires that ndministration of six specified hnTnrdous waste and hazardous materials management regulatory programs must be consolidated as a Unified Program; and WHEREAS, HSC Chapter 6. I 1 requires that an agency which administers any of the specified unified program components must be certified under a Unified Program Agency by the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency; and W~ERE&S, those Unified Program components specified in HSC Chapter 6.11 include the requirements of HSC Chapter 6.5 (commencing with Section 25100) related to bnTnrdous waste generators and on-site waste treatment; HSC Chapter 6.7 (commencing with Section 25280) related to construction, operation, and removal of underground storage tanks; Article 1 of HSC Chapter 6.95 related to bnTnrdous material release response plans and inventories; Article 2 of HSC Chapter 6.95 related with the management of acutely hazardous materials; HSC Section 25270.5 (c) related to aboveground storage tank spill prevention control and countermeasure plans; and Uniform Fire Code (UFC) Section 80.103 (b) and (c) related to hazardous materials management plans and inventories; and WHEREAS, HSC Section 25509.2 eliminates duplicate reporting requirements by deeming that reports fLIed under HSC Chapter 6.95, Articles 1 and 2, shall have met the: requirements of UFC Section 80.103 (b) and (c); and WHEREAS, the County of Riverside, Department of Environmental Health, curren~y administers regulatory compliance for five of the six Unified Program components in the City of Temecula; and WHEREAS, the Department of Environmental Health, serving as a Unified Program Agency, will coordinate administration of the sixth Unified Program component, the Aboveground Storage Tank Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans, with the San Diego, Santa Ana and Colorado Regional Water Quality Control Boards. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City of Temec~,!:~ designates the County of Riverside, Department of Environmental Health as the Unified Program Agency for hazardous waste and hn~-~rdous materials regulation in this jurisdiction. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of the Resolution. Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor ATrEST: June S. Greek, CMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecuh, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 95- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the __ day of , 1995, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCH.A{EMBERS: COUNCILMF~MBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, CMC City Clerk ITEM 19 ORDINANCE NO. 95-11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE C1TY COUNCIL OF THE C1TY OF TEMECULA ADOFrING THE ChIP LAND USE COORDINATION PROCESS WHEREAS, state hw (specifically Government Code sections 65088 through 65089.9) imparts on local agencies the responsibility to link land use decisions with transportation and air quality goals; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) has been designated as the Congestion Management Agency in Riverside County and must biennially prepare and adopt a Congestion Management Program (CMP) designed to direc~y link land use planning with transportation and air quality management; and WHEREAS, State law requires the Congestion Management Agency to monitor local agency compliance with the CMP, including adoption and implementation of a two-phase program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions on transportation (the *CMP Land Use Coordination Program"); and WHEREAS, Phase 1 of the CMP Land Use Coordination Program requires local agencies to prepare a Traffic Impact Assessment CfIA), as specified in Chapter 5 of the CMP, for development proposals that generate more than 200 peak hour trips and may impact the CMP System; and WHEREAS, each local agency must choose between two alternative approaches for RCTC review of agency compliance with the Phase 1 requirements of the CMP Land Use Coordination Program; these options being Approach A - Ongoing TIA Review Process and-' Approach B - Annual TIA Review Process, descriptions of which are in Chapter 5 of the 1994 Riverside County CMP. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES I4F, R~BY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby adopt Riverside County CMP Land Use Coordination Program and chooses Approach A for review of the City' s compliance with the Phase I requirements. Section 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be posted in at least three public places in the City. Ords\95-11 I Section 3. T~lcing Effect. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption. Section 4. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty 00) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance, together with the name of the Councilmembers voting for-and against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk. PASSED, tIPROVED AND ADOPTEB, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of August, 1995. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor June S. Greek, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] Orals\95-11 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) crrY OF TENm_L~LA) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the forgoing Ordinance No. 95-11 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 8th day of August,. 1995, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 22nd day of August, 1995, by the following vote, to wit: CO~CILMEMBERS: NOES: CO~CILMEMBERS: ABSENT: CO~CILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, CMC City Clerk Orals\95-11 I ITEM 20 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORN FINANCE OFFICE "~~ E CITY MANAG R CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Director of Community Development August 22, 1995 Planning Application No. PA95-0023, Development Agreement'for Van Daele 79 Venture, LTD. Prepared By: Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council: 1. Adopt the Negative Declaration for PA95-0023 2. Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 95-_ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND VAN DAELE 79 VENTURE, LTD. FOR FINAL TRACT MAPS N O. 22716-FINAL, 22716-2,22716-4 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28122 WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199. BACKGROUND: On November 7, 1988, the County of Riverside approved Development Agreement No. 5 for the Margarita Village Specific Plan (S.P. 199)which includes tracts 22716 and 28122. On February 13, 1995, the City Council and the developer entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that involved tracts 22716 and 28122. This MOU authorizes the collection of a $3,200.00 per unit Interim Public Facility Fee when the owners obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the first production home built in the project. This commitment set the foundation for the reducing the Development Agreement Fee for this project. The proposed revisions would reduce the Development Agreement Fee from $5,271.00 per unit to $3,200.00 per unit which is consistent with the recent reductions the City Council has approved for other developers. On August 7, 1995 the Planning Commission recommended approval of PA95-0023 with a 4-0 vote (Commissioner Steve Ford was absent). R:LSTAFFRPT~ITPA94.CC 8/14/95 klb 1 FISCAL IMPACT Development Agreement No. 5 Fee: Interim Public Facilities Fee to be Collected: 81 Dwelling Units X $5,271 -- $426,951 81 Dwelling Units X $3,200 = $259,200 Attachments: Ordinance No. 95- - Blue Page 3 Proposed Amendment and Restaement of Development Agreement Agreement No. 5 - Blue Page 8 Planning Commission Staff Report, August 7, 1995 - Blue Page 9 R:\STAFFRFI~ITPA94.CC 8114195 klb 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ORDINANCE NO. 95-,_ R:\STAFFRPT~ITPA~.CC 8/14/95 klb 3 ORDINANCE NO. 9.5- __ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF T]~V/ECULA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT AND RESTA~ OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 5 BETWF~ THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND VAN DAELE 79 VENTURE, LTD. FOR FINAL TRACT MAPS NO. 22716.FINAL, 22716-2, 227164 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28122 WITltlN SPF_ZIFIC PLAN NO. 199. WHEREAS, Section 65864 et attl. of the Government Code of the State of California and Temecula City Resolution No. 91-52 authorize the execution of agreements establishing and maintaining requirements applicable to the development of real property; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedure specified in said Resolution, Van Daele 79 Venture, Ltd., a California Limited Partnership, hereinafter "Van Daele" has filed with the City of Temecula an application for a Development Agreement which reflects an amendment and restatement of existing County Development Agreement No. 5 (hereinafter "this Agreement"), of a residential housing subdivision on its property for Planning Area 14 including at Tract 22716, Lots 1-11; Tract 22716-2, Lots 1-13, 17-31; Tract 22716-4, Lots 1-40; Parcel Map 28122, Lots 1, 2, 3 provided such Parcel Map is approved, hereinafter the "Subject Property" which application has been reviewed and accepted for filing by the Planning Director; and, WHEREAS, notice of the City's intention to consider adoption of this Agreement with Van Daele, has been duly given in the form and manner required by law, and the Planning Commission and City Council of said City have each conducted public hearings on August 7, 1995 (Planning Commission), and August 22, 1995 (City Council) at which time it heard and considered all evidence relevant and material to said subject. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS-' FOLLOWS: Section 1. FINDINGS. The City Council hereby finds and determines, with respect to this Agreement by and between the City of Temecula and Van Daele, that it: A. Is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the City of Temecula's General Plan in that this Agreement makes reasonable provision for the use of certain real property for residential development consistent with the General Plan's land use designation of low-medium density residential; B. Is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use district in which the Subject Property referred to herein is located as this Agreement provides for residential development pursuant to a Specific Plan; C. Is in conformity with the public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice because it makes reasonable provision for a balance of land uses compatible with the remainder of the City; R:XSTAFFRFB17PA94.CC 8/14/95 klb doe D. Will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general walfam because it provides adequate assurances for the protection thereof; E. Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission was published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten (10) days before the Planning Commission public hearing, and mailed or delivered at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing to the project applicant and to each agency expected to provide wata, sewer, schools, police prot~don, and fire protection, and to all property owners within six hundred feet (600') of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll; F. Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission included the date, time, and place of the public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, a general explanation of the matter to be considered, a general description in text or diagram of the location of the real properly that is the subject of the hearing, and of the need to exhaust administrative remedies; G. Notice of the public hearing before the City Council was published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten (10) days prior to the City Council public hearing, mailed at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing to the project applicant, to each agency expected to provide water, sewer, schools, police protection, and fire promction, and to all property owners within six hundred feet (600') of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll; H. Notice of the City Council hearing included the date, the time, and place of the public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, the general explanation of the matter to be considered, a general description in text or by diagram of the location of the Property that is the subject of the hearing, and the notice of the need to exhaust administrative remedies; I. City Council approved this Agreement by Ordinance based upon evidence and findings of the Planning Commission and new evidence presented at its hearing on this Agreement, giving its reasons therefor and setting their relationship between 'this Agreement and the General Plan; K. The benefits that will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from this legislation and this Agreement are as follows: 1. Generation of municipal revenue; 2. Construction of public infrastructure facilities; 3. Acceleration of both the timely development of subject property as well as the payment of municipal revenue; 4. Enhancement of quality of life for surrounding residents with the timely development through the elimination of dust and nuisance of partially improved lots; 5. Payment of Public Facility Fees (fire, library, traffic signal mitigation, development and RSA); and, R:~STAFFRPT~ITPA94.CC 8114195 klb 5 6. Help ensure solvency of Assessment District 159 and Community Facilities District 884 as Van Daele has elected to use legislation to help offset burden to pay off each of these districts for subject property in their entirety and these districts finance City and regional improvements. Section 2. APPROVAL. This Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Attachment '1' is hereby approved. The Mayor is authorized and directed to evidence such approval by executing this Agreement for, and in the name of, the City of Temecula; and the City Clerk is directed to attest thereto; provided, however, that this Agreement shall not be executed by the City until this Ordinance .tak~ effect and the City has received from the applicant two executed originals of said Agreement. Section 3. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold- any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 4. NOTICE OF ADOPTION. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. Section 5. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk. R:kqTAFFRP~ITPA~4.CC 8114/95 IrJb 6 Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ,1995. Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) CITY OF TEMECULA) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. __ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 199_, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of 199_, by the following vote, to wit: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk R:XSTAFFRPTX17PA94.CC 8114/95 lifo ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 5 R:',STAFFRPTXlTPA94.CC 8/14/95 k.lb 8 RECORDED AT THE REQUEST OF City City of Temecula Widen RECORDED RETURN TO City Cl~rk City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 (Space Above Line For Recorder's Us~) AMF~NDMENT AND RF_,STATEMlq~ OF DEVI~IDPMENT AGI~F-lqMENT SPEC]lh'IC PLAN NO. 199 PLANNING AREA 14 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 'Margarita Village' Van Daele 79 Venture Ltd. 31~-'3593.2 ~lV~:~NT AND P, ESTATEIVIENT OF DEVI:H O~ AGIt~ B~ CITYOFT2~tECULA and VAN DAP:I .P 7~ VENTURE, LTD. This Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement (" Amendment") is entered into to be effective on the date set forth in Recital N. and Paragraph 1.7 by and among the City of Temecula, a California Municipal Corporation ("City") and Van Daele 79 Venture, Ltd., a California Limited Pannership ("Owner"): A. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65864, ct. Seq, ("Development Agreement Statutes"), Kaiser Development, a California Corporation and others and the County of Riverside, California ("County") entered into Development Agreement No. 5 recorded in the Official Records of Riverside County, California on November 7, 1988, as Instrument No.325515 ("Development Agreement No. 5"). B. Development Agreement No. 5 encompasses a project formerly located within County approval Specific Plan No. 199 known as "Margarita Village", a mixed use subdivision, (the "Original Project") to be developed on property which came within the municipal boundaries of the City when the City incorporated on December 1, 1989. This Agreement encompasses only a portion of the. Original Project, located in Planning area 14 a residential development (the "Project"). The balance of the Original Project covered by Development Agreement No. 5 not included within Planning Area 14 is not amended or impacted by this Agreement. ORANGP'3593.2 ]. C. Pursuant to the provisions of the Development Agreement Statutes, the City became the suecessor-in-interest to the County under Development Agreement No. 5 upon incorporation of the City. D. Pursuant to Section 65868 of the Development Agreement Statutes, the City and Owner propose to restate and amend Development Agreement No. 5 to substitute this Agreement for the portion of Development Agreement No. 5 pertaining to the Project. E. Pursuant and subject to the Development Agreement Statutes, the City's police powers and City Re,~lution No. 91-52, City is authorized to enter into binding agreements with persons having legal or equitable interest in real property located within the City's municipal boundaries or sphere of influence thereby establishing the conditions under which such property may be developed in the City. : F. By electing to enter into this Agreement, City shall bind future Members of the City Council oi City by the obligations specified herein and further limit the future exercise oi certain governmental and proprietary powen of Members of the City Council. Likewise, Owner shall bind its successors in interest to the obligations specified in this Agreement. G. The terms and conditions of this Agreement have undergone extensive review. by the staff of the City, the Planning Commission of the City, and the City Council of City and have been found to be fair, just, and reasonable. H. City finds and determines that it witl be in the best interest of its citizens and the public health, safety and welfare will be served by entering into this Agreement. I. All of the procedures and requirements of the Catifomia Environmental {3E:3593.2 2 Quality Act have been met with ~ to this Agrcuncnt. ~. Riverside County Ordinance No. 659, as adopted by the City, establishes public facilities impact fees for residential development within City ("RSA Fees"). City requires these revenues to mitigate the impact of development. City requires RSA Fees from development of the Propmy in order to ~omplete capital projects to mitigate the impact of the development. K. Development Agreement No. 5 provided for public facilities and services impact fees (*County Impact Fees*) higher than the RSA Fees. These higher fees, particularly during the present economic situation, unduly discourage and delay development and thereby prevent City from ever receiving the County Impact Fees or RSA Fees. Consequently, the City desires to reduce the County Impact Fees for residential development in the Project to a level comparable to the RSA Fees. L. City and Owner acknowledge that development of the Project will result in the generation of municipal revenue, for public infrasU'ucture facilities and the enhancement of the quality of life, including recreation facilities for present and future residents of the City. The benefits to the City and Owner contemplated by development of the Project include: (1) completion of vacant lots in Project; (9_) payment of fire mitigation fees; (3) participation in special assessment districts to finance City and regional infra.~tructure improvements M. The City and Owner acknowledge that due to the present economic situation, none of these benefits to the City are possible unless the Project proceeds with development. ORANGE:3593 ~2 3 N. City Council of City has approved this Agreemint by Ordinance No. adopted on , and effective on (*Effective Date"). On the Effective Date, Development Agreement No. 5 shall be t~rmit,~ted as to the Project only and of no further force and effect with respect to the Project, having been replaced by this- Agreement. NOW, T~FRE~ORE in consideration of the above Recitals and of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged and incorporated herein, the parties agree: 1. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning set forth below: 1.1 *City"is the City of Temecula. 1.2 "City PubLic Facility Fee" is an mount to be established by Ordinance of c ty. 1.3 "County" is the County of Riverside. 1.4 "County Public Facilities and Services Fee" means the County Development Agreement Fee as set forth in Section 4.2 of Development Agreement No. 5. 1.5 "Development Exaction" means any requirement of City in connection with or pursuant to any Land Use Regulation or Existing Development Approval for the dedication of land, the construction of improvements or public facilities, or the payment of fees in order to lessen, offset, mitigate or compensate for the impacts of development on the environment or other public interests. 1.6 "Development Plan" means the Existing Development Approvals '0v-'3~93.2 4 defined in Section 1.8 below which are applicable to dcvclopmeat of the Projca. 1.7 'Effective Date' means the date upon which the Ordinance approving _this Agreement becomes effective, which date is thirty (3~)) days following the date the CAW Council adopted such Ordinance absent a referendum challenge. 1.8 'Existing Development Approval(s)' means those certain development approvals in effect as of the effective date of this ~grccmcnt with respect to the Property, including, without limiuition, the *Existing Development Approvals* listed in E~ghtit A, atuichcd hcrcto and incorporated hcrcin by this reference, which were approved by the County or the City. 1.9 'l=inancing District' means a Community l=acilities District formed pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community t:acilities Act of 1982, (California Government Code Section 53311 ~ as amended); an assessment district formed pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, (Califo~ Streets and Highways Code Section 22500 et see_. as amended); a special assessment district formed pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911, (California Streets and Highways Code Section 10102, as amended); or any other special assessment district existing pursuant to SUite law formed for the purposes of financing the cost of public improvements, facilities, services and/or public facilities fees within a specific geographical area of the City. 1.10 'Interim Public l=acilities l=ee' means an amount of Three Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($3,200) per each residential unit developed in the Project. 1.11 'Land Use Regulations' means all ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations, and official policies of City, governing the development and use of land ORA~OE:3593.2 5 including without limitation, the permitted use of land; the dmsity or intensity of use; subdivision requirements; the maximum height and size of proposed buildings; the provisions for reservation or ~)edic~t~on of land for public purposes; and the design, improvement, and construction standards and specifications applicable to the development of the P~olxa ty listed on E~rhlhlt B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which are a matter of public rec~nxt on the .Effective Date of this Agreement. "l ~_~1 Use Rekmlarions" does not include any County or City ordinance, resohtion, code, rule, regulation, or official policy, governing: (a) The conduct of businesses, professions, and occupations; Co) Taxes and a~se~ments; (c) The control and abatement of nuisances' (d) The granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of rights and interests which provide for the use of or the entry upon public property; (e) The exercise of the power of eminent domain. 1.12 *Owner' means the person having a legal or equitable interest in the Project; 1.13 *Project* is the development of the Property in accordance with the Development Plan. 1. 14 *Property* is the real property described in Exh'bit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 1.15 *RSA Fee* means the fee established by County Ordinance No. as adopted by City. 0E:3593.2 6 1.16 'Subsequent Development Approvals' means all development approvals required subsequent to the Effective Date in connection with development of the Pff, pcx ty. 1.17 *Subsequent Land Use Regulation* means any Land Use Regulation adopted and effective after the Effective Date of thi~ AgreemenL 2. Interest of Owner. Owner represenU that it has the fee title interest in the Pr~ and that all other persons holding legal or equitable interests in the Property are to be bound by this Agreement. 3. l~,xhibits. The following documents are referred to in this Agreement attached hereto, incorporated herein, and made a pan hereof by this reference: F. xhibit Designation A B C D Description Existing Development Approvals Existing Land Use Regulations Legal Description of the Property Notice From Mortgagee The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall extend for a period of ten (10) years thereafter, unless this Agreement is terminated, modified or extended by circumstances set forth in this Agreement or by mutual consent of the parties hereto. 4.2 occurrence of the entry of a final judgment or issuance of a final order after exhaustion of any appeals directed against the City as a result of any lawsuit filed against the City to set This Agreement shall terminate and be of no force and effect upon the ORANOB:3593.2 aside, withdraw, or abmgam ~e ~ by the City Council of City of thi~ Agruma~t. S. .A~onment. S. 1 l~ht to Assign. Th~ Owner shall have the right to sell, trans~, or assign the l~opa ty in whole or in ~ (provided ~ no such partial transfer shall violate the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Section 66410, ~t=1~1~, or Riveni~ County Ordinance No. 460, as the same was incorporated by reference into the Temecula Municipal Code by Ordinance No. ~)-04,) to any person, partnenhip, joint venture, firm, or corporation at any time during the term of this Agreement; provided, however, that any such sale, transfer, or assignment shall include the 8~ignment and assumption of the rights, duties, and obligations arising under or from this Agreement and be made in strict compliance with the following conditions precedent: (a) No sale, transfer, or m.ignment of any fight or interest under this Agreement shah be made unless made together with the sale, transfer, or assignment of atl or a pa~t of the Prope~. Owner agrees to provide specific notice of this Agreement, including the record or document number, 'where a true and correct copy of this Agreement may be obtained from the Riverside County Recorder, in any grant deed or other document purporting to transfer the ti~e or an interest in the l~opc~ty during the term of this Agreement or any extension thereof. (b) Concurrent with any such sale, transfer, or assignment, or within fifteen (15) business days therealter, the Owner shall notify City, in writing, of such sale, transfer, or assignment and shall provide City with an 1GE:3593.2 8 executed agreement, in a form reasonably acceptable to the City Attorney, by the purchaser, transferee, or assignee and providing therein that the purchaser, transferee, or assignee expressly and unconditionally assumes all the dd~es and obligations of the owner under this Agreement. Any sale, transfer, or assignment not made in strict compliance with the foregoing conditions shall constituted a default by the Owner under this Agreement. Notwithstanding the failure of any purchaser, transferee, or assignee to execute the agreement required by Paragraph Co) of this Subsection, the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon such purchaser, transferee, or assignee, but the benefits of this Agreement shall not inure to such purchaser, transferee, or assignee until and unless such agreement is executed. 5.2 Release of Transferrinl, Owner. Notwithstanding any sale, transfer, or assignment, a transferring Owner shall continue to be obligated under this Agreement unless such transferring Owner is given a release in writing by City, which release shall be provided by City upon the full satisfaction by such transferring Owner of ALL of the following conditions: (a) The Owner no longer has a legal interest in all or any part of the Property except as a beneficiary under a deed of trust. Co) The Owner is not then in default under this Agreement. (c) The Owner or purchaser has provided City with the notice and executed agreement required under Paragraph Co) of Subsection 5.1 above. (d) The purchaser, transferee, or assignee provides City with security equivalent to any security previously provided by Owner to secure performance of ORANGE:3593.2 9 its obligations hea~Amder. (e) The Owner has x~imbursed Ci~ for any and all City costs associated with Owner's transfer of all or a portion of the l~opc, ty. 5.3 Tern~in~on of Afreement with R, elgea to lndividnal I nts ~ Sale to Public and Conlpl,',ion of Construction. The provisions of Subsection 5.1 shall not apply to the sale or lease (for a period longer than one year) of any lot which has been finally subdivided and is individually (and not in 'bulk") sold or leased to a member of the public or other ultimate user. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, this Agreement shall teminate with respect to any lot and such lot shall be released and no longer be subject to this Agreement without the execution or recordation of any further document upon satisfaction of both of the following conditions: -- (a) The lot has been finally subdivided and individually (and not in 'bulk') sold or leased (for a period longer than one year) to a member of the public or other ultimate user; and Co) A Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for a building on a lot, and the fees set forth in this Agreement have been paid. 5.4 Subsequent Assignment. Any subsequent sale, transfer, or assignment after an initial sale, transfer, or assignment shall be made only in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions of this Section. 6. Mort~ee Protection. The parties hea-eto agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit Owner, in any manner, at Owner's sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust, or other security device securing financing with respect to the Pxo/.a ty. City acknowledges that the lenders providing such financing may require certain Agreement interpretations and modifications and agrees upon request, from time to time, to meet with the Owner and representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith any such request for interpretation or modification. City will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested interpretation or modification provided such interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and purposes of this Agreement. Owner shall reimburse City for any and all of City's reasonable costs associated with said negotiations, interpretations, and modifications and shall make reimbursement payments to City within thirty (30) days or receipt of an invoice from City. Any Mortgagee of the Property shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges: (a) Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any mortgage on the Property made in good faith and for value, unless otherwise required by law. (b) The Mortgagee of any mortgage or deed of trust encumbering the Property, or any pan thereof, which Mortgagee has submitted a request in writing, in the form as attached hereto as Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, to the City in the manner specified herein for giving notices, shall be enti~ed to receive written notification from City of any default by the Owner in the performance of the Owner's obligations under this Agreement. (c) If City timely receives a request from a Mortgagee, in the form set forth on Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, requesting a o~a~o~3~ .2 11 copy of any norice of default given to the Owner under the terms of this Agreement, City shall endeavor to provide a copy of that notice of default to the Mortgagee within ten (10) days of sending the notice of default to the Owner. The Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default during the rcrngining cure period allowed such party under this AgrceanenL City shall have no liability for damages or otherwise to Owner, Owner's successor, or to any Mortl~ce or successor thereof for the failure to provide such norice. (d) thereof, pursuant to foreclosure. of the mortgage or deed of trust, or deed in lieu of such foreclosure, shall tak~ the Property, or part thereof, subject to the terms of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, no Mongagce shall. have an obligarion or duty under this Agreement to perform any of the Owner's obligarions or other affirmarive covenants of the Owner hereunder, or to guarantee such performance, provided however, that to the extent that any covenant to be performed by Owner is a condirion precedent to the performance of a covenant by City, the performance thereof shall continue to be a condirion precedent to City's performance hereunder, and further provided that any sale, transfer, or assignment by any Mortgagee in possession shall be subject to the provisions of Secrion 5. 1 of this Agreement. The term of the Agreement shall not be extended based on the fact that a Mortgagee holds .rifle to the ~operty for all or any pan of the term of this Agreement. (e) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any portion thereof, pursuant to subsection (d) above and who elects not to assume the Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Prope4ty, or any part' o~3~.2 12 obligations of the Owner set forth herein shall not be entitled to any rights to develop which have or may have vested as a result of ~is Agreement. 7. Rinding F. ffect of Agreement. The burdens of this Agreement bind and the benefits of the Agreement inure to the succes~'s-in-intaest to the parties to it in a~cordance with the provisions of and subject to the limitations of this Agreement. 8. Pr~ect as a Private Undertakin~fRcla~onship of Parties. It is specifically' understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the development of the Project is a private development, that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and that each party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants, and conditions contained in this Agreement. No parmership, joint venture, or other association of any kind is formed by this Agreement. The only relationship between City and Owner is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property and the owner of such property. 9. Chan[,es in PrOject. No change, modification, revision, or alteration of Existing Development Approvals may be made without the prior approval by those agencies of the City equivalent to the County agencies that approved the Existing Development Approvals in the first instance (if the County had granted the approvals) or by the same City agency that granted the Existing Development Approvals, (if the City granted the approval in connection with the adoption of this Agreement). City may expand the permitted uses for the Property without amending this Agreement so long as Owner or Owner's successor retains his/her/their existing enti~ements. 10. Timing of T~evelopment. The parties acknowledge that Owner cannot at this OUA~G~'3Sg~.2 13 time predict when, or at the rate at which the Pwpc, ty will be developed. Such deci-~ions depend upon numerous iliaors which are not within the control of Owner, such as market orientation and demand, inteiT, st rates, absorption, completion and other similar facton. Since the California Supreme Court held in Psrdce Constrllc~on Co. v. City of C~m~ri]io, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of development resulted in a hter adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over such parties, it is the parties intent to cure that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that the Owner shall have the right to develop the Property in such order, at such rate, and at such times as the Owner deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment, subject only to any timing or phasing requirements set forth in the Development .-. Plan. 11. Indernni~y ~nd Cost of l-itii, ation. 11.1 Hold Harmless. Owner agrees to and shall hold City, its officers, employees, agents, and representatives harmless from liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injury including death and claim for propa~ damage which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of the Owner or those of its contractor, subcontractor, employee, agents, or other person acting on its behalf which relate to the Project. Owner agrees to and sh~ll indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City and its officers, employees, agents, and representatives from actions for damages caused or alleged to have been suffered by reason of the operations referred to in this paragraph, regardless of whether or not City prepared, supplied, or appwved plans or specifications for the Project. This ~F~3~93.~ 14 indemnification requirement shall extend beyond the termination or expiration of this Agreement. 11.2 County l .itigstion Concerning Agreement. In the event the County seeks to challenge the right of City and Owner to enter into this Agreement or to terminto Development Agreement No. 5, and institutes an action, suit, or proceeding to challenge this Agreement or invalidate and/or enjoin the enforcement of this Agreement or the amendment of Development Agreement No. 5, City and Owner agree to cooIgrm and participate in a joint defense in any action against the parties, their officers, employees, and agents, from and against any and all such obligations, liability, suit, claim, loss, judgment, or lien resuiting from such action(s) brought by County, (but excluding actions to expunge any lis pendens) and to share the costs associated with attorneys fees and costs that the parties may-. incur as the re,suit of any such action or hwsuit to challenge City and/or Owner's legnl authority to enter into this Agreement and/or terminate Development Agreement No. 5. ff the County action is against Itll impacted developments for which the City has lowered the othersvise applicable County fees, then Owner's defense costs herein shah be its pro rata share among all impacted landowners based on a ratio of con~bution of the total units owned by Owner which are subject to this Agreement compared to the total number of units within the City in which City has lowered the County fees and which are included in such legltl chalienge. If the County action is only against Owner with respect to this Agreement or the amendment to County Development Agreement No. 5, then Owner's defense costs shall be one-hundred percent (100%) of the attorneys fees and costs for defense of the litigation. Damages (including the difference in the amount of any Interim Public Facilities ov. Asa~3s~ .2 15 Fee and the amount of the County Development Agreement Fee paid by Owner to City pursuant to the terms of this Agreement) shall be the responsibility of Owner. To the extent Owner has paid Public Facilities Fees and/or County Development Agreement Fees to City of which it is adjBdic~t~ are lawfully the fun& of County, City shall pay such sums to County and Owner shall have such liability for the payment of the difference between such fees reduced by the amount paid by the City. City and Owner shall mutually agree on legal counsel to be retained to defend any such action(s) brought by the County as herein provided. City and Owner each reserve the right to withdraw from-the defense of the County litigation. in the event the County prevails at the trial level and there is an appeal. ff either party withdraws after the trial and there is an appeal, the remaining party shall pay all the costs and fees associated with said appeal. 