HomeMy WebLinkAbout121995 CC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in
this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior
to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that
meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]
AGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
A REGULAR MEETING
COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER
30875 RANCHO VISTA ROAD
DECEMBER 19, 1995- 7:00 PM
6:30 PM * Closed Session of the City Council pursuant to § 54957.8- Conference with Real
Property. 'NegOtiator ~' Property: Approximately 3.4 acres adjacent to the Rancho Elementary
School on La Serena way, Negotiating Parties - Kernper Real Estate Development Corp. and
City of Temecula;Under negotiation - terms of acceptance of offer to donate.
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.
CALL TO ORDER:
Invocation:
Flag Salute:
ROLL CALL:
PRESENTATIONS/
PROCLAMATIONS
RECESS:
R:%AOer4e%121966
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 95-16
Resolution: No. 95-107
Mayor Jeffrey Stone presiding
Father Edward Renner, St. Thomas Episcopal Church
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans
Birdsall, Lindemans, Parks, Roberts, Stone
Presentation by Union for River Greenbelt Environment (URGE)
of California Department of Water Resources Grant Funds for
Rancho California Sports Park Creek Restoration Project
Presentation by the Boys and Girls Club to the City of Temecula
Proclamation - "Holiday Dining with the Town Association Day"
Presentations to City Councilmember Ron Parks
Reception to honor City Councilmember Parks
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
before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at
this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports.
CONSENT CALENDAR
3
Standard Ordinance Adoorion Procedure
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Motion to ~vaive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in
the agenda.
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of November 28, 1995.
Resolution AoorovinQ List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 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
R:%/eenda%121966 2
4
5
6
7
Release of Monument Bonds in Tracts 20130-1,20130-2.20130-3,20130-4.20130-5.
21340-5, 21340-6.21340-7, and 21340-F
(Westerly of Winchester Road, Northeasterly of Margarita Road)
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Recommend the release of Subdivision Monumentation Bonds in Tracts No. 20130-
1,20130-2,20130-3,20130-4, 20130-5, 21340-5, 21340-6, 21340-7, and
21340-F;
4.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the
Developer and Surety.
Partial Reduction in Faithful Performance Bond Amount in Tract No. 21067
(Northerly of intersection of Pala Road at Loma Linda Road)
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Authorize a 50% reduction in the Faithful Performance bond amount in Tract No.
21067;
5.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety.
Parcel Mao 27714
(Located east of Ynez Road, between Solana Way and Rancho California Road)
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Approve Final Parcel Map 27714 subject to the Conditions of Approval.
Summary Vacation of the Existing Restricted Access Alone the Southerly Side of Solana
Way Between Rvcrest Street and Skywood Drive on Parcels I and 2 of Parcel mao No.
1~1271
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUMMARILY
VACATING AN EXISTING RESTRICTED ACCESS ALONG THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF
SOLANA WAY BETWEEN RYCREST STREET AND SKYWOOD DRIVE ON PARCELS
1 AND 2 OF PARCEL MAP 13271
R:~mde%121 BiB6 3
8
Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Barrier Rail on Front Street at Empire Creek. Proiect
PW95-17
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1
Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works
to solicit public construction bids for the Barrier Rail on Front Street at Empire
Creek, Project No. PW95-17 once we receive approval from Caltrans.
9
10
11
Solicitation of Construction Bids and Aooroval of the Plans and Soecifications for the
Interim Traffic SiQnal Installation at the Intersection of Pala Road and SR-79(S) (Project No
PW95-14)
RECOMMENDATION;
9.1
Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of
Public Works to solicit public construction bids for project No. PW95-14, Interim
Traffic Signal installation at the intersection of Pala Road and SR-79(S) upon
receiving Caltrans approval.
Award of Contract for the Construction of Winchester Road at Interstate Route 15. BridQe
Wideninq and Northbound Ramo Imorovements, Project No. PW94-21
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1
Award a contract for construction of Winchester Road at Interstate Route 15,
Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramps improvements, Project No. PW94-21, to
Riverside Construction Company for the base bid of $2,871,542.15and authorize
the Mayor to execute the contract.
10.2
Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of $287,154.22which is equal to 10% of the contract
amount.
Award of Professional Services Contract to Albert Grover and Associates for the Desian
and Imolementation of an Area Wide Intelliaent Traffic Manaaement System, Project No.
PW95-16
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1
Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the Professional Services Agreement
between the City of Temecula and Albert Grover and Associates (AGA) to provide
Professional Engineering Services for the design and implementation of an area wide
Intelligent Traffic Management System (ITMS), Project No.; PW95-16 for an amount
not to exceed $171,000.
R:~,Agerda%121~86 4
12 Out-of-State Travel
13
RECOMMENDATION:
12; 1 Authorize certain out-of-state travel plans.
Temeku Project Tract 23371 - Release of Performance and Subdivision Bonds Conditional
Uoon Issuance of Order of Bankruotcv Court Reouirina Purchaser. as a condition of
Bankruotcv Court Sale. to Submit New Securities for the Tract
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Authorize and direct the City Clerk to release the subdivision and performance
bonds for Tract 23371 upon receipt of:
A certified copy of the order of Bankruptcy Court in Bankruptcy Case No. SB
94 26832-MG11 requiring the purchaser of the Tract, as a condition of the
sale of the Tract, to provide adequate security for the construction of those
infrasturcture improvements on the Tract which the City deems necessary as
a result of the Purchaser's proposed use of the property, and providing for
the continuing jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court to enforce the terms of
the Order.
Approval of the release of the specified bonds by the Director of Public
Works and the City Attorney.
14
15
Final Parcel MaD 27232
(Located north of Rancho California Road and west of Lyndie Lane)
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1 Approve Final Parcel Map 27232 subject to the Conditions of Approval.
Lease Aareement for XEROX 5100A Cooier
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1
Approve a five year lease and maintenance agreement for a high volume Xerox
5100A copier at a cost of $3,469.14 per month to replace the current lease of a
model 5100 copier.
RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING,
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT MEETING,
OLD TOWN/WESTSIDE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING
OLD TOWN/WESTSIDE IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY
R:'~t, ee, nda%121 g,9i g
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING .
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. CSD 95-01
Resolution: No. CSD 95-07
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
Comoletion and Acceotance of the Temecula Middle School Liahtina Proiect, No, PW95-
01CSD
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1
Direct the City Clerk to File the Notice of Completion, release the Performance
Bond, and accept a one-year Maintenance Bond (10% of contract amount).
1.2
Release the Materials and Labor bond seven (7) months after the filing of the Notice
of Completion if no liens have been filed to that date.
R:%Aeende%121 ll6 ·
2 Contract for Construction of Sam Hicks Monument Park (Proiect No. PW94-15CSD)
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Approve the plans and specifications for the construction of Sam Hicks Monument
Park, PW94-15CSD
Award a construction contract in the amount of $484,593.001o Mahr
Construction, and authorize the President to execute the contract.
Authorize the General Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency of $48,459.30 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount.
Authorize the transfer of $139,000from the Development Impact Fee Fund to the
Capital Projects Fund and appropriate $139,000 into Account No. 280-199-805-
5804.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT - Nelson
GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT- Bradley
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT: Next meeting: January 9, 1996, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center,
30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California.
R:V~eenda't121886 7
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING '. ·:
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. RDA 95-01
Resolution: No. RDA 95-08
Chairperson Ronald J. Parks presiding
AGENCY MEMBERS:
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone, Parks
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 net
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
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of November 28, 1995.
AGENCY BUSINESS
2 Balloon and Wine Festival Soonsorshio Reauest
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 That the Agency Members consider a request for sponsorship of the 1996 Balloon
and Wine Festival.
ADJOURN TO A JOINT CITY COUNCILIREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
R:'ukOende%12 ! gl H I
PUBLIC HEARING
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council%Temecula
Redevelopment Agency 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.
3
Professional HOSpital SuODIv Owner Participation Acjreernent
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Conduct a joint public hearing;
3.2 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING
THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED 'OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BY
AND BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND
PROFESSIONAL HOSPITAL SUPPLY COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION"
DATED AS OF NOVEMBER 28, 1995
3.3 That the Agency adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED "OWNER PARTICIPATION
AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AND PROFESSIONAL HOSPITAL SUPPLY COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION" DATED AS OF NOVEMBER 28, 1995
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
Next regular meeting: January 9, 1996, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875
Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California.
R:%A(iee:le~l 21 996 9
ADDENDUM
TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA
OF DECEMBER 19, 1995
Consent Calendar
2a Use of HOME Funds in association with the ourchase and resale of the Rancho West
Aoartments
RECOMMENDATION:
2a. 1 Authorize the Chairperson to execute a sub-recipient agreement with the County of
Riverside for the use of HOME Funds subject to the approval of the Executive
Director and City Attorney
R:\Agenda\121995.Add 1. December 15, 1995
OLD TOWN WESTSIDE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHO'RIT~..
Next in Order:
Fiesolution No.: No. FA 95-06
CALL TO ORDER: President Patricia H. Birdsall
ROLL CALL:
Lindemans, Parks, Roberrs, Stone, Birdsall
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on
items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If
you desire to speak to the Council about an item not listed on the Agenda a pink 'Request
To Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: January 9, 1996, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875
Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California.
Fl,:'~,,s4eftda~l 21996 10
ee;eee.eeee'eeeeeeeeeeeeeelee. eefe.ie'li'eifee~eeee.eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
CALL TO ORDER: President Patricia H. Birdsell
ROLL CALL:
Lindemans, Parks, Roberts, Stone, Birdsell
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on
items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If
you desire to speak to the Council about an item not listed on the Agenda a pink "Request
To Speak" form should be rifled out and riled with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: January 9, 1996, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875
Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California.
R:~ienda%121 OH 11
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.
16
Draft Development Code
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1 Open the public hearing and receive public testimony;
16.2 Adopt a Negative Declaration;
16.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING
THE CERTAIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S
GENERAL PLAN
16.4 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 95-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING
THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND CONSISTENCY ZONING MAP, AND AMENDING
THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
R:~geml~121ig6 12
17
Adoorion of the 1994 Editions of Various Model Bulldine Codes
RECOMMENDATION:
17.1
17.2
17.3
Reopen the continued public hearing and receive testimony;
Adopt ~ resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SETTING
FORTH THE LOCAL CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A DETERMINATION HAS BEEN
MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT MODIFICATIONS TO CHAPTER 15.04 OF THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1994
EDITION, THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, 1994 EDITION AND THE NATIONAL
ELECTRICAL CODE, 1993 EDITION ARE REASONABLE AND NECESSARY TO
PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE
Adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 95-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 15.02 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE
PROVIDING FOR FEES AND ENFORCEMENT OF BUILDING REGULATIONS; AND
AMENDING CHAPTERS 15.04 AND 15.08 OF THIS MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT
BY REFERENCE THE FOLLOWING CODES WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS
THERETO: THE 1994 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE; THE 1994
EDITION OF THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE; THE 1994 EDITION OF THE
UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE; THE 1994 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE; THE 1994 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM CODE FOR THE
ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS; THE 1994 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM
HOUSING CODE; THE 1994 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM SWIMMING POOLS. SPAS
AND HOT TUB CODE; AND THE 1993 EDITION OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL
CODE
R:~4~end~121896
18
Adoorion of the 1994 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code
RECOMMENDATION:
18.1 Re-open the continued public hearing and receive testimony;
18.2
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SETTING
FORTH THE LOCAL CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A DETERMINATION HAS BEEN
MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT MODIFICATIONS TO CHAPTER 15ol 6 OF THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL, AMENDING THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, 1994 EDITION,
ARE REASONABLE AND NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY
AND WELFARE
18.3
Adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 95-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 15.16 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE
BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, 1994 EDITION AND THE
UNIFORM FIRE CODE STANDARDS, 1994 EDITION
19 Amendment No. I to the Old Town Specific Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
19.1 Open the public hearing and continue the item to the meeting of January 9, 1995.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
20
Memorandum of Understandinq Concernina Specific Plan No. 199, Taylor Woodrow Homes
California LTD
RECOMMENDATION:
20.1
Approve the Memorandum of Understanding concerning Specific Plan No. 199 for
Taylor Woodrow Homes California LTD 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.
R:~a~end~121996 14
21 Solid Waste Update
22
23
RECOMMENDATION:
21.1
Direct staff to forward the Council's recommendations relative to the establishment
of reduced tipping fees and development of waste transfer station policies to the
Riverside County Board of Supervisors for their consideration.
Consideration of a Joint Committee to Facilitate the Extension of Diaz Road
RECOMMENDATION:
22.1
Appoint an ad-hoc committee of two members of the City Council, one member of
the Planning Commission, and one member of Public\Traffic Safety Commission, to
meet with Murrieta Ad-Hoc Committee to discuss Diaz Road extension to connect
Murrieta and Temecula.
22.2 Authorize staff to expend funds for preliminary design, estimated not to exceed
$15,000.00.
Consideration of Offer to Donate Park Site
RECOMMENDATION:
23.1 Consider an offer made by Kemper Real Estate Development Corporation to donate
a Park Site located adjacent to the Rancho Elementary School on La Serena Way.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
CITY MANAGER'$ REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: January 9, 1996, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho
Vista Road, Temecula, California.
R:~gende%121196 16
PROCLAMATIONS/
PRESENTATIONS
ITEM
1
ITEM 2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
HELD NOVEMBER 28, 1995
EXECUTIVE SESSION
A meeting of the City of Temecula City Council was called to order at 6:00 PM. It was duly
moved, seconded and approved to adjourn at 6:00 PM to Executive Session pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.8 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR,
Property: Advanced Chemill Systems, 41740 Enterprise Circle North; Negotiating parties:
Redevelopment Agency of Temecula and DispoMed; Under negotiation: Owner Participation
Agreement. The motion was unanimously carried.
A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 7:05 PM at the
Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Street, Temecula, California. Mayor
Jeffrey E. Stone presiding.
PRESENT 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Parks,
Roberts, Stone
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Also present were City Manager Ronald Bradley, City Attorney Peter M. Thorson, and City
Clerk June S. Greek.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Reverend Lyle Peterson, Hope Lutheran Church.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the flag salute by Councilmember Birdsall.
City Attorney Thorson reported that the real estate matter listed on the closed session was
discussed and direction was given to staff to negotiate with respect to that matter.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Sam Pratt, 40470 Brixton Cove, addressed the City Council requesting TOTAL be given
access to records that have previously been denied.
City Attorney Thorson responded that the City has received three requests for records from
TOTAL and has released 99% of the records requested. He explained that records that have
not been released are exempt from disclosure, and are legal analysis that he has made under
attorney client privilege.
Minutes\l 1 \28~95 -1 - 1211 1195
City Council Minutes November 28, 1995
Kay Cassaro, 31616 Paseo Goleta, voiced objections to negotiating with businesses in order
to entice them to locate in Temecula.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Roberts commented on an article in the Californian regarding trees in Temecula
and requested that staff place a tree preservation ordinance on the Council agenda for
consideration. He also showed the Committee's first choice for the Old Town Logo Contest.
He explained this will need to be ratified by the Council.
Mayor Stone asked when progress on the Winchester Bridge will be made. Public Works
Director Joe Kicak stated that project is out to bid and bids will be opened on December 7th,
with Council action placed on the December 12th meeting. Public Works Director Kicak also
announced the results of the corridor study is expected the end of March, and work on interim
traffic signals along 79S is progressing and should be out to bid by mid-January.
Mayor Stone asked staff to investigate using the Senior Center Van for picking up seniors so
they can attend events in the evening such as the Temecula Playhouse.
Mayor Stone read a letter of commendation to Melinda Smith of ABC Preschool for becoming
the first Pre-school in Temecula to receive accreditation from the National Association for the
Education of Young Child (NAEYC). He offered his personal congratulations and stated that
only 5% of preschools nationwide receive this distinction.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Stone stated staff has comments on Item No. 10 and removed the item from the
Consent Calendar.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans stated he would abstain on Item 19.
Councilmember Birdsall registered a "no" vote on Item No. 19.
Mayor Stone stated he would abstain on Items 2 and 18 and requested the removal of Item
No. 20 from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Parks noted a correction on Item No. 5, changing the date to September 30,
1995. He also requested the removal of Item No. 18 from the Consent Calendar.
Minutes\l 1 \28\95 -2- 1211 1/95
City Council Minutes
November 28.1995
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Roberts to approve
Consent Calendar Items 1-9, 11-17, 19 and 21, with Mayor Stone abstaining on Items 2 and
18, Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans abstaining on Item 19 and Councilmember Birdsall voting "No"
on 19. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Parks, Roberrs,
Stone
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Standard Ordinance Adootion Procedure
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text
included in the agenda.
Minutes
2.1 Approve the minutes of November 14, 1995.
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: I COUNCILMEMBERS:
of all ordinances and resolutions
Birdsall, Lindemans, Parks, Roberrs
None
None
Stone
Resolution Aoorovina List of Demands
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-97
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
Destruction of Records Reauest
4.1 Approve scheduled destruction of certain records as provided under the City of
Temecula approved Records Retention Policy.
Minutee\l 1 \28\95 -3- 1 211 1/95
City Council Minutes November 28. 1995
City Treasurer's Report as of September 30, 1995
' 5.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of September 30, 1995.
m
Parcel MaD 28223
(Located north of Winchester Road and west of Diaz Road)
6.1 Approve Parcel Map 28223, subject to the Conditions of Approval.
ComPletion and AccePtance of the Parkview Site Rough Gradina Imorovements, Project
No. PW93-09
7.1
Accept the Parkview Site Rough Grading Improvements, Project No. PW93-09,
as complete;
7.2
Direct the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion, release the Performance
Bond, and accept a one (1) year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of
the contract;
7.3
Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after the filing of the
Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed.
Substitute Aareement and Bonds for Traffic Sionalization MitiGation Fees in Parcel
Maos No. 23561-1 and 23561-2
(East of Jefferson Avenue, North of Santa Gertrudis Creek)
8.1
Accept the substitute agreement and bond for Traffic Signal Mitigation Fees in
Parcel Maps No. 23561-1 and 23561-2;
8.2 Authorize the release of the Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee bond on file;
8.3 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the developers and sureties.
Release Faithful Performance Warranty, Labor and Material, and Monument Bonds in
Tract No. 22715-1
(Southwesterly of intersection of Rancho California Road at Butterfield Stage Road)
9.1
Authorize the release of Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor and Material
bonds for Street, Drainage, and Water and Sewer improvements, and the
Subdivision monumentation Bond in Tract No. 22715-1;
9.2
Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the
Developer, and the Surety.
Minutes%l 1 ~28~95 -4- 12/11195
City Council Minutes November 28, 1995
11
Release Faithful Performance Warranty. Labor and Material. and Monument bonds in
Tract No. 22715-2
(Northwesterly of the intersection of Rancho Vista Road at Butterfield Stage Road)
11.1
Authorize the release of Faithful Performance and Labor and Material bonds for
Street, and Water and Sewer Improvements, and the Subdivision
Monumentation Bond in Tract No. 22715-2;
11.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the
Developer, and the Surety.
12.
Acceptance of Public Streets into the City-Maintained Street System (Within Tracts No.
22715-2, and 22715-F)
(Northwesterly of intersection of Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho Vista Road)
12.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-98
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY-
MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACTS NO. 22715-2 AND 22715-F}
13.
14.
Release Faithful Performance Warranty, Labor and Material. and Monument Bonds in
Tract No. 22715-F
(Northwest corner of Rancho Vista Road at Butterfield Stage Road)
13.1
Authorize the release of Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor and Material
bonds for Street, and Water and Sewer improvements, and the Subdivision
Monument bond in Tract No. 22715-F;
13.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the
Developer and the Surety.
Release Faithful Performance Warranty, Labor and Material and Monument Bonds in
Tract No. 22716-1
(Southwesterly of intersection of Rancho California road at Meadows Parkway)
14.1
Authorize the release of Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor and Material
bonds for Street, Water, and Sewer improvements, and the Subdivision
Monumentation Bond, in Tract No. 22716-1;
14.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the
Developer and the Surety.
Minutes\l 1%28\95 -5- 12/11/95
City Council Minutes November 28.1995
15.
16.
Release Faithful Performance Warranty, Labor and Materials, and Monument Bonds in
Tract No. 22716-3
(Northwesterly of intersection of Meadows Parkway at Rancho Vista Road)
15.1
Authorize the release of Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor and Material
bonds for Street, and Water and Sewer improvements, and the Subdivision
Monumentation Bond, in Tract No. 22716-3;
15.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the
Developer and the Surety.
Acceptance of Public Streets into the City Maintained-Street System (Within Tract No.
22716-3)
(Northeasterly of intersection of Meadows Parkway at Rancho Vista Road)
16.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
17.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-99
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY-
MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACT NO. 22716-3}
Final Tract MaD No. 24131-3
(Located westerly of Meadows Parkway, between McCabe Drive and Leena Way)
17.1 Approve Final Tract Map No. 24131-3 subject to the Conditions of Approval.
19.
ExchanQe of Real Prooerty between the City of Temecula and the New Community
Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod
19.1
Direct the City Attorney to review the escrow instructions and when
satisfactory, the Mayor to sign the Grant Deed to convey the City property to
the New Community Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
3 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Parks, Roberts, Stone
I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans
Minutee\l 1 ~28~95 -6- 1211 1/95
CiW Council Minutes November 28. 1995
21.
10.
18.
Plannina Aoolication No. 95-0078. Develooment Aareement for BCI/CCL
21.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 95-13
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
BCIICCL VENTURE NO. I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND BCIICCL VENTURE NO.
2 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199, PLANNING AREA 14,
MARGARITA VILLAGE, PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA95-0078
Award of Contract for the Walcott Corridor, Project PW94-10
Public Works Director Joe Kicak explained there is a problem with obtaining the right-
of-way from the property owner and this item cannot proceed until eminent domain
proceedings take place. He also stated the contractor is requesting additional funds
since an increase in materials cost has taken place due to the delay in the contract.
He suggested continuing this item until the December 12th meeting at which time the
recommendation would be to reject all bids and re-bid the project.
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Roberts to
continue the Item to the meeting of December 12, 1995. The motion was unanimously
carried.
Award of Contract to Reconstruct Three (3) Desilting Ponds in the Santiaao Channel
from Vallejo Avenue to John Warner Road
Councilmember Parks stated that every year money is expended to re-construct these
facilities. He asked that a permanent solution be investigated.
Public Works Director Joe Kicak suggested the way to proceed would be to acquire
property and maintain the basin property. He suggested that staff determine exactly
where the desilting basin should be constructed with cost estimates for construction
and real estate.
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans to
approve staff recommendation with further direction to staff to conduct a study of this
area to determine a permanent solution. The motion was unanimously carried with
Mayor Stone abstaining due to the close proximity of this home.
Minutes\l 1 \28\95 -7- 1211 1195
City Council Minutes November 28, 1995
20. Community Services Fundina Reauests
Mayor Stone expressed concern that only allocating 50% of the Pantry's requested
funding would have a negative impact on families in the Temecula area, especially
during the holiday season.
Councilmember Birdsall stated she sat on the Community Services Funding Committee
and explained that this application was received late and $5,000 was the balance of
the funds available.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans suggested that operating the Pantry should be a paid
position.
Mayor Stone asked if Council funding could be found to fund this cause. City Manager
Bradley answered the Council has complete control of all funds.
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Roberts to
approve staff recommendation, with direction to increase the allocation to the TEAM
Community Pantry to ~ 10,000 and to place the matter of funding assistance for the
staffing of the Community Pantry on a future agenda.
20.1
Approve the ad hoc subcommittee's recommendation for Community Services
Funding requests by Temecula Valley National Little League (TVNLL) in the
amount of 92,500 and the TEAM Community Pantry in the amount of $10,000.
The motion was unanimously carried.
Councilmember Birdsall suggested using $5,000 from this year's funding and
borrowing $5,000 from next year's funds.
RECESS
Mayor Stone called a recess at 8:58 PM. The meeting was reconvened following the
Community Services District Meeting, Temecula Redevelopment Agency Meeting, the Old
Town/Westside Community Facilities District Financing Authority Meeting and the Old
Town/Westside Improvement Authority Meeting at 8:58 PM.
Councilmember Parks announced that he would resign his seat as City Councilman effective
January 1, 1996. He explained that he has been offered a position and must relocate to
Flagstaff, AZ. He thanked the Council, staff and the community for giving him the opportunity
tO Serve.
Minutes%l 1 \28%95 -8- 12/11/95
CiW Council Minutes November 28, 1995
PUBLIC HEARINGS
22 Draft Develooment Code
Community Development Director Gary Thornhill introduced the staff report and
introduced Senior Planner John Meyer who presented the staff report.
RECESS
Mayor Stone called a brief recess at 9:10 PM to change the tape. The meeting was
reconvened at 9:11 PM.
Mayor Stone opened the public hearing at 9:10 PM.
City Clerk June Greek stated that she received two written communications from John
C. Taylor, who requested they be read into the record. Council direction was given to
make these letters part of the record but not read them aloud.
Arthur Pelka, 43185 Margarita, expressed concern over the Neighborhood Commercial
designation and asked that the sale of alcoholic beverages be prohibited in these areas
as well as porno stores and private fraternal clubs. Approximately 20 people raised
their hands in support of Mr. Pelka's comments.
He also read a letter from Roger and Lynn Kuday, also expressing concerns about
alcohol being sold in the Neighborhood Commercial zones.
Kathleen Dean, 30909 Corte Arroyo Vista, expressed concerns about the
Neighborhood Commercial zone, based on the reference to "general merchandise",
which could mean anything, the sale of alcohol and traffic flow.
Robert Klotz, Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro, owners of Murdy Ranch Property, voiced
the following objections:
Chapter 17.05 regarding development plans, stating this is poorly coordinated with the
Subdivision Map Act.
Chapter 17.04 which reserves the right for the City to review Conditional Use Permits
when any modifications are made.
Senior Planner John Meyer addressed Provision 17.05, stating the intent is to address
down-sizing and requires subdivisions to have some sort of public hearing approval.
He explained this will be more rigorous than current.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans stated he would like to have a transcript of the hearing and
continue this item to allow time for review.
Minutes%11%28~95 -9- 1211 1/95
City Council Minutes November 28, 1995
Mark Telford, 28481 Rancho California Road, No. 204-A, commended John Meyers,
the Planning staff and the Planning Commission for a great job. He spoke in favor of
staff's recommendation.
Jon Hoxter, 31249 Sierra Bonita, requested that all developments established in the
Neighborhood Commercial zone, would prohibit the sale of alcohol.
Larry Markham, 41750Winchester Road, stated he has a letter from Nissan, requesting
a change to General Plan Designation on property located directly south of their
dealership. He explained Nissan wants to expand their dealership. Council consensus
was gained to evaluate the Nissan request.
Community Development Director Gary Thornhill stated that General Plan Amendments
and re-zoning are applicant generated and paid for, and the City is restricted to four
amendments per year.