11.3 Public Facilities Fees Shortfnll. In the event the County prevails in any legal action or other proceeding to challenge, set aside, or enjoin the enforcement of this Agreement and the amendment of Development Agreement No. 5, and a trial court determines that the Owner and/or the City is liable to mak~ up any shortfall between the amount of the Interim Public Facilities Fee or the City Public Facilities Fee, as the case may be, and the County Development Agreement Fee which would otherwise have been imposed' pursuant to Development Agreement No. ~5, then Owner shall be responsible for paying any such shortfall subject to City's payment to County of any amounts collected and held by City under the terms of Development Agreement No. 5 - in excess of that due City under Development Agreement No. 5. Such payment by City and County shall reduce Owner's liability to County for payment of such fees by a like amount paid by City. T~3sgs.2 16 11.4 County Prevails in Toit~tion - ~ever~hillty. In the event the County prevails at the trial court level against the City or the Owner as described in Section 11.2 of _this Agreement, the mount of the Interim hbli~ Facilities Fee or the City Pubic Facilities Fee, as the case my be, shall revert to the mount of the County Development Agreement Fee in effect at the time of entry of the final judgment in favor of the County, or such lesser mount as determined by the court. In the event this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable by a trial court of competent jurisdiction, the provisions set forth in Sections 12.2 and 12.3 of this Agreement shall no longer be enforceable and-from the date of said final judgment or ruling of invalidity, Owner shall thereafter pay the County Development Agreement Fee as provided in Section 4.2 of Development Agreement No. 5, or such lesser mount as determined by the court. All other provisions of this Agreement shah remain valid and enforceable notwithstanding said ruling of invalidity. 11.5 Third Party Litigation Concerning, Agreement. Owner shall indemnify; protect; defend, at its expense - including attorney's fees; and hold harmless City, its officers, employees, or agents against any loss, cost, expense, claim, or counter-claim, complaint, or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Agreement or the approval of any permit granted pursuant to this Agreement brought by a third party other than the County. City shall promp~y notify Owner of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and City shall cooperate in the defense. If City fails to promptly notify Owner of any such claim, action, or proceeding, or if City fails to cooperate in the defense, Owner shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless City. City may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such claim, action, or proceeding. o~,~0~3s~3.2 17 11.6 l~.nvironmcntal Assurances. Owner shall indemnify, lmaect, defend with counsel approved by City, and hold harmless City, its officers, employees, agents, assigns, and any successor or successors to City's interest from and against all claims, acthal damages (including but not limited to special and consequential damages), natural resources damages, punitive damages, injuries, costs, response reme(li~tion and removal corn, losses, demands, debts, liens, liabilities, causes of action, suits, legal or administrative proceedings, interest, fines, charges, penalties and expenses (including but not limited to attorneys' and expert witness fees and costs incurred in connection wit defending against any of the foregoing or in enforcing this indemnity) of any kind whatsoever paid, incurred, or suffered by, or asserted against, City or its officers, employees, or agents arising from or attributable to any repair, cleanup, or detoxification, or preparation and implementation of any removal,. remedial, response, closure, or other plan (regardless of whether undertaken due to governmental action) concerning any Hazardous Substance or hazardous wastes at any place within the Property which is the subject of this Agreement. The foregoing indemnity extends beyond the term of this Agreement and is intended to operate as an agreement pursuant to Section 107(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, *CERCLA,* 42 U.S.C. Section 9667(e), and California Health and Safety Code Section 2~364, and their successor statutes, to insure, protect, hold harmless, and indemnify City from Liability. 11. ? Release. Except for nondamage remedies, including the remedy of specific performance and judicial review as provided for in Sections 19, 20, and 21 hereof, City, for itself, its successors and assignees, hereby releases the City, its officers, agents, ~593.2 18 and employees from any and all ciaims, demands, actions, or suits of any kind or nature arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or future, including, but not limited to, any claim or liability, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United Sta~ Constitution, or any other law or ordinance which seeks to impose any other liability or damage, whatsoever, upon the City because it entered into this Agreement or because of the terms of this Agreement. 11.8 Reservation of Rights. With respect to Sections 11.1 to 11.7 herein, City reserves the fight to either (1) approve the attorney(s) which Owner selects, hires, or otherwise engages to defend City hereunder, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, or (2) conduct its own defense, provided, however, that Owner shall reimburse City forthwith for any and all reasonable expenses incurred for such defense, including attorney's fees, upon billing and accounting therefor. 11.9 Survival. The provisions of this Section 11.1 to 11.9, inclusive, shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 12. Public Benefits. Public Improvements and Facilities. 12.1 Intent. The parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement confers private benefits on the Owner which should be balanced by commensurate public benefits. Accordingly, the parties intend to provide cons'ffieration to the public to balance the private benefits conferred on the Owner by providing more fully for the satisfaction of the public needs resulting from development of the Project. 12.2 Public Facilities Fee (Residential). (a) In Lieu of the County Development Agreement Fee, RSA Fee ORAHC~3Sg~.~ 19 or City Public Facility Fee, for a period of five (5) years commencing on the Effective Date, Owner shah pay an Interim Public Facilities Fee of Three-Thousand-Two-Hundred Dollars ($3,200.00) per dwelling unit. The Interim Pubtic Facilities Fee shall be paid as provided in Section 12.5 below. At the conclusion of the.five (5) year period, Owner shall either. continue to pay the Interim Pubtic Facilities Fee of Three-Thousand-Two-Hundred Dollars ($3,200.00) per dwelfing unit or such other pubtic facilities fee as the City has then enacted and appfied to residential development projects in the City..Owner expressly acknowledges the existence and holding in the case of Kaufman and Broad Central Valley, Inc. v. City of Modesto, (1994), 25 Cal. App.4th 1577, as it appfies to later adopted fees. Owner hereby waives for himself, and for any successor thereto, the right to challenge the validity or amount of any such other public facilities fees which are enacted and appfied to residential - development projects in the City. Such waiver applies to the Project after the first five (5) years of this Agreement. Owner acknowledges and agrees that City would not have entered into this Agreement if its application or operation would limit in any way the City's ability to develop and apply a Comprehensive Public Facilities Fee Program to this Project following the first five (5) years of the term of this Agreement. Owner further acknowledges and agrees that the waiver provided herein applies not only to this Agreement, but to any rights Owner may have under any vesting map filed and deemed complete under the vesting maps statutes, Government Code Section 66498.1 ILl~. Finally, Owner agrees that the institution of any legal action by Owner, or any successor thereof, to challenge the validity, amount, or application of any public facilities fee after the first five (5) years of this Agreement, including paying such fees "under protest" pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 et '0E:3593.2 20 l~tl., shall constitute a material breach and default under this Agreement entitling the City to summary termination thereof. Co) Owner shall also pay all other customary and typical development executions, for a Project of this size and nature, in existence as of the Effective Date and throughout the ttrm of this Agreement, including but not limited to, Fire, Traffic Signal Mitigation, and K-Rat Fees pursuant to the provisions of City ordinances and resolutions in the existence when paid. 12.3 Timing. Collection of any and all Interim Public Facilities Fees and/or City Public Facilities Fees, if any, required to be paid by Owner pursuant to this Agreement shah be deferred until such time as a certificate of occupancy has been obtained for the fffst production home built on the Property. The, the Interim Public Facilities Fees shall - be paid at the time of issuance of building permits for each residential unit constructed on the Property. Collection of any and all Interim Public Facilities Fees and/or City Public Facilities Fees paid by the Owner for the model home units in surplus to those fees contained herein shall be credited to Owner. 12.4 Other Applicable Fees. The parties hereto agree that to the extent the fees set forth below have not ben paid prior to the execution of this Agreement by both parties, the Stevens Kangaroo Rat, library, fire, drainage, and Urneric signal mitigation fees remain applicable to the Project. In the event City establishes a permanent public facility fee program which is specifically designed to include one or more of the fees listed above, Owner, or Owner's successor, shall not be obligated to pay such fee or applicable pan thereof more than once. o~u~o~:~s~.2 21 12.5 Public World. If Owner is required by this Agr~ment, or any other obligation, to consreset any publi~ works facilities which will be dedicated to City or any other public agency upon ~ompletion, and if required by applicable laws to do so, Owner shsll perform such work in the same manner and subject to the same requirements as would be applicable to City or such other public agency should it have undertaken such construction. 13. ~on of Authority. 13.1 I imitations. Reservations. and Exc~tions. Notwithslsnding any other provision of this Agreement, the following Subsequent Land Use Regulations shall apply to the development of the Property: (a) Processing fees and charges imposed by City to cover the estimated actual costs to City of processing applications for Subsequent D6velopment Approvals. (b) Procedural regulations relating to h~Lring bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals, and any other mater of procedure. (c) Regulations imposing Development Exactions; provided, however, that no such subsequenfiy adopSi! Development Exactions shall be applicable to development of the Property unless such Development Exactions are applied uniformly to development throughout the City. (d) Regulations governing construction standa~s and specifications including without limitation, the City's Building Cod~, Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code, ,c~3s.2 22 ~cal Code, and Fire Code. (e) Regulations which are in conflict with the Development Plan. Any regulation, whether adopted by initiative or otis'wise, limitinS the rate or timing of development of the t'fo~ ty shall be deemed to conflict with the Development Plan and shah therefore not bc applicable to the development of the F~topctty. (f) Regul~_~ons which are in conflict with the Development Plan provided Owner has given written consent to the application of such regulations to development of the Property. 13.2 Subsequent Development Al~rovals. This Agreement shall not prevent City, in acting on Subsequent Development Approvals, from applying the Subsequent Land Use Regulations which do not conflict with the Development Plan, nor shall this Agreement prevent City from denying or conditionally approving any Subsequent Development Approval on the basis of the Existing or Subsequent Land Use Regulations not in conflict with the Development Plan. 13.3 Modification or Suspension by State or Federal Law. In the event that State or Federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such State or Federal laws or regulations, provided, however, that this Agreement shall remain in fun force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations and to the extent such laws or regulations do not render such remaining provisions impractical to enforce. ORA~GE:SSgS .2 23 13.4 Rep,l~tion by Other Public Agencies. R is acknowledged by the parties that other public agencies not within the control of City possess authority to regulate aspects of the development of the Pxopc~ty separately from or joinfly with City and this Agreement does not limit the authority of such other public agencies. 13.5 Tentative Tr~t Map ~xtension. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 66452.6 of the Government Cod~, the tentative subdivision map(s) or tentative parcel map(s) (vested or regular) approved as a pan of iraplementing the Development Plan shall be extended to expire at the end of the term of this Agreement. 13.6 Vesting Tentative Maps. If any tentative or final subdivision map, or tentative or final parcel map, heretofore or hereaft' approved in connection with the development of the Property, is a vesting map under the Subdivision Map Act (Government: Code Section 66410, ~ and Riverside County Ordinance No. 460, as the same were incorporated by reference into the Temecula Municipal code by Ordinance No. 90-04, and if this Agreement is determined by a final judgment to be invalid or unenforceable insofar as it grants a vested right to develop to the Owner, then and to that extent the rights, obligations, and protections afforded the Owner and City respectively, under the laws and ordinances applicable to vesting maps shall supersede provisions of this Agreement. Except as set forth immediately above, development of the Property shall occur only as provided in this Agreement, and the provisions in this Agreement shall be controlling over conflicting provisions of law or ordinances concerning vesting maps. TG*P'3593.2 24 nevel~pment of the PrQf/ctty- Vesting. Terminntlon of l'~-vel~!~ment 14. Agreement No. 5. 14.1 IZights to DevelQp. Subject to the team of this Agreement, including payment of the Interim Public Facilities Fee, the Owner shall have a vested fight to develop the PmpetZy in accordance with, and to the extent of the Development Plan. The Project shall remnin subject to all Subsequent Development Approvals required to complete the Project as contemplated by the Development Plan. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the permitt~ uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation and dedication of land for public purlx>ses shall be those set forth in the Development Plan. In exchange for the vested fight to develop pursuant to this Agreement, Owner expressly waives for himself and for any successor thereto, the fight to challenge or contest the validity of any condition of approval attached to any en~~ement which is a part of the Development Plan. 14.2 Effect of Agreement on Land Use Regulations. Except as otherwise provided under the terms of this Agreement, including the payment of the Interim Public Facilities Fee, the rules, regulations, and official policies governing permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use of the Property, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to development of the Property shall be the Existing Land Use Regulations. City shall exercise its lawful reasonable discretion in connection with Subsequent Development Approvals in accordance with the Development Plan, and as provided by this Agreement including, but not limited to, payment of the Interim PubLic ORANGE:3593.2 25 Facilities Fee and/or the City Public Facilities Fee, as the case may be. City shall accept for processing, review, and action all applications for Subsequent Development Apptovah, and such applications shall be processed in the normal manner for proct~ing such matters. City may, at the request of Owner, conurn for planning and engineering consultant services to expedite the review and processing of Subsequent Development Approvals, the cost of which shall be borne by Owner. 14.3 Changes and Amendments. The parties acknowledge that refinement and further development of the Project will require Subsequent Development Approvals and may demonstrate that changes are appropriate and mutually desirable in the Existing Development Approvals. In the event the Owner finds that a change in the Existing Development Approvals is necessary or appropriate, the Owner shall apply for a Subsequent. Development Approval to effectuate such change. If approved, any such change in the Existing Development Approvals shall be incorporated herein as addendure to this Agreement and may be further changed from time to time as provided in this Section. Owner, shall, within thirty (30) days of written demand by City, reimburse City for any and all reasonable costs, associated with any amendment or change to this Agreement that is initiated by Owner or Owner's successor - without regard to the outcome of the request for amendment or change to this Agreement. Unless otherwise required by hw, as determined in City's reasonable discretion, a change to the Existing Development Approvals shall be deemed "minor' and not require an amendment to this Agreement provided such change does not: (a) Alter the permitted uses of the Property as a whole, except as provided in Section 9 hereof; or, ~o~:3s~ .2 26 Increase the density or intemity of use of the Prolx, aty as a whole; or, Increase the maximum height and size of permitted buildings; or, Delete a requirement for the reservation or dedication of land for public purposes within the P/oix,~ty as a whole; or, (e) Constitute a projea requiring a subsequent or a supplemental Environmental Impact Report pursuant to Section 21166 of the Public Resources Cede. 14.4 Minimum Unit Size. Owner agrees that the units to be constructed on the Property shall be a minimum of one thousand (1,000) square feet in size. 14.:5 Termination of Development A~'eement No. 5. Both City and Owner agree that on the Effective Date of this Agreement, Development Agreement No. 5 shall be terminated and of no further force or effect as to this Project only, having been replaced by. this Agreement. 15. Periedic Review of Compliance with A~reement. (a) Pursuant to City Resolution No. 91-52, as it may be subsequenfiy amended, City shall review this Agreement at least once during every twelve 02) month peried from the Effective Date of this Agreement. The Owner or successor shall reimburse City for the reasonable and necessary costs of this review, within thirty (30) days of written demand from City. (b) During each periedic review by City, the Owner is required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. The Owner agrees to furnish such evidence of good faith compliance as City in the exercise of its discretion may require. OR~OE~3S93.2 27 16. Financing District. Upon the request of Owner, the parties shall ox~erate in exploring the use of special ~essment districts and other ~ Financing Distri~ for the financing of the construction, improvement, or ac~luisition of publi~ il~rastn~re, ~fies, lands, and improvements to serve the Projea and its residents, whether located within or outside the t~op~ ty. It is acknowledged that nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as requiring City or City Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds. 17. Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. This Agreement may be amended or canceled in whole or in pan only by mutual consent of the parties and in the manner provided for in Government Code Sections 65868, 65867 and 65867.5. If an Amendment is requested by the Owner or its successor, the Owner/successor agrees to pay City any Development Agreement Amendment fee then in existence as established by City Council Resolution, or if no such fee is established, to reimburse City for the actual and reasonably necessary costs of reviewing and processing said Amendment within thirty (30) days of written demand from City - without regard to City's action on such amendment. 18. Enforcement. Unless amended or canceled as herein provided, this Agreement is enforceable by any party to it notwithstanding a change in the applicable general or specific plan, zoning, subdivision, or building regulations adopted by the City which alter or' amend the rules, regulations, or policies governing permitted uses of the land, density, design, improvement, and construction standards and specifications. 19. P. vents of Default. Owner is in default under this Agreement upon the happening of one or more of the following events or conditions: (a) If a warranty, representation, or statement made or furnished by Owner to ,o~.2 28 City is false or proves to have been false in any material ~ when it wa~ wade; (b) More than forty-five (45') days have passed since City's making of a written request to Owner for payment or reimbursement for a fee or service authorized or agreed to pursuant to this Agreement. (c) A finding and determination by City that upon the basis of substantial evidence the Owner has not complied in good faith with one or more of the terms or conditions of this Agreement. 20. Procedure Upon Default. (a) Upon the occurrence of an event of default, City may terminate or modify this Agreement in accordance with the procedure adopted by the City. (b) City does not waive any claim of defect in performance by Owner implied if on periodic review the City does not propose to modify or terminate this Agreement. (c) Non-performance shall not be excused because of a failure of a third (d) Non-performance shall be excused only when it is prevented or delayed by acts of God or an emergency declared by Governor. (e) All other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in City's regulations governing development agreements are available to the parties to pursue in the event there is a breach. 21. Damages Upon Termination. It is acknowledged by the parties that City would not have entered into this Agreement if it were to be liable in damages under or with o~m.2 29 respea to ~ Agreement or the application thered. Owner, for himself or any successor thereto, expressly waives the right to seek damages against the City or any officer, employee, or agent thereof, for any default or breach of this Agreement. In general, each of the parties hereto may pursue any remedy at hw or equity available for the breach of any provision of this Agreement, except that City, and its officers, employees and.agents, shall not be liable in damages to Owner or to any assignee, transferee of Owner, or any other person, and Owner covenants not to sue for or claim any damages for breach of that Agreement by City. 22. Attorney' s Fees and Costs. If legal action by either party is brought because of breach of this Agreement or to enforce a provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and court costs. 23. Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid and presumed delivered upon actual receipt by personal delivery or within three (3) days following deposit thereof in United States Mail. Notice required to be given to City shall be addressed as follows: To City: City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Attn: City Clerk With A copy to: Peter M. Thorson, Esq. City Attorney Burke, Wiltjams & Sorensen 611 W. Sixth Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 ~o~ssgs.~ 30 Notices required to be given to Owner shall be addressed as follows: To Owner: Van Daele Venture 79, Ltd. Care of: Van Daele Development Corporation 2900 Adams Street, Suite C-25 Riverside, CA 92504 Attention: Brice Kitfie With A copy to: A party may change the address by giving notice in writing to the other party and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. 24. Cooperation. City agrees that it shall accept for processing and promptly take action on all applications, provided they are in a proper from and acceptable for required processing for discretionary permits, tract or parcel maps, or other land use entitlement for- development of the Project in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. City shall cooperate with Owner in providing expeditious review of any such applications, permits, or land use entitlement and, upon request and payment of any costs and/or extra fees associated therewith by Owner, City shall assign to the Project planner(s), building inspector(s), and/or other staff personnel as required to insure the timely processing and completion of the Project. 25. Rules of Construction and Miscellaneou~ Terms. (a) The singular includes the plural; the masculine gender includes the feminine; *shall* is mandatory, 'may* is permissive. Co) If there is more than one signer of this Agreement their obligations are joint and several. oR~so~3s93.2 31 (c) The time limits set forth in this Agreement may be extended by mutual written consent of the parties in aecardance with the procedures for adoption of the Agreement. (d) This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns. No other person, including but not limited to third party beneficiaries, shah have any fight of action based upon any provision of this Agreement. 2{5. Entire Aereement. This Agreement and the exhibits-hereto contain the complete, final, entire, and exclusive expression of the agreement between the parties hereto, and is intended by the parties to completely state the agreement in full. Any agreement or representation respecting the matters dealt with herein or the duties of any party in relation. thereto not expressly set forth in this Agreement shall be null and void. 27. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which so fully executed counterpart shall be deemed an original. No counterpart shall be deemed to be an original or presumed delivered unless and until the counterpart executed by the other party to this Agreement is in the physical possession of the party seeking enforcement thereof. 28. Authority to Execute. Each party hereto expressly warrants and represents that he/she/they has/have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of his/her/their corporation, partnership, business entity, or governmental entity and warrants and represents that he/she/they has/have the authority to bind his/her/their entity to the performance of its obligations hereunder. qoE:3593.2 32 IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by the authorized representatives of the parties hereto. "city' City of Temecula Attest: By: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk Approved as to form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney O~,~NO~3SS~.2 33 "Owner" [Nosy Required] By: ~~ ~ Patrick J. Van Daele (t3~ t~lle) ' (rifle) Patrick 3. Van Dae~e (typed name) Secre~ar~ (rifle) ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLk'YM3MENT State of California COUnty Of Riverside ) ) June 19 , 1995, before me, Barbara O. Koenig PAtrick J. Van Daele , pcnonauy [1 personally known to me -OR- pwved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacitydes), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instntment the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Wimess my hand and official seal. Commission Expires ~ CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER INDNmUAL(S) OFF~CSX(S) CrrrLa[s]): President and Secretary [] [] [] [] [] [1 PARTNER(S) ATTORNEY-IN-FACT TRUSTF, F{S) SUBSCRIBING WITNESS GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR OTI-rF~R: Chairperson SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: Name of person(s) or entity(ies): p,l L-PURPOSE ACKNOV~J~-r~GMENT State of California County of , 1995, before me, [l [l personally known to me-OR- proved to me on .the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. SIGNATURE OF NOTARY [] [] n~DBrmUAL(S) OFFtCER(S). CrrrLE[s]): CAPACITY CLAIMF-f} BY SIGNER [] [] [] [] [] [] PARTNER(S) ATtORNEY-IN-FACT TRUSTEE(S) SUBSCRIBING WITNESS GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR OTHF-R: Chairperson SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: Name of person(s) or entity(ies): ov,~o~.ss~.2 36 EXHIRITA EXISTING DEVELOPlV~NT APPROVALS Geners! Plsn - Low-Medium Density Residential Specific Plan - State Subdivision Map Act No. 460, Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village), Ordinance No. 348. Devekll~ment Agreement - Development Agreement No. 5 I and Divisions - Tentative Tract 22716 Final Tract Map No. 22716, 22716-2, 22716-4 Proposed Parcel Map 28122 ORANGE:359'3.2 EXISTING LAND USE REGULATIONS General Plan Land Use designation is Low-Medium Density Residential. ORANGe:3593.2 I~.~IqTR1T C LI~GAI., DESCRIPTION Tract 22716, Lots 1-11 Tract 22716-2, Lots 1-13, 17-31 Tract 22716-4, Lots 1-40 Parcel Map 28122, Lots 1, 2, 3 provided such Pared Map is approved. ORANGE:3593.2 ~XI:!TR1T r} REQUF_,~ FOR NOTICE OF DEFAULT UNDER DEVELOP~ AG~ rlevelitpment Agreement: Amendment and Restatement of r~evel~rn~nt Agreemant Specific pls. No. 199. Mnll, arita Village Planning A~lication No. To: City Clerk and Planning Director, City of Temecula Pursuant to Section 6Co) and (c) of the above-referenced Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement, request is hereby made by as Mortgagee for the property (or portion thereof) to receive copies of any Notice of Default issued by City against Owner in accordance with the terms and conditions of such Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement. Copies of any such Notices should be mailed to the following address: · (Mortgagee) (PersovJDepar~ent) (Address) <city/sta /z p) CI'elephone No.) A copy of this Notice should be filed with the project file to insure proper and timely notice is given. Under the terms of said Amendment and Restntement of Development Agreement, as Mortgagee is entitled to receive copies of any Notice of Default within ten (10) da},s of send|n~ any such Notice to Owner. Failure to send an~, such Notice rnn~, have serious legal consequences for the Cit},. This request is to remain in effect until revoked by as Mortgagee or the Amendment and Restatement of DeYelopment Agreement is terminated. The poEon executing this document on behalf of said Mortgagee warrants and represents that the entity he/she represents is a bonafide Mortgagee of said property and is entitled to receive copies of Notices of Default under said Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement. vo.~ 40o~. 1 The undenigned declares the above information is true and correct under the penalty of perjury under the hws of the State of California. Dated: _, 1995. MORTGAGI~ By: (printed name) (rifle) [Notary ~qui~cd] . This Norice is to be sent to both the City Clerk and Planning Director for the City of Temecula at 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 or such other location as Temecula City Hall may be located in the future. ORANGE:4(X~.I -2- ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT, SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 R:~STAI~3~I'~I7PA94.CC $I14/95 klb 9 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 7, 1995 Planning Application No.: PA95-0023 Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 for Tentative Parcel Map 28122 Prepared By: Stephen Brown, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for PA95-0023; and e ADOPT Resolution No. 95- recommending approval of PA95-0023 by City Council, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Van Daele 79 Venture, LTD. REPRESENTATIVE: Brice Kittie PROPOSAL: A Request for Approval of a Development Agreement for Final Tract Maps No. 22716-Final, 22716-2, 22716-4 and Tentative Parcel Map 28122. LOCATION: Located north of Rancho Vista Road, south of Rancho California Road and west of Butterfield Stage Road. EXISTING ZONING: SP (Specific Plan) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: SP (Specific Plan) SP (Specific Plan) SP (Specific Plan) SP (Specific Plan) PROPOSED ZONING: N/A GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Medium Density Residential (3 to 6 dwelling units per acre) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant R:~STAFFRPT'~PA95.PC 8/1/95 slb SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Single Family Dwellings Single Family Dwellings Single Family Dwellings Single Family Dwellings PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: Number of Lots: Existing Development Agreement Fee: Proposed Development Agreement Fee: 22.7 acres 81 (including P M 28122) 95, 183.00/Unit 93,200.00/Unit BACKGROUND On November 7, 1988 Development Agreement No. 5 was approved by the County of Riverside for the Margarita Village Specific Plan (S.P. 199) which includes Tracts 22716-Final; 22716-2; and 22716-4. Recently the developer approached the City to execute Amendment and Restatement of this Development Agreement in order to receive a reduction in the Development Agreement fees. As a first step in the process, the City and the developer entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on February 13, 1995. This MOU authorizes the collection of 93,200.00 per unit Interim Public Facility Fee when the owners obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the first production home built in the project. This commitment set the foundation for the revisions in the Development Agreement Fee for this project. The proposed revisions would reduce the Development Agreement Fee from $5,183.00 per unit to 93,200.00 per unit. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Development Agreement Fee includes only an Interim Public Facilities Fee and has eliminated other fees associated with County approved Development Agreements such as the Regional Parkland Fee, Habitat Conservation Fee and Public Services Offset Fee. Interim Public Facilities Fee The Amended and Re-stated Development Agreement is written to have a duration period of ten (10) years and applies to the following Tracts: 22716-Final, lots 1-11; 22716-2, lots 1-13, 17-31; 22716-4, lots 1-40; and Parcel Map 28122 lots 1,2, 3 provided such Parcel Map is approved. Parcel Map 28122 will divide the current parking lot for the model complex in Tract 22176-2 into three parcels. The three phases in question contain 79 existing single family lots. With the parcel map approval a total of 81 lots will be covered by this proposed Development Agreement. The Interim Public Facilities Fee will be 93,200.00 per unit and will be paid for the first five (5) years of the term of the Agreement. After this period, the developer will either continue to pay the Interim Public Facility Fee of 93,200.00or such other Public Facilities Fee adopted by the City and applied to other residential projects. R:~q"rAFFRIrr~.3PA95.PC 81119~ s~ 2 ANALYSIS The existing approved Development Agreement No. 5 includes the following fees: Public Facilities Fee Regional Parkland Fee Habitat Conservation Fee Public Services Offset Fee $2,331.00 $431.00 $320.00 $2,189.00 Total Development Agreement Fee $5,271.00 According to the County, all County approved Development Agreements have a section which purports to require the split of certain fees between the County and a city should any portion of the property covering the agreement become part of a city. That section provides that the Regional Parkland Fee ($431.00), the Habitat Conservation and Open Space Land Fee ($320.00) would continue to be fully payable to the County. Additionally, two-thirds (2/3) of the Public Services Offset Fee ($2,189.00)and 5.3% Public Facilities Fee ($2,331.00)would be payable to the County. Therefore, according to the County, a total of $2,329.78 is payable to the County from the $5,271.00 Development Agreement Fee, leaving $2,941.22 as the City's portion of this fee. The proposed $3,200.00 Interim Public Facilities Fee is greater than $2,941.22, City's portion of the existing Development Agreement Fee, should the County interpretation of the fees be used. However, the City Attorney contends that the County's interpretation of the Development Agreement is not in accordance with State law which provides that the benefits of a Development Agreement as well as its burdens transfer to a City upon incorporation. As the property which is the subject of this Development Agreement is now within the City boundaries. the County is no longer entitled to any fees under the Development Agreement. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION This project will be consistent with the General Plan since the General Plan currently designates the site as Low Medium Density Residential and the approved development project which is implemented by this Development Agreement is consistent with this designation. This project is consistent with Specific Plan No. 199, since the development project which is implemented by this Development Agreement meets all the requirements of this Specific Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION A Initial Study was prepared for this project and it revealed no significant impacts. Therefore, Staff recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Since other projects have received reductions in Development Agreement fees, Staff supports this project. R:~STAFFRPT~.3PA95.PC 8/1/95 sib 3 FINDINGS The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the City of Temecula's General Plan in that the Development Agreement makes reasonable provision for the use of certain real property for residential development and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Medium Density Residential. The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use district in which the Property subject to the Development Agreement is located as the Development Agreement provides for single family homes. This Development 'Agreement is consistent with good planning practices by providing for the opportunity to develop the Property consistent with the General Plan. The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 is in conformity with the public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice because it makes reasonable provision for a balance of housing opportunities compatible with the remainder of the City. The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare because it provides adequate assurances for the protection thereof. Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission was published in a newspaper of general circulation at least twenty (20) days before the Planning commission public hearing, and mailed or delivered at least twenty (20) days prior to the hearing to the project applicant and to each agency expected to provide water, sewer, schools, police protection, and fire protection, and to all property owners within six hundred feet (600') of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission included the date, time, and place of the public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, a general explanation of the matter to be considered, a general description and text or by diagram of the location of the real property that is the subject of the hearing, and of the need to exhaust administrative remedies. The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 complies with the goals and objectives of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The traffic impacts of the development over the period of the Development Agreement will be substantially mitigated by the mitigation measures and conditions of approval imposed. The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 complies with requirements of the zoning district in which the applicant proposes to develop in that the Specific Plan zoning of Medium Density Residential is consistent with the Low Medium Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation. R:XSTAFFRFI'N23PA95.PC 8/1/95 slb 4 The benefits that will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from this legislation and this Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 are as follows: City and Owner acknowledge that development of the Project will result in.' a. Generation of municipal revenue; b. Public infrastructure facilities; c. Enhancement of the quality of life; including residential opportunities for present and future residents of the City; d. The opportunity for an adjacent residential-commercial project creating significant job opportunities, sales tax and ad valorem tax revenues for the City; .- e. Payment of Public Facilities Fees (fire and traffic signal mitigation); and, f. Participation in special assessment districts to finance City and regional infrastructure improvements. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. PC Resolution No. 95- - Blue Page 6 Ordinance No. 95- - Blue Page 10 Initial Study- Blue Page 15 February 13, 1995 Memorandum of Understanding - Blue Page 30 Proposed Development Agreement - Blue Page 31 Exhibits - Blue Page 32 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan D. Tract Map 22716 R:~rAFFRPI'~3PA93.PC 8~1/93 db 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 95- R:\STAFFRPT~3PA95.PC 811/95 slb 6 PC RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF AIVIENDlViENT AND RESTATEMENT OF DEVF. LOPMENT AGI~EEMENT NO. 5, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199, PLANNING ALOE& "MARGARffA VILL&GE," PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA95-0023 THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula has received an application for an Amendment and Res~tement of Development Agreement No. 5, Specific Plan No. 199, "Margarita Village," Planning Area 14, Planning Application No. PA95-0023, (hereinafter "Development Agreement"); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing on August 7, 1995, on the issue of recommending approval or denial of the Development Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF EMECULA DOES FIND AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt and approve the Ordinance approving the Development Agreement, Attachments "A" and "B", respectively, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Attachment "C" and incorporated herein by this reference as set forth in full herein. Section 2. That in recommending the adoption by the City of the Ordinance approving.' the Development Agreement, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: (a) The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the City of Temecula's General Plan in that the Development Agreement makes reasonable provision for the use of certain real property for residential development and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of low- medium density residential; and, (b) The project subject to the Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the Specific Plan Zone district in which the Property subject to the Development Agreement is located, and that this Development Agreement is consistent with good planning practices by providing for the opportunity to develop the Property consistent with the General Plan; and, (c) The Development Agreement is in conformity with the public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice because it makes reasonable provision for a balance of land uses compatible with the remainder of the City; and, R:XSTAFFRPT~PA95.PC 811/95 slb 7 (d) The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare because it provides adequate assurances for the protection thereof; and, (e) Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission was published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten (10) days before the Planning Commission public hearing, and mailed or delivered at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing to the project applicant and to each agency expected to pwvid¢ water, sewor, schools, police protection, and fire pwtecfion, and to all property owners within three hundred feet (300') of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll; and, (f) Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission included the date, time, and phce of the public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, a general explanation of the matter to be considered, a general description and text or diagram of the location of the real property that is the subject of the hearing, and of the need to exhaust. administrative remedies; and, (g) The Development Agreement complies with the goals and objectives of the Circulation Element of the General Plan and the traffic impacts of the development over the period of the Development Agreement will be substantially mitigated by the mitigation measures and conditions of approval imposed; and, (h) The Development Agreement complies with requirements of the zoning district in which the applicant proposes to develop in that the Medium Density Residential is consistent with the Low Medium Residential General Plan Land Use Designation; and, (i) The benefits that will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from this legislation and this Development Agreement are as follows: City and Owner acknowledge that development of the Project will result in the Generation of municipal revenue; 2. Construction of public infrastructure facilities; 3. Acceleration of both the timely development of subject property as well as the payment of municipal revenue; 4. Enhancement of quality of life for surrounding residents with the timely development through the elimination of dust and nuisance of partially improved lots; 5. Payment of Public Facility Fees (fife, library, traffic signal mitigation, development and RSA); and, 6. Help ensure solvency of Assessment District 159 and Community Facilities District 88-3 as Van Daele has elected to use legislation to help offset burden to pay off each of these districts for subject property in their entirety and these districts finance City and regional improvements. R:~f~PA95.PC 811195 slb 8 Section 3. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall cause this Resolution to be transmitted to the City Council for further proceedings in accordance with State law. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVEr} AND ADOFrED this day of STEVEN I. FORD CHAIRMAN I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the __ day of , 199_, by the following vote of the Commission: ... AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNHILL SECRETARY R:L~TAFFRIrI~PA95.PC 811/95 sib 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ORDINANCE NO. 95- R:k%'TAFFRPT~23PA95.PC 811/95 sn, 10 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF DEVEIJ3PMENT AGREEMENT NO. S BETWE~ THE CITY OF Ti~M~CULA AND VAN DAELE 79 VENTURE, LTD., FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199, PLANNING ARE& 14, MARGARITA VILLAGE, PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA9S-0023 Wi~'-RE&S, Section 6S864 et seo_. of the Government Code of the State of California and Temecula City Resolution No. 91-S2 authorize the execution of agreements establishing and maintaining requirements applicable to the development of real property; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedure specified in said Resolution, Van Daele 79 Venture, Ltd., a California Limited Partnership, hereinafter "Van Daele' has filed with the City of Temecula an application for a Development Agreement which reflects an amendment and restatement of existing County Development Agreement ~ (hereinafter 'this Agreement'), of a residential housing subdivision on its property for Planning Area 14 including at Tract 22716, Lots 1-11; Tract 22716-2, Lots 1-13, 17-31; Tract 227164, Lots 140; Parcel Map 28122, Lots 1, 2, 3 provided such Parcel Map is approved, hereinafter the 'Subject Property' which application has been reviewed and accepted for filing by the Planning Director; and, WHEREAS, notice of the City's intention to consider adoption of this Agreement with Van Daele, has been duly given in the form and manner required by law, and the Planning Commission and City Council of said City have each conducted public hearings on August 7, 1995 (Planning Commission), and _, 199_ (City Council) at which time it heard and considered all evidence relevant and material to said subject. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS.- FOLLOWS: Section 1. FINDINGS. The City Council hereby finds and determines, with respect to this Agreement by and between the City of Temecula and Van Daele, that it: A. Is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the City of Temecula's General Plan in that this Agreement makes reasonable provision for the use of certain real property for residential development consistent with the General Plan's land use designation of low-medium density residential; B. Is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use district in which the Subject Property referred to herein is located as this Agreement provides for residential development pursuant to a Specific Plan; C. Is in conformity with the public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice because it makes reasonable provision for a balance of land uses compatible with the remainder of the City; R:~STAFFRPT'~3PA95.PC 8/1/95 ,Ib '1 '[ D. Will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general weftare because it provides adequate assurances for the protection thereof; E. Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission was published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten (10) days before the Planning Commission public hearing, and mailed or delivered at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing to the project applicant and to each agency expected to provide water, sewer, schools, police protection, and fire protection, and to all property owners within three hundred feet (300') of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll; F. Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission included the date, time, and place of the public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, a general explanation of the matter to be considered, a general description in text or diagram of the location of the real property that is the subject of the hearing, and of the need to exhaust administrative remedies;- G. Notice of the public hearing before the City Council was published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten (10) days prior to the City Council public hearing, mailed at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing to the project applicant, to each agency expected to provide water, sewer, schools, police protection, and fire protection, and to all property owners within three hundred feet (300') of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll; H. Notice of the City Council hearing included the date, the time, and place of the public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, the general explanation of the matter to be considered, a general description in text or by diagram of the location of the Property that is the subject of the hearing, and the notice of the need to exhaust administrative remedies; I. City Council approved this Agreement by Ordinance based upon evidence and findings of the Planning Commission and new evidence presented at its hearing on this Agreement, giving its reasons therefor and setting their relationship between this Agreement and the General Plan; K. The benefits that will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from this legislation and this Agreement are as follows: 1. Generation of municipal revenue; 2. Construction of public infrastructure facilities; 3. Acceleration of both the timely development of subject property as well as the payment of municipal revenue; 4. Enhancement of quality of life for surrounding residents with the timely development through the elimination of dust and nuisance of partially improved lots; 5. Payment of Public Facility Fees (fire, library, traffic signal mitigation, development and RSA); and, R:'kSTAFFRFIX23PA95.PC 8/1/95 slb '[ 2 6. Help ensure solvency of Assessment District 159 and Community Facilities District 88-3 as Van Daele has elected to use legislation to help offset burden to pay off each of these districts for subject property in their entirety and these districts finance City and regional improvements. Section 2. APPROVAL. This Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Attachment "1 * is hereby approved. The Mayor is authorized and directed to evidence such approval by executing this Agreement for, and in the name of, the City of Temecula; and the City Clerk is directed to attest thereto; provided, however, that this Agreement shall not be executed by the City until this Ordinance takes effect and the City has received from the applicant two executed originals of said Agreement. Section 3. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby declares that the pwvisions of this Ordinance are severable and ff for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 4. NOTICE OF ADOPTION. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by hw. Section 5. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk. R:XSTAFFRI'I~Z3PA95.PC 8/1/95 Section 6. PASSEll, APPROVED AND ADOPTEli this __ day of ,1995. Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) CITY OF TEMECULA) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. __ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of ,199_, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of 199_, by the following vote, to wit: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk R:\STAFFRFD.23PA95.PC 8/1/95 slb 14 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 INITIAL STUDY R:~STAFFRP"I'~23PA95.PC 811195 db 15 City of Temecula Planning Department Initial Environmental Study I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Name of Project: Crown Collection 2. Case Numbers: Planning Application No. PA95-0023 (Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5") Location of Project: Located north of Rancho Vista Road, south of Rancho California Road, and west of Butterfield Stage Road Description of Project: A Request for Approval of Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 for' Tentative Tract Map No. 22716-Final, 22716-2, 227164 and proposed Parcel Map 28122 5. Date of Environmental Assessment: July 5, 1995 6. Name of Proponent: Van Daele 79 Venture, LTD. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 2900 Adams Street, Ste. C-25, Riverside CA. 92504 II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations to all the answers are provided in Section HI) Y~$ 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes geologic substructures? __ __ X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or over covering X of the soil? __ -- c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? __ __ X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? __ __ X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on X or off the site? __ __ f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion? __ _ X g. The modification of any wash, channel, creek, river or lake? __ __ X Maybe No R:~STAFFRFFX23PA95.PC 811195 slb ~ G Yes Maybe N9 h. Exposure of people or property m geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, liquefaction, ground failure, or Similar hazards? i. Any development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, temperature, or moisture or any change in climnte, whether locally or regionally? Water. WH1 the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and mount of surface ranoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. . Change in the mount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the dire.~tion or rate of flow of Found waters? g. Change in the quantity of Found waters, either through direct additions, withdrawals, or through imerception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Reduction in the mount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? X X X X X X X X X X R:~STAFFRPT~23PA95.PC 8/1/95 slb '[ 7 Yes Maybe No , Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? -- -- b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of plants? -- -- c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? -- - -- d. Reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop? __ _ Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (animals includes all land animals, birds, reptiles, fish, amphibians, shellfish, benthic organisms, and/or insects)? __ _ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of animals? -- -- c. The introduction of new wildlife species into an area? __ __ d. A barrier to the migration or movement of animals? __ __ e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? __ __ Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? __ -- b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? __ __ c. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? __ __ Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce or result in light or glare? __ __ Land Use. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteration of the present land use of an area? __ -- b. Alteration to the future planned land use of an area as described in a community or general plan? __ -- X X X X X X X X X X X X X R:~STAFFRIrB23PA95.PC 811195 Yes Maybe No Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. The depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in: 11. 12. ae A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upse~ conditions (hazardous substances includes, but is not limited to, pes~cides, chemicals, oil or radiation)? bs The use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? C, Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: 14. a. Generation of substantial additional vchictilar movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? C, Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation? d, Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f, Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X X X X X X X X X X X X R:XSTAFFRFIX23PA95.PC 811/95 slb ~ 9 Yes b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services: 15. Energy. Will the proposal result a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to any of the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water systems? d. Sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage systems? f. Solid waste disposal systems? g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of utility delivery system improvements for any of the above? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. The creation of any health hazard or potemial health hazard? b. The exposure of people to potential health hazards, including the exposure of sensitive receptors (such as hospitals and schools) to toxic pollutant emissions? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 1Ma_vbe No X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X R:~STAFFRFI'X23PA95.PC 8/1/95 db 20 19. 20. c. Detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportnnities? Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. The alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric, archaeological or historic site? b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. Any potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Yes Maybe X X X X X R:',STAFFRPT~PA95.PC 8/1/95 slb 22 1 HL DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC'I~ F--4trth 1 .a.d. No. The project will not result in un-~Uible earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures, destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features sin~ the 'project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. 1.b. No. The project will not cause disruptions, displacements, compaction, or overcovering of soil, since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Marrgarita Village Specific Plan. 1 .c.g. No. The project will not result in change in topography or ground surface relief features, or modification of any wash, channel, creek, river or lake since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed for the Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. 1 .e.f. No. The project will not result in an increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off ' the site and changes in siltation, deposition or erosion since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. 1 .h.i. Air No. The project will not result in exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as. earthquakes or liquefaction since the General Plan EIR and the Margarita Village Specific Plan' EIR do not identify the site in being in any of these areas. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. 2.a. No. The project will not result in the local deterioration of air quality since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. 2 .b.c. No. The project will not create objectionable odors or cause alteration of air movement, temperature or moisture or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the R:~STAFFRFrX23PA95.PC 8/1195 nlb 22 construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. Water 3.a.c.d. e.f.g.h. i. No. The project will not cause changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters, alterations to the course or flow of flood waters, change in the amount of surface water in any waterbody, discharge into surface waters or in any alterations of surface water quality, alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground watch, change in the quantity of ground waters, reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies, or exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from. the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No.' 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. 3.b. No. This project will not cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. Plant Life 4.a.b.d. No. This project will not change the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plant, reduce the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants or reduce the acreage of any agricultural crop since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this' Site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by - Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. 4.c. No. This project will not introduce new species of plants since the project does not involve any landscaping. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. Animal Life 5.a. No. The project will not cause a change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals since the project does not involve any land alteration. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. R:~STAFFRFI'~,3PA95.PC 811/95 slb 23 .b.c. d.c. No. The project will not cause a reduction in numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of animals, introduction of new wildlife species into the area, a barrier to the migration or movement of animals or deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat since the project does not involve any land alteration. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. NoiSe 6.a. 6.b.c. Light and 7. Land Use 8.a. 8.b. No. The project will not increase the existing noise levels since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construCtion of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. No. The project will not expose people to severe noise or vibrations since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. Glare No. The project will not cause an increase in light and glare since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. No. The project will not cause an alteration of the present land use of the area since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. No. The proposed project will not cause alteration to the future planned land use of this area, when ultimately developed, as described in the draft General Plan which designates the site as Low Medium Density Residential since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. R:~FAFFRFI'~PA95.PC 8/1/95 mlb 2'4' Natural Resources 9.a.b. No. The project will not result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resources and depletion of any nonrenewable natural resources when the site is ultimately developed since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. Risk of Upset 10.a.b. No. The project will not result in a risk of explosion and/or, the release of hazardous substances, when the site is ultimately developed since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. lO.c. No. The project will not result in any interference with an emergency response plan when the site is ultimately developed since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. Population 11. No. This project will not make alterations to the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of this area since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact 202 Report prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. Housing 12. No. The project will not affect existing housing and create a demand for new housing since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. Transportation/Circulation 13.a.f. No. The project will not generate daily trips, increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. R:'tSTAFFRFI'~.3PA95.PC 811195 slb 25 13.b.c.d. e. No. The project will not ereate additional demand on parking, cause a substantial impact on existing transportation systems, alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods and alteration to waterborne, rail or air traffic since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed for the Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. Public Services 14.a.b.c. d.e.f. No. The project will not have a substantial impact on fire protection, police proteaion, schools, parks and other governmental services since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. 15.a.b. No. The project will not result in substantial use of fuel or energy since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed for the Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. Utilities 16.a.b.c. d.e.f.g. No. The project will not result in a need for new system or substantial alterations to any of the · following: power or natural gas, communication systems, water systems, sanitary sewer systems,' storm water drainage systems, solid waste disposal systems and will not result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of utility delivery system improvements for any of the above since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation proposed by Environmental Impact RepOrt 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. Human Health 17 .a. No. The project will not create potential health hazards when the site is ultimately developed since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mkigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. R:~qTAFFRPT~PA95.PC 8/1/95 all> 26 17.b. No. The project will not expose people to potential health hazards, including the exposure of semmifive rec, eptors such as hospitals and schools to toxic poHutant emissions singe the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated singe all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. Aesthetics 18.a.b.c. No. The project will not result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view, or in a detrimental visual impact on the surrounding area since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. Recreation 19. No. The project will not result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. Cultural Resources 20.a.b.c. d. No. The project will not result in alteration Or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric, archeological or historic site, adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehisWric or historic building, structure or object, any potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values, or restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact.- area since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan. R:~STAFFRPT~23PA95.PC 8/1/9~ .lb 27 IV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Does the project have the potential to either: degrade the quality of the environme!R, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish, wildlife or bird species, cause a fish, wildlife or bird population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant, bird or animal species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Yes Maybe No , Does the project have the potential to achieve short term, to the disadvantage of long term, environmental goals? (A short term impact on the enviroment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long term impacts will endure well into the future.) X Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project's impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) X Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X V. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINIMUS" IMPACT FINDINGS Does the project have the potential to cause any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources? Wildlife is defined as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends on for it's cominued viability" (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code). Y~ X R:~b~TAFFRPT~3pA95.PC 811195 slb 28 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed projea COULD NOT have a significant effea on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because the Mitigation Measures described on the attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project will mitigate any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Prepared by: Stephen L. Brown. Project Planner Name and Title July 5. 1995 Date R:~STAFFRPT0.3PA95.PC 7/31195 slb 29 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 FEBRUARY 13, 1995 - MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING R:~STAFFRPIX23PA95.PC 8/1/95 slb 30 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Gary Thornhill, Planning Director .. March 14, 1995 Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Specific Plan #199, Van Daele Development Corporation RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Memorandum of Understanding concerning Specific Plan No. 199 for Van Daele Development Corporation, authorizing the payment of development fees at a specified level and directing the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City and the City Clerk to attest thereto. BACKGROUND: The attached Memorandum of Understanding authorizes Van Daele Development Corporation to pull building permits and occupancy permits for homes in their development, without payment of the Public Facilities Fees, until such time as the first production home obtains its Certificate of Occupancy. This provision is consistent with previous approvals granted to similar projects in the City such as Cosrain Homes. The City is currently negotiating a new Development Agreement between the City and Van Daele for this project. Approval of this Agreement will not mandate that the City Council approve the draft Development Agreement. In the event the City Council denies the draft Development Agreement, the Memorandum of Understanding provides that Van Daele Development Corporation will then pay the Public Facilities Fees as provided in the existing Development Agreement No. 5. This Memorandum of Understanding will allow the development of homes in the Van Daele project to move forward in an expeditious fashion. Van Daele is agreeing to pay an Interim Public Facility Fee in the amount of $3,200.00 per unit. As construction of the model homes have already begun, there should be relatively little delay in the City's receipt of the Interim Public Facilities Fee. R:%~TAFFRY~VANDAII.MOU 716Y95 an The indemnity provisions of this Memorandum of Understanding are the same as the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Cosrain. The existing Development Agreement (Riverside County Development Agreement No. 5) contains very broad indemnity language sufficient to protect the City's interests. This Memorandum of Understanding contains adequate language protecting the City against any challenges to the fee issue. The Planning Commission and City Council will be presented in the near future with the draft Development Agreement. The terms of the draft Development Agreement will be subject to extensive negotiations between the City and the developer. FISCAL IMPACT: Slight delay in initial receipt of Interim Public Facilities Fees as they are delayed until the first Certificate of Occupancy for the production units, but would be paid in the event the City Council denies the draft Development Agreement within thirty days of the City's demand. ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum of Understanding. R:L~FAFFP, PT~VANDALE.MOU 716/95 m -~- MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING PLANNING AREA No. 14 OF SPECIFIC PLAN No. 199 This Memorandum of Understanding, (the "Memorandum") is made and entered into as of February 13, 1995 by and between the City of Temecula (the "City") and Van Daele 79 Venture, Ltd., a California limited Partnership ("Owner'). RECITALS A. The City Council of the City of Temecula is reviewing and considering, as provided by law, an Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement between City and Owner, (the "Draft Agreement"). B. Owner is developing a residential project in what is know as Planning Area No. 14 of Specific Plan No. 199, Tract No. 22716, 22716-2, 22716-4 and 28122 (the "Project"). The Project is currently subject to Development Agreement No. 5 between the County of Riverside (the "County") and Kaiser Development Company, a California corporation; Mesa Homes, a California corporation; Margarita Village Development Company, a California joint venture comprised of Buie-Rancho California, Ltd., a California limited partnership and Nevada ltancho California, Ltd., a California limited partnership; and Tayco, a California general partnership comprised of Taylor Woodrow Homes, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and others (the"Development Agreement No. 5"), which requires Owner to pay certain development fees (the "Development Fee"). C. Riverside County Ordinance No. 659, as adopted by the City, establishes public facilities and senAces impact fees for residential development with City ("RSA Fees"). City requires these revenues to mitigate the impact of development. City requires RSA Fees from development of the Project in order to complete capital projects to mitigate the impact of the development. D. As the result of meetings between representatives of the City and representatives of the Owner, the City has agreed that the Project would be eligible for a Development Fee reduction due to: (i) the excessive level at which the County originally calculated the Development Fee; (ii) the high level of assessment district tax existing on the Project; and (iii) the entry level nature of the homes to be built in the Project. Memorandum of Understanding Page 2 of 5 E. The Development Agreement No.5 provided for public facilities and sentices impact fees ("County Impact Fees") higher than the RSA Fees. These higher fees, particularly during the present recession, unduly discourage and delay development and thereby prevent City from ever receiving the RSA Fees. Consequently, the City desires to reduce the County Impact Fees for residential development in the project to a level comparable to RSA Fees. F. The Draft Agreement provides for Owner to pay the sum of Three Thousand, Two Hundred Dollars ($3,200.00) for each residential trait as the Interim Public Facilities Fee. The Draft Agreement provides for the collection of any Interim Public Facilities Fee to be deferred until such time as Owner obtained a certificate of occupancy for the first production home built in the Project. G. Owner contemplates commencing conslzuction of the homes for the Project (8 1 units) prior to acceptance by the City Council of City of the Draft Agreement. H. City desires, as an accommodation to Owner, to permit Owner to pay the Interim Public Facilities Fee contemplated in the Draft Agreement for all the homes in the Project, despite the fact that the Draft Agreement providing for payment of the Interim Public Facilities Fee has not yet been approved by City. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, City and Owner agree as follows: i. In lieu of any fee required by Development Agreement No. 5, RSA Fee or City Public Facilities Fee, Owner shall pay an Interim Public Facilities Fee in the amount of Three Thousand, Two Hundred Dollars ($3,200.00) per dwelling unit. If city fails to approve or adopt the Draft Agreement or if the Interim Public Facilities Fee, as established by City, is some number other than Three Thousand, Two Hundred ($3,200.00) per dwelling unit, then the fee paid by Owner to City shall be adjusted accordingly. Owner shall pay any increase or City shall pay to Owner any decrease within thirty (30) days from the effective date of City Council' s action on the Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement. Memorandum of Underst_anding Page 3 of 5 2. The Interim Public Facilities Fee for all units shall be deferred until such time as a cerfi'ficate of occupancy has been obtained for the first production home built in the Project. Thereafter, the Interim Public Facilities fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of building permits for each residential unit constructed in the Project. Indemnity and Cost of Litigation. 