Patricia Phillips, 43150 Corte Almonte, objected to the sale of alcohol in the
Neighborhood Commercial zone.
Mike Egler, 31300 Cala Carrasco, requested that no permits of any kind be issued for
the sale of liquor in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone.
It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Roberts to
extend the meeting for 15 minutes. The motion was unanimously carried.
Councilmember Birdsall addressed Chapter 17.04 regarding veterinary practices. She
asked if these rules would make it difficult to have rabies vaccine clinics at local pet
stores.
Community Development Director Gary Thornhill responded that many complaints have
been received from local veterinarians on the mobile clinics. He explained this is an
attempt to put some reasonable constraints and some fees associated with these
clinics. Councilmember Birdsall asked that the new LEAF contract be investigated so
that a conflict does not exist.
Councilmember Birdsall asked on Chapter 17.06, regarding animals, that the CC&R's
of Meadowview and Los Ranchitos be researched so that conflict between the two do
not exist.
RECESS
Mayor Stone called a brief recess at 10:10 PM to change the tape. The meeting was
reconvened at 10:11 PM.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans asked for a map where the Neighborhood Commercial areas
are and agreed that Margarita and Pauba, should not be a strip center.
Minutes%l 1%28%95 - 1 O- 1211 1/95
City Council Minutes November 28, 1995
Councilmember Roberts asked what could be done to prohibit alcohol is this area.
Community Development Director Thornhill stated this is piece of property that staff
believes received an inappropriate designation and if Council wants staff to reevaluate
the property, that can be done.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Roberts to
continue the public hearing to the meeting of December 19, 1995. The motion was
unanimously carried.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
City Manager Bradley announced that on November 28, 1995, the City became the owners
of 43106 Business Park Drive, the new City Hall building and stated tenant improvements
should be completed by next summer.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
None given.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Councilmember Roberts, seconded by Councilmember Parks to adjourn at
10:18 PM to a meeting on December 12, 1995, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center,
30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
Minutes\l 1 \28~95 -11 - 1211 1/95
ITEM 3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA ~,LLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMF. CULA DOES RESOLVE,
DETER/v~hTE 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 $1,398,511.87
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
APPROVEn AND ADOPTED, this 19th day of December, 1995.
ATTF. ST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
hne S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk
[SSAL]
Rssos\89 I
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
C1TY OF TElVIF~ULA)
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 19th day of December, 1995 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILNm~MBERS:
COUNCILA4EMBERS:
COUNCILMP/VIBPAS:
June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk
P~sos\89 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
LIST OF DEMANDS
12/08/95 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
12/19/95 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 12/19/95 COUNCIL MEETING:
DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND:
CHECKS:
001 GENERAL
100 GAS TAX
110 RANCHO CALIF ROAD REtMB DIST
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
38O RDA-DEBT SERVICE
39O TCSD DEBT SERVICE
370,454.36
12,553.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
12,919.02
0.00
0.00
950.00
917,154.12
53,791.10
0.00
0.00
10,219.88
2,990.00
0.00
11,369.72
4,899.93
1,210.62
O.O0
0.00
$ 69,341.23
1,329,170.54
$ 1,398,511.87
$ 1,398,511.87
RONALD E. BRADLEY, CITY MANAGER
, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
VOUCHRE2
12/08/95
10:31
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
PAGE
FUND TITLE
001 GENERAL FUND
100 GAS TAX FUND
190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP
320 INFORHATION SYSTEMS
330 SUPPORT SERVICES
340 FACILITIES
AMOUNT
28,075.27
12#553,12
7#987.36
950.00
10,219.88
3,445.05
4,899.93
1,210.62
TOTAL 69,341.23
VOUCHRE2
' ~8/95
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
26590
26595
26595
26595
26595
26595
26595
26595
26595
26595
26595
26596
26597
26598
26599
26599
~00
~00
Z6600
26600
26600
26600
26600
26600
26600
26600
26600
26601
26602
26603
26604
26605
26606
26607
26607
26608
10:31
CHECK
DATE
12/07/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
lZ/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
VENDOR
NUI4BER
000684
000680
000680
000680
000680
000680
000680
000680
000680
000680
000680
001515
001674
001912
001323
001323
000622
000622
000622
000622
000622
000622
000622
000622
000622
000622
000622
001876
002114
001267
001326
001233
000155
001380
001380
001056
VENDOR
NAME
DIEHL, EVANS & COMPANY
AMS-TMS
AMS-TMS
AMS-TMS
AMS-TMS
AMS-TMS
AMS-TMS
AMS-TMS
AMS-TMS
AMS-TMS
AMS-TMS
A S A P TRUCK TRACTOR &
ADKINS, ROBERT STEVEN
ALLMON, VYLANI
ARROWHEAD WATER, INC.
ARROUHEAD WATER, INC.
BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER
BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRZGER
BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER
BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER
BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER
BANTA ELECTR1C-REFRiGER
BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER
BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER
BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER
BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER
BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER
BEIJING LONGEVITY, INC.
BKM TOTAL OFFICE OF CAL
CALIFORNIA DEPT OF MOTO
CHULA VISTA, CITY OF
DAN'S FEED & SEED, INC.
DAVLIN
E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
EXCEL LANDSCAPE
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
TAX SEMINAR:MCDERMOTT,SMITH,WE
DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE
DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE
DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE
DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE
DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE
DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE
DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE
DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE
DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE
OEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE
~EED ABATEMENT/EASEMENTS
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
BOTTLED WATER FOR CITY YARD
BOTTLE ~TR - CITY HALL
HVAC/ELECT SRVCS FOR CRC
HVAC SRVC SEN]OR CENTER
HVAC/ELECT SRVCS FOR CRC
ELECT SRVCS CITY HALL
ELECTRICAL SVCS FOR TCSD PARKS
HVAC/ELECTRICAL SERVICES
HVAC/ELECTRICAL SERVICES
ELECTRICAL SVCS FOR TCSD PARKS
HVAC/ELECTRiCAL SERVICES
ELECT SRVCS CITY HALL
ELECT SRVCS CiTY HALL
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
TRIP CHARGE FOR CHAIR REPAIR
REGISTRATION FOR 92 CHEV
REFRESHMENT FUND-TRAiN CONSORT
PROPANE GAS SUPPLY/NAINT CREW
BROADCASTING OF COUNCIL MTGS.
TEMP HELP 2 W/E 10/27 DUNCAN
TEMP HELP W/E 11/10 ANDERSON
WEED ABATEMENT IN CHANNEL/CRC
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
001-140-999-5261
001-100-999-5230
001-110-999-5230
001-120-999-5230
001-162-999-5230
190-180-999-5230
001-140-999-5230
001-150-999-5230
100-164-60/,-5230
001-161-501-5230
001-161-502-5230
193-180-999-5415
190-18~-999-5330
190-18~-999-5330
100-164-601-5240
340-199-999-5240
190-182-999-5250
190-181-999-5250
190-182-999-5250
340-199-999-5250
190-180-999-5212
190-182-999-5250
190-182-999-5250
190-180-999-5212
190-182-999-5250
340-199-999-5250
340-199-999-5250
190-183-999-5330
001-162-999-5250
001-110-999-5226
001-150-999-5261
100-164-601-5218
001-100-999-5250
001-162-999-5250
001-162-999-5250
190-180-999-5415
ITEM
AMOUNT
150.00
5.44
21.12
440.33
77.69
135.37
278.08
94.70
203.91
136.30
136.30
950.00
194.40
768.00
33.00
177.70
342.00
83.00
47.50
45.00
230.50
102.50
135.00
249.60
175.00
165.00
150.00
16.00
50.00
252.00
74.01
5.28
800.00
960.00
221.00
359.00
PAGE 1
CHECK
AMOUNT
150.00
1,529.24
950.00
194.40
768.00
210.70
1,725.10
16.00
50.00
252.00
74.01
5.28
800.00
1,181.00
359.00
VOUCHRE2
1 Z/08/95
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUHBER
26609
26609
26610
26610
26610
26610
26610
26610
26610
26610
26611
26612
26612
26613
26614
26614
26614
26614
26615
26615
26615
26616
26617
26617
26617
26617
26618
26618
26618
26619
26620
26620
26621
26621
26621
26621
26621
26621
10:31
CHECK
DATE
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
lZ/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
VENDOR
NUMBER
000643
000643
000170
000170
000170
000170
000170
000170
000170
000170
000993
000184
000184
002108
000177
000177
000177
000177
000178
000178
000178
001697
000186
000186
000186
000186
002098
002098
002098
001908
000193
000193
001667
001667
001667
001667
001667
001667
VENDOR
NAME
FORTHER HARDMARE, INC.
FORTHER HARDWARE, INC,
FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY
FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY
FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY
FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY
FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY
FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY
FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY
FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY
FREEDOM COFFEE, INC.
G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM
G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM
GEOSOILS, INC
GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENHIES OFFICE PRCN)UCT
GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENHIES OFFICE PROOUCT
GOLDEN STATE TRADING CO
GOLDEN STATE TRADING CO
GOLDEN STATE TRADING CO
HALL, NANCY LEE
HANKS HARDWARE, INC.
HANKS HARDWARE, INC.
HANKS HARDWARE, INC,
HANKS HARDWARE, INC,
HOUSE OF MOTORCYCLES
HOUSE OF MOTORCYCLES
HOUSE OF MOTORCYCLES
HUMAN KINETICS PUBLISHE
I C M A - ANNAPOLIS JUN
I C M A - ANNAPOLIS JUN
KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE
KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE
KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE
KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE
KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE
KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
TCSD MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
MAINT SUPPLIES
CALENDER REFILL JAN96
SEASONS REFILL JAN96
CALENDER REFILL JAN96
MONTICELLO REFILL JAN 96
FREIGHT
FRE ] GNT
TAX
TAX
BEVERAGE SERVICE - CITY HALL
909 694-4357 GEM USAGE
909 699-0128 GEM USAGE
PROF SRVCS/SOLANA STORM DRAIN
MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES
MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES
TAX
540MB HARD DRIVE
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES FOR PARKS
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES FOR PARKS
POLICE MOTORCYCLE REPAIR/MAINT
POLICE MOTORCYCLE REPAIR/MAINT
POLICE MOTORCYCLE REPAIR/MAINT
TRAINING VIDEOS AND BOOKS
BOOK:EFFECT COMM SERVS
BOOK:PROFORM APPRAISAL & COMP
TEMP HELP W/E 11/19 EVANS
TEMP HELP W/E 11/19 EVANS
TEMP HELP W/E 11/19 EVANS
TEMP HELP W/E 11/26 EVANS
TEMP HELP W/E 11/26 EVANS
TEMP HELP W/E 11/26 EVANS
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
190-180-999-5212
100-164-601-5218
001-110-999-5220
001-140-999-5220
001-140-999-5220
001-140-999-5220
001-140-999-5220
001-110-999-5220
001-110-999-5220
001-140-999-5220
340-199-999-5250
320-199-999-5208
320-199-999-5208
001-1280
330-199-999-5220
001-162-999-5220
001-140-999-5220
190-180-999-5220
001-170-999-5221
001-170-999-5221
320-199-999-5221
190-183-999-5330
340-199-999-5212
340-199-999-5212
190-180-999-5212
190-180-999-5212
001-170-999-5214
001-170-999-5214
001-170-999-5214
190-180-999-5228
001-110-999-5228
001-150-999-5228
001-165-999-5118
001-165-999-5118
100-164-60~-5118
001-165-999-5118
001-165-999-5118
100-164-604-5118
ITEM
AMOUNT
61.37
38.46
27.50
27.50
20.95
25.00
7.92
1.58
1.43
7.13
81.46
213.52
1,052.12
63.00
33.35
117.89
39.39
92.88
125.00
9.69
188.56
14~.00
241.33
47.97
503.87
1,153.91
100.00
100.00
1,805.34
228.89
59.50
38.25
121.33
121.33
121.34
72.80
72.80
72.80
PAGE 2
CHECK
AMOUNT
99.83
119.01
81.46
1,265.64
63.00
2~
323.25
lz~.00
1,947.08
2,005.34
228.89
97.75
582.40
VOUCHRE2
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
26622
26623
26624
26625
26626
26626
26627
26628
26629
26629
26629
26629
26630
/e}632
26632
26632
26632
26633
26634
26635
26636
26637
26638
26639
266~0
266~0
266~ 1
266~2
26642
10:31
CHECK
DATE
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/D8/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER NAME
KICAK, JOSEPH
000209 L & M FERTiLiZER, INC.
002067 L D D S k, IORLDCON, INC.
001513 LIBERTY AUTO CENTER
000214 LUNCH & STUFF CATERING
000214 LUNCH & STUFF CATERING
001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV
002137 MIKE'S POOL PATROL
00138~ MINUTEMAN PRESS
00138~ MINUTEMAN PRESS
00138~ MINUTEMAN PRESS
001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS
000883
MONTELEONE EXCAVATING
002135 MONTELEONE, HENHiE
001654
001654
001654
001654
001214
MONTEREY SYSTEMS, INC.
MONTEREY SYSTEMS, INC.
MONTEREY SYSTEMS, INC.
MONTEREY SYSTEMS, INC.