3.1 County Litigation Concerning Agreement. In the event the County seeks to challenge the fight of City and Owner to enter into this Memorandum, and institutes an action, suit or proceeding to challenge this Memorandum or invalidate and/or enjoin the enforcement of this Memorandum, City and Owner agree to cooperate and participate in a joint defense in any action against the paxties, their officers, agents, and employees, from and against any and all such obligations, liability, suit, claim, loss, judgment or lien, resulting from such action(s) brought by County, (but excluding actions to expunge any lispendens) and to share the costs associated with attorneys, fees and costs that the parties may incur as the result of any such action or lawsuit to challenge City and/or Owaer's legal authority to enter into this Memorandum. If the County action is against all impacted developments for which the City has lowered the county fees, the Owner' s defense costs herein shall be its pro rata share among all impacted landowners based on a ratio of contribution of total units owned by Owner which are subject to this Memorandum compared to the total number of units within the City in which the City has lowered the County Fees. If the County action is only against Owner with respect to this Memorandum, and not again-~t other impacted landowners for which the City has lowered the County fees, then Owner' s defense costs shall be 100% of the attorneys fees and costs for defense of the litigation. Damages ( including the difference in the amount of any Interim Public Facilities Fee and the amount of the County Development Agreement Fee paid by Owner to City pursuant to the terms of this Memorandum) shall be the responsibility of Owner. To the extend Owner has paid Interim Public Facilities Fees and/or County Development Agreement Fees to City of which it is adjudicated are lawfully the funds of County, City shall pay such sums to County and Owner shall have such liability for the payment of the difference between such fees reduced by the amount paid by the City. City and Owner shall mutually agree on legal counsel to be retained to defend any such action(s) brought by the County as herein provided. Memorandum of Understanding Page 4 of 5 City and Owner each reserve the right to withdraw from the defense of the County litigation in the event the County prevails at the trail level and there is an appeal. If either party withdraws ax~er the trial and there is an appeal, the remaining party shall pay all the costs and fees associated with said appeal. 3.2 Public Facilities Fees Shortfall. In the event the County prevails in. any legal action or other proceeding to challenge, set aside, or enjoin the enforcement of this Memorandum and a trial court determines the Owner and/or the City is liable to make up any shortfall between the amount of the Interim Public Facilities Fee or the City Public Facilities Fee, as the case may be, and the County Development Agreement Fee which would otherwise have been imposed pursuant to Development Agreement No.5, then Owner shall be responsible for paying any such shortfall subject to City' s payment to County of any amounts collected and held by City under the terms of Development Agreement No. 5. Such payment by City to County shall reduce Owner's liability to County for payment of such fees by a like amount paid by City. 3.3 County Prevails in Litigation - Severability. In the event the County prevails at the trial court level against the City or the Owner as described in Section 3.1 of this Memorandum, the amount of the Interim Public Facilities Fee or the City Public Facilities Fee, as the case may be, shall revert to the amount of the County Development Agreement Fee in effect at the time of entry of the final judgment in favor of the County (or such lesser amount as determined by the Court). In the event this Memorandum is held to be invalid or unenforceable by a trial court of competent jurisdiction, Owner shall thereafter pay the County Development Agreement Fee as provided in Section 4.2 of Development Agreement No. 5 ( or such lesser amount as determined by the Court). All-other provisions of this Memorandum or any subsequent agreements relating to the Project shall remain valid and enforceable notwithstanding said ruling of invalidity. 3.4 Third Party Litigation Concerning Agreement. Owner shall defend, at its expense, including attorneys' fees, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against City, its agents, Officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Memorandum or the approval of any permit granted pursuant to this Memorandum brought by a third party other than the County. City shall Memorandum of Understanding Page 5 of 5 promptly notify Owner of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and City shall cooperate in the defense. If City fails to promptly notify Owner of any such claim, action, or proceeding or if City fails to cooperate in the defense, Owner shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless City. City may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding. 3.5 Termination of Memorandum of Understanding. If the Draft Agreement is approved by the City Council, this Memorandum shall terminate upon the effective date of the Draft Agreement. If the Draft Agreement is disapproved by the City Council, then the obligations of Owner under this Memorandum shall terminate and Owner thereafter shall be SUbject to the terms of Development Agreement No. 5. IN WITNESS WBERE OF, the parries executed this Memorandum as of this 13th day of February, 1995. ATTEST: Van Daele 79 Venture, Ltd. a California Limited Partnership APPROVED AS TO FROM Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney By: By: Its Gc....av4 l~..,t~,,,~, , Its A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 6 EXHIBITS R:~TAFIrRIrI"~23PA95.PC: g/l/9S db ~2 contHsl · TEMECUL,4 I I v,4ut'Y ,s I I CITY OF TEMECULA UNFIEL,O i CHRISTIAN HS ect , ,- , ,~ -+- I I I \ \ %, \ \ *% I I ~ CASE NO. - PA95-0023 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 22716 EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 7, 1995 VICINITY MAP R:X,.~TAFFR]rFa~PA95.ZS 7/27/95 db b~ CITY OF TEMECULA R2H, EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - SP {SPECIFIC PLAN) I LM "'/F LM · I LM , %.). 'X, LM p · ' P · ~.,.~.. .t-,,,,,. OS LM L,M EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (3 TO S DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) ASE NO. o PA95-0023 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 22716 r'LANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 7, 1995 m --%, R:~qT~lTPA94.l~ 7/27/~.~ tit CITY OF TEMECULA Vintage Hills CASE NO. - PA95-0023 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 22716 EXHIBIT- D TRACT MAP 22716 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 7, 1995 R:LqT~PA95.IS 7/31/95 ITEM 21 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director~''~ August 22, 1995 Request to Designate Certain Private Property as "No Rollerblading or Similar Activity Area." Skateboarding, PREPARED BY: Stephen Brown, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DESIGNATING PRIVATE PROPERTY AT 42145 LYNDIE LANE AND 27555 YNEZ ROAD AS A "NO SKATEBOARDING, ROLLERBLADING OR SIMILAR ACTIVITY AREA" PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 10.36 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE. BACKGROUND: The City has received two requests to declare certain private properties as No Skateboarding, Rollerblading or Similar Activity Area as permitted by Ordinance No. 94-18. This Ordinance was recently adopted to prohibit skateboarding in certain areas of the City designated by the City Council. Both applicants have made this request to have their private property designated no skateboarding after experiencing incidental vandalism, noise and safety problems caused by skateboarders enjoying their sport on the property owned by the applicants. Ordinance 94-18 requires that two-thirds of the tenants occupying private property submit a written application supporting the "no skateboarding" designation along with the concurrence of the property owner. After the proper application is received and proper notice is given, the City Council may, by resolution, designate the area in question as a "no skateboarding" area and request that the area be posted as such. After the appropriate signs have been posted designating the site as a "no skateboarding area", the police may cite the violators. The two applications received by the Planning Department have the required number of signatures along with the consent of the property owner. Site plans have also been submitted by the applicants which illustrate the areas to be designated as "no skateboarding' as well as the proposed location of the signs. RSCAL IMPACT: Potential positive fiscal impact to property owners due to decrease in vandalism. Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 95- - Page 3 2. Applications from Linkletter Enterprises and Layton-Belling and Associates - Page 7 R:~STAFFRPT~CATF,.CC S/1~95 I~b ~ ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 95- R:~TAFFRFI~KAT~CC 8/1/95 klb ~ ATFACHNfENT NO. 1 RE~OLUTION NO. A RF.,~LUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TE~IECULA DESIGNATING PRIVATE PROPERTY AT 4210 LYNDIE LANE AND 27555 YNEZ ROAD AS A "NO SKATEBOARDING, ROIJ-ERBLADING OR SIIVrrt-AR ACTIVITY AREA* lrtJRSUANT TO CHAPTER 1036 OF TVff- ~ MUNICIPAL CODE. W!4~:uEAS, City Ordinance No. 94-18 eslablished Chapter 10.36 of the Temecula Mtmicipal Code and adopted by oxdinance permits the City Council to prohibit .~knwhoarding, ~ rollerbiading or 8imHar activity ill certain desigtlated areas; and, WHEREAS, the efforts of the property owners at 42145 Lyndie T~ne and 27555 Ynez Road to control ska~g, rollerbl~ding 'and similnr activities have been u_n.~uccessful to date; and, ~, private property at 42145 Lyndie Lane and 27555 Ynez Road has been damaged in connection with skat~ooarding, rollBrblading and s'nnilar activities; and, WltEREAS, the property owners and tenants of 42145 Lyndie Lane and 27555 Ynez Road have requested the City to designate the property as a "No Skating, RoHerblading or Similar Activity Axe"; and, WItEREAS, the property owners have submitted a written apph'cation and required exhibits in conformance with Chapter 10.36 of the Temecula Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on August 22, 1995, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either support or in opposition; and, WHEREAS, notice of proposed action was posted at City Hall, County Library, Rancho C~lifornia Branch, the U.S. Post Office, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce. NOW, T!~'~I~RE, ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA, DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOtJ~0WS: Section 1. findings: Findings. That the Temecula City Council hereby m~lces the following A. The City Council in approving this Resolution makes the following fitldlngs to wit: 1. Ordinance 94-18 was enacted by the City Council to maintain the safety of the general public, as well as the right to enjoyment of private property within the City. R:~TAFPaFI~TR. CC $/1/95 I~o 4 2. Cuntmtly the ~ use of private ~ for sh,~boatrling, rollexbhding involves safety ri~ and property damage. o The action proposed is consistent with Chapter 10.36 of the Temecula Municipal 4. The action proposed complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. Section2. The City Council hereby authorizes the establishment of a *No Skateboarding, Rollerbin_cling, or Similnr Activity Area" on the property located at 42145 Lyndie T~ne and 27555 Ynez Road in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 10.36 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Enforcement of the no skateboarding, rollerblading, or similar activity shnll- not commence until app~ signage has been posted as required by Chapter 10.36 of the' Temecula Municipal Code. Section 3. The City Clerk shah Certify the adoption of thi.~ Resolution. Sectlon4. PASSEI}, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ~ day of , 199__. Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALr~ORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF 1EMECULA) R:~T~TILCC ~/1/95 k~ 5 I HEnFRy CI~KTIrXr that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of , 1~__ by the following vote of the Council: C1TY COUNTERS: NOF, S: CrFY COUN~tJRS: CITY COUNCILIVI]~.{~tEP-S: June S. Greek, City Cleric ATTACHMENT NO. 2 APPLICATIONS FROM LINKLETTER ENTERPRISES AND LAYTON-BELLING AND ASSOCIATES R:'~T~TLCC g/1/95 klb 7 February27,1995 LINKI ,ETTER ENTERPRISES RECEIVED HAR 0 2 1995' Mr. Craig Ruiz City of Temecula Planning Dept. 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Designation of 42155 Lyndie Lane as "No Skateboarding Area" Dear Mr. Ruiz: Enclosed you will fred a site plan which shows the location of two "No Skateboarding Area" signs per city ordinance. After five days the "skateboard vandals" have already stolen one $69.00 sign .... another has been ordered. Please forward our request to City Council to adopt a resolution declaring o~r private property a "no skateboarding area." Sincerely, Linkletter R.C. Partners Mike Linkletter Property Manager ML:rl 765 BAKER STREET COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 (71'1) 957 8101 F,'kX (714) 755 3166 2081 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 101 1RVINE, CALIFORNIA 92715 ~714,660-1190 FAX (714) 660-1196 LINKI,ETTER i! N T F, R P R ! S E S November 30, 1994 The I hmorable Mayor and Cily Council Cilv of 'l'emecula 43 ! 74 Business Park Drive 'l'¢mecula. CA 92590 '!he signatures below represent the owner and lenahis of the Lvndie Of lice Building aT ,12145 l,yndie Lane, Temecula, California. This !e!ier is addressed Io Ihe Cily !o bring Io il~ allenlion a mailer which puls at risk lhe safely oflhe general public, as well as !he Tighl I~t quiet enjoyfnenl ofprivale pro~rly wilhin Ihe Cily. Tim matter being addressed is the a!~parenl unresttitled use, by children and you,~g adulls. of public and prival~ properly for roller skaling and skale boarding. We observe lhi.~ Io' bc occurring in all parts of the Cily, but our spccific concern involvcs !hc safely risks and properly damage |o lhe Lw~die Oilice lhfilding. Wc have placed restrictive signs on our propcity which have been llanored. {Jur efforts Io con[toni the of[enders leads, at best, lo a temporan.' ccssalion. There xvill ahnosl certainly be serious injury to eill~er Ihe parlicipanls or aulhorized occupanls of Ihe building if Ihis skating activity is allowed to conlinue. wc undcr~an<i Iha! proposed Cily ordinances prosgully before ll~e C{m,cil wo,ld signi~canlly iml,t~ve. local law enforcemenl's al~iiily i~ deal ~vilh Ibis !,roidcm. Wc slrongly rage Ihe Council Io provide lhis much needed suppo~ Io give commercial properly owners and aulhorized occupanls Ihe peacerid use of Iheir properly lo which Ihev arc cnlitled. Vcrv truly yours. Linkletter R.C. Partners 7fl~l IIUSINIESSCF. NIER DIHVE, S 11'1'~ IOI IRVINI-Z.f)M.II:f}RNIAq/715 (71416fi0 1190 FAX {7l.llf, f,o IIQ6 I ~Vndie l,ane Office Buildi~ Tenant I ,ist Company Law Office of William Sweeney Lawrence G. Feinstein, Ph.D. Church of Religious Science Horrigan-Cole Emerprises Human Support. Services Fred L. Stephenson & Co. Stress Relief Center Atias IZhiropractic Center Mamette, Inc. American Capital Enterprises Inc. Suite # 100 102 112 & 114 122 126 128 & 124 130 132 200, 202 & 204 208, 210 & 212 Cily of Tcmecula Nf,vcmhcr 31), 1994 l'agc Txv~ . _,L 'L_..- i2~:0fricc of William, weehey Marnelle, Inc. Cily oFTcmnccula Nr~w,-,nd~e,.r 31~, 1 q94 Page Two . American Capital Enterprises, inc. City -f Tcmcculn N'ovcm!~cr 30, ig94 l';sgc '['w. . I S {,. I I I ! I /'7//:l · //// / ............... "7 ,,,, ,v,/ .,. .. . '> \ ~. / / June 26,1995 Layton-Belling & ASSOCIATES RECEIVED JUN 2 8 1995 CITY MANAGER CiW Council ofTemecula Mayor and Council Members 43174 Business Pa~ Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Ordinance Number 94-18 Skateboarding and Rollerblading Dear Sirs: According to Ordinance Number 94-18, Section 10.36.0300 B and C, to designate a propeW as "No Skateboarding, Rollerblading or Similar Activity Area" an application of written consent by a designated representative of the property owner must be made to the City Council. This letter shall serve as that application for the following properties: Tower Plaza Retail Center (Vons) Corner of Rancho California and Ynez Roads Tower Plaza Office Building, including the parking structure. 27555 Ynez Road In addition to the requirement of the owner's application, an application containing 66% of the tenants on the property must be submitted. Attached you will find the required tenant applications for the above mentioned properties. I understand that prior to your vote, the City Clerk shall need to cause notice of this consideration in a publication ten (10) days prior to the consideration. It is extremely important to our company and our tenants to designate these properties for "No Skateboarding, Rollerblading or Similar Activity" and we respectfully ask that you do so. 2'531 Ynez Road. Suite D7, Tetnecula, California 92591 (909) 693-1455 FAX: (909) 693-1456 LBA Layton-Belling & ASSOCIATES Mayor and Council Members June 26, 1995 Page 2 Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 909-693-1455. Sincerely, LAYTON-BELLING & ASSOCIATES Andrea Passow Assistant Property Manager AP/jc CC: The City Clerk, City of Temecula David Thomas, Layton-Belling & Associates Attachments 2'531 Ynez Road, Suite D7, Temecula, California 92591 (909) 693-1455 FAX: (909) 693-1456 LBA Layton-Belling & ASSOCIATES TOWER OFFICE BUILDING In order to enforce the City of Temecula Ordinance #94-18 prohibiting skateboarding and rollerblading, the owner, AEW/LBA Acquisition Co., LLC must submit a wdtten application with 66% of the tenants within a property showing support of designating that property as a 'NO SKATEBOARDING, ROLLERBLADING OR SIMILAR ACTIVITY Please sign below if you favor designating Tower Plaza R~~-~tt, (Rancho Califomia i r and Ynez Roads) as a 'NO SKATEBOARDING, ROLLERBLADING OR SIMILAR ACTIVITY AREA". 2,531 Ynez Road, Suite D7, Temecula, California 92591 (909) 693-1455 FAX: (909) 693-1456 LBA Layton-Belling & ASSOCIATES In order to enforce the City of Temecula Ordinance #94-18 prohibiting skateboarding and rollerblading, the owner, AEW/LBA Acquisition Co., LLC must submit a written application with 66% of the tenants within a property showing support of designating that property as a "NO SKATEBOARDING, ROLLERBLADING OR SIMI.LAR ACTIVITY Please sigh below if you favor designating Tower Plaza Retail Center (Rancho Califomia and Ynez Roads) as a "NO SKATEBOARDING, ROLLERBLADING OR SIMILAR ACTIVITY AREA". iBUSINESS !NAMEi:!:i ::::::!:i ::::: 27531 Ynez Road, Suite D7, Temecula, California 92591 (909) 693-1't55 FAX: (909) 693-1456 CITY OF -TEMECULA AGENDA I~]~ORT FROM: DATE: City C, ouncil/City Manager . Gazy Thornh~ll, ~~g ~/~ · ' ' as "No S~, FREPAI~Ei~ BY: Stephen Brown, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: It is requested that the City Council: Designate private property located at 42145 Lyndie Lane and 27555 Ynez Road Crower p!nT~ OfFice Building and Tower Plaza Retail Center) as *No · Skateboardlng, Rollerblndlng or Similar Activity/~_~.'a". / . . BACKGROUND: ' ~C~/./../,,t- Rollcrblnding or Similar Activity Are~ as permitted by Ordinance No. 94--18.'~ "'- applicants have made this re~lucst after experiencing incidental vandalism, noise and safety problems caused by enthusiasts ~njoying their sport on the property owned by the applicants. Ordinance 94-18 requires that twOthirds the te..t~ occupying private propcxty submit a ~ written application supporting the~ no skateboaxdj~Tclesignation along with the concurrence of' the property owner. After the proper application is r~iv.ed/(fnd proper notice is gtv..en, the / City Council may, by resolution, designate the area in question as/t~ho skateboardi~g~/ax~ and reque~ ~ the area be posted as such. After the appropriate signs have been posted designaling the site as ~x no skateboarding ~area, the police may cite the violamE. The~a~plicalions received by the Phnning DeparUnent in the instant eas~ have-the required number of signatures along with the consent of the proper~y owner. Si~ plans have also be~//n submilled by the applicants which designate ~e areas to be designated as~ho sknw. bcm~ling ,~-and'the proposed location of the signs. FISCAL IMPACT: 1. ,~4~pZicatio~ from t-an]cl~tter ~,uterprLses aucl Za~-]~elllng ~ud ,~socia~ ITEM 22 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY A'I'rORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning~9/ August 22, 1995 Old Town Specific Plan Amendments Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: Receive Report and Provide Direction to Staff. BACKGROUND On February 9, 1994, the City Council adopted the Old Town Specific Plan (OTSP). The stated purpose of the OTSP is to provide a master plan for the ultimate development of the Old Town area· The document provides a comprehensive plan for land use, development regulations, design guidelines, vehicular circulation, parking, development incentives and other related actions aimed at implementing the goals and objectives set forth in the Specific Plan. While the document has functioned well during the first year of implementation, members of the public, the Old Town Local Review Board (OTLRB) and staff have noted some items within the document that may be either unclear, too restrictive, or were not addressed in the OTSP. As a result, staff has compiled a list of all the issues that have been raised to date. Staff is bringing this item before the Council for two reasons. First, this item is to inform the Council about issues or concerns that have been raised regarding the OTSP by various people in the community. Second, staff is seeking direction as to whether the Council feels that the issues raised to date require further study by staff, the OTLRB and the Planning Commission to determine if the OTSP should be amended. If the analysis determines that an amendment to the Plan is necessary, this proposed amendment would be sent to the Commission and be back before the Council later this fall. The following is a list of the issues that have been raised to date and a brief description of each item: Sian Reaulations - The OTLRB has recommended that sign materials, sign size and sign types be reviewed. The Board feels that the current regulations are too restrictive. Staff does not fully support Board's position but recommends that some adjustment to regulations be made. Boundary Modification - The Temecula Town Association and the OTLRB have both recommended that the Specific Plan boundary be expanded along Pujol Street from First Street to the end of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) property (See Exhibit 2A). Both bodies feel that this area is part of the Old Town Community. R:\STAFFRFI'XOTSPAkII).CC 8/14/95 vgw 10. 11. Staff agrees that development of this area will influence Old Town. However, staff believes that an expansion of the Specific Plan may not be the best way to regulate uses and development of this area. Rather, staff recommends combining the Pujol corridor with the South From Street Corridor as an independent Specific Ran Area. This would provide for appropriate use standards and regulations to support Old Town but most likely would not have as strict architectural and site plan standards as the OTSP. R-O-W encroachments/Temoorarv Structures - The OTSP is unclear regarding what constitutes a temporary structure and where they may be located. Staff recommends adding language to clarify the definition and where structures may be located. Buildina Materials - The OTSP, in some instances, does not provide clear direction as to allowable building materials. Staff recommends that the lists of allowable materials be reviewed to determine if the list should be amended or expanded. Liaht Standards - The OTLRB has requested that the Specific Plan be amend to require light standards in private parking be consistent with the design standards of the OTSP. Staff recommends that language be added to this effect; However, staff believes that the language should be flexible enough to encourge creativity and diversity. Vendor Carts - The requirements for vender carts has caused some confusion regarding the location of carts. Staff recommends that language be added to clarify the permitted location of carts and to extend the approval period for carts from two years to three years. Use Matrix - The use matrix does not allow Educational & Tutoring uses in the Tourist Retail Commercial zone. Staff recommends that this use be allowed on side streets and non-ground floor spaces along Front and Main Streets. In addition, staff recommends that the entire use matrix be reviewed to determine if other modifications should be made. List of Historical Structures - The list of historic structures omitted the Welty Building on the corner of Front and Main Streets. Also, the list of historic structures should list the Welty Hotel on Main Street as being constructed in 1891 and not 1901 as listed. Staff recommends that both of these changes be made. Development Incentive Bonuses - Currently, incentive bonuses may be granted at the discretion of the Planning Commission or City Council. Staff recommends amending this section to be consistent with the approval authority matrix. This will allow for Planning Director approval of incentive bonuses, resulting in faster case processing. Amend Section III and AoDendix I - Staff recommends that these sections be amended to be consistent with the adopted Facade Improvement Program and Sign Rebate Program. The adopted programs allow for low interest loans while the OTSP does not. Add ADoendix IV - Information is available to add a section addressing the history of all historic buildings within Old Town. This information could be added to the OTSP as Appendix IV. P,:~TAFFR.F~OTSPAIv[D.CC 8/14/95 vgw 2 FISCAL IMPACT While there will be no direct expenditure of funds, there will be significant staff hours to complete the necessary work· Staff anticipates approximately 60 hours of staff time should the Council direct staff to review each of the above items. Should the Council elect to omit Item No. 2 only (boundary modification), staff would expect to expend approximately 30 staff hours. Attachments: Letter from the Old Town Local Review Board - Page 4 Exhibits - Page 5 a. Proposed Old Town Specific Plan Boundary Expansion R:\STAFFRPT\OTSPAM]:).CC 8114195 vgw 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 LETTER FROM THE OLD TOWN LOCAL REVIEW BOARD R:\STAFFRPT\OTSPAIViD.CC 8/10/95 vg.w 4 OLD TOWN TEMECULA REVIEW BOARD August 8, 1994 Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca. 92590 Subject: Request for revisions to sign, color palette and boundary designation elements of 01d Town Specific Plan Ordinance. Updates on trash -. containers, temporary restrooms and parking plan for Sixth st. lot. Code enforcement for sign ordinance affecting 01d Town. Dear Gary: We, as a board, as well as individual community members, believe that the Old Town Specific Plan is a good or, e. As happens, however, with any new plan, there are some corrections that must be made. At this time we have determined that two elements need to be scrutinized and broadened to work effectively and fairly for Old Town Businesses. First is the sign element, which the Board feels, in its generality, becomes too restrictive. In an effort to exclude certain unwanted signs and sign types, the drafters of this element have caused several of the most appropriate signs in town to be classified as non-conforming. The Board feels, also, that some consideration should be giver, those developments which carried the Old Town Banner during the years it took adopt the plan. The requirements should allow for adaptation of sign installation/usage to fit the as-built designs of those buildings. We look forward to that correctional adaptation and the enforcement of the sign element of the specific plan. It will greatly enhance the overall appearance of 01d Town. Second~ is the single manufacturer color palette does not allow a broad enough selection f,-,r those owners/businesses who would like to improve the exterior appearance of their buildings by redecoratir. g. Several other paint manufacturers offer palettes that represent paint schemes of the period we are trying to re- create. The area along the proposed Western Bypass road will most probably be developed as part of the Old Town Scene and, therefore, belongs in the Specific Plan. At our June meeting we requested that it be incorporated. As development grows closer, that plan change becomes ever more critical. We have previously requested that the City take action on acquiring and installing appropriate trash containers, temporary bathrooms and setting up the Sixth Street lot for customer/tourist parking. We would like an update on these improvements to the Old Town district. With all these necessary changes pending, we would like to invite you and Dave Hogan to our next meeting, September 12, 1994. We feel that our charge to advise affected departments of the City of Temecula is currently styxled and that a meeting with staff members responsible for implementation of the plan will help us do the job for which we were appointed. Sincerely, b ~./~Y~Ma r k.~ Ch a i rm an ' q~: Mayor Ron Roberts and City Council, City Manager Ron Bradley, Chairman Steve L~ord and Planning Commission Members, Review Board Members, Matthew Fagan, Dave Hogan, file. ATTACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS R:~STAFFRPT\OTSPAI~D.CC 8/10/95 vg'w ~ ~g specific Addition // f/ \~ ITEM 23 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council City Manager August 22, 1995 The Donation of a Commissioned Art Piece for the New City Hall PREPARED BY: Grant M. Yates, Human Resources Administrator RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council accept the donation of a commissioned art piece from Mr. Preecha' Nillpraphan and provide direction as to the content of this art piece· BACKGROUND: Mr. Preecha Nillpraphan is a local artist who has graciously offered to donate an original art piece to become a permanent part of the new City Hall. Preecha Nillpraphan graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree, major in commercial art, from the University of Oklahoma. He has participated in solo art shows at the Embassy Suites and Callaway Vineyard and Winery here in Temecula. His expertise with all the various art forms, mediums and techniques has generated recognition and noteworthy accomplishments throughout his career· In order to assist the City Council in determining the content of this art piece, staff is suggesting that the Council choose from one of the following alternatives: 2. 3. 4. Historical Temecula setting, such as a stagecoach stop City landmarks, such as the wineries or duck pond Panoramic view of Temecula at night Snow capped mountains and balloons flying in the background of the City Temecula has many special events such as the Balloon and Wine Festival, Tractor Race and Rod Run. However, because this is a donation to all the citizens of Temecula, staff suggests that the City Council choose a theme from the above list rather than choosing content based upon a Temecula special event. FISCAL IMPACT: None ITEM 24 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Manager/City Council (~Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 22, 1995 Proposed Keep Temecula Clean "Adopt-A-Street", Acknowledgement Sign Size PREPARED BY: ~q/~Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council re-evaluate the Keep Temecula Clean "Adopt-A-Street" acknowledgement sign size. BACKGROUND: At the City Council meeting of August 8, 1995 the City Council requested that the Public Works Department bring back the different sizes of signs for re-evaluation. At this time City staff has acquired two (2) proto type acknowledgement signs, 30" X 30" and 24" X 24" for Council's review and approval. Upon approval, the acknowledgement signs will be installed at 15 locations already identified in the program, when "adopted". FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in the Public Works Department Sign Maintenance Account 100-164-601- 5244. r,\agdrpt%95\0822%ADOPTSTR.siglajp ITEM 25 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY ~>~'~~~_,~ FINANCE OFFICE CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Community Development D'recto~~7:>'~' August 22, 1995 Beer and Wine Licenses - Approval Authority Prepared By: Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff as to the Approval Authority for Beer and Wine Licenses. BACKGROUND This item was first heard by the City Council at their meeting of July 25, 1995. At that meeting, staff discussed recent changes in State legislation which created a moratorium for new beer and wine licenses and defined undue concentration for existing licenses. Council requested that staff respond to a number of questions regarding this issue. Following are the Council's questions which were raised at the meeting: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) Prior to enactment of the new legislation, what was the approval process? Under the new legislation, what is the new authority of the City to regulate the licensing of beer and wine? How does the City make the finding of "public convenience or necessity?" Does the legislation apply to the transfer of a license? How do the moratorium and undue concentration issues relate to each other? How do the regulations affect the concurrent sale of beer and wine with gasoline? Does the new legislation require cities to perform background checks? Do cities have the authority to revoke "badly licensed facilities?" Existina Process The City's existing process is to simply determine what the existing zoning requires for individual uses. As an example, Ordinance 95-02 requires a Conditional Use Permit for uses such as bars and nightclubs, teen clubs, and billlard halls. Should a use such as this come into the City, a Conditional Use Permit would be required. If the use proposed is under 10,000 square feet, the application would be heard at a Planning Director's Hearing. If the use proposed exceeds 10,000 square feet, the application would be heard by the Planning Commission. The Council would only hear a Conditional Use Permit application on appeal. R:~STAFI~,FI'~EERW]NE.CC 8111/95 vgw 1 New Authority to Reoulate the Licensing of Beer and Wine Under the new legislation, the City must first determine if the license applied for is a new license or a transfer license. If the license is new, it falls under the moratorium provisions of the legislation which are in effect until January 1, 1996. New licenses must be denied by the Council prior to January 1, 1996. After January 1, 1996, the City may make a finding of "public convenience or necessity" and approve a new license in spite of the moratorium. If the license is a transfer, it falls under the undue concentration issue. In this situation, the City Council must also make a finding of "public convenience or necessity." Findina of "Public Convenience or Necessity' Public convenience or necessity is not defined in either the Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) Act provisions of the Business and Professions Code or in the Department of ABC"s. implementing regulations. Further, there is little case law interpreting the provisions relating to public convenience or necessity. It is clear from existing case law that public convenience or necessity is something other than the number and location of beer and wine sales. Public convenience or necessity may be found in a number of factors such as: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) The character of the premises; The aesthetics and ambiance of the business; The attractiveness of the business; The manner in which the business is to be conducted (i.e. type of games, food, or other service provided); The types of guests who are likely patrons; The predicted mode of operation; The ability of the business to serve a nitch in the population not filled by other licensees in the same area; or Convenience of purchasing alcoholic beverages in conjunction with specialty food sales or services. Leqislation as it relates to New Licenses and Transferred Licenses Reference information contained under Section titled "New Authorityto Regulate the Licensing of Beer and Wine." Moratorium and Undue Concentration Relationship The moratorium and undue concentration provisions are designed to interact with each other. For off-sale beer and wine, new licenses fall under the moratorium. Transferred licenses need to be reviewed under the undue concentration factors. On-sale licenses also need to be reviewed under the undue concentration factors. Should the Council or their delegated authority choose to approve the application, findings of public convenience or necessity must be made. The concurrent sale of gasoline with beer and wine, if a new license, falls under the moratorium provisions discussed above. The concurrent sale of gasoline with beer and wine, where the license is a transfer, falls under the undue concentration provision of the legislation. R:%b'TAFFRPT~EER~.CC 8111195 v~w 2 Background Checks%Revocation of Existing Permits The new legislation only applies to the initial establishment of a use selling beer and wine and not to the ongoing operational aspects. Reviewing background of an individual selling alcohol remains the responsibility of the ABC. The City can deal with the revocation of existing licenses through existing City Ordinances such as public nuisance or the Penal Code. Aoolication Streamlining It is the desire of the Planning Department to process applications in a timely manner. If it is the Council's desire to hear all applications proposing to sell beer and wine, this will add significant time and additional costs to applications. As an example, a gas station proposing the concurrent sale of beer and wine currently is heard by the Planning Commission. Should the Council wish to be the approval authority in this instance, an additional 30-60 days could be added to the approval process. In addition, the applicant might need to provide more property owner labels for an additional public notice. The City is making every effort to streamline the development review process. The added time needed for Council approval on all applications for beer and wine could impact this process. FISCAL IMPACT None Attachments: Letter to Planning Commission dated May 16, 1995 - Page 4 Letter to City Council dated August 11,1995 - Page 5 R:\STAFFRPT~EERWINE.CC 8/16/95 vgw 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 LETTER TO PLANNING COMMISSION R:\STAR~,PT~BEt~,TE.CC 8/16195 vF 4 LOS K, qGELES OFFICE e11W~'TmXTHSTREET LOS/kNOB.El. C/d. IFOIMiA 10017 1213) 236-0e00 LAW OFFICES WILLIAM$ &: k~sORF.~ST, N 3200 PARK ~ S lr. H DRIVE ~14) ~669 7101 NORTH FRESNO STREET IUITE401 (~011M1-Ol13 VENTURA COUNTY' OFFICE 2310 PONDEROSA DRIV~ C/14NItLLO, C/JJ~ 13010 (8061 187-3468 TEI I::CO PER: (71,1.t ~ Bf,.JRKL WIt. LIAM8. 801~NS841 & GAAA LIGHTON PLAZA 7300 CCXLEGE BOULEVARD SUITE2'20 OVEFILANO PARK. KANSAS 18210 ill3) 3394200 May 16, 1995 Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and Members of the Planning Commission City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Re: Approaches and Potential Findings for Processing Applications Which Include Alcoholic Beverage Control Licenses Dear Chairman Ford and Members of the Commission: In recent months, the Planning Commission has been faced with several applications in which the sale or service of alcoholic beverages has been a concern of the public and/or the Planning Commission. I have provided you with legal advice which indicates caution in denying alcohol uses based on the alcohol issue because of the extensive preemption of the regulation of alcohol sales and services by the State of California. However, this letter will provide some insights to you and City staff on areas the City can address when an alcohol use is proposed. The following are some suggestions from recent statutory changes and case law regarding findings which may support City decisions on applications which also involve Alcoholic Beverage Control ("ABC") licenses. BACKGROUND: The California State Constitution, Article 20, Section 22, preempts local regulation of alcoholic beverages. That Section provides in relevant part: "The State of California . . . shall have the exclusive right and power to license and regulate the manufacture, sale, purchase, possession and transportation of alcoholic beverages within the State .... ~,:2444.6 Honorable'Steve Ford, Chairman, and Members of the Planning Commission City of Temecula May 16, 1995 Page 2 The Legislature may authorize, subject to reasonable restrictions, the sale in retail. stores of alcoholic beverages contained in the original packages, where such alcoholic beverages are not to be consumed on the premises where Sold; and may provide for the issuance of all types of licenses necessary to carry on the activities referred to in the first paragraph of this section, including, but not limited to, licenses necessary for the manufacture,' production, processing, importation, exportation, transportation, wholesaling, distribution, and sale of any and all kinds of alcoholic beverages .... " (Cal. Const. Art, XX, S'22 (emphasis added).) While the State has preempted the field in terms of regulating alcohol sales, the City is able to ban such sales in zones where it is inappropriate to have'alcohol sales. Business and Professions Code Section 237901 provides that: "No retail license shall be issued for any premises which are located in any territory where the exercise of the rights and privileges conferred by the license is contrary to a valid zoning ordinance of any county or city. Premises which had been used in the exercise of those rights and privileges at a time prior to the effective date of the zoning ordinance may continue operation under the following conditions: (a) The premises retain the same type of retail liquor license within a license classification. ~ (b) The licensed premises are operated continuously without substantial change in 1All subsequent references to the Business andProfessions Code shall be referred to as "B&P Code Section .... " ]RANG~:2444.6 Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and Members of the Planning Commission City of Temecula May 16, 1995 Page 3 mode or character of operation.'" Finally, B&P Code Section 23791 states that: 'Nothing in this division interferes with the powers of cities conferred upon them by Sections 65850 to 65861, inclusive~ of the Government Code." As a result of B&P Code Sections 23790 and 23791, the City is entirely able to deny ABC license requests, for example, in a residential zone. In reviewing applications, please be aware of the special requirements imposed by B&P Code Section 23790.5 relating to the combined sale of alcohol and gasoline. These requirements are set forth later in this letter. POTENTIAL APPROACHES: B&P Code Section 23958 was amended in September 1994 to. reauire the denial of a license application on grounds that the "issuance of that license would tend to create a law enforcement problem, or if issuance would result in or add to an undue concentration of licenses, except as provided in Section 23958.4.2'' The requirement that the applicant fail to show that ':2444.6 2B&P Code Section 23958.4, subdivision (b), allows the Department to issue a license, notwithstanding the prohibition in Section 23958, to the following: "(1) With respect to a nonretail license, a retail on- sale bona fide eating place license, a retail license issued for a hotel, motel, or other lodging establishment, a retail license issued in conjunction with a beer manufacturer's license, or a winegrower,s license, if the applicant shows that public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance. (2) With respect to any other license, if the local governing body of the area in which the applicant Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and Members of the Planning Commission City of Temecula May 16, 1995 Page 4 public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance was deleted from Section 23958. The Legislature has also changed the definition of "undue concentration." Newly-enacted B&P Code Section 23958.4 states: "(a) For purposes of Section 23958, 'undue concentration' means the applicant premises for an original or premises-to-premises transfer of any retail license are located in an area where any of the following conditions exist: (1) The applicant premises are located in a crime reporting district that has a 20 percent greater number of reported crimes, . .: than the average number of reported crimes as determined from all crime reporting districts within the jurisdiction of the local law enforcement agency. (3) As to off-sale retail license applications, the ratio of off-sale retail licenses to population in the census tract or census division in which the applicant premises are located exceeds the ratio of off-sale retail licenses to population in the county in which the applicant premises are located.,,3 premises are located determines that public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance." (Emphasis added.) ~3ntilthis amendment, "undue concentration" was defined bythe California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control ("Department") in its regulations. Those regulations required that both the number of reported crimes be 20 percent higher and the ratio of OILi~,IG~2444.6 ~ Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and Members of the Planning Commission City of Temecula May 16, 1995 Page 5 In line with its expansion of the undue concentration concept, the Legislature has added Section 23817.5 to the B&P Code which further limits alcohol sales in ereas of over- concentration. That Section now reads as follows: "No application for an original retail off- sale beer and wine license may be made-nor any original retail off-sale beer and wine license issued until January 1, 1998, for any premises where any of the following conditions exist at the time this section takes effect: (a) The applicant premises are located in an incorporated city where the number of retail off-sale beer and wine licenses issued exceeds one license for each 2,500, or fraction thereof, inhabitants of the incorporated city. (b) The applicant premises are located in a county where the number of retail off-sale beer and wine licenses issued exceeds one license for each 2,500, or fraction thereof, inhabitants of the county. (c) The applicant premises are located in a city and county where the total number of retail off-sale beer and wine licenses and off-sale general licenses issued exceeds one license for each 1,250, or fraction thereof, inhabitants of the city and county." (B&P Code S 23817.5.) In summary, there are five different "undue concentration" tests which the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal can off-sale retail licenses to population be higher before a finding of "undue concentration" could be established. (4 CCRS 61.3(a).) 2444 Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and Members of the Planning Commission City of Temecula May 16, 1995 Page 6 use to deny an application4: (1) the "20.percent greater number of reported crimes"' test; (2) the erario of off-sale retail licenses to population" test; ~ (3) the "one license for each 2,500 inhabitants of a city" test; (4) the "one .license for each 2,500 inhabitants of the county" test; and (5) the "one license for each 1,250 inhabitants of the city and county" test. B&P Code Section 23958 also permits the denial of a license if the issuance of the license would tend to create a law enforcement problem. Such ground for denial is "quite separate and distinct from that relating to 'undue concentration of licenses.' [Citation.] That is to say, if a showing were made that the individual licensee would create a law enforcement problem, the plenitude or paucity of neighboring licenses would be irrelevant." (Department of Alcoholic Bev. Control v. Alcoholic Bev. etc. Appeals Bd. (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 814, 820, 184 Cal. Rptr. 367.) Recent rioting by college students in the area of the proposed applicant premises supported the Department's denial of a license based on the finding that the issuance of the license would aggravate police problems due to the relationship between crime and intoxication. (Kirby v. Alcoholic Bey. etc. ADDealS Bd. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 433.) Interesting comments were provided by an appellate court when it noted that: ~he draft of the new Development Code requires that any alcohol use also requires a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP"). As such the reference to "application" here is to a CUP application witha denial based upon the inability to qualifyunder statute or regulation for an ABC license. ORANGE:2444.6 Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and Members of the Planning Commission City of Temecula May 16, 1995 Page 7 w[W]hen in addition [to a concentration of licenses in a given area] it is established that the area in question is one wherein there is an unusually high n~m~er of crimes, and that the affected law enforcement agencies object on this ground, it is not necessary in every instance to introduce specific evidence reestablishingthe very fact that presumably led to the adoption of [CCR] Section 61.3s in the first instance,' i.e., that there is a symbiotic relationship between crime and the increased consumption of alcohol in a given locale that results from an excessive number of competing sources of distribution." (Department of Alcoholic Bev. Control, 133 Cal.App.3d at 820, Emphasis in Original.) The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control also provides another option when memorializing reasons for rejection of an application. This option is proximity to residences. CCR Section 61.4 provides that: "No original issuance of a retail license or premises-to-premises transfer of a retail license shall be approved for premises at which either of the following conditions exist: (a) The premises are located within 100 feet of a residence. sCCR Section 61.3 is the regulation that defined undue concentration before the enactment of B&P Code Section 23958.4. While the definition has been changed to require a lesser showing to meet the test, the substance of the "20 percent higher number of reported crimes" requirement to which the court is referring has not been changed. ~2444.6 Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and Members of the Planning Commission City of Temecula May 16, 1995 Page S (b) The perking lot or perking area which is maintained for the benefit of patrons'of the premises, oroperated in conjunction with the premises is located within 100 feet of a residence. Where the perking lot is maintained for the benefit of patrons of multiple businesses in the- vicinity of the premises, the perking area- considered for'the purpose of this rule shall be determined by the area necessary to comply with the off-street parking requirements as mandated by the local ordinance .... " (4 CCR S 61.4.) A complete copy of Rule 61.4 is enclosed for your reference. B&P Code Section 23789 provides grounds upon which a denial of a license may be based when considered in light of the entire record. This Section -- which allows denial of a license when in close proximity to churches, hospitals, schools, and other non-profit youth facilities -- is best viewed in the context of a '*protection of the public welfare and morals" argument. In relevant part, this B&P Code Section provides: "(a) The department is specifically authorized to refuse the issuance, other than renewal or ownership transfer, of any retail license for premises located within the immediate vicinity of churches and hospitals. (b) The department is specifically authorized to refuse the issuance, other than renewal or ownership transfer, of any retail license for premises located within at least 600 feet of schools and public playgrounds or nonprofit youth facilities, including, but not limited to, facilities serving Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, or Campfire Girls . . . The denial of an off-sale license located in close proximity to a school was upheld in Donia v. Alcoholic Beveraae ADDealS )RANGE:2444.6 Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and Members of the Planning Commission City of Temecula May 16, 1995 Page 9 Board (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 588, 213 Cal.Rptr. 447. In Donia, the Court reviewed two cases previously decided to assist in determining when issuing a license would be contrary to the public welfare and morals. In that first case, Kirby v. Alcoholic Beverage ADDealS Board (1968) 261 Cal. App.2d 119, 67 Cal. Rptr. 628, the Donia Court noted as sufficiently based the decision that: ".. .[O]verruled the beerd's reversal of the department's denial of an off-sale license on the basis of the following factors: (1) the large enrollment of students at a nearby school; (2) the age of the students; (3) that the surrounding area was more residential than commercial; (4) the substantial number of students walking past the proposed premises; (5) the extended use of the school beyond normal school hours; (6) the closeness of the proposed premises to the school; (7) the students' ability to view the proposed premises readily from the school; (8) the ability to see inside the proposed premises readily from the outside; (9) the sale of items attractive to children near the entrance to the proposed premises; (10) the intent to have exterior advertising of alcoholic beverages; (11) the number of students patronizing the proposed premises; and (12) the presence of takeout food S:2444.6 Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and Members of the Planning Commission City of Temecula May 16, 1995 Page 10 service close at hand.s (Donia, at 595, citing Kirby., at 127-129.) The Donna Court further noted that: "In both cases, there was a history of the littering of the school premises with alcoholic beverage containers; both campuses were closed, but that did not eliminate all problems of control; and there were numerous extant off-sale outlets relatively close to the school (here, 20 within a general one- half mile radius; in Kirby, 11 within a general one mile radius). In our view, these factors also favor denial of a license. Further, there is evidence here of specific alcohol-related problems on the school grounds other than extensive littering. Finally, there is considerable expert evidence of the recognized effects of off- sale outlets on public drinking, the associated police problems and the psychological effect of public drinking on children." (Donia, at 596.) In that second case, Reimel v. Alcoholic Beverage Appeals Board (1967) 250 Cal. App.2d 673, 58 Cal. Rptr. 788, the Donia Court noted that it had: "[A]lso overruled the board's reversal of a departmental denial, holding the following to be substantial evidence in support thereof: (1) (2) (3) the presence of takeout food on the premises; the presence of items very attractive to children; 20 child patrons per day; after-school recreation on the school grounds; 9RANG~'2~4.6 Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and Members of the Planning Commission City of Temecula May 16, 1995 Page 11 (5) approximately 200.airline feet distance from the proposed premises to the school; (6) students in grade K-6~ and (7) the residential character of the surrounding area.. ." (Donia, at p. 597.) Finally, the Court in Donia concluded that: "It appears the board [in reversing the department's denial of the license] gave undue weight to the fact none of the school children in the instant matter could pass as old enough to purchase liquor. This assumes the possible availability of liquor to children is the only evil attending the issuance of a license to an off-sale outlet. Reason does not dictate that result; as empirical evidence demonstrates, the legitimization of public drinking in childish eyes is itself an evil." (Id.) An approach taken by the City and County of Los Angeles to the "proliferation" issue is to diligently enforce the conditions assigned to a Conditional Use Permit. "The [C]ity and [C]ounty have determined that the liquor store environment, if left uncontrolled, produces: - littering - loitering, - drunken driving, - interference with children on.the way to school, - discouragement of legitimate businesses, - encouragement of vice, and - defacement of buildings. Thus, the [C]ity and [C]ounty, by ordinance now regulate liquor stores through monitoring such store's conformance to Conditional Use Permits rather than older methods of fixed or exclusionary zoning." (J. Longtin, Land Use S 3.35, p. 298 (1987).) ~2444.6 Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and Members of the Planning Commission City of Temecula May 16, 1995 Page 12 Used in combination with the other findings referenced above and when appropriate to the circumstances and facts before you, an off-sale license could be denied for a store in a center which also has a take-out food restaurant. (See Donna, 167 Cal.App.3d at 596; Reimel v. Alcoholic Bev. etc. Appeal Bd. (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 673, 677-678.) The "finding" in this instance would be that the combination of take-out foedandthe off-site sale ~f alcoholic beverages would encourage and promote the public consumption of alcohol, the consumption of alcohol in motor vehicles, and the proliferation of open-container violations -- all violations of the law and against the "public welfare and morals." Evidence of instances of such violations would greatly aid in supporting this finding. The use of CUP's to regulate off-site alcohol sales, including applying the CUP requirement to existing businesses if the business was destroyed and there was a substantial amount of time before the business reopened, was recently upheld as valid in Korean American Legal Advocacy Foundation v. City of Los AnGeles (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 376. A CUP ordinance for off-site alcohol sales was also upheld in Boccato v. City of Hermosa Beach (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1797, except in its application to existing businesses. As a result of the above, I believe the requirements in the City's draft Development Code which require a CUP for off- site alcohol sales is a valid regulation. The ABC Board staff stated that many cities routinely file objections to licenses in their cities. This method would provide an avenue for achieving the objective of reducing liquor stores in certain locations, without the legal exposure of having the City deny a permit. In fact, the Legislature has revised the application procedure to make it more amenable to protests filed by local agencies. Assembly Bill No. 2742 (Ch. 629 Stats. of 1993) amends various B&P Code Sections, including the following: (1) Section 23987, which: (a) requires the Department to notify the city planning director, in addition to the usual local agencies, upon receipt of an original application for any ORANGE:2444.6 Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and M-mhers of the Planning Commission City of Temecula May 16, 1995 Page 13 license; and (b) allows the Department to extend the 30-day waiting period for an additional 20 days upon the written request of any local law enforcement agency. (2) section 24013, which requires the Department to notify the protesting public agency or official of its determination to recommend the issuance of a license and the reasons therefor, and to provide a notice of hearing to the protestant. Such favorable changes to the protest procedure may appeal to the Planning Commission as an alternative to flat-out denials. Finally, another tact to take is to find neutral or non- alcohol-related reasons to deny an application. Such reasons could include health or safety issues, traffic flow or congestion, parking, etc. As noted on page 6, one option is to greatly increase off-street parking requirements. The Combined Sale of Alcohol and Gasoline: Finally, the special requirements of Section 23790.5 of the B&P Code relating to the combined sale of alcohol and gasoline should be noted. Essentially, this Section prohibits local government from placing an all-out ban on the combined sale of gasoline and alcohol. For purposes of B&P Code Section 23790.5, "alcohol" is defined as the sale of beer and wine for off- premises consumption. This B&P Code Section prohibits local governments from banning combined sales on or after January 1, 1988. For those jurisdictions which adopted before August 1, 1985 prohibitions on the sale of gasoline and other broad categories of items, which might include alcohol, the Section allows for a continuation of ~:2444.6 Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and Members of the Planning Commission City of Temecula May 16, 1995 Page 14 this ban6. Finally, the B&P Code Section sets forth a mechanism by which locaI governments can regulate these sales -- by using the Conditional Use Permit process and makinglcertain findings. The City to regulate such sales through the Conditional Use Permit process must-enact or have an Ordinance that contains th~ following elements: (1) A requirement for written findings. (2)' A provision for an administrative appeal if the governing body has delegated its power to issue or deny a conditional use permit. (3) Procedures for notice of a hearing, conduct of a hearing, and an opportunity for all parties to present testimony. (4) A requirement that the findings be based on substantial evidence in view of the whole record to justify the ultimate decision. As noted above, the City may not merely ban the combined sale of alcohol and gasoline. ~qiththe consideration of the new Development Code, a separate analysis on the impact of the Code's adoption on the authority to recodify Riverside County's efforts in this respect will need tobe made. ORANGE:2444.6 · Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and Members of the Planning Commission City of Temecula May 16, 1995 Page 15 I hope'this information is useful to you. Please feel free to contact me should you have any further questions in this regard. Sincerely, IAZ ty Attorney City of Temecula GGD/apk Enclosures cc: Gary Thornhill, Planning Director Peter M. Thorson, Esq., City Attorney c :2444.6 ' ' ~e 4 Department of Alcoholic Beverage Comrol § 6 L4 3. P, qealer dsubsection (5) filed 5-7-74; designated effective 6-10-74 (!~- let 74, No. i 9). § rl, Ucense Umitntions. C_,~-__ Referm~ Sectiota 23815, 23818 md 2395~, Businto mi Professiota C_,~-_,_ 1. Amendment d subsection (a) filed 12-6-68; d~ effective 1--8-69 2. Repealer dsulsection (b) filed 2..-&.-72; d=ignau~d effective 3-10=72 (Regis- ~er72, No. 7). 3-RepetlerofNOTEandnewNOTEfiled6--l-T7;effectivelhixli~hdaylhet~af- 4. Am,"nd,,~.~t f, Jed;; 78; effective thirtieth day Iheatl~z (Registff 78, No. 14). § O] ,1. Priority Drawlntis. No~ Authority cited: Sectinto 23820 and25'/50, Business and Pmeessions C_,y~__ and Section 22 o~Azxide XX, Califm~ia~l~fetence:Section23815, l. New secti0n fded2-4-69uan,~,.xapo.~effectiveuponfding(R~69, ister 69, No. 16). 3. ~men,4n,,~t fLIed; ~ 78; effective d~rti~th day ~ (!~ 78, No. 14). § 6].2. Restrictions on Government-Owned Premises. NoT~ Authority cited: ~_~-,_',om 23824 and 25750, B-,i,,,,~ md Professions l-New sectjon t'ded4-=lS--62;designau;deffective3-21-62(Regiver62, No. 8). For history of formet Section 61.2, see Register 61, No. 20. 2- Repealer~led6-4-84;effectivethixxiethday~z(i~.-gisterg4, No. 23). § 6].3. Undue Concentration. (a) For the pun-pose of section 23958 of the Alcoholic Beventge Con- trol Act, undue concentration includes, but is not llmltt. d to, c.o~tions set forth below: The applicant premises for an original or premisr~horemises trans- fer of any retail license are located in a crime reporting district which has a 20~ greater number of r~ported crin~s, as defined below, than the aver- age number of reported crimes as determined from all crime reporting cListricts within the jurisdiction of the local law enforeen~nt agency if the following conditions exist: ( 1 ) As to on-sale retail license applications. the ratio of on-sale reJ4til licenses to pop~!~tion in the census tract or census division in which the applicant Froraises are located exceeds the ratio of on-sale x~zni] licenses to population in the county in which the applicant Froraises are locatr. d. (2) As to off-sale r~tail licenz applications, the ratio doff-ale retail licenses to population in the census tract or census division in which the applicant premises are loca~d exc_-eds the ratio of off-sale reoti] licenses to popttlation in the county in which the applicant Fr~mises ar~ located. Notwithstanding the above, the department may issue a license if the applicant shows that public convenience or necessity would be served by such issuance. (b) Definition of Terms and Data SOurces. The following definitions and dam sources shall govern the con.qruction and application of this rule: ( 1 ) 'Reporting Dis~cts" mean geographical areas within the bound- aries of a single governmental entity (city or the unincorporated area of a county), which reporting districts are identified by the local law forcement agency in the compilation and maintenance of statistical infor- marion on reported crimes and arrests. (2) "Reported Crimes" are the most recent yearly compilation by the locaJ law enforcement agency of reported offenses of criminal homicide. forcible rape. robbery., aggravated assault, burglary, larceny theft, motor vehicle thdt, andsuch offense~sla!l be combined with allarmsts foroth- er ~ feloni~ and mi,~-,w-,,,on, except traffic citations. (3) ~ Within the Census Tr~X or Cmsus Division" means tiz population u dee~mi~.d by tlz most mznt Unitr, d St-t~ cl~_-',,~ni, orspecidcensna. Such population dotorminationshatl notopentte top ventanaFpllcantf?ome~tabllahingthatanincm4seofmsidentpopulation (4)'Pop,~,"ionintheCounty"shallbedetn,,,i-,xlbythaannualpopu_ lation _~_i,~w,_ for California counties published by the Population Re- seaxch Unit, State Depmment of Finance. (5) 'Retail Licenses" shah include the following: (A) Off-sale Retail Ijcensev. Types 20 (off-sale beer and wine) and 21 (off-sale general). (B) On-sa~R~tailLicenset Allretail on-sai¢licens~sexceptTypes 43(on-s~h~randwindortrain),44(on-salebe~randwineforfishin~ party boat), 45 (on-sale beer and wine for boat), 46 (on-sale bcer and wine forairplane),53 (on-sak getsral fortrainandsleepingcar),54(on- sabgenenlforboot),55(on-salegenenlforairplane),56(on-alegen- eralforvesselofmorethanl,000tonsburdd:n),and62(on-salegeneal bona fide public ~ating plaz intermittrot dockside license for vessels of mog than 15,000 tons displacement). (6) The ntmxber ofretail llcenses in th¢ county shall be detn-mined by ltgtnostrecenty~arlyretaillicensecoontpublish¢clbythedetmtment This role does not apply where the !n~mises have be~n licensed and tion 22 of Article XX, California C,-,-~n-itm Rdetence: Sec6ea 23958, Busi- 1. New __-e~__'~n filed g-1-77; effective thirtieth day Iheru/t~r (Registat 77, No. 32)-Fxthistoryofform~section, se~Register61, No. 20. 4. Amendment t 6--29-79;, effective thiztieth day thereafuz (Regis~r 79, No. 26). 5. C~ange without mgulatoty effect amending section punuant to section 100, t/de l, California Code of !~ filed 2-28-91 (Register 91, No. 13}. § 61.4. Proximity to Residences, Nooriginalissuanceofaretaillicenseor~misestnns_ for of a retail license shah be approved for l-zmises at which ei thor of the following conditions exist (a) The Froraises a~ located within 100 feet of a residence. (b) T!g parking lot or parking area which is maintained for the benefit of patrons of the l~:mises, or opented in conjunction with the p~tn~es, is locat~ within 100 feet of a residence. Whe~ the parking lot is main- rained for the benefit of patrons of multiple businesses in the vicinity of the Fremises, the parking area conside~cl for the purpose of this rule shall be determined by ~e area necessary to ontnply with the off-street parking requirements as mandated by the local ordinance, or if thv~ ar~ no local requi~ments for off-street parkinE, ~ the area which would r~ason- ably be necessary to nccommodat~ the anticipated paztcing needs of the l~remises, taking into considenttion the type business and operation con- ternplated. Distances provided for in this rule shah be measured by airline from the closest edge of any residential ~ to the clogst edge of ~ premises or the closrd edge of the parking lot orpm'icing area, as defined heroin above, whicbevor distance is shorter. This ntle does not apply where the Froraises have ~ licensed and operated with the same type license within 90 days of ~¢ application. Notwithstanding the provisions of this rule, the department may issue where the applicant establishes that the operation of the business woul~ not interfere with the quiet enjoyment of the property by residents. NoT~ Authority cited: Section 25750, Business and Professions Cod~ Section 23.. Article XX, California Constitution. Reference: Section Z3958, Business and Professions Code. Page ATTACHMENT NO. 2 LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL P,:\STAFFR.FI~9E. ERWINE.CC 8/16/95 vgw 5 LOS MIGE~.E~ OFFICE 811 WEST IIXTH WT'REET SUITE2600 LOS ANGB.E:S. CALIFORNIA 90017 (2131 23e4)4100 LAW OFFICES BURKE, W~AM~ & ~OP~NS~n~ 3200 PARK CENTER DRIVE COSTA MESA, CALFORNIA ~2626 (714) 646-666~ FRESNO OFRCE 7108 NORTH FRESNO STREET SUITE 401 ~O, CAUr-ORNIA 13120-2138 (209) 261.~183 VENTLIRA COUNTY' OFRCE 2310 PONDI~.OSA DRIVE NTE 1 WARILLO, C/~JFORNIA 13010 1106) fi7-3488 TELECOPER: 1714) 766-5648 BURKE, WIL.UAM$, SORENSEN & I U{)HTOR PLAZA 7300 COLLEGE BOULEVARD SUITE 220 OVEN.AND PARK, KANSAS 86210 (913) 336-6200 August 11, 1995 Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Re: Additional Information Regarding Local Regulation of Alcohol Beverage Licensing and Establishments Selling or Serving Alcoholic Beverages Dear Mayor Stone and Members of the City Council: When the City Council considered whether or not to delegate the authority for making the "public convenience or necessity" determination for alcohol licensing under Business and Professions Code Section 23958.4~, the City Council requested additional information regarding the licensing process and the new legislation in order to adequately make the delegation determination. This letter is designed to provide that information to you. ISSUES In making a request for additional information, the City Council asked the following guestions: Prior to the enactment of the new legislation on alcoholic beverage licensing, what was the approval process? xUnless otherwise noted, all further "Section" references will be to the California Business and Professions Code. ORANGE:4525.2 Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Temecula August 11, 1995 Page 2 Under the new legislation, what is the new authority of City to regulate the licensing of establishments selling or serving alcoholic beverages? ae Since some of the new authority granted to cities is based upon the finding of "public convenience or necessity," how does the City make that finding or determination? Does the new authority apply to transfer of a license as opposed to the establishment or the.issuance of a new license? How does the new legislation, one which imposes a moratorium and the other which makes an overconcentration determination, interact with each other and with other laws such as the concurrent sale of gasoline with beer and wine? Does this new authority for the cities mean that the cities now have the responsibility for background checks of license applicants or the authority to revoke or punish "bad licensed facilities" such as a poorly run bar? SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS Prior to the new legislation, the City's role in alcoholic beverage licensing was limited to determining zoning compliance and filing protests to the issuance of specific licenses. Under the moratorium provisions, the City's role is to determine if it applies. If so, the City could use the moratorium as the basis to deny a Conditional Use Permit. After January 1, 1996, the City Council could override the moratorium by making a finding of "public convenience or necessity" being served by the license. Under the "undue concentration" provisions, the City's role is to determine if it applies and if so to determine if despite such "undue concentration," the NOF~4525.2 Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Temecula August 11, 1995 Page 3 "public convenience or necessity" would be served by the issuance of the license. The phrase "public convenience or necessity" is not defined by statute, regulation, or court decisions. Only a few factors set forth in this letter have been analyzed by the courts to provide some insight and guidance in this respect. The moratorium provisions only apply to "original" or new licenses. The undue concentration provisions apply to both new or "original" licenses and to premises to premises transfers. The City should review applications to determine first if the moratorium applies to it and then if it does not to see if the undue concentration provisions apply to it. If either the moratorium or the undue concentration provisions apply, the City could deny an application for the concurrent sale of gasoline with beer and wine. The new legislation analyzed herein does not allow the City to look at the applicant's background or fitness to belicensed. These issues are within the purview of the ABC. The City retains its existing authority to prosecute problem alcoholic beverage outlets and their owners or patrons. ANALYSIS OF, ISSUES Issue No. 12 Prior to the new legislation being adopted, the City's authority to regulate the issuance of licenses to operate establishments which sell or serve alcoholic beverages was extremely limited. This is reflected first in the zoning compliance stage and secondly in the protest stage. Under the old law, which still applies in many instances, the Department of ORANGE:4525.2 Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Temecula August 11, 1995 Page 4 Alcoholic Beverage Control or "ABC" requires as part of the license issuance or transfer, a form2 to be executed by the City for each license indicating compliance with local zoning. Section 23790 prohibits the ABC from issuing a retail license for the sale or service of alcoholic beverages: ". . . for any premises which are located in any territory where the exercise of their rights and privileges conferred by the license is contrary to the valid zoning ordinance of any county or city .... " Section 23791 also indicates that the authority of the State to license alcoholic beverage sales and service outlets does not interfere with the power of cities to plan and zone under the appropriate provisions of the Government Code. Consequently, the City would retain full power to prohibit the sale or service of alcoholic beverages in, for example, a residential zone. The "zoning affidavit" completed by the City for each applicant for any ABC license would indicate if the sale or service of alcoholic beverages was permitted at the particular site in which it was proposed to operate, or in the instance where it may be conditionally permitted if a Conditional Use Permit is obtained. The only other area previously where cities.were involved in the licensing or regulation of outlets selling or serving alcoholic beverages was during the "protest" stage. In this instance, if the City, City Council, Police Chief, or other departments determine that the site was a potential problem relative to the service of alcoholic beverages, the City could protest the issuance of the license, state the grounds for the protest, provide supporting evidence to that effect, and a hearing would be held by the ABC to determine if, despite these protests, the "public convenience or necessity" would be served by the issuance of the license. Once a protest determination is made, if it was favorable to the applicant, the City's only remaining remedy at that point was to institute litigation. ~his form is called a "Zoning Affidavit." 'GE:4,52~ .2 Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Temecula August 11, 1995 Page 5 Under both the older statutes and the new ones, the City retains the authority to regulate the land use or problematic.' issues pertaining to establishments selling or serving alcoholic beverages. By this, I mean specifically that if the operation of the enterprise was such that it constituted a disturbance to the neighbors or public nuisance, the City is able to use its public- nuisance ordinance or to criminally cite violators for such things as service to minors, public drinking, noise disturbances, or other violations of the State Penal Code or the City's Municipal Code. This has not been changed in any way by the new legislation. Issue No. 2z In 1994, the State Legislature enacted two different bills which granted cities in certain circumstances additional authority relative to outlets selling or serving alcoholic beverages. These two bills enacted Section 23817.5, the "moratorium" provision and Section 23985.4, the "undue concentration" provision. Each provision will be discussed separately below. In addition, this year, the State Legislature enacted Section 23817.7 to allow additional flexibility to the moratorium provision. However, this provision was not enacted as an urgency measure, so it will not become effective until January. 