MORNINGSTAR MUSICAL PRO
000587 MUNOZ, MARION.
001007 N P G CORP.
NEW COIq4 LUTHERAN CHURC
002088 OLD TCR~N TYPEWRITER
001243 PALMQUIST, MARY
000733 PARTY PZAZZ
000580 PHOTO ~ORKS
000580 PHOTO WORKS
002132 PICTURE THIS, NODEL & T
001220 POLAROID CORPORATION
001220 POLAROID CORPORATION
001220 POLAROID CORPORATION
CiTY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERZOOS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
INTERVIEW PANEL LUNCH
PARTS, EQUIP, REPAIRS/TCSD
TELECONNUNICATiONS SERVICER
VEHICLE REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
CATERING FOR SISTER CITY GUEST
CATERING SERVS FOR LIBRARY MTG
TEMP HELP WE 11/26 LIPOSCHAK
POOL CLEANING SERVS
BUSINESS CARDS/P ZUNA
BUSINESS CARDS P SMITH
CORRECTION NOTICES
TAX
SANTIAGO RD BUILD DESILT DAMS
EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION DINNER
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
001-163-999-5260
190-180-999-5242
320-199-999-5208
001-162-999-5214
001-100-999-5280
001-110-999-5250
100-16~-601-5118
190-182-999-5250
001-162-999-5222
001-162-999-5222
001-162-999-5222
001-162-999-5222
100-164-601-5401
001-150-999-5265
MICROFILM PROCESSING CITY CLRK 330-199-999-5277
MICROFILM PROCESSING CITY CLRK 330-199-999-527'7
MICROFILM PROCESSING CITY CLRK 330-199-999-5277
MICROFILM PROCESSING CITY CLRK 330-199-999-5277
SOUND & SPEAKER FOR PARADE
OLD TO~N TRASH MAINTENANCE
RAINBO~ CYN RD ASPHALT
REFUND-SECURiTY DEPOSIT
TYPEWRITER REPAIR
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
SUPPLY FOR EMPLOYEE GOLF TOURN
MISC SUPPLIES/SERVICES
FILM, SLIDES AND PICTURES
PHOTOS FOR CRC INFO BROCHURE
HOLIDAY FRIENDS MOUNT SGLHOLID
FREIGHT
TAX
190-183-999-5370
001-163-999-5250
100-164-601-5402
190-2900
001-150-999-5242
190-183-999-5330
001-2172
001-171-999-5250
190-180-999-5301
190-180-999-5254
190-183-999-5370
190-183-999-5370
190-183-999-5370
ITEM
AMOUNT
67. O0
32.25
1,990.85
102.80
81.00
39. O0
380.64
53.75
41.21
41.21
60.92
11,500.00
3,250.00
297.03
521,50
361.96
699.97
900.00
376.00
45. O0
60.00
85.00
335.20
511.81
7.10
12.29
350.00
81. O0
5.00
6.27
PAGE 3
CHECK
AMOUNT
67.00
32.25
1,990.85
102.80
120.00
380.64
53.75
148.06
11,500.00
3,250.00
1,880.46
900.00
376.00
45.00
60.00
85.00
335.20
511.81
19.39
350.00
92.27
VOUCHRE2
12/08/95
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
2664'~
26644
26645
266/,6
26646
26647
26648
26649
26650
26651
26652
26653
26655
26659
26660
26662
26663
26663
2666_t
26663
10:31
CHECK
DATE
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
12/08/95
VENDOR
NUMBER
00025]
000255
000262
000426
000426
001680
000352
000955
002124
000405
000519
000375
000291
000563
000957
000998
002138
0004,09
000409
000409
001632
000345
002095
002095
002095
002095
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VENDOR
NAME
POSTMASTER
PRO LOCK & KEY
RANCHO CALl FORN IA WATER
RANCHO INDUSTRIAL SUPPL
RANCHO INDUSTRIAL SUPPL
RAY GRAGE AND ASSOCIATE
RIVERSIDE CO. ASSESSOR
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS
TCSD LOCKSMITH SRVCS-CITY HALL
02-79-10100-1DIAZ RD gTR SERV
INDUSTRIAL SUPPLiES-PARKS
INOUSTRIAL SUPPLiES-PARKS
PLAN CHECK SRVCS/NOV
COPIES OF 7 MAP 8.50 EACH
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF-B OCT/NOV BIKE PATROL
SAN DIEGO, CITY OF
SMITH, PHILLIP
SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR
SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON
SPEE DEE OIL CHANGE & T
T E A M COMt4UNITY PANTR
TEMECULA DRAIN SERVICE
TEMECULA VALLEY FILM
TEMECULA VALLEY NAT#L L
TREE OF LIFE NURSERY
VALLEN SAFETY SUPPLY,
VALLEN SAFETY SUPPLY,
VALLEN SAFETY SUPPLY,
WHITNORE, JOHNSON & BOL
XEROX CORPORATION BILLI
ZANVILLE & ASSOCIATES
ZANVILLE & ASSOCIATES
ZANVILLE & ASSOCIATES
ZANVILLE & ASSOCIATES
REPAIR/MAINT POLICE MOTORCYCLE
BOOT REIMBUREMENT
PEST CONTROL SERVICES - CITY
909 205-7826 GR
REPAIR/MAINT. VEHICLE; B&S
COMMUNITY SERVS FUNDING PRGM
REPAIR ON TOILETS-NEW CiTY HAL
MATCHING FUNDS AGREEMENT
COI~NITY SERVS FUNDING PRGM
SPT PRK CHANNEL iMPROV/PLANTIN
OXYGEN SENSOR
FRE i GHT
TAX
LEGAL SERVS/CCPA CONSORTZUM
COPIER MONTHLY LEASE/DEC
SEPT PROF MKTG SERVS
SEPT PROF MKTG SERVS
OCT PROF MKTG EXPENSES
OCT 95 PROF MKTG SERVS
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
001-140-999-5230
340-199-999-5212
190-180-999-5240
190-180-999-5212
190-180-999-5212
001-162-999-5248
190-180-999-5220
001-170-999-5326
001-170-999-5214
001-162-999-5243
340-199-999-5250
001-140-999-5208
001-162-999-5214
001-100-999-5267
340-199-999-5212
280-199-999-5264
001-100-999-5267
190-180-999-5212
100-164-601-5242
100-164-601-5242
100-164-601-5242
001-130-999-5247
330-199-999-52~9
280-199-999-5270
280-199-999-5270
280-199-999-5270
280-199-999-5270
I T EM
AMOUNT
733.20
16.16
214.99
26.31
15,28
201.24
3.50
909.36
2,089.81
55.83
42.00
69. O0
30.70
10,000.00
244. O0
5,000. O0
2,500.00
125.00
18.00
9.69
156.06
2,986.12
1,950. O0
121,08
998.80
2,150.00
PAGE 4
CHECK
AMOUNT
733.20
16.16
214.99
41.59
201.24
3.50
909.36
2,089.81
55.8~
42. O0
69. O0
10,000.00
2~.00
5,000,00
2,500.00
868.73
152.69
156.06
2,986.12
5,219.88
TOTAL CHECKS 69,Z~1.2~
VOUCHRE2
.... 'q/95
11:09
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIOOS
PAGE
FUND TITLE
001 GENERAL FUND
190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D
210 CAPITAL INPROVEHENT PROJ FUND
300 INSURANCE FUND
320 INFORMATION SYSTEHS
TOTAL
AMOUNT
342,379.09
4,931.66
917,154.12
53,791.10
2,990.00
7,924.67
1,329,170.64
VOUCHRE2
12/08/95
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
26666
26667
26668
26668
26668
26668
26668
26668
26669
26670
26670
26670
26670
26671
26671
26671
26671
26671
26671
26671
26671
26671
26671
26671
26671
26671
26671
26671
26672
26673
26673
26674
26674
26674
26674
26674
26674
26674
26674
26674
26674
26675
11:09
CHECK
DATE
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
12/19/95
VENDOR
NUMBER
002085
000166
000178
000178
000178
000178
000178
000178
000217
001383
001383
001383
001383
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
001035
000420
000420
002089
002089
002089
002089
002089
002089
002089
002089
002089
002089
000329
VENDOR
NAME
BARNEY & BARNEY
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO
GOLDEN STATE TRADING CO
GOLDEN STATE TRN)ING CO
GOLDEN STATE TRADING CO
GOLDEN STATE TRADING CO
GOLDEN STATE TRADING CO
GOLDEN STATE TRADING CO
MARGARITA OFFICIALS ASS
P M W ASSOCIATES, INC,
P M W ASSOCIATES, INC,
P M W ASSOCIATES, INC.
P M W ASSOCIATES, INC.
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S
RIVERSIDE CO. SNERIFF~S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFFS
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF~S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF~S
RIVERSIOE CO. SHERZFPS
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF~S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF~S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF~S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF/S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFPS
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF~S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF#S
TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL
TRAMS-PACIFIC CONSULTAN
TRANS-PACIFIC CONSULTAN
U S SAFETY AND SUPPLY
U S SAFETY AND SUPPLY
U S SAFETY AND SUPPLY
U S SAFETY AND SUPPLY
U S SAFETY AND SUPPLY
U S SAFETY AND SUPPLY
U S SAFETY AND SUPPLY
U S SAFETY AND SUPPLY
U S SAFETY AND SUPPLY,
U S SAFETY AND SUPPLY,
URBAN DESIGN STUDIO, ZN
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIOOS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
INSURANCE'COMMERCIAL PACKAGE
TITLE RPTS-UESTERN BYPASS
THREE - PENTIUM COMPUTER
FREIGHT
TAX
PENTIUM COMPUTER
FREIGHT
TAX
ADULT SOFTBALL OFFICIALS
TEAMBUILDING 12/04-05/95
TEAMBUILDING 12/04-05/95
TEAMBUILDING 12/04-05/95
TEAMBUILDING 12/04-05/95
AUG 95 BOOKING FEES
SEPT BOOKING FEES
SEPT LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVS
SEPT LAM ENFORCEMENT SERVS
SEPT LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVS
SEPT LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVS
SEPT LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVS
SEPT LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVS
SEPT LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVS
SEPT LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVS
SEPT LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVS
SEPT LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVS
SEPT LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVS
CRIMINAL ID & ZNFOR SYSTEM
OVRCHGED FACILITIES CHARGES
CITY WIDE TRASH COLL 7/95-12/9
PROJ PW95-OT/WESTERN BY-PASS
CREDIT:PW95-07 WESTERN BY-PASS
GAS DETECTOR
COMBUSTIBLE SENSOR
OXYGEN SENSOR
SENSOR
SENSOR
CHLORINE TEST GAS
GAS MIXTURE
REGULATOR
REGULATOR
TAX
DESIGN GUIDEL]NES-SERV OCT/NOV
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
300-199-999-5204
210-165-612-5802
320-1970
320-1970
320-1970
001-170-999-5604
001-170-999-5604
001-170-999-5604
190-183-999-5380
001-140-999-5248
001-150-999-5248
001-110-999-5248
001-120-999-5250
001-170-999-52T3
001-170-999-5273
001-170-999-5288
001-170-999-5298
001-170-999-5290
001-170-999-5291
001-170-999-5282
001-170-999-5299
001-170-999-5294
001-170-999-5262
001-170-999-5281
001-1230
001-170-999-52~4
001-170-999-5325
001-170-999-5234
194-180-999-5315
210-165-612-5802
210-165-612-5802
190-182-999-5610
190-182-999-5610
190-182-999-5610
190-182-999-5610
190-182-999-5610
190-182-999-5610
190-182-999-5610
190-182-999-5610
190-182-999-5610
190-182-999-5610
001-161-502-5248
ITEM
AMOUNT
2,990.00
8,800.00
7,299.00
60.00
565.67
1,973.00
20.00
152.91
1,524.60
756.60
227.00
302.64
453.96
10,156.80
10,598.40
183,883.76
21,115.46
5,644.80
6,074.78
2,8/4.4.80
28,950.96
9,603.20
13,522.70
18,484.56
6,074.77
8,704.20
9,038.30
690.51'
917,154.12
46,391.10
1,400.00-
1,577.00
225.00
110.00
345.00
210.00
325.00
165.00
95.00
110.00
245.06
4,486.00
PAGE 1
CHECK
AMOUNT
2,990.00
8,800.00
10,070.58
1,524.60
1,740.20
334,006.98
917,154.12
44,991.10
3,407.06
4 49"-n0
TOTAL CHECKS 1,329,170-64
ITEM 4
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE DIREC
CITY MANAGE
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
December 19, 1995
Release of Monument Bonds in Tracts 20130-1,20130-2, 20130-3,
20130-4,20130-5, 21340-5, 21340-6,23140-7, and 21340-F.
(Westerly of Winchester Road, Northeasterly of Margarita Road)
PREPARED BY:///A~teven W. Cresswell, Principal Engineer
~ Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council RECOMMEND the release of Subdivision Monumentation Bonds in Tracts
No. 20130-1, 20130-2, 20130-3, 20130-4, 20130-5, 21340-5, 21340-6, 21340-7, and
21340-F, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the
Developer and Surety.
BACKGROUND:
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved several tract maps, and entered into
Subdivision Agreements with:
Kulberg Ltd.
27710 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 301,
Temecula, CA 92590
for the improvement of streets and drainage, installation of sewer and water systems, and
subdivision monumentation. The tract numbers, dates of Board action, and the Subdivision
Monument bonds posted by Insurance Company of the West are as follows:
Tract No. 20130-1. Approved February 25, 1986. Bond No. 919256S for $7,300.
Tract No. 20130-2. Approved February 25, 1986. Bond No. 919262S for $7,700.
Tract No. 20130-3. Approved July 22, 1986.
Bond No. 935(XX)S for $6,800.
Tract No. 20130-4. Approved August 19, 1986.
Bond No. 935508S for $7,000.
Tract No. 20130-5. Approved August 19, 1986.