1, 1996. The Moratorium Provision Section 23817.5 imposes a moratorium on the issuance of original3 retail off-sale beer and wine licenses until January 1, 1998 if any of the following circumstances apply: "(a) The applicant premises are located in an incorporated city where the number of retail off-sale beer and wine licenses issued exceeds one 3The term "original" license means a new license and excludes a premises to premises transfer of a license. Consequently, the moratorium does not apply to license transfers. ORANG~4]25.2 ' Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Temecula August 11, 1995 Page 6 license for each 2,500, or fraction thereof, inhabitants of the incorporated City. The applicant premises are located in a county where the number of retail off-sale beer and wine licenses issued exceeds one license for each 2,500, or fraction thereof, inhabitants of the county. (c) · The applicant premises are located in a city and county where the total number of retail off-sale beer and wine licenses and off-sale general licenses issued exceeds one license for each 1,250 or fraction thereof, inhabitants of the city and county." Under Section 23871.5, the moratorium prohibits ABC from accepting or issuing a new or original license for off-sale beer and wine if the moratorium's thresholds are met. There is limited City involvement in the moratorium process other than to determine if the moratorium applies when acting on the land use application for a project. For example, a project proposing to sell beer and wine in conjunction with motor vehicle fuel would require a Conditional Use Permit. If the applicant will need a new ABC license and the moratorium applies, the moratorium could be the basis for denying the CUP. However, if the applicant has an ABC license transferred, the moratorium would not apply and the City would act on the CUP application as it would any other CUP application. After January 1, 1996, the provisions of Section 23817.7 become effective and allow the City Council to make a determination of "public convenience or necessity" which when IGE:4525.2 Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Temecula August 11, 1995 Page 7 combined with several other factor~ would a11owABC to issue a license despite the moratorium imposed by Section 23871.5. The basis of the "public convenience or necessity" findingis discussed in Analysis 2a below. Until January 1, 1996, the City Council cannot override the moratorium provisions. The Undue Concentration Provision The "undue concentration" provision is found in Section 23958.4. If undue concentration of establishments selling or serving alcoholic beverages is found, Section 23958 requires the ABC to deny a license. Undue concentration applies to all types of alcohol licenses, i.e., both on-site and off-site and includes all alcoholic beverages and not just beer and wine. Undue concentration occurs under Section 23958.4, when: "(1) The applicant premises are located in a crime reporting district that has a 20 percent greater number of reported crimess . . . than the ~hese other factors include: The applicant premises are located in an area that falls below the concentration level provided in Section 23958.4(a)(1); and, (2) The applicant premises are located in an area that falls below the concentration level provided in Section 23958.4(a)(3). Both factors (1) and (2) must occur as well as the City's finding public convenience or necessity in order for the moratorium not to apply to a particular license application. s"Reported Crimes" include: Criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny theft and motor vehicle theft combined with all arrests for other crimes (felony and misdemeanor), except traffic citations. "Reporting Districts" is locally defined as that used for keeping ORANGe:4525.2 Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Temecula August 11, 1995 Page 8 average number of reported crimes as determined from all crime reporting districts within the jurisdiction of the local law enforcement agency. (2) As to on-sale retail license applications, the ratio of on-sale retail licenses to population in the census tract or census division in which the applicant premises are located exceeds the ratio of on- sale retail licenses to population in the county in which the applicant premises are located. (3) As to off-sale retail license applications, the ratio of off-sale retail licenses to population in the census tract or census division in which the applicant premises are located exceeds the ratio of off- sale retail licenses to population in the county in which the applicant premises are located. !1 In determining the ratio of licenses to population, Section 23958.4 uses the most recent decennial census or special census to obtain the "census tract" population and the annual State Department of Finance estimate to obtain the County population. In using the decennial census, Section 23958.4 does allow an applicant to establish" . . . than an increase of resident population has occurred within the census tract or census division . . ." to rebut an "undue concentration" determination. statistical records. ~GE:4525.2 Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Temecula August 11, 1995 Page 9 Section 23958.4(b)(2) allows the ABC to issue a license despite the "undue concentration" determination when the City~ Council, or the body to whom the City Council delegates that decision, finds that the "public convenience or necessity" would be served by issuance of a license. How the finding of "public convenience or necessity" is made is addressed in the next Section. Issue 2 {a) ,* While Section 23958.4 generally allows the City Council to override the presumption of undue concentration created by the application of the various formulas, i.e. population to alcohol licenses or crimes per license in specific areas, this .. determination is based on a finding of "public convenience or necessity" being served by the issuance of a license. However, the phrase "public convenience or necessity" is not defined in either the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act provisions of the Business and Professions Code or in the ABC's implementing Regulations. There is scant case law interpreting the provisions pertaining to "public convenience or necessity" to provide real guidance in this respect. Contact with the ABC has further indicated that they have few, if any, guidelines themselves which they utilize in making determinations of public convenience or necessity at the State level. In this respect, guidance can be found only from the limited case law available. One point that is instructive from the two cases discussing public convenience or necessity in an alcoholic beverage licensing context is that the State Legislature's use of this phrase, separate and apart from the criteria applicable to the determination of undue concentration allows an assumption that the Legislature intended ". . . to invoke criteria different [in finding public convenience or necessity] from those utilized in determining 'undue concentration.'6" Therefore, "public convenience or necessity" means something other than the number and location of the licensed alcohol premises which is already ~epatis v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board, (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 93 at 101. ORANGE:4525.2 Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Temecula August 11, 1995 Page 10 covered by the factors used to determine undue concentration. Public convenience or necessity therefore may be found in a number of factors, although the list is not all inclusive based on the failure by the Legislature, the ABC, or the courts to delineate these factors more clearly. Such factors may include: 1. The character of the particular premises. 2. The aesthetics and ambiance of the proposed business. 3. The attractiveness of the proposed business. The manner in which the business is to be conducted, i.e., special or unique features, such as the type of~ games, food, or other service provided. 5. The type of guests who are likely to be patrons. 6. The predicted mode of operation. The ability of the proposed business to serve a niche in the population not filled by other licensees in the same area, such as, catering to a particular clientele, economic or social grouping, or similar category under- served or under-represented in the vicinity's existing licensees and their patrons. Convenience of purchasing alcoholic beverages in conjunction with specialty food sales, or services.7 7Although this may not always be successful as the court noted in the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board, (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 814 at 819 that: "Jailthough applicant-premises sell a unique variety and assortment of Cuban grocery items, it was not established that public convenience and necessity require the issuance of a license to the applicant- I~3E:4525.2 Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Temecula Auglast 11, 1995 Page 11 Because the State legislation and the implementing regulations provide virtually no guidance upon which the City is to base its determination of public convenience or necessity, I believe that a reviewing court would likely hold the City to the same type of standard to which the court holds the State ABC in making this same public convenience or necessity determination. In this respect, the legal standard of re~iew that a court would apply this decision is likely to be "abuse of discretion." The standard looks to determine if there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings and conclusions of the hearing body.. It does not review the evidence or the facts to determine if the "right" conclusion was reached, but looks to see if there was sufficient evidence upon which the findings made by the hearing body could be made. If, and only if, the decision is not supported by evidence in the record, will the decision likely be overturned. It does not matter that there is conflicting evidence in the record or that a reasonable person could reach the opposite conclusion of the hearing officer so long as there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the decision reached by the hearing officer. Issue No. 3= The moratorium found in Section 23817.5 applies only to "original" or new licenses and only to "off-sale beer and wine licenses." Section 23817.5 provides in relevant part that: "No application for an original retail off- sale beer and wine license may be made.nor premises, in that customers at the applicant- premises may easily avail themselves of alcoholic beverages from licensees in close proximity to the applicant-premises." The court in this case based their determination on the fact that there were eight licensed premises within a 1,000 feet of the applicant-premises including as close as within 300 feet where there were two other small grocery establishments. ORANGF;45?5.2 Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Temecula August 11, 1995 Page 12 any original retail off-sale beer and wine license issued . . ." As such, the moratorium only applies to "original" or new licenses. The "undue concentration" provision found.in Section 23958.4 applies to both "original" or new licenses and'to "premises-to- premises transfer" of licenses. Section 23958.4 applies to both instances by defining "undue concentration" as including both situations. Issue No. 4= The moratorium and undue concentration provisions are designed to interact with each other. In reviewing an application, if it involves off-sale of beer and wine, then it should be determined if the application is for a new license or a transfer. If it is a new license, the moratorium applies. If it is for a transfer, the moratorium does not apply and the factors defining "undue concentration" of licenses should be reviewed. If the license application is for something other than off- sale beer and wine or if the applicant has a transferred license, then the undue concentration factors need to be reviewed. If undue concentration is not found, the application is processed by the City as it would be without an alcohol issue. If undue concentration is found, then the City Council or the body to whom the City Council delegates the authority needs to make a determination on "public convenience or necessity" as outlined in Section 2a. of this letter. One area likely to arise is how the moratorium or the undue concentration provisions relate to the provisions of State law authorizing the concurrent sale of gasoline with beer and wine. Section 23790.5 regulates the concurrent sale of gasoline with beer and wine and contains no specific exemption-or exception from the moratorium provisions found in Section 23817.5. As a result, it is my conclusion that the moratorium provisions operate to preclude the issuance of an original retail off-sale beer and wine license when the moratorium applies until January NGE:4525.2 Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Temecula August 11, 1995 Page 13 1, 1998.s Further support for this conclusion is found in the language of the concurrent sale of gasoline with beer and wine provisions in Section 23790.5 itself..In particular, subsection (a) provides in relevant part that: ".. . It is the intent of the Legislature to prevent the legislative prohibition of the concurrent retailing of beer and wine for off-premises consumption and motor vehicle fuel where the retailing of each is otherwise allowable . . ." [Emphasis added.] When the moratorium applies under Section 23817.5, the retailing of beer and wine is not "otherwise allowable" until January 1, 1998. Therefore, if the retailing of beer and wine for off- premises consumption is not otherwise allowable, then Section 23790.5 would not operate to defeat the moratorium. Even if the moratorium under Section 23817.5 does not apply, an application could be from an area having an undue concentration of liquor establishments under Section 23958.4. If this is the case, the same conclusion reached above will also generally apply. The only caveat here is that the City Council could find the "public convenience or necessity" would be served by the issuance of the license. Therefore, if the City Council does not find "public convenience or necessity," then retailing of beer and wine for off-premises consumption is not "otherwise authorized." Issue No. 52 The new legislation outlined in this analysis only applies to the initial set-up of an establishment selling or serving alcoholic beverages, and not to the ongoing operational aspects. In addition, reviewing the background and ability of individual license applicants is a responsibility of the ABC. sSubject to the potential to override the moratorium after January 1, 1996 provided by SB403. ORANGE:4525.2 Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Temecula August 11, 1995 Page 14 As noted earlier, the City can deal with problem license- holders or their patrons through existing City ordinances such as public nuisance or through the Penal Code. Additional background information on the City's authority relative to establishments selling or serving alcohol is contained in my May 16, 1995 letter to the Planning Commission which is attached for.your reference. I hope the foregoing information is helpful to you. Should you have any guestions regarding this matter or wish to discuss it further, please feel free to contact City Attorney Peter Thorson or myself. Sincerely, CITY OF TEMECULA Enclosure cc: Ronald Bradley, City Manager June Greek, City Clerk Gary Thornhill, Director of Community Development Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager Peter M. Thorson, Esq., City Attorney NGE:4525.2 DEPARTMENTA'L 'REPORTS APPROVAL: CITY A'i'FORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council/City Manager Anthony Elmo, Chief Building Official/~ August 22, 1995 Building and Safety July, 1995, Activity Report RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. DISCUSSION: The following is a summary of activity for July, 1995. Building Permits Issued ..................................... 194 Building Valuation ................................... $17,303,575 Revenue Collected .................................... ~ 106,329 Housing Starts ............................................. 79 New Commercial Starts ......................... 3 = 641,927 Sq. Ft. Commercial Additions/Alterations .................. 14 = 22, 128 Sq. Ft. Building Inspections ...................................... 1,787 Valuation FY Year-to-Date .............................. 17,303,575 V:\V%/P~%July'96,FIpt Agenda Repo~ August 22, 1995 Page 2 Code Enforcement Actions ................................... 389 Active Cases Pending ......................... ' .............. 62 Closed Cases ............................................ - 17 Weed Abatement Followups .................................. 167 V:\VVT~A41enda%July°gK.P, pt APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director August 22, 1995 Monthly Report RECOMMENDATION: Discussion: Caseload Activity: Receive and File The following is a summary of the Planning Department's caseload and project activity for the month of July 1995: The Department received 13 applications for administrative cases and 4 applications for public hearing cases for the month of July: Minor Conditional Use PM Plot Plan with CEQA Revised Permit with hearing Variance with concur permit 4 R:\MONYHLY.RFr\1995~JULY 8/15/95 vgw 1 Ongoing Projects: · Old Town StreetscaPe Improvement Project: Staff is re-writing the scope of work to reduce the program to design only. Desion Guidelines: Consultant teams were interviewed on August 3rd. Staff is finalizing the work program with the number one firm. City Council consideration of a contract is scheduled for September 12, 1995. Development Code: The Planning Commission is 90% complete with the public hearing process. Murdv Ranch Specific Plan and Environmental Imoact Reoort: The 'applicant has requested additional time in order to make minor changes to the Specific Plan and file for a Development Agreement application. After the new information update, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is submitted and reviewed by staff. This item will be scheduled for Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Johnson Ranch SPecific Plan: The Planning Commission denied this project because of the excessive number of units and density. It will be scheduled for City Council in the next few months. RoriDaugh Ranch SpeCific Plan: The Planning Commission held a public workshop on May 1, 1995 and directed the applicant to reduce the density and the total number of units as well as to be more sensitive to the surrounding land use by increasing the buffer area and provide a transition of lot sizes. A second Planning Commission workshop is scheduled for September 11, 1995. Attachment: 1. Revenue and Status Report- Page 3 R:\IvlOF4'THLY.RPT~I995~.IULY 8/15/95 v~w 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 REVENUE STATUS REPORT R:~IONTI-ILY.RPT~1995~/ULY 8/15/95 vp,, 3 REVPRIN2 08/07/95 001 161 ACCOUNT # 4101 4102 4103 4104 4105 4106 4107 4108 4109 4110 4111 4112 4113 4114 4115 4116 4117 4118 4119 4120 4121 4122 4123 4124 4125 4126 4127 4128 4129 4130 4131 4132 4133 4134 4135 4136 4137 4138 4139 4140 4141 4142 4143 4144 4145 4146 16:27:31 GENERAL FUND PLANNING DESCRIPTION AMENDED FINAL NAP APPEALS CERT. OF LAND DIV. COMPLIANCE EXTENSION OF TIME SINGLE FAMILY TRACTS MULTI-FAMILY TRACTS PARCEL NAPS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT MINOR CHANGE PARCEL MERGER (2-4 LOTS) RECORDABLE SUBDIVISION NAPS REVERSION TO ACREAGE (5+LOTS) SPECIAL SERVICE LETTER SECOND UNIT PERMITS CHANGE OF ZONE COND]TIONAL USE PERMIT CONSISTENCY CHECKS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PLOT PLAN PUBLIC USE PERMIT REVISED PERMIT SETBACK ADJUSTMENT SPECIFIC PLAN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE TEMORARY OUTDOOR EVENT TEMPORARY USE PERMIT VARIANCE ZONING INFORMATION LETTER CEQA CINITIAL STUDIES) CEQA ENVIROMENT IMPACT REPORT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT GEOLOGY CEQA GEOLOGY ORD. 547 APZ LAFCO PARCEL MAP/WAIVER MERGER AMENDED FINAL TRACT/PAR. MAP CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION CONDO TRACT MAP REVERSION TO ACREAGE LOT REVISION AFTER CHECK LOT LINE ADJUST. PLAN CHECK CERT. OF CORRECT. PLAN CHECK CERT. OF COMPLIANCE PLAN CHECK COND. CERT. OF COMPL. PLN. CK. CERT. OF PAR. MERGER PLAN CK CITY OF TEMECULA REVENUE STATUS REPORT JULY 1995 ADJUSTED ESTIMATE .00 325.00 800.00 6,000.00 6,850.00 5,332.00 8,996.00 1,380.00 940.00 1,000.00 .00 392.00 .00 520.00 13,256.00 29,248.00 4,440.00 4,827.00 57,190.00 10,765.00 6,446.00 1,250.00 9,254.00 1,715.00 2,548.00 .00 1,142.00 .00 .00 6,202.00 4,000.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 784.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 JULY REVENUE .00 .00 200.00 704.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 -.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 590.00 .00 .00 4,167.00 .00 590.00 .00 .00 1,584.00 113.00 .00 571.00 .00 1,205.85 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .O0 .00 .00 .00 1995-96 REVENUE .00 .00 200.00 704.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 590.00 .00 .00 4,167.00 .00 590.00 .00 .00 1,584.00 113.00 .00 571.00 .00 1,205.85 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 PAGE BALANCE .00 325.00 600,00 5,296.00 6,850.00 5,332.00 8,996.00 1,380.00 940.00 1,000.00 ,00 392.00 .00 520.00 13,256.00 28,658.00 4,440.00 4,827.00 53,023.00 10,765.00 5,856.00 1,250.00 9,254.00 131.00 2,435.00 .00 571.00 .00 1,205.85- 6,202.00 4,000.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 784.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 COL 0.0 25.0 11.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 9.2 50.0 *** 0.0 0.0 0.0 REVPRIN2 08/07/95 .ol ACCOUNT # 4147 4148 4149 4150 4151 4152 4153 4154 4155 4156 4157 4169 4170 4175 4180 4200 4206 4226 4260 4261 4262 4Zu~g 16:27:31 GENERAL FUND PLANNING DESCRIPTION VACATIONS PLAN CK DOCUMENT PROCESSING CONDEMNATION PLAN CHECK REVERSION TO ACRE. PLAN CHECK PARCEL MAP PLAN CHECK TRACT NAP PLAN CHECK AMENDED MAP PLAN CHECK 4TH & SUBS. SUBMITTALS FEMA STUDY REVIEW LONA REVIEW DRAINAGE STUDY REVIEW IMPROVE INSPECTION ON-SITE K-RAT STUDY FEES FAST TRACK PLANNING FORMA FAST TRACK iN HOUSE PLAN CHECKS ANNEXATION FEES TEMPORARY USE PERMIT ACCESSORY WIND ENERGY LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY LAND DIV UNIT MAP LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK CITY OF TEMECULA REVENUE STATUS REPORT JULY 19~5 ADJUSTED ESTIMATE .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1,480.00 .00 .00 10,045,00 710,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 748.00 .00 JULY REVENUE ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ~00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 790,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 187,00 1,550.00 1995-96 REVENUE ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 790.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 187.00 1,550.00 BALANCE .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1,480,00 ,00 ,00 9,255.00 710,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 .00 561,00 1,550.00- PAGE 2 COL 0.0 7.9 0.0 25,0 .*** PLANNING 198,585.00 12,251.85 12,251.85 186,333.15 6.2 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 22, 1995 Public Works Monthly Activity Report RECOMMENDATION: Attached for City Council's review and filing is the Department of Public Works' Monthly Activity Reports for July, 1995. r:~agdrptNmo~ctrpt/a.~p MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent August 2, 1995 Monthly Activity Report - July 1995 The following activities were performed by Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division in-house personnel for the month of July 1995: I. SIGNS II. III. IV. VI. A. Total signs replaced B. Total signs installed C. Total signs repaired TREES A. Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns POTHOLES A. Total square feet of potholes repaired CATCH BASINS A. Total catch basins cleaned RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT A. Total square footage for right-of-way abatement GRAFFITI REMOVAL A. Total locations B. Total S.F. STENCILING A. 569 new and repainted legends B. 565 L.F. of red curb new and repainted C. 295 S.F. of sandblasting/grinding VII. 17 .17 3 25 96 4 76,635 10 3,706 r:\roeds~actrpt\95%07 skg MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT- July 1995 Page No. 2 Also, City Maintenance staff responded to 7 service order requests ranging from weed abatement, tree trimming, sign repair, A.C. failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings. This is compared to 21 service order requests for the month of June, 1995. The Maintenance Crew has also put in 17 hours of overtime which includes standby' time, P.M. surveillance (weekends only), and response to street emergencies. I.P.S. STRIPING AND STENCILING COMPANY has comoleted the followinQ: · 0 L.F. of new and repainted striping · 0 L.F. of sand blasting The total cost for I.P.S. striping services was $0.00 compared to ~0.00 for June, 1995. PESTMASTER SERVICES has comoleted the following: · 0 S.F. of right-of-way weed control, total cost $0.00 compared to $0.00 for June, 1995. The total cost for Street Maintenance performed by Contractors for the month of July, 1995 was $0.00 compared to $28,882.00 for the month of June, 1995. Account No. 5402 Account No. 5401 $0.00 $0.00 CC: Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects Martin C. Lauber, Traffic Engineer r:~roads~e~trpt\95~07 ekg _1 m =) Q. 0 Z U.I C) o .r uj I- I- z ~ 0 0 .; 0 0 0 ., O n ee ee ~ a ~ a~ ~ W w~w u ~ ~ u 0 mO w Z 0 ~WZ~ E oE = w ~ a ~ ~ z ; ; a _w¢~ CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION 07-03-95 07-03-95 07-05-95 07-13-95 07-27-95 07-27-95 07-27-95 WORK COMPLETED - JULY, 1995 SERVICE ORDER REQUEST LOG Astroid ~ Cosmic Sixth Street Southern Cross and Mira Loma Drive 41065 Avenida Verde 30511 Spica Court 28991 & 28999 Front Rio Nido Way Pothole Sweeper concern Catch Basin clogged A.C. Repairs Street Sinking Sidewalk cracking A.C. Repairs 07-05-95 07-05-95 07-05-95 07-13-95 07-28-95 07-28-95 07-28-95 TOTAL S.O.R.'S 7 pwO3Xroads~,wbmpltd\95\O7.svsrq 080795 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION GRAFFITI REMOVAL - JULY, 1995 07-03-95 Via Campanario W/O Via Rami Removed 07-03-95 Margarita S/O Rancho Vista Removed 07-05-95 N. Gen. Kearney ~ Nicholas Removed 07-05-95 Rancho California Road between Removed Humber and Moraga Road 07-05-95 Mercedes @ Fifth Street Removed 07-06-95 Pechanga @ Channel Removed 07-12-95 Pujol @ 6th Street Removed 07-17-95 Via Rojas @ Corte Almeria Removed 07-27-95 28860 Front Street Removed 07-28-95 Via Lobo Channel Removed WORK COMPLETED 20 S.F. of Graffiti 20 S.F. of Graffiti 14 S.Fo of Graffiti 3,000 S.F. of Graffiti 2 S.F. of Graffiti 534 S.F. of Graffiti 2 S.F. of Graffiti 60 S.F. of Graffiti 18 S.F. of Graffiti 36 S.F. of Graffiti Total Location Total S.F. 10 3,706 -1- pw03~'oads\wkcmplld\95\05.GrafSti 060195 DATE 07-03-95 07-03-95 07-06-95 07-11-95 07-11-95 07-14-95 07-14-95 07-14-95 07-17-95 07-17-95 07-18-95 07-18-95 07-19-95 07-20-95 07-20-95 07-20-95 07-25-95 07-25-95 07-25-95 07-26-95 07-27-95 07-27°95 07-28-95 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS LOCATION Front Street @ Texaco Ynez Road N/O Santiago Santa Cecilia E/O Carino Place Via Lobo @ Nicholas Nicholas W/O Via Lobo Ashmill @ Enfield La Serena Way E/O Calle Pina Colada Front Street @ Moreno Corte Alamar Front Street N/O First Street Front Street @ Moreno Road Del Rey Road W/O Ave. del Reposo Camino Verde @ Via Puerta La Serena @ Meadows Parkway Mira Loma Drive S/O Rancho Vista Road Southern Cross @ Spica Front Street S/O Rancho California Road Rancho Vista @ Meadows Parkway Pauba E/O Corte Villosa Southern Cross @ Rancho Vista Road Wolf Valley @ Pala Road Mira Loma Drive ~ Rancho Vista Road 28999 Front Street ROADS DIVISION JULY, 1995 SIGNS I Replaced Repaired · Installed Replaced Replaced Repaired Replaced , WORK COMPLETED "' ':-,~. "' R-26 'Knock down' R-26 W-63 and W-65 R-1 & Type "N" "Graffiti" Carsonite S.N.S. "Overlays" Carsonite "Missing" Replaced R-18 "T.C." Installed 11 R-34A Installed W:54A Installed W-54A Replaced W-9 "T.C." Replaced R-1 "Faded" Installed 2 "12 Month School" Replaced W-41 "Faded" Replaced Replaced W-53 "Faded" NeighborrhWatch Sign Replaced R-1 "Graffiti" Replaced Carsosnite "Missing" Repaired R-1 Replaced R-1 "Graffiti" - Replaced R-1 "Graffiti" ~ Replaced R-28 "T.C. PW03'~ROADS/W~CId~LTD\95\07.SIGN',tNSTAL.L.~IAINT 080795 SIGNS JULY, 1995 ~_07-31-95 Astroid e Rancho California Road Replaced R-1 "Faded" TOTAL SIGNS 17 REPLACED TOTAL SIGNS INSTALLED 17 TOTAL SIGNS REPAIRED PW03~ROADS/WKCMPLTD~95\07.SIGN~NSTALL~MA1NT 080795 DATE 07-06-95 07-06-95 07-07-95 07-07-95 07-10-95 07-11-95 07-12-95 07-12-95 07-13-95 07-18-95 07-19-95 LOCATION Santa Cecilia @ Carino Place Area #2 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION JULY, 1995 STENCILING I WORK COMPLETED Calle Rio Vista Area #2 Area #2 Area Area #3 Area #3 Area #3 Area #2 School Zones Painted 1 Legend "School" Repainted 8 Legends/ Grind 60 S.F. Repainted 220 L.F. "Red Curb" Repainted 2 Legends Repainted 60 Legends Repainted 80 Legends Repainted 16 Legends Repainted 105 Legends of Bull Noses Repainted 26 Legends Repainted 62 Legends/ Grind 235 S.F. Repainted 23 Legends/ 240 L.F. Yellow curb 07-20-95 07-21-95 07-24-95 07-25-95 07-26-95 07-31-95 Area #4 Area #3 Area #2 Area # 1 Area #1 Area #1 Repainted 26 Legends Repainted 38 Legends Repainted 38 Legends Repainted 48 Legends Repainted 83 Legends Repainted 58 Legends STENCILING- JULY, 1995 TOTAL NEW AND REPAINTED LEGENDS TOTAL L.F. OF RED CURB NEW AND REPAINTED TOTAL S.F. OF SANDBLASTING/ GRINDING 569 565 295 DATE 07-06-95 07-06-95 07-06-95 07-06-95 07-07-95 07-11-95 07-25-95 07-25-95 07-27-95 07-31-95 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS LOCATION Santa Cecilia @ Agena Glen Eagle Court Paseo Goleta @ Corte Sonora Ave. de la Reina @ Rancho Vista Solana Way W/O Skywood Nicolas W/O Via Lobo Front Street S/O Rancho California Road Area #2 Mira Loma Drive @ Rancho Vista Calle Medusa @ Riverton ROADS DIVISION TREE TRIMMING JULY, 1995 I Trimmed Trimmed Trimmed Trimmed Trimmed Trimmed Trimmed Trimmed Trimmed Trimmed WORK COMPLETED I Tree 4 Trees 3 Trees I Tree 4 Trees 2 Trees 2 · Trees 5 Trees 2 Trees 2 Trees TOTAL TREES TRIMMED 25 -].- pw03~oads\wbmpltd\95\07.Treos 080395 I ~.~, 07-03-95 07-03-95 07-03-95 07-03-95 07-06-95 07-06-95 07-10-95 07-11-95 .~7-11-95 07-12-95 07-12-95 07-14-95 07-14-95 07-18-95 07-19-95 07-24-95 07-24-95 LOCATION Sixth Street @ Front Street CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION JULY, 1995 R.O.W. WEED ABATEMENT I WORK COMPLETED Abated 600 Abated 4,000 Abated 400 Abated 10 Abated 1,500 Abated 500 Abated 4,750 Abated 6,500 Abated 3,900 Abated 2,500 Abated 15,000 Abated 1,000 Abated 15,000 Abated 5,000 Abated 1,000 Abated 5,400 Abated 175 Sport's Park Margarita S/O Pauba Rancho Vista W/O Ynez Road Margarita S/O Winchester La Serena W/O Calle Medusa Via Lobo Channel Via Lobo Channel Nicholas W/O Via Lobo Nicholas N/O Roripaugh Rancho California Road W/O Business Park Drive La Serena Way E/O Calle Pina Colada Rancho California E/O City Limit Rancho California E/O City Lilmit Margarita N/O Rancho California Road "C" Street @ Santiago Nicholas Road W/O Joseph Road S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds SoF. of' R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of RoO.W. Weeds S.F. of R.OoW. Weeds " S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.Fo of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds -].- pwO3~roads\wkcmpltd\95~O7.Wecds 080795 WEED ABATEM*ENT- JULY, 1995 07-26-95 07-27-95 07-27-95 07-27-95 07-31-95 Agena W/O Southern Cross Wolf Valley @ Pala Road Loma Portola ~ Camino del Sol Mira Loma Drive @ Rancho Vista Road Butterfield Stage @ Rancho California Abated Abated Abated Abated Abated 3,600 S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds 3,000 S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds 1,500 S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds 800 S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds 500 S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds; TOTAL S.F. OF R.O.W. WEED ABATEMENT 76.635 -2- pwO3~x~ads\wkcmpltd\95\07.Wccds 080795 NOTE: TRAFFIC DIVISION Monthly Activity Report For July, 1995 Submitted by: Joseph Kica~~'L- Prepared by: Marty Lauber ,e/~ Date: August 10, 1995 TRAFFIC REQUESTS end PLAN CHECKS TRAFFIC REQUESTS: May June Received 13 12 Completed 5 6 Active 15 25 Scheduled for Traffic Commission 4 2 WORK 'ORDERS ISSUED:'.:!':'::.:.:.:.:· ':' ~.:":'::::'.'i~".'6 7 STmPING PLAN 'RsviswsD: '= ..........i i....=.I1 :.::..:r=::... ::.:..:.'. TRAFFIC CONTROL:PLAN REVIEWED": :::. 4 5 · :'::.'E'14'...:.. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES REVIEWED I I 4 Have reviewed traffic signal modification plans for Rancho California Road at Town Center related to the adjacent church Improvements. II. DIVISION PROJECTS: Traffic signal plans have been submitted to Caltrans for the Intersections of State Route 79(S) with Pala Road, La Paz Road, and Margarita Road. Once comments are received, all consultants will complete plans and finalize the design portion for the projects. We have received seven technical Inventory. We will be evaluating recommendation to City Council. proposals for our Citywide Traffic Device and ranking all firms in preparation for We received and supplied comments for the Draft NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN for the Western Riverside County Region. This completed Phase 1, needs assessment, with a proposed subregional transportation network, policies, programs, funding guidelines and implementation measure to the included in Phase 2. LAND DEVELOPMENT Monthly Activity Report Special Projects July, 1995 Submitted by: Joseph Kicak ~ Date: August 11, 1995 FEMA/OES REIMBURSEMENT: Staff is continuing to coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the State Office of Emergency Services (OES) representatives in seeking reimbursement for costs incurred by the City due to the January 1993 floods and ensuing disaster declaration. OES has reimbursed the City a total of $952,832 to date. The total cumulative reimbursable amount is $1,080,996. Staff has also been coordinating with FEMA and OES in seeking reimbursement for costs incurred by the City due to the recent floods of January - March 1995. The total reimbursable amount being supported by the FEMA/OES field team is $175,863.59 for the Phase I disaster. Staff has also applied for over $122,275 in funding associated with the Phase II disaster. PARKVIEW SITE (PROJECT NO. PW93-09): The project went out to bid and Staff received nineteen (19) bids. Upon review of the submitted bids, Staff will recommend City Council approval for award of construction contract at the Augu-~* 8th City Council meeting. Rough grading construction is anticipated to begin in August 1995 a be completed in mid-October. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 159 (AD 159): The AD 159 improvements, as listed, are at the following stages of construction: Temecula Creek is complete. Approval of Highway 79 South plans from Caltrans is expected in mid-June. Phase I construction (from Butterfield Stage Road to Avenida de Missions) is scheduled to begin on December 1995. The selection process for Pala Road's Request For Proposal for environmental consulting is complete. Butterfield Stage Road/Nighthawk Pass is nearly complete. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1 61 (AD 1 61 ): Winchester Road (Area II) - estimated completion date is January 1996 Murrieta Hot Springs Road (West) - estimated completion date is mid-August 1995. r:lmoacupt/dev1951July OLD TOWN ENTERTAINMENT PROJECT: The following engineering design/study projects associated with the Old Town Redevelopment Project are currently underway. RFP#27 - Phase I Western Bypass Corridor. The final design of Phase I of the Western Bypass Corridor is underway. This section is from the intersection of Interstate 15/Front Street/Western Bypass Corridor to the intersection of Western Bypass Corridor/Vincent Moraga Drive and the extension of Vincent Moraga Drive from its existing terminus to the intersection of Western Bypass CorridorNincent Moraga Drive. The alternatives for the extension of Western Bypass Corridor from the intersection of Western Bypass Corridor/Vincent Moraga Drive to Rancho California Road are currently being analyzed. RFP#28 - First Street Extension. Staff is in the process of complying with the comments received from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District upon their review of our submittal. RFP#32 - Western Bypass Corridor Assessment District. The scope of the assessment district is defined and a consultant is selected upon City Council's approval. r:lmoaclrps/d~v/95/July ~ 0 , Z .-, w Z 0 Z n (J ¢,) ,J ~ I,U n- _1 -- w 0 ~- I-- =- w,', _1 LU 0 :c a 0 z 0 mj 0 E ~' LU e Z · Z F- (-) o ~: > Z w C) ~ m: :::) "' c. IAI ,( Q. ,,~ ;C ,,( CJ a UJ ' ~' ,,Z, Z ~ 0 w ~ oooo w ; ~ ~ uuuu CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Monthly Activity Report AUGUST, 1995 Submitted by: Joseph Kicak Prepared by: Don Spag~;if~ Date: August 11, I I. WORK UNDER CONSTRUCTION: 1. Pala Community Park: Construction has been completed and the maintenance period will be completed on August 24, 1995. Dedication ceremonies for opening the park to the Public are set for August 24, 1995. 2. Mora~Ja Road Street WidenincJ: The contractor is currently grading the downstream portion of the channel. Widening of the west side of Moraga Road will begin next week. The construction is expected to be completed by the end of September. 3. Sports Park ParkincJ and Skate Board Park: The Contractor has completed construction of the reinforcing cap over the MWD water line and has started the grading for the roller hockey rink, the skateboard park and the parking lots. The contractor will start underground utilities by the end of August and will start construction of the rest room buildings at the beginning of September. The project is expected to be completed by February, 1996. 4. Solana Way/I-15 Sewer (CFD88-12/EMWD): The sewer main has been installed. The contractor is back filling and is cleaning the construction areas. The project is expected to be completed in two weeks. 5. Temecula Middle School LicjhtincJ Project: The bids were opened on June 29, 1995 and the contract has been awarded to Building Energy Consultants. Construction is expected to start by August 14, 1995. Long lead items have been ordered and a pre-construction meeting has been held to coordinate school operations and utility installations. The contractor will start trenching and locating conduits on August 14. Construction is anticipated to be complete by September 15, 1995. 6. Rancho Vista Road and Mira Loma Drive Sidewalk Improvements: A pre-construction meeting is expected to be conducted once the contractor submits his bonds and insurance. The contract time for this project is 30 working days. pw04\moactrpt\cip~95\aug.mer 08/14~95 Monthly Activity Report August 11, 1995 Page 2 7. Access Ramps: A pre-construction meeting is expected to be conducted once the contractor submits his bonds and insurance. The contract time for this project is 25 working days. II. OUT TO BID 1. Sam Hicks Monument Park Improvement Project: Construction bids were opened on July 20, 1995. Staff will recommend the award of contract at the August 22, 1995 City Council meeting. The project is funded from Community Development Block Grant funds, Redevelopment Agency and Development Impact fees. 2. Walcott Corridor: The bid opening for this project will be on August 17, 1995. The project will provide for the realignment of an underground waterline and a paved road surface on Nicolas Road, Calle Giraslo, Calle Chapos, Walcott Lane and La Serena Way. This project should start by mid-September and be completed by June, 1996. 3. Solana Way Storm Drain Improvements: The bid opening for this project will be on August 17, 1995. This project will eliminate surface storm water by connecting the storm drain pipes on the south side of Solana Way from Acacia Park Resort Apartments to Ynez Road. The project should start by mid-September and be completed by the end of November. II1. WORK IN DESIGN 1. I-15/Winchester Road Interchange Modifications: The plans and specifications have been approved by Caltrans and the project is ready for construction bids as soon as the additional right-of-way has been acquired. Two (2) sections of property must be acquired for construction of the north bound exit ramp and loop on-ramp. The Resolution of Necessity authorizing the commencement of the eminent domain processes was approved at the June 27, 1995 City Council Meeting. Once the process is complete, authorization will be given by Caltrans to bid the project. pwO4\moactrpt~cip~95\aug.mar O8114/95 Monthly Activity Report August 11, 1995 Page 3 4. I-15/Rancho California Road Interchange Modifications: The Project Report as well as the plans and specification were submitted to Caltrans on June 16, 1995. Caltrans is in the process of reviewing these items and staff is expecting comments to be returned to the City by the end of August, 1995. This project provides for the widening of the Rancho California Road bridge over the I-15 freeway and construction of a north bound loop on-ramp. 5. I-15/Overland Drive Overcrossing Improvements: The plans and specifications were submitted to Caltrans for final review at the end of July 1995. Caltrans is requesting additional soils investigation for design of the piles supporting the bridge. The consultant is in the process of determining the extent of the additional work and the associated costs. Legal plats and descriptions will also need to be prepared for those properties that need to be acquired for construction of the project. 6. Emergency Generator: The project includes installing an emergency generator at the Community Recreation Center to provide power for emergency operations. The engineer has returned the plans and specifications to the City for second plan check. Staff is expecting to request authorization from the City Council to solicit public construction bids in September. 7. Fire Station #84: The final submittal for construction of the Fire Station is expected by the middle of August and will be reviewed by all departments. We are planning to bid the project by the end of August, 1995 with bids to be opened September 21, 1995. The project will include grading, sewer, road improvements in Pauba Road between the new church site and Margarita Road, construction of a new fire station and landscaping. Construction should start by the first part of November and be completed by the end of August. 8. Traffic Signal (~ Route 79S and Margarita/Redhawk The first plan check from Caltrans was returned on August 8, 1995. This project will be installing a complete 4-way traffic signal and removing the median island on the south leg of the intersection to provide for a dual north bound left turn pocket. Staff has submitted an agreement to the County of Riverside for the City to pay 75% and the County to pay 25% of the design and construction costs since the southeast corner of the intersection is in the County. Once the County executes their portion of the agreement, staff will bring to the City Council a recommendation for the approval of the agreement. The plan check is expected to be returned to Caltrans for their review within two weeks. pwO4%moactrpt\cip\95~aug.mar 08114/95 Monthly Activity Report August 11, 1995 Page 4 9. Interim Traffic Sic]nal (6) Route 79S and La Paza The first plan check has been submitted to Caltrans for there review. This project will be installing a 4-way interim traffic signal at the intersection of Route 79S and La Paz St. The ultimate improvements will be constructed when the highway is widened. 10. Interim Traffic Sic)nal (6) Route 79S .and Pala The first plan check has been submitted to Caltrans for there review. This project' will be installing a 3-way interim traffic signal at Route 79S and Pala Road. The ultimate improvements will be constructed when the Pala Road Bridge is redesigned and the highway is widened. pwO4%rnoactrpt\cip\95%aug.mar 08114/95 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ITEM 1 APPROV~T. CITY ATTORNEY TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT General Manager/Board of Directors Genie Roberts, Director of Finance August 22, 1995 Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1995 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995 PREPARED BY: Tim McDermott, Assistant Finance Director RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: Receive and file the Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1995 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995. Approve an appropriation of $11,237to Service Level A account #191-180-999-5319 "Street Lighting". Approve an appropriation of $35,471 to Service Level B account #192-180-999-5319 "Street Lighting". DISCUSSION: The attached financial statements reflect the unaudited activity of the Community Services District for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1995. These statements may not reflect all year end closing entries. Please see the attached financial statements for analytical review of financial activity. e An appropriation of $11,237 is needed in the Service Level A budget to cover street lighting costs for 1994-95 in excess of the budgeted amount. The increase is due to additional street lights added to the city-wide street lighting system. An appropriation of $35,471 is needed in the Service Level B budget to cover street lighting costs for 1994-95 in excess of the budgeted amount· The increase is due to additional street lights added to the residential street lighting system· FISCAL IMPACT: As is presented in the attached financial statements, the fund balances in Service Levels A and B are sufficient to cover the appropriation requests. ATTACHMENTS: Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1995 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995 t"' t-' u, ll-- ~ 0 t-- rr 0 t"- t- 0 o~ ITEM 2 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIREC~ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Community Services Board of Directors Ronald E. Bradley, General Manager August 22, 1995 Reject All Bids and Re-advertise for the Construction of Sam Hicks Monument, Project No. PW94-15CSD PREPARED BY: ~Shawn D. Nelson, Director of Community Services ~ Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects Edward Stone, Assistant Engineer - Capital Projects RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: 1. Reject all bids and authorize staff to re-advertise for construction of Sam Hicks Monument Park improvements and: 2. Authorize the City Clerk to return bid bonds to all bidders. BACKGROUND: On April 5, 1994, the Board of Directors approved the preparation of construction documents and release of a formal public bid for the project. The design of the project includes upgrading the tot lot to ADA standards, construction of a gazebo/bandstand facility, installation of a formal rose garden, courtyard, circulation paths, picnic facilities, improvements to the monument, a restroom/snackbar, security lighting., a parking lot, landscaping and irrigation. The estimated construction cost for this project was $445,000.00. BID RESULTS 1. BK Construction .................... $496,972.00 2. Marina Landscape ................... $531,000.00 3. Micon Engineering ................... $538,595.00 -1- r:%agdrpt~95\O~22~W94-15 .csd 4. Young Contractors ................... $553,000.00 5. Sean Malek Eng. & Const ............... $560,000.00 6. Inland Asphalt & Coating ............... $606,514.00 7. W.B. Construction .................... $610,000.00 8. Lasater Construction .................. $618,308.00 9. Wakeham-Baker ..................... $633,633.00 Staff reviewed the bid proposal from the lowest bidder and found that he had written in "no bid" on two of the four alternate bid items and had not enclosed the two addenda as required. After reviewing the bids, it has been recommended by the City Attorney that all bids be- rejected and that staff be authorized to re-advertise for bids for construction. A copy of the bid summary is available for review in the City Engineer's office. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact at this time. The Sam Hicks Monument Park Improvement Project is being funded through Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), the Redevelopment Agency, and Development Impact Fees. -2- r:.~agdtpt\95~Og22~x~4-15.csd ITEM 3 APPROVAL CITY ATTORN:.CREY~ FINANCE OFFIC CITY MANAGE TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Board of Directors Ronald E. Bradley, City Manager August 22, 1995 Amendments to TCSD Landscape Maintenance Contracts PREPARED BY: ~ Bruce A. Hartley, Maintenance Superintendent ~ RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: Approve contract amendment of $46,945with California Landscape, Inc. to provide landscape maintenance services for three (3) new park facilities. BACKGROUND: The Community Services Department will be adding three (3) new park facilities to the landscape maintenance contract with California Landscape, Inc. These include the Duck Pond, Pala Community Park, and Nicolas Road Park. The cost associated with each site is as follows: Duck Pond Pala Community Park Nicolas Road Park $14,450 (10 months at $1445 per month) $23,360 (10 months at $2336 per month) $9,135 (9 months at $1015 per month) These park sites have been inspected by the City's Maintenance Superintendent and have been approved for dedication. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost associated with the additions to the contract with California Landscape, Inc., is $46,945. These costs have already been included in the Community Services Department Budget for FY 1995-96. AMENDMENT TO AGI~F:EM~-NT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CALDDRNIA LANDSCAPE. INC. AUGUST 22. 1995 The Agreement dated May 11, 1993, between the City of Temecula, and California Landscape, Inc., (hcrcinaf~ referred to as *Agrecmcnt*) is hereby amended as follows: P~: Landscape Maintenance Services Section 1 Term of the Agreement is extended through lune 30, 1996. Section 2 The Scope of Work is hereby amended by adding the following: Landscape Maintenance services per City Specifications for the following sites: Duck Pond Pala Community Park Nicolas Road Park These sites shall be added to the existing Agreement beginning September 1, 1995. Section 3 Compensation for services shall be total compensation of all services described in the Amendment and shall be payable monthly as follows, not to exceed $46,945 annually: Duck Pond Pala Community Park Nicolas Road Park $14,450 (10 months at $1445 per month) $23,360 (10 months at $2336 per month) $ 9,135 (9 months at $1015 per month) Section 4 All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain the same. The parlies hereto have executed this Agreement on the dam and year above written. CONSULTANT CITY OF ~A By: California Landscape, Inc. By: Ronald Robens, President APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter Thorson, City Attorney ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk ITEM 4 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNER~ FINANCE OFFIC CITY MANAGE CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: Board of Directors FROM: Ronald E. Bradley, General Manager DATE: August 22, 1995 SUBJECT: Design Services Contract - Duck Pond Project PREPARED BY: (~r,~j, Phyllis L. Ruse, Development Services Administrator RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors award a design services contract of $23,150 to The Alhambra Group for the preparation of the schematic design drawings, construction documents, and project administration for the Duck Pond Project. BACKGROUND: On June 27, 1995,the Board of Directors approved an agreement with KRDC, Inc. for the acquisition of the Duck Pond property located at the intersection of Rancho California and Ynez Roads. Escrow closed on July 28, 1995, and the property is now owned by the City of Temecula. Staff has already begun some immediate rehabilitation work necessary to maintain the overall health of the site. Some of the renovations include tree trimming, irrigation repairs, and aeration retrofit. The rehabilitation cost estimate is approximately $50,000. It is also anticipated that improvements to the park site will include landscaping, fencing, picnicking facilities, and a parking lot to be located on the unimproved portion of the property. The. current construction budget for the Phase I improvements is $125,000. The City has also solicited a proposal from the Alhambra Group, a local landscape architectural firm, for the design and construction documents for capital improvements to the site. The Alhambra Group participated in an in-depth consultant qualification process for the City within the past twelve months and was ranked as the highest firm during that process. Furthermore, The Alhambra Group has successfully completed several similar projects for the City over the past three years. Therefore, staff is recommending that The Alhambra Group be awarded the design services contract for the Duck Pond Project. FISCAL IMPACT: Cost of this Design Services Contract is $23,150. This project is budgeted and approved in the City's Capital Improvement Program for FY 1995-96. AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 19 , between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City" and Alhambra Group Landscape Architecture, a Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant," The parties hereto mutually agree as follows: SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the best of his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein. PAYMENT. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, at the hourly rates set forth in Exhibit "B" attached her.to, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount will not exceed $23,150 (Twenty Three Thousand One Hundred Fifty Dollars and No Cents) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved by the City Council. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first 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. SUSPENSION, TERMINATION OR ABANDONMENT OF AGREEMENT. The City may, at any time, suspend, terminate or abandon 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. Within thirty-five (35) days after .' receiving an invoice from the Consultant, the City shall pay Consultant for work done through the date that work is to be ceased pursuant to this section. If the City suspends, terminates or abandons a portion of this Agreement such suspension, termination or abandonment shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. e BREACH OF CONTRACT. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Default shall include not performing the tasks described herein to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Manager of the City. Failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder, if such failure arises out of causes beyond his control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, shall not be considered a default. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant defaults in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have ten (10) r.*VumePti)ondllh-~g' 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. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on the first date stated above and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than December 31, 1996. Any disputes regarding performance, default or other matters in dispute between the City and the Consultant arising out of this Agreement or breech thereof, shall be resolved by arbitration. The arbitrator's decision shall be final. Consultant shall select an arbitrator from a list provided .by the City of three retired judges of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. The arbitration hearing shall be conducted according to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1280, etseo. City and Consultant shall share the cost of the arbitration equally. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. Upon satisfactory completion of, or in the event of termination, suspension or abandonment of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings and notes 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. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. Neither the City nor any of its officers, employees or agents shall have control over the conduct of the Consultant or any of the Consultant's officers, employees or agents, except as herein set forth. The 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. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except 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. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of State and Federal 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 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. 10. NOTICE. Whenever it shall be necessary for either party to serve notice on the other respecting this Agreement, such notice shall be served by certified mail, l114/Ii 11. 12. postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the City Manager of the City of Temecula, located at 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590, and the Consultant at 27412 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, California, 92590, unless and until different addresses may be furnished in writing by either party to the other. Notice shall be deemed to have been served seventy-two (72) hours after the same has been deposited in the United States Postal Services. This shall be valid and sufficient service of notice for all purposes. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without the prior written consent of the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be the value to the City of the services rendered. LIABILITY INSURANCE. The Consultant shall maintain insurance acceptable to the City in full force and effect throughout the term of this contract, 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, his agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Insurance is to be placed with insurer with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VII. The costs of such insurance shall be included in the Contractor's bid. The Consultant shall provide the following scope and limits of insurance: A. Minimum Scooe of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: Insurance Services Office Form No. GL-0002 (Ed. 1/73) covering Comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office Form No. GL-0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability; or Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage ("occurrence" Form No. CG-0001 ). Insurance Services Office Form No. CA-0001 (Ed. 1/78) covering Automobile Liability, Code I "any auto" and Endorsement CA-0025. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by Labor Code of the State of California and Employers' Liability insurance· 4. Errors and Omissions insurance. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits of insurance no less than: General Liability: $1,000,000combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3. Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability: Workers' r:%rueep~aonddh.e~. 8114/9S Compensation as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers' Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 4. Errors and Omissions Insurance: $500,000 per occurrence. Deductibles end Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductible in excess of $1,000 must be declared to and approved by the City. Other Insurance Provisions. Insurance policies required by this contract shall contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions: All Policies. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City via United States First- Class Mail. General Liability and Automobile Liability coveraaes. The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultam; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultam, or automobiles owned, lease, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. With regard to claims arising from the Consultant's performance of the work described in this contract, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-inSurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall apply in excess of, and not contribute with, the Consultant's insurance. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers officials, employees or volunteers. The Consultant'$ 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. Worker's Compensation and Employers' Liability Coveraae. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by the Consultant for the City. Verification of Coveraqe. Contractor shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance effecting coverage required by this clause. The certificates for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates are to be on forms provided by the City and are to be r:Vummp~mddh.~er received and approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 13. Consultam shall include all subconsultants as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials and employees; or' the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. LICENSES. The Consultant and subconsultant shall obtain all necessary licenses, including but not limited to City Business License. 14. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultam agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense cost, 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 performance under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City. 15. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement and any documents or instrument attached hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect to the subject matter hereof. In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of this Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall prevail. EFFECTIVE DATE AND EXECUTION: This Agreement shall be effective from and after the date it is signed by the representatives of the City. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. r:%tueep%pondelh.egr 8114/~6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CONSULTANT CITY OF TEMECULA By: Vince DiDonato President By Ron Roberrs, President APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter Thorsen, City Attorney ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk 8114/96 r:~,ulep~oondelh,ege 1.00 E X H I B I T "A" ALHAMBRA GROUP Lendm~epe Ar~hite=ture THE DUCK POND SITE SCOPE OF WORK AUGUST 9, 1995 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES The Alhambra Group (Landscape Architects) Ii~. #BOLT shall provide the following Landscape Architectural, Engineering, and associated research and analysis required for the development of the The Duck Pond site in Temecula, California described herein: 2.00 2.01 2.02 SCOPE OF WORK Development Plans for area shown on exhibit provided by the City of Temecula. Research & Measurement a. Engineering studies (Drainage & Grading) b. Site visits c. Utility studies d. Obtain all available documentation e. Preliminary soils report' Schematic Plans/Master plan a. Site schematic design concepts b. Prepare base sheets @ 1"=40'-0" scale. c. Grading concepts d. Prepare final schematic plan incorporating all studies. e. Prepare color Master plan rendering of schematic plan. f. Meetings with staff as required. g. Presentation to Community Services Commission. h. Presentation to City Council. the park design to the completion o j. Preliminary Budget Estimate 28441 Rancho California Road, Suite ~ Temecu~ CA 92590 (909) 676-0226 Fax (909) 694-1587 2.03 Construction Documents a. Prepare base sheets @ scale required b. Horizontal control plan with coordinates and dimensioned locations of parking area. c. Construction Details: Walkwa s, drinking fountain parking improvements, park sign, Kardscape surfaces & ~ences- d. Grading Plans (parking and surrounding area) 1. Prepare final earthwork calculations 2. Prepare final hydrology studies 3. Provide grading specifications & notes. 4. Provide cost estimate and quantity takeoffs 5 Pre are re ulato permit a plications & documents. (NpEES/SWP~P/BMP~ocuments ~ applicati n ) ' os e. Lighting & Electrical Plans (Partial Site) 1. Pre are plans & specifications for the parking areas & wal~ays with associated cost estimates. f. Irrigation Plans (parking & surrounding area) g. Planting Plans (parking & surrounding area) h. Planting & Irrigation Details i. Planting & Irrigation Specifications j. Budget estimates k. Revise city boilerplate bid specifications, 1. Bidding Assistance m. Coordination with City Staff as required. 2.04 Contract Administration a. Bid review b. Pre job meeting c. Submittal review & verification d. Site meetings/field observation e. Provide drawing clarifications f. Final field observation FEE COMPENSATION for THE DUCK POND SITE COMPENSATION FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL BE $23,150.00 (TWENTY THREE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FIFTY DOt~,ARS) AS DIVIDED BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING PHASES: Research, Analysis & Master Plan ........................ $ 4,520.00 Construction Plans & Specifications ................... $ 12,780.00 (Parking and surrounding area) Contract Administration ................................ $ 1,200.00 SUBTOTAL ...... $ 18,500.00 Reproduction & Reimbursibles (Bid sets by City) ......... Preliminary Soils Repor~ ............................... NPDES/SWPPP/BMP documents & applications ................ aTOTALNOT TO EXCEED. $ 550.00 $3,200.00 $ 900.00 ..... $ 23,150.00 E X H I B I T "B' ~Ra GROUP CURRENT BILLIN~ SCHEDXYLE January l, 1995 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Principal Project Manager protect Designer Sen~or Draftsperson Draftsperson $95 $50 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Administrative Assistant Word Processing Operator $45 $40 MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES AND EXPENSES Mileage Subsistence Outside Services Materials & Other Expenses 0.35/mile Cost Cost plus 10% Cost plus 20% CONSULTANTS FOR DUCK POND SITE RBF ENGINEERS (MR. MIKE TYLMAN) GRADING, HYDROLOGY AND KEGULATORY APPLICATIONS & DOCUMENTS URBAN LOGIC CONSULTANTS (MR. DEEPAK MOORJANI) PRELIMINARY SOILS REPORT DEPARTMENTAL 'REPORT APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO; Board of Directors FROM: Ronald E. Bradley, General Manager DATE: August 22, 1995 SUBJECT: Departmental Report PREPARED BY: ~ Shawn D. Nelson, Director of Community Services Final submittal of construction drawings for Phase I of Parkview Site Project are due August 24, 1995. 'Staff anticipates letting the bid for the project shortly thereafter. Anticipate construction to begin in October, 1995. Phase II of the Parkview Site Project provides for slope stabilization and re-vegetation improvements within the creek at the Rancho California Sports Park. The funding for this project includes $100,000 from State Grants and $200,000 from Development Impact Fees. An agenda item was approved by the Board on June 27, 1995 to modify the scope of work for this project. The consultants are currently preparing recommendations for channel rehabilitation and will begin the preparation of construction drawings. The Margarita Park Site Project Committee has approved the final design for the park. The Master Plan will be presented to the Community Services Commission at the October meeting, and to the City Council at their last meeting in October. Upon final approval by both, the consultant will begin the construction drawings. Temecula Middle School Lighting Project ground breaking was set for Monday, August 14, 1995. Anticipate fields will be ready for use by mid-October, 1995. Pala Community Park construction is completed and is currently in the final days of the ninety (90) day maintenance period. Staff is planning a park dedication ceremony on Thursday, August 24, 1995, at 9:00 A.M. The park improvements include a restroom/snack bar, parking, tennis courts, basketball courts, soccer field, landscaping, and irrigation. The Rancho California Sports Park Improvement Project is currently under construction and on schedule. Development of the 10 acre site will complete the improvements to the northeast corner of the park at Rancho Vista and Margarita Roads. The improvements will include parking, picnic facilities, a roller hockey rink, a skateboard facility, restroom/concession building, landscaping and irrigation system. Sam Hicks Monument Park Project bid opening was held on Thursday, July 20, 1995. Staff reviewed the bid proposal from the lowest bidder and found that he had written in "no bid" on two of the four alternate bid items, and had not enclosed the two addenda as required. After reviewing the bids, it has been recommended by the City Attorney that all bids be rejected and that staff be authorized to re-advertise a bid for construction. Escrow has opened for the new City Hall. The consultant, Tsutsumida and Associates, for the City Hall Project is working with the City Council and staff to determine the design of the ultimate tenant improvements for the new facility. Inspections of the building took place on Friday, August 11, 1995. Proposals for the new City Maintenance Facility are due from the architects on August 16, 1995. Staff will review the proposals and anticipates awarding a design contract on September 12, 1995. The Duck Pond Property closed escrow on July 28, 1995. Staff has prepared a design services contract for City Council approval. A local biologist is studying the site and will access water and soil quality. These recommendations will be incorporated in the overall design and operation of the duck pond property. The Old Town Restroom and Parking Facility RFP's for design services have been received by public works. That department is currently reviewing the proposals. Once a scope of work has been negotiated, staff anticipates bringing a contract forward for City Council approval. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEM 1 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Members Genie Roberts, Director of Finance August 22, 1995 Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1995 and the Statement of Revenues,' Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995 PREPARED BY: Tim McDermott, Assistant Finance Director RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency Members receive and file the Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1995 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995. DISCUSSION: The attached financial statements reflect the unaudited activity of the Redevelopment Agency for the fiscal year ended ;June 30, 1995. These statements may not reflect all year end closing entries. Please see the attached financial statements for analytical review of financial activity. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1995 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995 >,, Li.I C:,,.-O,,) ×r'""'} LLI I"- r- ~,. 'E rr" (,~ o r"' ITEM 2 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFIC~R,~ CITY MANAGE CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT August 22, 1995 Authorization to Extend Agreement for RDA Consulting Services RECOMMENDATION: That the Redevelopment Agency approve an extension of the agreement for consulting services with PMW Associates and authorize the Chairperson to execute an amendment extending the agreement, subject to the approval of the Executive Director and the General Council. DISCUSSION: The scope and complexity of redevelopment and housing activities within the City of Temecula require the assistance of an experienced redevelopment practioner. Therefore, on April 5, 1994 the RDA entered into a contract for RDA consulting services with Marilyn Whisenand of PMW Associates. Ms. Whisenand has extensive experience directing redevelopment agencies including San Diego, Escondido, and Costa Mesa and now provides services to a number of redevelopment agencies on a consulting basis. The scope of work for the PMW contract includes: Administer redevelopment and housing program activities within the City of Temecula; provide advice, assistance and technical support as necessary to meet the goals and objectives of the City and Redevelopment Agency. Represent the City of Temecula and its Redevelopment Agency in negotiations with prospective developers, including TZBG, Inc. who have proposed an entertainment center for Temecula's Old Town. Develop and manage the administration of affordable housing programs for the expenditure of the RDA affordable housing "set-aside" funds. Provide instruction and training to existing staff with respect to the administration of redevelopment and housing programs. AGENDA REPORT: RDA Consulting Services PAGE 2 Administer land acquisition and relocation procedures for the City and RDA in keeping with State and Federal regulations. Compensation shall remain at the level originally approved of $95.00 per hour up to 30 hours per week. Time over 30 hours shall be compensated at $120.000 per hour. Staff estimates a $95,000 expenditure for this contract for Fiscal Year 1995-1996. This consultant contract has proven extremely cost effective as compared to the cost of salary and benefits for full time redevelopment and housing staff. FISCAL IMPACT: A total of $120,000was budgeted for consulting services in the FY 95-96 RDA budget. One- half of this budget is allocated to low-moderate income housing activities and one-half to general RDA operations. Attachments: PMW Associates Biography - Marilyn Whisenand Consultant Services Agreement P M W Assodates 232 West Avenida Gaviota, San Ciemente, California 92672 (714) 498-7085 FAX (714) 498-8262 BIOGRAPHY MARILYN WHISENAND- Ms. Whisenand, Executive Vice President and co- owner of PMW Associates, iS an independent consult- ant under contract to a number of public and private sector clients involved in the planning and implemen- tation of redevelopmeat, economic development and housing activities. A specialist in public/private partnerships, Whisenand has had over 20 years of experience in. negotiating and administering development agree- ments for major retail, commercial and residential projects, She has served as Executive Director of Redevelopment Agencies in Costa Mesa and Escon- dido, California and Assistant Vice President of the Centre City Development Corporation, San Diego, California. Ms. Whisenand holds a degree in Business Adminis= tration from the University of Redlands and a Certificate in Real Estate. A licensed California Real Estate Broker, she received a fellowship from the National Endowment for Humanities for in= residence postgraduate work in economics at Prince- ton University in 1977. Ms. Whisenand is a full member of the Urban Land Institute, the California Association for Local Economic Development and the Community Redevelopmeat Agencies' Association. Awards received for projects completed under the direction of Ms. Whisenand include, the. Department of Housing and Urban Development 'Certificate of National Recognition' for annoystire use of public/private partnership for the Lincoln Park Mesa multi-family residential project in Costs Mesa, California; the American Planning Association "Meritorious Program Award', the Urban Land Insti- tute 'Award of Excellence', and the Pacific Coast Builders' Conference 'Golden Nugget Award' for the Costa Mess Courtyards, a mixed-use retail/commer- cial development in downtown Costa Mesa; and the Urban Land Institute "Award of Excellence' for the Escortdido Civic and' Cultural Center, I 116 million dollar Civic and Cultural complex in downtown Escortdido, California. P M W Associates 232 West Avenida Gaviota, San C!emente, California 92672 (714) 498-7085 FAX (714) 498-8262 CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made at Temec~la, California as of ~1ay 5, , 1994 by and between THE CITY OF TEMECULA ("CITY"), AND PMW ASSOCIATES, INC. ("CONSULTANT*), who agree as follows: Services: Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Consult- ant shall provide City with the services described in Exhibit "A." Payment: City shall pay Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth in Exhibit "B.* The payments specified in Exhibit "B" shall be the only payments to be made to Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall submit all billings for said services to City in the manner specified in Exhibit "B." Staff Assistance and Information: City shall, at its sole cost and expense, furnish all staff assistance and information which may be required for furnishing services' pursuant to this Agreement as defined in Exhibit "Aft e General Provisions: The general provisions set forth in Exhibit "C* arc part of this Agreement. In the event of any inconsistency between said general provisions and any other terms or conditions of this Agreement, the other terms or conditions shall control only insof at as they are inconsistent with the general provisions. Exhibits: All exhibits referred to herein are attached hereto and are by this refer- ence incorporated herein. EXECUTED as of the day stated above. CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PMW ASSOCIATES By: EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES Marilyn Whiscnand, through PMW Associates, will act as interim staff to the City of Temecula, responsible for the planning and implementation of all redcvelopmcnt and housing programs. The specific scope of services is summarized as follows: Review the status of rcdcvclopmcnt and housing program activities within the City of Temecula; provide advice, assistance and technical support as necessary to meet the goals and objectives of the City and Redevelopment Agency. With the assistance of existing staff, prepare the implementation plan and housing compliance plan which are required to be adopted prior to Decem- ber 31, 1994 in accordance with new legislation {ABI290). Calculate the Redevelopment Agency's *excess surplus* housing funds (required by ABI290) and develop an excess surplus expenditure plan. The plan will meet all legal requirements and will provide a framework for future policy decisions with respect to the use of housing funds. Represent the City of Temecula and its Rcdevclopment Agency in negotia- tions with prospective developers, including TZBG, Inc. who have proposed an entertainment center for Tcmccula Old Town. Provide instruction and training to existing staff with respect to the admin- istration of redevelopment and housing programs including new require- ments resulting from the passage of ABI290. METHOD AND TIME OF PERFORMANCE Consultant shall perform the various services described her,in only as and when requested by the City and within a time schedule as mutually agreed upon by the parties to this Agreement. EXHIBIT 'B' COMPENSATION Hourly Rate: PMW will provide the services of Marilyn Whisenand for 30 hours per week during the contract period at the rate of $95.00 per hour. S~rvicas p~rformed above 30 hours each week will be billed at $120 per hour. Direct Expense: Directly related expenses will be billed at their actual cost; mileage will be billed at $.26 per mile. Word processing and/or administrative support, if any, provided by P1MW Associates will be billed at the rate of $25.00 per hour. METHOD OF PAYMENT Consultant shall submit requisitions to City for the services completed. City shall pay Consultant within thirty (30) days in accordance of such requisitions. EXHIBIT'C' Independent Contractor. At all times durinB the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of the City. City shall have the right to control Consultant only insofar as the results of Consultant's scrvices rendered pursuant to this Agreement; howcver, City shall not have the right to control the means by which Consultant accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Time. Consultant shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary for satisfactory performance of Consultant's obligations pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant Not A~ent. Except as City may specify in writing, Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever. Assignment Prohibited. No party to this Agreement may assign any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement. Any attempted or purported assignment of any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement shall be void and of no effect. Chan~es. The City may, from time to time, request changes in the Scope of Services of the Agreement to be performed hereunder. Such changes, including any increase or decrease in the amount of Consultant's compensation, which are mutually agreed upon by and between the City and the Consultant, shall be incorporated in written amendments to this Agreement. Notice of Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by the either party upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other. The effective date of cancella- tion being the 30th day of said written notice with no further action by either party. Termination. Upon termination of this Agreement by City, and written notifica- tion to the Consultant, Consultant shall be entitled to the compensation earned by it prior to the date of termination, computed pro rata up to and including the date of termination. Disclosure. Consultant's Principal, Marilyn Whisenand, is a licensed California Real Estate Broiler. However, in performing services under this contract, consultant's assigned staff are not acting in the capacity of a real estate broker nor will they act as broiler or receive commission as broker for any other party in connection with this assignment. Indemnification. City agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Consultant from and against any and all claims, demands, damages of any l~ind or nature, including attorney's fees, resulting from Consultant's work performed on behalf of City under the terms of this agreement, excepting any claims due to the willful negligence of Consultant. I0. Notice. All notices and other communications from either party to the other under this agreement shall be in writing and addressed to such party at its address set forth below. Either party may, by notice in writing to the other, change its ado dress for receipt of notices and other communications. Any notice or other communications scat by mail, tclcx, telegraph, mailgram or fax shall be deemed to have bccn given on the day such notice or communication was seal Consultant:. IVfarilyn Whisthand Executive Vice-President Plq~dW Associates 232 West Avertida Gaviota San Clemente, CA 92672 Foundation: Ron Bradley City Manager City of Tcmecula 43174 Business Park Drive Tcmecula, CA 92590 11. Consultant's Assistant(s). Consultant may from time to time employ the services of employees or agents to assist the Consultant in the performance of Consultant's duties hereunder; provided, however, that the Consultant shall be solely responsible for any such agents or employees, including their performance, direction, control, supervision and compensation. 