Bond No. 935504S for $5,000.
r:~Zdrpt~95\1219~/201301.340 12/06/akc
Tract No. 21340-5. Approved May 3, 1988. Bond No. 958065S for $8,800.
Tract No. 21340-6. Approved May 17, 1988.
Bond No. 960~?.9S for $9,000.
Tract No. 21340-7. Approved May 17, 1988.
Bond No. 960479S for $7,700.
· Tract No. 21340-F. Approved May 17, 1988.
Bond No. 960484S for $8,(XX).
All projects were recorded in the County, were initially inspected by County forces with
several projects accepted and bonds released by the County as the work was completed. The
remaining projects have been jointly inspected by County and City forces and several accepted
by the City Council or are nearing acceptance and then release of faithful performance and
labor and material bonds when and as appropriate.
None of the subdivision monumentation bonds were released by the County. The developer
requested that the City complete the inspection process and recommend release of these
bonds.
Public Works Staff has inspected the monuments and centerline tie sheets and recommends
that these bonds be released. These bonds are held in the files of the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors at this time.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Attachment:
Location Map
r:~agdtpt\95\1219\tr201301.340 12/06/ak~
VIC'IMI T Y A,IA P
,/
TRACTS NO. 21030-1,2,3,4,5, &
TRACTS NO. 21340-5,6,7,F.
Location Map
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
December 19, 1995
Partial Reduction in Faithful Performance Bond Amount in Tract No.
21067. (Northerly side of Pala Road, West of Loma Linda Road)
PREPARED BY:
Steven W. Cresswell, Principal Engineer
Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council AUTHORIZE a 50% reduction in the Faithful Performance Bond amount
in Tract No. 21067, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety.
BACKGROUND:
On September 18, 1991, the City Council approved Tract Map No. 21067, and entered into
Subdivision Agreement with:
Kingsway Construction Corporation
2650 Camino Del Rio North
San Diego, CA 92108
for the improvement of streets and drainage, installation of sewer and water systems, and
subdivision monumentation. Accompanying the Subdivision Agreement were surety bonds
issued by Insurance Company of the West as follows:
Bond No. 117 85 65 in the amount of $1,571,500 ($1,255,500, $149,500, and
$166,500, respectively) to cover faithful performance for street, water and sewer
improvements.
Bond No. 117 85 65 in the amount of $785,750 ($628,000, $75,000, and $82,750,
respectively) to cover labor and materials for street, water and sewer improvements.
3. Bond No. 117 85 66 in the amount of $31,284to cover subdivision monumentationo
r:Xagdrpt\95\1219\tr21067p.red
Kingsway Construction Corporation's successor in interest of this site is:
Santa Barbara 86 (Westmark Communities, Inc., General Partner)
One Columbia
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
who has executed replacement agreements and securities for the contractual work.
Replacement surety bonds were posted by the same surety, Insurance Company of the West,
under the same bond numbers and in the same amounts as the original documents.
Public Works Staff has reviewed the status of construction as requested by the developer and
recommends a fifty percent (50%) reduction in the Faithful Performance Bond amount as
permitted under Section 6.(b) of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for this project as
follows:
Street, Water and Sewer Improvements Bond No. 117 85 65 $785,750
The remaining Faithful Performance Bond amount is sufficient to both complete the remaining
work and provide the contractual ten-percent (10%) warranty amount, as follows:
Street, Water and Sewer Improvements Bond No. 117 85 65 $785,750
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Attachment:
Location Map
r:~agd~t\gS\1219\tr21067p.re41
VICINITY MAP
rf o .Jr,4LF...
lIB'W,'
TRACT NO. 21067
Loca'jon
Man
ITEM 6
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL R
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE DIREC C
CITY MANAGE
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
December 19, 1995
Parcel Map 27714 (located east of Ynez Road, between Solana Way and
Rancho California Road)
PREPARED BY: ~/Steven W. Cresswell, Principal Engineer
)Jim D. Faul, Assistant Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve Final Parcel Map 27714 subject to the Conditions of Approval.
BACKGROUND:
Tentative Parcel Map No. 27714 (PA93-0017) was approved by the City of Temecula Planning
Director on July 22, 1993 and was granted an additional two (2) year extension of time by
the State of California pursuant to SB428. The Developer has met all of the applicable
Conditions of Approval.
Final Parcel Map No. 27714 contains twelve (12) commercial parcels within 13.43 gross
acres. The parcel map is located on the east of Ynez Road, between Solana Way and Rancho
California Road. The Developer is the Glenborough Inland Realty Corporation (Rancon Realty
Fund IV).
The following fees have been deferred for Final Parcel Map No. 27714:
Stephen's K-Rat Fee
Flood Control Fee, ADP
Public Facilities Fee
Signal Mitigation Fee
Fire Mitigation Fee
Due prior to Grading Permit
Due prior to Grading Permit
Due prior to Building Permit
Due prior to Building Permit
Due prior to Building Permit
- 1 - r:\agd rpt~9S~ 1219~prn27714.map
The following bonds have been posted for Final Parcel Map 27714:
Faithful Labor &
Performance Material
Subdivision
Monument
Street and Drainage
Water
Sewer
Survey Monuments
$337,500 $169,000
$92,500 $46,500
$44,000 $22,000
$3,500
Total
$474,000 $237,500
$3,500
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
2.
3.
4.
Development Fee Checklist
Vicinity Map
Copy of Sheet 2, Parcel Map 27714
Fees and Securities Report
-2- r:\agdrpt~95\1219~pm27714.map
CiTY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
Final Parcel MaD No. 27714
The following fees and deposits were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this
project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
(Quimby Fees)
Traffic Signal Mitigation
Public Facility
Fire Protection Mitigation
Flood Control (ADP)
Condition of ADOrOval
Condition No. 8
Due Prior to Grading Permit
n/a
Condition No. 57
Due Prior to Building Permit
Condition No. 62
Due Prior to Building Permit
Condition No. 73
Letter dated 2-23-93
Condition No. 28
Due prior to Grading Permit
-3- r:\agdrpt~95~l 219\pm27714.map
PR OJ~ C T ~ I T~
VICINITY MAP
NO T To ~C~qLE
CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT
PARCEL MAP NO. 27714
IMPROVEMENTS
STREETS & DRAINAGE
WATER
SEWER
TOTAL
Monument Security
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
$337,500
$92,500
$44,000
$474,000
$3,500
DATE: December 19, 1995
MATERIAL & LABOR
SECURITY
$169,000
$46,500
$22,000
$237,500
DEVELOPMENT FEES (PA93-0017)
City Traffic Signing and Striping Costs
RCFCD Drainage Fee - deferred
Fire Mitigation Fee - deferred
Signal Mitigation Fee - deferred
Road and Bridge Benefit Fee
Other Development Fees
N/A
T.B.D.*
T.B.D.*
T.B.D.*
N/A
T.B.D*
SERVICE FEES (LD93-00303 & LD95-001MP)
Planning Fee
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Plan Check Fee
Inspection Fee
Monument Inspection Fee
Letter of Map Revision (LOMR Review)
Fees Paid to Date
Balance of Fees Due
*T.B.D. - To be determined
113.00
8.00
1,390.00
N/A
250.00
N/A
1,761.00
0.00
-4- r:%egdrpt%95\1219\prn27714.map
I'rEM 7
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL R~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE DIREC
CITY MANAGE
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
December 19, 1995
Summary Vacation of the existing restricted access along the southerly
side of Solana Way between Rycrest Street and Skywood Drive on
Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel Map No. 13271.
PREPARED BY:
Steven W. Cresswell, Principal Engineer
Jim D. Faul, Assistant Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 95---
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA SUMMARILY VACATING AN EXISTING RESTRICTED
ACCESS ALONG THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF SOLANA WAY
BETWEEN RYCREST STREET AND SKYWOOD DRIVE ON
PARCELS I AND 2 OF PARCEL MAP 13271.
BACKGROUND:
Tentative Parcel Map No. 13271, approved by the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors,
restricted access along the southerly side of Solana Way between Rycrest Street and Skywood
Drive on parcels I and 2. The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approved Parcel Map
No. 13271 on July 17, 1979 and it was recorded on July 25, 1979.
Subsequent to the recording of Parcel Map No. 13271, the streets shown on the map (Via
Don Quixote and Calle Prima Vera), were vacated by the County of Riverside Board of
Supervisors (Resolution No. 88-544) as instrument no. 339501, recorded on November 21,
1988. As a result of the street vacations, development of the subject property requires direct
access to Solana Way to the north.
On November 6, 1995, the City of Temecula Planning Commission approved the ABC
Preschool project (PA95-0097) with two (2) driveway entrances on Solana Way, necessary
to provide adequate on-site circulation. The subject summary vacation of the existing
restricted access along the southerly side of Solana Way is necessary to provide access to the
ABC Preschool in accordance with the City and the applicant's desire.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
ATTACHMENT: Resolution No. 95- with Exhibits "A and B"
r: ~agd rpt\95 \ 1219 ~olana .vac
RESOLUTION NO. 9~-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA SUIVIMARILY VACATING AN EXISTING
RESTRICTED ACCESS ALONG THE SOUTHERLY SIDE
OF SOLANA WAY BETWEEN RYCREST STREET AND
SKYWOOD DRIVE ON PARCELS 1 AND 2 OF PARCEL
MAP 13271.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby fred, determine and
declare as follows:
a. The Owner' s Statement of Parcel Map No. 13271 provides that the Owner of
Parcel 1 and 2 will have no rights of access to Solana Way, except for the general right
of travel.
b. The streets shown on Parcel Map No. 13271 (Via Don Quixote and Calle Prima
Vera) were vacated by the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors by Resolution No.
88-544 as instrument no. 339501, recorded on November 21, 1988 in the Riverside
County Recorder's Office.
c. The Owner of Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 13271 (hereinafter "Owner") now
desires direct access to Solana Way.
d. The City desires to effectuate the intention of the Owner by vacating the existing
restricted access along the southerly side of Solana Way on Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel
Map No. 13271.
e. The Streets and Highways Code, Section 8333, provides the authority for the City
Council to summarily vacate an access easement if the easement has been superseded by
relocation and there are no other public facilities located within the easement.
Section 2. The restricted access along Solana Way on Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel Map No.
13271, as described on Exhibit "A" and shown on Exhibit "B" , is hereby vacated and shall no
longer constitute an easement or right of way or other interest in real property of the City of
Temecuh and shall revert to the Owner.
Section 3. The City Clerk shah certify the adoption of this Resolution.
r: ~agdrpt\95 \ 1219\solaria .vac
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula
on the 19th day of December, 1995.
AT'FEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
June S. Greek,
City Clerk
[SEAL]
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
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 19th day of December, 1995, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek
City Clerk
r: ~agdtptX95 \ i 219Xsolann .vac
EXHIBIT "A' ....
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR SUMMARY VACATION OF RESTRICTED ACCESS
ALONG A PORTION OF SOLANA WAY
BEING A VACATION OF RESTRICTED ACCESS ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SOLANA WAY (FORMERLY LA SBRENA WAY) AS SHOWN ON
PARCEL MAP 13271, RECORDED IN BOOK 67, PAGE 80 OF PARCEL MAPS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY RECORDER, RIVERSIDE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THOSE PORTIONS OF PARCELS 1 AND 2, DEDICATED TO .THE PUBLIC AS
ABUTTERS' RIGHTS OF ACCESS, ABUTFING SOLANA WAY (FORMERLY LA SERENA
WAY) AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP 13271.
SEE EXHIBIT "B" A'I'FACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART
HEREOF.
PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF:
JAMES A. DRENON
P.L.S. 6153
EXP. 3/31/98
DATE
rI)
9UIk1~KY V~C~TIOIV
OF
RE6T~'ICT60 RCCE~
~LOIVG R PO~'TIOA] OF
60L~A7,~ i4/~Y'
ENGINEERING VFr4TURES
LAND PLANNING * CIVIL ENGINEERING
" LAND SURVE'fiNG
43500 RIDGE PARK DR., t1202 · 1LrMECULA, CA. 92590
(COg) 699-6450 FAX: 899-3569
W.O. NO.
SHEET I OF_Z_. Z,,~O-OI
I~CALE:
/ ~'
"'J'~i~'~tN BY: J DATE: J PROJECT:
- c'
~ v/4
,RS'/A/ST. No.
ITEM 8
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works\City Engineer
December 19, 1995
Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Barrier Rail on Front St. at
Empire Creek, Project PW95-17
PREPARED BY: f~ Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects
Scott Harvey, Associate Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of
Public Works to solicit public construction bids for the Barrier Rail on Front St. at Empire
Creek, Project No. PW95-17 once we receive approval from Caltrans.
BACKGROUND:
The Federal Government provides a 88.53% reimbursement to rehabilitate existing bridges
under a program called Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRR). An
application was submitted for a project to install a metal barrier rail or guard rail on each side
of Empire Creek at Front Street. The rail will re-direct vehicles who deviate from the roadway
away from the channel. The barrier rail will be constructed of wooden posts and steel rails
similar to those used in the center divider of Interstate 15. The City/County/State Bridge
Replacement and Rehabilitation Steering Committee has considered the Barrier Rail on Front
St. at Empire Creek eligible for reimbursement. Federal funds for this project will be
administered by Caltrans.
The plans, specifications and contract documents have been completed and the project is
ready to be advertised for construction bids once we receive approval from Caltrans. These
plans and specifications are available for review in the City Engineer's office.
The engineer's estimate for this project is $9,000.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This project is a Capital Improvement Project which will be funded 88.53% by HBRR federal
funds and 11.47% by Measure A funds.
pw04 ~agd rpt',95 '~ 1219\pw95-17 .bid
I'I'EM 9
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
December 19, 1995
Solicitation of Construction Bids and Approval of the Plans and
Specifications for the Interim Traffic Signal Installation at the Intersection
of Pala Road and SR-79(S) (Project No. PW95-14)
PREPARED BY: ¢;~ Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects
Ali Moghadam, Assistant 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. PW95-14,
Interim Traffic Signal installation at the intersection of Pala Road and SR-79(S) upon receiving
Caltrans approval.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council has approved installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Pala Road
and SR-79(S). This intersection is currently controlled with an all-way "Stop".
The plans, specifications and contract documents have been completed and the project is
ready to be advertised for construction. The project includes installation of an interim 3-way
traffic signal and minor signing and striping at this intersection. The estimated construction
cost for this project is $67,000. The plans and specification for this project are available for
review in the City Engineer's office.
Caltrans has reviewed the plans and specifications and the encroachment permit is currently
being processed by Caltrans.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This project is funded through the City's Development Impact Fees.
-1- r:~agdrpt\95\1219\pw95-14.bid
I'I'EM 10
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
December 19, 1995
Award of Contract for the Construction of Winchester Road at Interstate
Route 15, Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements,
Project No. PW94-21
PREPARED BY: ~ Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
Award a contract for construction of Winchester Road at Interstate Route 15, Bridge
Widening and Northbound Ramps Improvements, Project No. PW94-21, to Riverside
Construction Company for the base bid of $2,871,542.15and authorize the Mayor to
execute the contract.
Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency
amount of $287,154.22which is equal to 10% of the contract amount.
BACKGROUND:
On August 22, 1995, the City Council approved the construction plans and specifications and
authorized 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. The general items of work to be completed consist of the following: widen
Winchester Road Bridge at Interstate Route 15 from four lanes to seven lanes; the
construction of a new northbound loop entrance ramp; the construction of a northbound exit
ramp with auxiliary lane; relocation and reconstruction of existing utilities and parking lot area
in the Palm Plaza shopping center; and landscape and irrigation improvements.
The contractor is responsible for providing traffic control for the entire duration of the project
which will allow continuous traffic flow except during certain off peak hours to install traffic
control devices, falsework, and to move equipment around the site.
The City Council also previously adopted a resolution to approve a Construction Cooperative
Agreement between the State Department of Transportation and the City for construction of
Winchester Road at Interstate Route 15, Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramp
Improvements, Project No. PW94-21. The Agreement defines the terms and conditions under
which the project will be constructed, financed, and maintained.
-1 - r.\agdfpt\95%1219%pw94-21 .awdlajp
The estimated construction cost for this project is $3,110,000.00.
Eight (8) bids for the project were publicly opened on December 7, 1995 and the results for
the base bid are as follows:
BASE BID
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Riverside Construction Company ................... $2,871,542.15
E.L. Yeager Construction ........................ $2,889,710.15
Kasler Corporation ............................. $3,141,090.00
Brutoco Engineering ............................ $3,255,158.50
Matich Corporation ............................ $3,317,691.90
Meyers- Polich ............................... $3,347,667.65
D.W. Powell Construction ........................ $3,357,322.80
A.F.R. Construction, Inc ......................... $3,591,019.70
Staff has reviewed the bid proposal from Riverside Construction Company and found it to be
complete and in order. Riverside Construction Company has not performed any work for the
City, but has performed well in the cities of Riverside, Rancho Cucamonga, and Ontario based
on comments from references of previous work. They are also the lowest responsible bidder
on the Highway 79 (South) widening project between Butterfield Stage Road and Margarita
Road being administered by the County.
The construction schedule is for 600 working days which consists of 350 working days for
construction and 250 working days for plant establishment. Work is expected to begin in
January, 1996 and be completed in May, 1998.
A copy of the bid summary is available for review in the City Engineer's office.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The project is being funded through the Redevelopment Agency. Funds are available for the
construction contract of $2,871,542.15 and the contingency of $287,154.22 for a total
construction cost of $3,158,696.37,Account No. 280-199-602-5804.
Attachment:
Riverside Construction Company Contract
-2- r.\agdrpt\95\1219\pw94-21 .awdlajp
CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRACT
FOR
PROJECT NO. PW94-21
WINCHESTER ROAD AT INTERSTATE ROUTE 15
BRIDGE WIDENING AND NORTHBOUND RAMP IMPROVEMENTS
THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 19th day of December, 1995, by and between the
City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and Riverside
Construction Company, hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR."
WITNESSETH:
That CITY and CONTRACTOR, for the consideration hereinafter named, mutually agree as follows:
1,8.
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The complete Contract includes all of the Contract
Documents, to wit: Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Proposal, Performance
Bond, Labor and Materials Bond, Plans and Specifications entitled PROJECT NO. PW94-21
WINCHESTER ROAD AT INTERSTATEROUTE 15 BRIDGE ~/IDENING AND NORTHBOUND
RAMP IMPROVEMENTS, Insurance Forms, this Contract, and all modifications and
amendments thereto, the State of California Department of Transportation Standard
Specifications (1992 Ed.) where specifically referenced in the Plans and Technical
Specifications, and the latest version of the Standard SDecifications for Public Works
Construction, including all supplements as written and promulgated by the Joint
Cooperative Committee of the Southern California Chapter of the American Associated
General Contractors of California (hereinafter, "Standard Specifications") as amended by
the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for PROJECT
NO. PW94-21 WINCHESTER ROAD AT INTERSTATE ROUTE 15 BRIDGE WIDENING AND
NORTHBOUND RAMP IMPROVEMENTS. Copies of these Standard Specifications are
available from the publisher:
Building News, Incorporated
3055 Overland Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90034
(213) 202-7775
The Standard Specifications will control the general provisions, construction materials, and
construction methods for this Contract except as amended by the General, Specifications, Special
Provisions, and Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO. PW94-21 WINCHESTER ROAD AT
INTERSTATE ROUTE 15 BRIDGE WIDENING AND NORTHBOUND RAMP IMPROVEMENTS.
In case of conflict between the Standard Specifications and the other Contract Documents, the
other Contract Documents shall take precedence over and be used in lieu of such conflicting
portions.
Where the Contract Document describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in complete
detail, it is understood that the item is to be furnished and installed completed and in place and
CONTRACT CA- 1 r.%cip%projects%pw94-21 \contractJajp
that only the best general practice is to be used. Unless otherwise specified, the CONTRACTOR
shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and do all the work involved
in executing the Contract.
The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is called for by anyone shall be as binding
as if called for by all. Any conflict between this Contract and any other Contract Document shall
be resolved in favor of this Contract.
SCOPE OF WORK. CONTRACTOR shall perform everything required to be performed, shall
provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility
and transportation services required for the following:
PROJECT NO. PW94-21
WINCHESTER ROAD AT INTERSTATE ROUTE 15
BRIDGE WIDENING AND NORTHBOUND RAMP IMPROVEMENTS
All of said work to be performed and materials to be furnished shall be in strict accordance with
the Drawings and Specifications and the provisions of the Contract Documents hereinabove
enumerated and adopted by CITY.
CITY APPROVAL. All labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and work
performed and completed under the direction and supervision and subject to the approval of CITY
or its authorized representatives.
CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHEDULE. CITY agrees to pay and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept
in full payment for the work above-agreed to be done, the sum of: TWO MILUON BGHT
HUNDRED SEVENTY-ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO DOLLARS and FIFTEEN
CENTS ($2,871,542.15),the total amount of the base bid.
CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed Six Hundred (600) working
days (Three Hundred Fifty (350) working days for construction and Two Hundred Fifty (250)
working days for landscape establishment), commencing with delivery of Notice to Proceed by
CITY. Construction shall not commence until bonds and insurance are approved by CITY.
CHANGE ORDERS. All change orders shall be approved by the City Council, except that the City
Manager is hereby authorized by the City Council to make, by written order, changes or additions
to the work in an amount not to exceed the contingency as established by the City Council.
6. PAYMENTS.
Before submittal of the first payment request, the CONTRACTOR shall submit to the City
Engineer a schedule of values allocated to the various portions of the work, prepared in
such form and supported by such data to substantiate its accuracy as the City Engineer
may require. This schedule, as approved by the City Engineer, shall be used as the basis
for reviewing the CONTRACTOR's payment requests.
Pursuant to Section 20104.50 of the Public Contracts Code, within thirty (30) days after
submission of a payment request to the City, the CONTRACTOR shall be paid a sum equal
to ninety percent (90%) of the value of the work completed. Payment request forms shall
be submitted on or about the thirtieth (30th) day of each successive month as the work
progresses. The final payment, if unencumbered, or any part thereof unencumbered, shall
be made sixty (60) days after completion of the work and the CONTRACTOR filing a one-
CONTRACT CA-2 r:\cip~rojecti~,pw94-21%contracrJajp
year Warranty and an Affidavit of Final Release with the CITY on forms provided by the
CITY.
Payments shall be made on demands drawn in the manner required by law, accompanied
by a certificate signed by the City Manager, stating that the work for which payment is
demanded has been performed in accordance with the terms of the Contract, and that the
amount stated in the certificate is due under the terms of the Contract. Partial payments
on the Contract price shall not be considered as an acceptance of any part of the work.
Interest shall be paid on all undisputed payment requests not paid within 30 days pursuant
to Public Contracts Code Section 20104.50. Public Contracts Code Section 7107 is
hereby incorporated by reference.
WARRANTY RETENTION. Commencing with the date the Notice of Completion is recorded, the
CITY shall retain a portion of the Contract award price, to assure warranty performance and
correction of construction deficiencies according to the following schedule:
CONTRACT AMOUNT
$25,000-$75,000
$75,000-$500,000
Over $500,000
RETENTION PERIOD
180 days
180 days
One Year
RETENTION PERCENTAGE
3%
$2,250 + 2% of amount in
excess of $75,000
$10,750 + 1% of amount
in excess of $500,000
10.
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES: EXTENSION OF TIME. In accordance with Government Code Section
53069.85, CONTRACTOR agrees to forfeit and pay to CITY the sum of One Thousand Dollars
($1,000.00) per day for each calendar day completion is delayed beyond the time allowed
pursuant to Paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due
to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to
or to become due to CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR will be granted an extension of time and will
not be assessed liquidated damages for unforeseeable delays beyond the control of and without
the fault or negligence of the CONTRACTOR including delays caused by CITY. CONTRACTOR
is required to promptly notify CITY of any such delay.
WAIVER OF CLAIMS. On or before making each request for payment under Paragraph 6 above,
CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY, in writing, all claims for compensation as to work related to
the payment. Unless the CONTRACTOR has disputed the amount of the payment, the acceptance
by CONTRACTOR of each payment shall constitute a release of all claims against the CITY related
to the payment. CONTRACTOR shall be required to execute an affidavit, release and indemnity
agreement with each claim for payment.
PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of
the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per
diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each
craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract, from the
Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City
Clerk. Copies may be obtained at cost at the City Clerk's office of Temecula.
CONTRACTOR shall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and shall pay the
adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the
CONTRACT CA-3 r:%cip~projects~pw94-21%contract/ejp
provisions of Sections 1773:8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor
Code.
Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, CONTRACTOR shall forfeit to the CITY,
as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer,
worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done
under this Contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of
the Contract.
11.
TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this contract.
12.
INDEMNIFICATION. All work covered by this Contract done at the site of construction
or in preparing or delivering materials to the site shall be at the risk of CONTRACTOR
alone. CONTRACTOR agrees to save, indemnify, hold harmless and defend CITY, its
officers, employees, and agents, against any and all liability, injuries, or death of persons
(CONTRACTOR's employees included) and damage to property, arising directly or
indirectly out of the obligations herein undertaken or out of the operations conducted by
CONTRACTOR, save and except claims or litigations arising through the sole active
negligence or sole willful misconduct of the CITY.
13.
GRATUITIES. CONTRACTOR warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents,
or representatives has offered or given any gratuities or promises to CITY's employees,
agents, or representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or securing favorable
treatment with respect thereto.
14.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CONTRACTOR warrants that he has no blood or marriage
relationship, and that he is not in any way associated with any City officer or employee,
or any architect, engineer, or other preparers of the Drawings and Specifications for this
project. CONTRACTOR further warrants that no person in his/her employ has been
employed by the CITY within one year of the date of the Notice Inviting Bids.
15.
CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT. After the completion of the work contemplated by this
Contract, CONTRACTOR shall file with the City Manager his affidavit stating that all
workmen and persons employed, all firms supplying materials, and all subcontractors upon
the Project have been paid in full, and that there are no claims outstanding against the
Project for either labor or materials, except certain items, if any, to be set forth in an
affidavit covering disputed claims or items in connection with a Stop Notice which has
been filed under the provisions of the laws of the State of California.
16.
NOTICE TO CITY OF LABOR DISPUTES. Whenever CONTRACTOR has knowledge that
any actual or potential labor dispute is delaying or threatens to delay the timely
performance of the Contract, CONTRACTOR shall immediately give notice thereof,
including all relevant information with respect thereto, to CITY.
17.
BOOKS AND RECORDS. CONTRACTOR's books, records, and plans or such part thereof
as may be engaged in the performance of this Contract, shall at all reasonable times be
subject to inspection and audit by any authorized representative of the CITY.
18.
INSPECTION. The work shall be subject to inspection and testing by CITY and its
authorized representatives during manufacture and construction and all other times and
places, including without limitation, the plans of CONTRACTOR and any of its suppliers.