12. Attorncv's Fees. If any action or suit in law or equity is instituted by or against City or Consultant for breach, enforcement or interpretation of or otherwise in- volving this agreement, the party prevailing in such action or suit shall be entitled to the award of reasonable attorneys' fees in addition to whatever other relief such party may be entitled to. 13. Return of Materials at Termination. In the event of any termination of Consult- ant's appointment, with or without cause, Consultant will promptly deliver to City all materials, property, documents, data, and other information belonging to City. Consultant shall not take any materials, property, documents or other information, or any reproduction or excerpt thereof, belonging to City. 14. Ownershiv of Work Product. Any and all of the work product performed and/or developed by Contractor pursuant to this Agreement shall be the sole property of City. City shall become and be the sole owner thereof and Consultant shall retain no ownership, interest or rights therein. 15. Scvcrabilitv. If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be void, contrary to existing laws or regulations or otherwise in- valid, or unforesecable, the remaining provisions hereof shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in full force and effect. 16. Entire Aircement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hcrcto with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any prior or contemporaneous oral or written agreements, understandings, promises and rcprc* senrations made by either party to the other concerning the subject matter hereof. This agreement cannot bc changed or terminated orally and may only bc changed on behalf of either party in writing. ITEM 3 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: APPROVAL CITY ATTOR~ECREZ~ FINANCE OFFIC CITY MANAG CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Board of Directors Ronald E. Bradley, City Manager August 22, 1995 Amendments to TCSD Landscape Maintenance Contracts Bruce A. Hartley, Maintenance Superintendent ~ RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: Approve contract amendment of $46,945with California Landscape, Inc. to provide landscape maintenance services for three (3) new park facilities. BACKGROUND: The Community Services Department will be adding three (3) new park facilities to the landscape maintenance contract with California Landscape, Inc. These include the Duck Pond, Pala Community Park, and Nicolas Road Park. The cost associated with each site is as follows: Duck Pond Pala Community Park Nicolas Road Park $14,450 (10 months at $1445 per month) $23,360 (10 months at $2336 per month) $9,135 (9 months at $1015 per month) These park sites have been inspected by the City's Maintenance Superintendent and have been approved for dedication. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost associated with the additions to the contract with California Landscape, Inc., is $46,945. These costs have already been included in the Community Services Department Budget for FY 1995-96. AMR'NDM'AN'T TO AGR~'?HMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CAL1FORMA LANDSCAPE. INC. AUGUST 22. 1995 The Agreement dated May 11, 1993, between the City of Temecula, and California Landscape, Inc., (hereinaft~ referred to as "Agreement") is hereby mended as follows: RE: Landscape Maintenance Services Section 1 Term of the Agreement is extended through June 30, 1996. Section 2 The Scope of Work is hereby amended by adding the following: Landscape Maintenance services per City Specifications for the following sites: Duck Pond Pala Community Park Nicolas Road Park These sites shall be added to the existing Agreement beginning September 1, 1995. Section 3 Compensation for services shall be total compensation of all services described in the Amendment and shall be payable monthly as follows, not to exceed $46,945 annually: Duck Pond Pala Community Park Nicolas Road Park $14,450 (10 months at $1445 per month) $23,360 (10 months at $2336 per month) $ 9,135 (9 months at $1015 per month) Section 4 All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain the same. The paxties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above written. CONSULTANT CITY OF TEViECULA By: California Landscape, Inc. By: Ronald Robens, President APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter Thorson, City Attorney ATTST: June S. Greek, City Clerk ITEM 4 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNERYE~~. FINANCE OFFIC CITY MANAGE CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: Board of Directors FROM: Ronald E. Bradley, General Manager DATE: August 22, 1995 SUBJECT: Design Services Contract - Duck Pond Project PREPARED BY: (~r~(_/ Phyllis L. Ruse, Development Services Administrator RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors award a design services contract of $23,150 to The Alhambra Group for the preparation of the schematic design drawings, construction documents, and project administration for the Duck Pond Project. BACKGROUND: On June 27, 1995, the Board of Directors approved an agreement with KRDC, Inc. for the acquisition of the Duck Pond property located at the intersection of Rancho California and Ynez Roads. Escrow closed on July 28, 1995, and the property is now owned by the City of Temecula. Staff has already begun some immediate rehabilitation work necessary to maintain the overall health of the site. Some of the renovations include tree trimming, irrigation repairs, and aeration retrofit. The rehabilitation cost estimate is approximately $50,000. It is also anticipated that improvements to the park site will include landscaping, fencing, picnicking facilities, and a parking lot to be located on the unimproved portion of the property. The current construction budget for the Phase I improvements is $125,000. The City has also solicited a proposal from the Alhambra Group, a local landscape architectural firm, for the design and construction documents for capital improvements to the site. The Alhambra Group participated in an in-depth consultant qualification process for the City within the past twelve months and was ranked as the highest firm during that process. Furthermore, The Alhambra Group has successfully completed several similar projects for the City over the past three years. Therefore, staff is recommending that The Alhambra Group be awarded the design services contract for the Duck Pond Project. FISCAL IMPACT: Cost of this Design Services Contract is $23,150. This project is budgeted and approved in the City's Capital Improvement Program for FY 1995-96. AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 19 , between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City" and Alhambra Group Landscape Architecture, a Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant." The parties her.to mutually agree as follows: SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit "A" attached her.to. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the best of his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein. PAYMENT. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, at the hourly rates set forth in Exhibit "B" attached her.to, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount will not exceed $23,150 (Twenty Three Thousand One Hundred Fifty Dollars and No Cents) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved by the City Council. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first 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. SUSPENSION. TERMINATION OR ABANDONMENT OF AGREEMENT. The City may, at any time, suspend, terminate or abandon 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. Within thirty-five (35) days after .' receiving an invoice from the Consultant, the City shall pay Consultant for work done through the date that work is to be ceased pursuant to this section. If the City suspends, terminates or abandons a portion of this Agreement such suspension, termination or abandonment shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. BREACH OF CONTRACT. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Default shall include not performing the tasks described herein to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Manager of the City. Failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder, if such failure arises out of causes beyond his control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, shall not be considered a default. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant defaults in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have ten (10) r:Vueela~mielh.egt 8114/~6 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 fight, 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. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on the first date stated above and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than December 31, 1996. Any disputes regarding performance, default or other matters in dispute between the City and the Consultant arising out of this Agreement or breech thereof, shall be resolved by arbitration. The arbitrator's decision shall be final. Consultant shall select an arbitrator from a list provided .by the City of three retired judges of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. The arbitration hearing shall be conducted according to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1280, et sea. City and Consultant shall share the cost of the arbitration equally. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. Upon satisfactory completion of, or in the event of termination, suspension or abandonment of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings and notes 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. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. Neither the City nor any of its officers, employees or agents shall have control over the conduct of the Consultant or any of the Consultant's officers, employees or agents, except as herein set forth. The 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. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except 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. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of State and Federal 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 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. 10. NOTICE. Whenever it shall be necessary for either party to serve notice on the other respecting this Agreement, such notice shall be served by certified mail, r:Vue~ddh.~ 8114/1~i. 11. 12. postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the City Manager of the City of Temecula, located at 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590, and the Consultant at 27412 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, California, 92590, unless and until different addresses may be furnished in writing by either party to the other. Notice shall be deemed to have been served seventy-two (72) hours after the same has been deposited in the United States Postal Services. This shall be valid and sufficient service of notice for all purposes. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without the prior written consent of the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be the value to the City of the services rendered. LIABILITY INSURANCE. The Consultant shall maintain insurance acceptable to the City in full force and effect throughout the term of this contract, 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, his agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Insurance is to be placed with insurer with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VII. The costs of such insurance shall be included in the Contractor's bid. The Consultant shall provide the following scope and limits of insurance: A. Minimum Scooe of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: Insurance Services Office Form No. GL-0002 (Ed. 1/73) covering Comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office Form No. GL-0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability; or Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage ("occurrence" Form No. CG-0001 ). Insurance Services Office Form No. CA-0001 (Ed. 1/78) covering Automobile Liability, Code I "any auto" and Endorsement CA-0025. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by Labor Code of the State of California and Employers' Liability insurance. 4. Errors and Omissions insurance· r:~'u~ep~oonddh.eer Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits of insurance no less than: 1. General Liability: $1,000,000combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage· 2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage· 3. Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability: Workers' 1114/i6 Compensation as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers' Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 4. Errors and Omissions Insurance: $500,000 per occurrence. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductible in excess of $1,000 must be declared to and approved by the City. Other Insurance Provisions. Insurance policies required by this contract shall contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions: All Policies. 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 to the City via United States First Class Mail. General Liability and Automobile Liability coverages. 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, lease, 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. With regard to claims arising from the Consultant's performance of the work described in this contract, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall apply in excess of, and not contribute with, the Consultant's insurance. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers officials, employees or volunteers. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. Worker's Comoensation and Emolovers' Liability Coveraee. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by the Consultant for the City. Verification of Coveraae. Contractor shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance effecting coverage required by this clause. The certificates for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates are to be on forms provided by the City and are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. Consultant shall include all subconsultants as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein. 13. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer-shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials and employees; or' the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing-payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. LICENSES. The Consultant and subconsultant shall obtain all necessary licenses, including but not limited to City Business License. 14. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense cost, 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 performance under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City. 15. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement and any documents or instrument attached hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect to the subject matter hereof. In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of this Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall prevail. EFFECTIVE DATE AND EXECUTION: This Agreement shall be effective from and after the date it is signed by the representatives of the City. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. r:Vuee;l~oondeih.egf 1114/96 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CONSULTANT CITY OF TEMECULA By: By Vince DiDonato President Ron Roberrs, President APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter Thorsen, City Attorney ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk r:Vueep~N~tdelh.mgr 8114/~1B 1.00 E X H I B I T "A" ALHAMBRA I, endm~Bpe Ar=hiteoture lID. #BOLT THE DUCK POND SITE SCOPE OF WORK AUGUST 9, 1995 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES The Alhambra Group (Landscape Architects) shall provide the following Landscape Architectural, Engineering, and associated research and analysis required for the development of the The Duck Pond site in Temecula, California described herein= 2.00 2.01 2.02 SCOPE OF WORK Development Plans for area shown on exhibit provided by the City of Temecula. Research & Measurement a. Engineering studies (Drainage & Grading) b. Site visits c. Utility studies d. Obtain all available documentation e. Preliminary soils report' Schematic Plans/Master plan a. Site schematic design concepts b. Prepare base sheets @ 1"=40'-0.. scale. Grading concepts Prepare final schematic plan incorporating all studies. Prepare color Master plan rendering of schematic plan. Meetings with staff as required. Presentation to Community Services Commission. Presentation to City Council. Preparation of a timetable for the im lementation of the park design to the completion of Ehe project, Preliminary Budget Estimate 28441 Rancho California Roa( Suite ~ Temecul~ CA 92590 (909) 676-0226 Fax (909) 694-1587 2.03 Construction Documents a. Prepare base sheets @ scale required b. Horizontal control plan with coordinates and dimensioned locations of parking area. c. Construction Details: Walkwa s, drinking fountain parking improvements, park sign, Kardscape surfaces & ~ences. d. Grading Plans (parking and surrounding area) 1. Prepare final earthwork calculations 2. Prepare final hydrology studies 3. Provide grading specifications & notes. 4. Provide cost estimate and quantity takeoffs 5. Pre are re lato permit a plications & documents. e. Lighting & Electrical Plans (Partial Site) 2.04 1. Pre are plans & specifications for the parking areas & walBays with associated cost estimates. f. Irrigation Plans (parking & surrounding area) g. Planting Plans (parking & surrounding area) h. Planting & Irrigation Details i. Planting & Irrigation Specifications j. Budget estimates k. Revise city boilerplate bid specifications. 1. Bidding Assistance m. Coordination with City Staff as required. Contract Administration a. Bid review b. Pre job meeting c. Submittal review & verification d. Site meetings/field observation e. Provide drawing clarifications f. Final field observation FEE COMPENSATION for THE DUCK POND SITE COMPENSATION FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL BE $23,150.00 (TWENTY THREE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS) AS DIVIDED BETWEEN THE FeTe.OWING PHASES: Research, Analysis & Master Plan ........................ $ 4,520.00 Construction Plans & Specifications ................... $ 12,780.00 (Parking and surrounding area) Contract Administration ................................ $ 1,200.00 SUBTOTAL ...... $ 18,500.00 Reproduction & Reimbursibles (Bid sets by City) ......... Preliminary Soils Report ............................... NPDES/SWPPP/BMP documents & applications ................ $ 550.00 $3,200.00 $ 900.00 JTOTALNOT TO EXCEED ...... $ 23,150.00 EXHIBIT "B" JxT.-xLMBIUL GROUP CURRENT BILLING SCHEDULE Januarlr l, 1995 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Principal Project Manager ProTect Designer Senior Draftsperson Draftsperson $95 $80 $60 $50 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Administrative Assistant Word Processing Operator $45 $40 MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES AND EXPENSES Mileage Subsistence Outside Services Materials & Other Expenses 0.35/mile Cost Cost plus 10% Cost plus 20% CONSULTANTS FOR DUCK POND SITE RBF ENGINEERS (MR. MIKE TYLMAN) GRADING, HYDROLOGY AND REGULATORY APPLICATIONS & DOCUMENTS URBAN LOGIC CONSULTANTS (MR. DEEPAK MOORJANI) PRELIMINARY SOILS REPORT DEPARTMENTAL 'REPORT APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: Board of Directors FROM: Ronald E. Bradley, General Manager DATE: August 22, 1995 SUBJECT: Departmental Report PREPARED BY: ~ Shawn D. Nelson, Director of Community Services Final submittal of construction drawings for Phase I of Parkview Site Project are due August 24, 1995. 'Staff anticipates letting the bid for the project shortly thereafter. Anticipate construction to begin in October, 1995. Phase II of the Parkview Site Project provides for slope stabilization and re-vegetation improvements within the creek at the Rancho California Sports Park. The funding for this project includes $100,000 from State Grants and $200,000 from Development Impact Fees. An agenda item was approved by the Board on June 27, 1995 to modify the scope of work for this project. The consultants are currently preparing recommendations for channel rehabilitation and will begin the preparation of construction drawings. The Margarita Park Site Project Committee has approved the final design for the park. The Master Plan will be presented to the Community Services Commission at the October meeting, and to the City Council at their last meeting in October. Upon final approval by both, the consultant will begin the construction drawings. Temecula Middle School Lighting Project ground breaking was set for Monday, August 14, 1995. Anticipate fields will be ready for use by mid-October, 1995. Pala Community Park construction is completed and is currently in the final days of the ninety (90) day maintenance period. Staff is planning a park dedication ceremony on Thursday, August 24, 1995, at 9:00 A.M. The park improvements include a restroom/snack bar, parking, tennis courts, basketball courts, soccer field, landscaping, and irrigation. The Rancho California Sports Park Improvement Project is currently under construction and on schedule. Development of the 10 acre site will complete the improvements to the northeast corner of the park at Rancho Vista and Margarita Roads. The improvements will include parking, picnic facilities, a roller hockey rink, a skateboard facility, restroom/concession building, landscaping and irrigation system. Sam Hicks Monument Park Project bid opening was held on Thursday, July 20, 1995. Staff reviewed the bid proposal from the lowest bidder and found that he had written in "no bid" on two of the four alternate bid items, and had not enclosed the two addenda as required. After reviewing the bids, it has been recommended by the City Attorney that all bids be rejected and that staff be authorized to re-advertise a bid for construction. Escrow has opened for the new City Hall, The consultant, Tsutsumida and Associates, for the City Hall Project is working with the City Council and staff to determine the design of the ultimate tenant improvements for the new facility. Inspections of the building took place on Friday, August 11, 1995. Proposals for the new City Maintenance Facility are due from the architects on August 16, 1995. Staff will review the proposals and anticipates awarding a design contract on September 12, 1995. The Duck Pond Property closed escrow on July 28, 1995. Staff has prepared a design services contract for City Council approval. A local biologist is studying the site and will access water and soil quality. These recommendations will be incorporated in the overall design and operation of the duck pond property, The Old Town Restroom and Parking Facility RFP's for design services have been received by public works. That department is currently reviewing the proposals. Once a scope of work has been negotiated, staff anticipates bringing a contract forward for City Council approval. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEM 1 APPROV~T. CITY ATTORNEY TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Members Genie Roberts, Director of Finance August 22, 1995 Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1995 and the Statement of Revenues,' Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995 PREPARED BY: Tim McDermott, Assistant Finance Director RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency Members receive and file the Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1995 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995. DISCUSSION: The attached financial statements reflect the unaudited activity of the Redevelopment Agency for the fiscal year ended ~June 30, 1995. These statements may not reflect all year end closing entries. Please see the attached financial statements for analytical review of financial activity. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1995 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995 >. ITEM 2 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT August 22, 1995 Authorization to Extend Agreement for RDA Consulting Services RECOMMENDATION: That the Redevelopment Agency approve an extension of the agreement for consulting services with PMW Associates and authorize the Chairperson to execute an amendment extending the agreement, subject to the approval of the Executive Director and the General Council. DISCUSSION: The scope and complexity of redevelopment and housing activities within the City of Temecula require the assistance of an experienced redevelopment practioner. Therefore, on April 5, 1994 the RDA entered into a contract for RDA consulting services with Marilyn Whisenand of PMW Associates. Ms. Whisenand has extensive experience directing redevelopment agencies including San Diego, Escondido, and Costa Mesa and now provides services to a number of redevelopment agencies on a consulting basis. The scope of work for the PMW contract includes: Administer redevelopment and housing program activities within the City of Temecula; provide advice, assistance and technical support as necessary to meet the goals and objectives of the City and Redevelopment Agency. Represent the City of Temecula and its Redevelopment Agency in negotiations with prospective developers, including TZBG, Inc. who have proposed an entertainment center for Temecula's Old Town. Develop and manage the administration of affordable housing programs for the expenditure of the RDA affordable housing "set-aside" funds. Provide instruction and training to existing staff with respect to the administration of redevelopment and housing programs. AGENDA REPORT: RDA Consulting Services PAGE 2 Administer land acquisition and relocation procedures for the City and RDA in keeping with State and Federal regulations. Compensation shall remain at the level originally approved of $95.00 per hour up to 30 hours per week. Time over 30 hours shall be compensated at ~120.000 per hour. Staff estimates a $95,000 expenditure for this contract for Fiscal Year 1995-1996. This consultant contract has proven extremely cost effective as compared to the cost of salary and benefits for full time redevelopment and housing staff. FISCAL IMPACT: A total of $120,000was budgeted for consulting services in the FY 95-96 RDA budget. One- half of this budget is allocated to low-moderate income housing activities and one-half to general RDA operations. Attachments: PMW Associates Biography - Marilyn Whisenand Consultant Services Agreement P M W Associates 232 West Avenida Gaviota, San Clemente. California 92672 (714) 498-7085 FAX (714) 498-8262 BIOGRAPHY MARILYN WHISENAND- Ms. Whisenand, Executive Vice President and co- owner of PMW Associates, iS an independent consult- ant under contract to a number of public and private sector clients involved in the planning and lmplemen- tation of redevelopment, economic development and housing activities. A specialist in public/private partnerships, Whisenand has had over 20 years of experience in negotiating and administering development agree- ments for major retail, commercial and residential projects. She has served as Executive Director of Redevelop,eat Agencies in Costa Mesa and Escon- dido, California and Assistant Vice President of the Centre City Development Corporation, San Diego, California. Ms. Whisenand holds a degree in Business Adminis- tration from the University of Redlands and a Certificate in Real Estate. A licensed California Real Estate Broker, she received a fellowship from the National Endowment for Humanities for in- residence postgraduate work in economics at Prince- ton University in 15}77. Ms. Whisenand is a full member of the Urban Land Institute, the California Association for Local Economic Development and the Community Redevelopment Agencies' Association. Awards received for projects completed under the direction of Ms. Whisenand include, the Department of Housing and Urban Development *Certificate of National Recognition* for innovative use of public/private partnership for the Lincoln Park Mesa multi-family residential project in Costa Mesa, California; the American Planning Association "]~feritorious Program Award*, the Urban Land Insti- tute *Award of Excellence", and the Pacific Coast Builders' Conference *Golden Nugget Award* for the Costa Mesa Courtyards, a mixed-use retail/commer- cial development in downtown Costa Mesa; and the Urban Land Institute "Award of Excellence" for the Escondido Civic and' Cultural Center, a 116 million dollar Civic and Cultural complex in downtown Escondido, California. P M W Associates 232 West Avenida Gaviota, San Clemente, California 92672 (714) 498-7085 FAX (714) 498-8262 CONRULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made at TcmccUla, California as of rmy 5, , 1994 by and between THE CITY OF TEMECULA (*CITY*), AND PMW ASSOCIATES, INC. (*CONSULTANT*), who agree as follows: Services: Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Consult- ant shall provide City with the services described in Exhibit *A.* Payment: City shall pay Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth in Exhibit "B.* The payments specified in Exhibit *B* shall be the only payments to be made to Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall submit all billings for said services to City in the manner specified in Exhibit "B.* Staff Assistance and Information: City shall, at its sole cost and expense, furnish all staff assistance and information which may bc rccluircd for furnishing services' pursuant to this Agreement as daftned in Exhibit *A.* General Provisions: The general provisions set forth in Exhibit "C* arc part of this Agreement. In the event of any inconsistency between said general provisions and any other terms or conditions of this Agreement, the other terms or conditions shall control only insofar as they arc inconsistent with the general provisions. Exhibits: All exhibits referred to hcrein arc attached hcrcto and arc by this refer- ence incorporated heroin. EXECUTED as of the day stated above. CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PMW ASSOCIATES By: EXHIBIT 'A' SCOPE OF SERVICES Marilyn Whisenand, through PMW Associates, will act as interim staff to the City of Temecula, responsible for the planning and implementation of all redevelopment and housing programs. The specific scope of services is summarized as follows: Review the status of redevelopment and housing program activities within the City of Temecula; provide advice, assistance and technical support as necessary to meet the goals and objectives of the City and Redevelopment Agency. With the assistance of existing staff, prepare the implementation plan and housing compliance plan which are required to be adopted prior to Decem- ber 31, 1994 in accordance with new legislation {ABI290). Calculate the Redevelopment Agency's "excess surplus' housing funds (required by AB1290) and develop an excess surplus expenditure plan. The plan will meet all legal requirements and will provide a framework for future policy decisions with respect to the use of housing funds. Represent the City of Temecula and its Redevelopment Agency in negotia- tions with prospective developers, including TZBG, Inc. who have proposed an entertainment center for Temecula Old Town. Provide instruction and training to existing staff with respect to the admin- istration of redevelopment and housing programs including new require- ments resulting from the passage of ABI290. METHOD AND TIME OF PERFORMANCE Consultant shall perform the various services described herein only as and when requested by the City and within a time schedule as mutually agreed upon by the parties to this Agreement. EXHIBIT 'B' COMPENSATION Hourly Rate: PMW will provide the services of Marilyn Whlsenand for 30 hours per week during the contract period at the rate of $95.00 per hour. Services performed above 30 hours each week will be billed at $120 per hour. Direct Expense: Directly related expenses will be billed at their actual cost; mileage will be billed at $.26 per mile. Word processing and/or administrative support, if any, provided by PMW Associates will be billed at the rate of $25.00 per hour. METHOD OF PAYMENT Consultant shall submit requisitions to City for the services completed. City shall pay Consultant within thirty (30) days in accordance of such requisitions. EXHIBIT Indenendent Contractor. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of the City. City shall have the right to control Consultant only insof at as the results of Consultant's services rendered pursuant to this Agreement; however, City shall not have the right to control the means by which Consultant accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement Time. Consultant shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary for satisfactory performance of Consultant's obligations pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant Not Agent. Except as City may specify in writing, Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever. Assi~znmcnt Prohibited. No party to this Agreement may assign any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement. Any attempted or purported assignment of any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement shall be void and of no effect. -. Chanmes. The City may, from time to time, request changes in the Scope of Services of the Agreement to be performed hereunder. Such changes, including any increase or decrease in the amount of Consultant's compensation, which are mutually agreed upon by and between the City and the Consultant, shall be incorporated in written amendments to this Agreement. Notice of Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by the either party upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other. The effective date of cancella- tion being the 30th day of said written notice with no further action by either party. Termination. Upon termination of this Agreement by City, and written notifica- tion to the Consultant, Consultant shall be entitled to the compensation earned by it prior to the date of termination, computed pro rata up to and including the date of termination. Disclosure. Consultant's Principal, Marilyn Whisenand, is a licensed California Real Estate Broker. However, in performing services under this contract, consultant's assigned staff are not acting in the capacity of a real estate broker nor will they act as broker or receive commission as broker for any other party in connection with this assignment. Indemnification. City agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Consultant from and against any and all claims, demands, damages of any kind or nature, including attorney's fees, resulting from Consultant's work performed on behalf of City under the terms of this agreement, excepting any claims due to the willful negligence of Consultant. 10. Notice. All notices and other communications from either party to the other under this agreement shall bc in writing and addressed to such party at its address set forth below. Either party may, by notice in writing to the other, change its ad* dress for receipt of notices and other communications. Any notice or other communications sent by mail, tclex, telegraph, mailgram or fax shall be deemed to have been given on the day such notice or communication was sent. Consultant: Marilyn Whiscnand Executive Vice-President PMW Associates 232 West Avenida Gaviota San Clementc, CA 92672 Foundation: Ron Bradley City Manager City of Tcmccula 43174 Business Park Drive Tcmccula, CA 92590 11. Consultant's Assistantis). Consultant may from time to time employ the services of employees or agents to assist the Consultant in the performance of Consultant's duties hcrcundcr; provided, however, that the Consultant shall bc solely responsible for any such agents or employees, including their performance, direction, control, supervision and compensation. 12. Attorncv's Fees. If any action or suit in law or equity is instituted by or against City or Consultant for breach, enforcement or interpretation of or otherwise in- volving this agreement, the party prevailing in such action or suit shall be entitled to the award of reasonable attorneys' fees in addition to whatever other relief such party may bc entitled to. 13. Return of Materials at Termination. In the event of any termination of Consult- ant's appointment, with or without cause, Consultant will promptly deliver to City all materials, property, documents, data, and other information belonging to City. Consultant shall not take any materials, property, documents or other information, or any reproduction or excerpt thereof, belonging to City. 14. Ownership of Work Product. Any and all of the work product performed and/or developed by Contractor pursuant to this Agreement shall be the sole property of City. City shall become and bc the sole owner thereof and Consultant shall retain no ownership, interest or rights therein. 15. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be void, contrary to existing laws or regulations or otherwise in- valid, or unforeseeable, the remaining provisions hereof shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in full force and effect. 16. Entire Aircement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hcreto with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any prior or contemporaneous oral or written agreements, understandings, promises and rcprc* scntations made by either party to the other concerning the subject matter hereof. This agreement cannot bc changed or terminated orally and may only bc changed on behalf of either party in writing.