CONTRACTOR shall provide all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and
CONTRACT CA-4 r:\cip\project$~pw94-21 ~contractlejp
convenience of inspectors. All inspections and tests shall be performed in such manner
as to not unduly delay the work. The work shall be subject to final inspection and
acceptance notwithstanding any payments or other prior inspections. Such final
inspection shall be made within a reasonable time after completion of the work.
19.
DISCRIMINATION. CONTRACTOR represents that it has not, and agrees that it will not,
discriminate in its employment practices on the basis of race, creed, religion, national
origin, color, sex, age, or handicap.
20.
GOVERNING LAW. This Contract and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed by
the law of the State of California.
21.
ADA REQUIREMENTS. By signing this Contract, Contractor certifies that the Contractor
is in total compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101-
336, as amended.
22.
WRITTEN NOTICE. Any written notice required to be given in any part of the Contract
Documents shall be performed by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid,
directed to the address of the CONTRACTOR as set forth in the Contract Documents, and
to the CITY addressed as follows:
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the date first
above written.
DATED:
CONTRACTOR
By:
Riverside Construction Company
Print or type NAME
Print or type TITLE
DATED:
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
CONTRACT CA-5 r:~cip\projectB\pw94-21%contract/sip
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
CONTRACT
CA-6
r: \cip\projects\pw94- 21 ~contract/ejp
ITEM 11
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL R~~
CITY ATTORNEY '
FINANCE DIREC 0
CITY MANAGE
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
December 19, 1995
Award of Professional Services Contract to Albert Grover and Associates
for the Design and Implementation of an City Wide Intelligent Traffic
Management System, Project No. PW95-16
PREPARED BY: ~ Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects
Ali Moghadam, Assistant Engineer - Capital Projects/Traffic
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the Professional Services
Agreement between the City of Temecula and Albert Grover and Associates (AGA) to provide
Professional Engineering Services for the design and implementation of a city wide Intelligent
Traffic Management System (ITMS), Project No. PW95-16 for an amount not to exceed
$171,000.
BACKGROUND:
A Request For Proposal (RFP No. 39) for Professional Engineering Services was prepared for
implementation of the ITMS project. Four (4) proposals were submitted which were reviewed
by staff. In addition, all the consultants submitting a proposal were interviewed and evaluated
by a panel consisting of members from the City, Caltrans and WRCOG. AGA was ranked the
highest by a majority of the panel members and was selected to provide the professional
engineering services.
The objective of this project is to install communication links between all the existing and
proposed traffic signals, coordinate and optimize signal timings for an efficient traffic
progression which will also reduce congestion and air pollution and install a central control
system at City Hall to monitor the traffic flow.
The Scope of Services (Exhibit "A-1 ") for this project includes a complete inventory of the
existing traffic control systems, data collection for various traffic movements, analyzing the
existing communication technology to determine the best available system for the City, system
design, preparation of plans, specifications and cost estimates for installation of the control
systems, upgrading the existing controllers, procurement of all the necessary hardware and
software, construction supervision and inspection, development and implementation of a new
traffic signal timing (including Caltrans signals), recommendation for future system expansion,
identifying available funding sources, conducting a "before" and "after" study to quantify the
-1- r:~gdrpt~95\1219~pwgS-16.ngdajp
reduction in delay and air pollution, system support and training. After completion of this
project, City staff will be able to monitor and modify the signal timings from the City Hall.
FISCAL IMPACT:
$537,800 has been allocated to this project from Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ) Funds which are administered by Caltrans.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Agreement
-2- rAagd~pt~95~1219~pw95-16.qrlajp
CITY OF TEMF. EUIA
AGRERMF~NT
FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
TgIg AGRF-EMF~NT, is made and effective as of December 19, 1995, between
the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Albert Grover and Associates
("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the
parties agree as follows:
1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on December 19, 1995andshall
remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later
than December 19, 1997, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.
2. SERVICF-~. Consultant shall perform the tasks described and set forth
in Exhibit A-l, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant
shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in
Exhibit A-2.
3. PERFOIlMANCE. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently
and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein.
Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utiliTed by
persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting
its obligations under this Agreement.
4. PAYMENT.
a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment
rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent
on the above tasks. This mount shall not exceed One Hundred Seventy-One Thousand
Dollars ($171,000) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved
as provided in this Agreement.
b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in
connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth
herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City
Manager. Consultant shall be compensated for any additional services in the mounts and in the
manner as agreed to by City Manager and Consultant at the time City's written authorization is
given to Consultant for the performance of said services. The City Manager may approve
additional work not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the mount of the Agreement, but in no
event shall such sum exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00). Any additional work in excess
of this mount shall be approved by the City Council.
c. 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 thixty (30) days of receipt of
each invoice as to all nondisputed fees. If the City disputes any of consultant' s fees it shall give
written notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth
on the invoice.
SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT
CAUSE.
a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend
or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten
(10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately
cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends
or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void
or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
b. In the event this Agreement is mated pursuant to this Section, the City
shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination,
provided that the work performed is of value to the 'City. Upon termination of the Agreement
pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section
3.
6. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT.
a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement
shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of
this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for
any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by
written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the
performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant' s control, and without
fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default.
b. ff the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in
default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this. Agreement, it shall serve the
Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (10) days after service
upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In
the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall
have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this
Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be
enti~ed at law, in equity or under this Agreement.
7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS.
a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to
sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the
performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of
services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall
be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly
identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of
City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the fight to
examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as
necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, dam, documents, proceedings and activities
related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be
maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment.
b. Upon completion of, or in the event of u,nTnination or suspension of this
Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files, surveys,
notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed
pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused
or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to
computer files, Consultant shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by
the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling,
transferring and printing computer files.
c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall
not be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a
location other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant.
8. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify,
protect and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and' volunteers from and
against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, or liability of any kind
or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may
be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of
Consultant's negligent or wrongtiff acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform under
the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the
City.
9. INSURANCE REOUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain
for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to
property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by
the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees.
a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
(1)
Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage
(occurrence form CG 0001).
(1)
Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87)
covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto).
(3)
Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of
California and Employer's Liability Insurance.
(4) Errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to the
consultant's profession.
- 3 - n k. ip~pro. ka.~w,eS.. t 6'~.w.. qr/..ip
b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less
(1)
General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury,
personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General
Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is
used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to
this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice
the required occurrence limit.
(2)
Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury
and property damage.
(3)
Employer's .Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury
or disease.
(4) Errors and omissions liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence.
c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured
retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City
Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions
as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall
procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration
and defense expenses.
d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability
policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
(1)
The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be
covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities
performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and
completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied
or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or
borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special
limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its
officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
(2)
For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance
coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its
officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or
self-insured maintained by the City, its officers, officials,
employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's
insurance and shall not contribute with it.
0)
Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the
policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage
'provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or
volunteers.
(4)
The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect
to the limits of the insurer's liability.
(5)
Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to
state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled by
either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty
(30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt
requested, has been given to the City.
e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a
current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.
f. Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with original
endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by
a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be
on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City
before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may
provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements
effecting the coverage required by these specifications.
10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly
independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf
of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither
City nor any of its officers, employees or agents shall have control over the conduct of
Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees or agents, except as set forth in this
Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its
officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City.
Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever
against City, or bind City in any manner.
b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with
the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the
Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for
performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or
indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
11. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed
of 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..
12. RELEASE OF-INFORMATION.
a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement
shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior
written 'authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not
without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney,
voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to
interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or
relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court
order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court
order or subpoena.
b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers,
employees, agents or subcontra~:tors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice
of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery
request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work
performed thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City
retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any
deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and
to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by
Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right
by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.
13. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other
party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service,
(ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal
Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or Cxii) mailing in the United
States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address
of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by
Notice:
To City:
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: 'Ronald E. Bradley, City Manager
To Consultant:
Albert Grover and Associates
Mark H. Miller
211 E. Imperial Hwy, Suite 208
Fullerton, California 92635
14. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this
Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent
of the City. Because of the personal nature of the services to be rendered pursuant to this.
Agreement, only Mark H. Miller shall perform the services described in this Agreement.
Mark H. Miller may use assistants, under their direct supervision, to perform some of the
services under this Agreement. Consultant shall provide City fourteen (14) days' notice prior'
to the departure of Mark H. Miller from Consultant's employ. Should he or she leave
-6- r. ~p ~projecu ~,tgS- 16~lrover. qr/ejp
Consultant's employ, the city shall have the option to immediately terminate this Agreement,
within three (3) days of the close of said notice period. Upon termination of this Agreement,
Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and
including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City
Council and the Consultant.
15. LICENSES. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant
shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the
services described in this Agreement.
16. GOVERNING I .AW. The City and Consultant understand and agree that
the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of
the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any
litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal
district court with jurisdiction over the City of Temecula.
17. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire
understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this
Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and
statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or
effect. Each party is entering into this Agr~ment based solely upon the representations set forth
herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party
deems material. -
18. AUTItORITY TO EXECUTE TIllS AGREEMENT. The person or
persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she
has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to
bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hemunder.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF TEMECULA
By
Attest:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
June S. Greek
City Clerk
Approved As to Form:
Peter M. Thorson
City Auomey
CONSI.TLT~
ALBERT GROVER & ASSOCIATES
B~ Mark H. Miller, Vice President
EXHIBIT A-1
SCOPE OF SERVICES
City of Temecula
Areawide Intelligent .Traffic Management System - ITMS
Following is the detailed Scope of services for this project to provide traffic
engineering services to develop and implement the ITMS.
Phase I: System Development and Design
Task 1: Kick-Off Meeting
Conduct a pre-design conference meeting with the City to discuss project
objectives, project schedule, additional traffic signal timing criteria, and budget
factors. Because this meeting sets the stage for the entire project, AGA's Project
Manager (Mark Miller), Interconnect Design and Timing Plan Coordinator (John
Taylor), and Principal-in-Charge (A1 Grover) will all attend thi.q initial meeting.
At this meeting, AGA will make a detailed presentation of a preliminary
interconnect plan in order to expedite finalization of design. It is also
recommended that representatives from Calltans District 8 attend the meeting to
discuss coordination timing and control of the freeway ramp signals. AGA staff
have already held preliminary discussions with Sergio Perez of Caltrans regarding
this project.
Task:>: rlata Collection
· Obtain 24 hour tnffic volumes and intersection turning movement counts and
up-to-date speed data from the City, if available.
Collect field data in sufficient quantity to identify existing deficiencies,
existing system capabilities and operations. Data collected will include
existing traffic signal timing and phasing for each project intersection;
intersection geometries, including number, width and usage of each lane, and
length of left/right turning lanes; and distance between signalized
· Field measure existing link speeds and saturation flow rates.
Collect additional turning movement counts (a.m., m.d. and p.m. peak hours)
at project intersections to supplement available counts, and collect other data
to adequately establish traffic flow panems for the preparation of traffic signal
timing plans.
A-1
Obtain as-built traffic signal and interconnect plans to aid in the design of the
interconnect' system. A comprehensive review of the City's existing facilities
will include an analysis to assess reusable and required new equipment. The
inventory will include existing signal equipment, hardware and software,
interconnect links, and support hardware.
T~.~k 3: Interconnect Plsn
The Interconnect Plan will include a discussion paper that compares the
technologies and summarizes which system elements were selected and why, on a
segment by segment basis. The Plan will also include cost comparisons of
various methodologies. Intersection communications will uffiize the existing
interconnect system to the maximum extent possible.
To maxixmT'e local and regional benefits, AGA will investigate the hardware and
software systems both currently in use and also planned for future implementation
in adjoining municipalities such as the City of Murrietm. Because Temecula
utilizes Model 170 controllers/control systems, interface with State (Calm)
systems will be greatly simplified. Additionally, we will consider the needs of
various other users such as maintenance personnel in designing the hardware and
software components of the system.
Future expansion and enhancement capabilities of the communications and
interconnect system will be considered in system design. Where appropriate,
subsystems that will be integrated into the central system at a later date will be
taken into account. All recommended hardware will be user friendly and easily
operated and maintained by City and contracted staff.
Our preliminary analysis has indicated that five key anerials - Rancho California
Road, Winchester Road, Ynez Road, Margarita Road and Jefferson Avenue/Front
Street- should be the first addressed for interconnect and coordination timing.
AGA will make interconnection and coordination of. these five anerials a key
project goal.
The Final Interconnect Plan will be prepared in consultation with City staff, and
will serve as the basis of PS&Es to be prepared under Phase II of the project.
As pan of this task, AGA staff and City of Temecula staff will "field visit"
several other cities that have recently installed Traffic Operation Centers (TOCs)
to examine both layouts and operations at these cities' centers. Such visits could
be made to the Cities of Gardena, Upland, Escortdido and Riverside.
AGA's Discussion Paper and Interconnect Plan will recommend an appropriate
and cost-effective course of action. The Interconnect Plan will be submitted to
A-2
the City for their review and comment. Once approved by the City, the
Interconnect Plan will serve as the basis for determining which hardware and
software components will be designed and installed as part of this project, and
which segments will be constructed under future funding conditions. The new
Interconnect Plan will serve as a Master Plan for future system expan-~ion.
Phase II: System Implementation
Task 1: Final Design and Con.~tmction
Prepare plans, specifications, estimates and contract docments for the
installation of signal interconnect systems, master controllers, computer
hardware and software, loop detectors, etc.
The plans and specifications will cover interconnect, controller upgrades,
detector requirements, the central computer system, and all required hardware
and software. In addition to the required interconnect plans for the various
interconnect types, a title sheet will also be prepared. All design will conform
to the latest guidelines of the State of California, Department of
Transportation. Final design documents will be prepared under the direction
of Mark Miller, a registered C.E. and T.E. in California. Final plans will be
stamped and signed by Mr. Miller.
Preliminary plans will be prepared and submitted to the City for review and
comment. Based upon these comments, the plans will be modified, and final
plans, specifications and estimates prepared. The final PS&E will then be
submitted to the City for final review and comment, and appropriate revisions
will be made. Bid and contract documents will then be prepared.
Original construction contract drawings will be submitted to the City for final
approval, along with cost estimate back-up material, all pertinent design
correspondence, and any other back-up material.
2. Provide construction-related services as follows:
a) Assist bidders during bidding process.
b) Review bids and recommend award.
c) Attend pre-constmction meeting.
During construction, interpret plans and specifications and
review/recommend approval of change orders, required shop drawings,
and other working drawings. Conduct required construction management
and inspection services, including coordination with Caltrans.
A-3
e)
Provide Mas-builts' and recommend acceptance of work..As with the
plans discussed above, ~as-builts' will be submitted on both hard copy and
computer disk and in hard copy format only for Caltram.
As part of this task, AGA will be providing an extensive array of products,
deliverables and services, including but not limited to the following:
· Review of Bids - Contnctor Ranking and Qualifications
· Recommendation of Award
· Preparation of Agenda for Preconstmction Meeting
· Review of Contractor Project Schedule
· Conduct Construction Management and lr~pection Services
· Review and Recommend Approval of Change Orders
· Resolving of Issues Between Agencies (if any)
Task ?.: Traffic Signal Timing Pl~n.~
In the development of signal timing plans, it is imperative to have appropriate
intersection geometrics, signal phasing, medal link speeds and knowledge of
closely spaced intersections. For this project, the field data inventory will be
conducted by Counts Unlimited and overseen by AGA's Project Manager so that
the prevailing conditions in the project area are better underswod. Also, AGA
will field measure link speeds using the floating car technique. This field
measurement is crucial for determining proper and effective coordination between
signals.
One of the key parameters that plays a pivotal role in developing effective signal
timing is saturation flow rate. The saturation flow rate, expressed in vehicles per
hour of green per lane, is affected by factors such as number and width of lanes,
cross gutters and street grade, driver attitude, vehicle mix, hck of left turn
pockets, pedestrians, transit and area type. AGA will field measure saturation
flow rates at sample locations on all project arterials.
For this project, AGA will utilize both the CAPSSI and MONITOR programs in
addition to PASSER (an arterial progression program) and TRANSYT-TF (a
signal timing optimization program) in an interactive manner. MONITOR allows
instantaneous creation of PASSER and TRANSYT-7F data ties for selected
intersections from an areawide database of inventory data.
A-4
The most recent edition of the PASSER program (PASSER II-90) will be used to
develop optimized timing plans for this project. The main data elements required
for analysis using the PASSER program will be collected or developed. This will
include traffic volumes (turning movement counts) at all study intersections, 24
hour machine counts at selected locations to identify peak hours and to assist in
developing time-of-day plans, saturation flow rates, cycle length range, minimum
acceptable green times, link distances and speeds. Individual a.m., mid-day, and
p.m. peak hour and special event timing plans will be prepared. These plans will
be stored in a database format in MONITOR. New timing plans will be developed
for all project arterials.
The PASSER and CAPSSI programs will be used to calculate all the signal timing
information including cycle lengths, splits, phase sequences and offsets for
signalized intersections along the project armriMs to maximize aneml progression
and to reduce delay. The four different traffic flow conditions will be analyzed
and timing plans will be developed accordingly. The optimization will include
the analysis of progression based on optimum phase sequences selected by the
PASSER program to provide the best arterial progression. The results of the.
progression analysis will be shown on time-space diagrams. The TRANSYT-
7F progr:tm will be used to evaluate queue lengths, overall system delays and
other measures of effectiveness.
After initial development of the signal timing plans, they will be submitted to the
City for review and comment. Plans will be revised as required, and controller
timing sheets will be developed. Time-space diagrams will be. prepared in
required Calltans format as part of the requirement m obtain a Caltrans
Encroachment Permit for any portions of the project involving Caltrans ramp
signals, e.g., Winchester Road at 1-15 and Rancho California Road at 1-15. In
order to ensure that the signal timing is congmous for citywide usage, the timing
will be developed for all. 32 signals, but only implemented for the existing 29
signals: Timing for signals that are not yet constructed will be input into the
central computer database for ease of future implementation when additional
signals are interconnected and brought on-line.
System maps and intersection graphics for all project signals will be prepared as
pan of the project. System maps display the status of all project signals.
Intersection graphics present a site specific status for each project intersection.
Implementation of timing plans will be done by AGA. By utilizing this approach,
AGA takes full responsibility for all aspects of timing plan development,
implementation and fine-tuning. The timing plans will then be installed in the
controllers. For implementation at the Caltnns ramps, Mr. Miller will work
direc~y with Caltrans in the field to implement timing at the Caltrans signals
' utilizing the C-8 software program.
A-5
The timing sheets will be provided for each intersection and will include the
following information:
AGA will idemify where red clearance intervals are recommended.
Typically, red clearance intervals are used only at unusual intersections,
i.e., very wide intersections, offset intersections, those that have a
downgrade of 4 percem or greater, or those that have very high speed
approach(es) (50 mph or greater).
· Yellow intervals shall be based on approach speeds, per the Caltrans
Traffic Manual.
· Right-turn lanes shall be time-delayed on minor approaches.
· Walk intervals shall be seven seconds typically, but may be reduced to
four or five seconds if required.
Pedestrian protection intervals shall be based on four feet per second
walking speed using the back of the crosswalk and shall provide time to
cross from the curb to the center of the farthest traveled lane.
· Gap reduction and added green shall be used where applicable.
The progression and signal operations will be observed in the field, and will be
tested for two weeks. Working in conjunction with staff of the City and Caltrans,
fine-nine adjustments to the timing will be made as necessary, and revised timing
plan data f'~es will be prepared.
To evaluate system effectiveness, a "Before/After" Study will also be conducted
using the floating car technique. In addition to this field evaluation, AGA will
also perform a computer simulation "Before/Alter" Study using AGA's
Emissions Model.
Phase Ill: System Training and Support
AGA will train the City Staff in the operation of the system, and will provide the
required operation of system timing for twelve months (one full year) following
implementation of signal timing plans to further fine tune the system and modify
the plans as needed. Monitoring will consist of daily monitoring of the system
from our offices in Fullenon (via telephone moderns) combined with periodic
field monitoring. During the one year of service, AGA wffi provide monthly
letter reports documenting any operational problems encountered and the
solutions developed. FinaliTed optimum traffic signal timing plans and timing
sheets will be provided to the City.
A-6
AGA will also prepare a Final Report that documents conditions before and after
the project, and quantifies benefits achieved by implementation of the system.
The before and after comparisons will include floating ear studies, delay studies,
fuel comumption studies, and air quality studies. By combining up-to-dam traffic
volumes that will be generated as part of the data collection with the ~before" and
~after~ travel time and delay studies utilizing MONITOR, and i~utting these data
into SCAQMD approved models, we will quantify peak hour emi.~sion reductions
in the project area.
EXttHIIT A-2
PROJECT SCHEDULE
PHASF.
I. System Development Design
H. System Implementation
rll.System Training and Support
Completed By
March 1, 1996
Sepmmber 1, 1996
September 1, 1997
A-8
0
O
P,
R
ITEM 12
DIR. OF FINAN~-
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Manager/City Council
Genie Roberts, Director of Finance
December 12, 1995
Out-of-State Travel
RECOMMENDATION:
DISCUSSION:
of-state travel.
Attendees
Genie Roberrs
That the City Council authorize certain out-of-state travel plans.
The City's current travel policy requires Council authorization for all out-
Approval for the following out-of-state travel is requested.
Location Conference Cost
Portland, OR GFOA 90th Annual Conference $1,000
The Government Finance Officers Association is holding its 90th Annual Conference in Portland, Oregon
from May 19 through May 22, 1996. The conference is structured to provide attendees with
approximately 60 sessions with up to seven sessions running concurrently during each of nine time
frames. Participants select sessions to suit their needs. The conference's technological focus will be
woven throughout the 90-minute sessions.
FISCAL IMPACT: The funds ($1,000) for this conference have been budgeted and will be charged
to account number 001-140-999-5258.
R:INORTONL tAGENDASIOSTt 114, AGN 10/17/95
ITEM 13
APPROVAR~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE DIREC
CITY MANAGE
TO',
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works
December 19, 1995
Temeku Project Tract 23371 - Release of Performance and Subdivision Bonds
conditional upon issuance of Order of Bankruptcy Court requiring purchaser, as
a condition of Bankruptcy Court Sale, to submit new securities for the tract
PREPARED BY: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney ~/~
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize and direct the City Clerk to release the subdivision and
performance bonds for Tract 23371 upon receipt of: (1) a certified copy of the order of the
Bankruptcy Court in Bankruptcy Case No. SB 94 26832-MG 11 requiring the purchaser of the
Tract, as a condition of the sale of the Tract, to provide adequate security for the construction
of those infrastructure improvements on the Tract which the City deems necessary as a result
of the Purchaser's proposed use of the property, and providing for the continuing jurisdiction
of the Bankruptcy Court to enforce the terms of the Order, and (2) approval of the release of
the specified bonds by the Director of Public Works and the City Attorney.
BACKGROUND: Tract 23371 was approved by the County of Riverside prior to the
incorporation of the City of Temecula. A subdivision agreement and performance and
subdivision bonds were approved and executed for the Tract. The construction periods were
extended. The bonds were amended to reflect the incorporation of the City.
The City of Temecula is now being asked to release the bonds for Tract No. 23371 in
connection with the Bankruptcy Court's approval of the workout plan for the bankruptcy of
Margarita Village Retirement Community, Inc. In consideration for the City releasing the
current bonds, the Bankruptcy Court would issue an order providing that the purchaser of the
Tract, as a condition of the sale, would obtain new bonds to secure the construction of the
public improvements. No building permits would be issued for the Tract until the new security
was properly posted.
The improvements are for internal roads and storm drains for the project and do not affect
public improvements which will serve other tracts. Additionally, the age restrictions for the
tract are being deleted as part of the Bankruptcy settlement, so the new purchaser will most
r:\cityetty% 143628.1 - 1 -
likely make substantial modifications to the Tract which will require the posting of new bonds
anyway.
The bankruptcy proceedings for the Temeku Project are nearing completion, with the
Bankruptcy Court ready to issue the order authorizing the sale of the tracts. The sale is
scheduled for January 9, 1996 and the City's action on the bonds would need to be
completed prior to that date.
The City Attorney has researched the validity of the Bankruptcy Court order requiring the new
purchaser to post new bonds and has given us the opinion that such an order would be valid
and binding against the new purchaser and could be enforced in Bankruptcy Court against the
new purchaser. Copies of the City Attorney's opinion letter and the proposed Bankruptcy
Court Order are attached.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City Attorney's Letter of December 11, 1995
2. Proposed Bankruptcy Court Order
3. Location Map
r:~cityatty%143628.1 -2-
VENTURA COUNTY OFRCE
2310 PONDEROSA DRIVE
SUITE 1
CANIARILLO, CALIFORNIA 930
(806} g87-3468
ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE
3200 PARK CENTER DRIVE
SUITE 760
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 82626
[/14} 646-6659
LAW OFFICES
BURKE, W~LLLO~S & SORENSEN
611 WEST SIXTH STREET, SUITE 2500
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017
(213) 236-0600
TELECOPIER: (213) 236-2700
FRESNO OFFICE
6496 NORTH PALM AVENUE
SUITE 101
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93704
(208) 281-O163
BURKE, W1LLIAMS, ~ORENSEN & GAAR
UGHTON PLAZA
7300 COLLEGE BOULEVARD
SUITE 220
OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS 66210
(913) 339-8200
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL:
213.236-2722
OUR RLE NO, 023E1-001
December 11, 1995
':143599.1
Mr. Joseph Kicak
Director of Public Works
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Re:
Temecu Project--Exoneration of Outstanding Performance
Bonds for Tract 23371
Dear Joe:
The City of Temecula is being asked to exonerate performance
bonds for Tract No. 23371 in connection with the bankruptcy of
Margarita Village Retirement Community, Inc.'to facilitate a
proposed workout plan. In consideration for the City exonerating
the current performance bonds, the Bankruptcy Court would issue
an order providing that the purchaser of the real property within
the bankrupt owner's estate, as a condition of the sale, would
obtain new performance bonds to secure the construction of the
public improvements. As we have discussed the improvements are
for internal roads and storm drains for the project and do not
affect public improvements which will serve other tracts.
Additionally, the age restrictions for the tract are being
deleted as part of the Bankruptcy settlement, so the new
purchaser will most likely make substantial modifications to the
Tract which will require the posting of new bonds anyway.
The bankruptcy proceedings for the Temecu Project are
nearing completion, with the Bankruptcy Court ready to issue the
order authorizing the sale of the tracts. A copy of the latest
draft of the Order is attached. The sale is scheduled for
January 9, 1996 and the City's action on the bonds would need to
be completed prior to that date.
We have researched the issue of whether a bankruptcy court
order can bind the future purchasers of the property to
reestablish the subdivision security and have concluded that such
Mr. Joseph Kicak
December 11, 1995
Page 2
an order would be valid and binding on the purchaser of the
property. Thus, the Council is free to review the circumstances
surrounding the proposed action and exonerate the bonds subject
to receipt of a certified copy of the 'bankruptcy court's order
which would provide that the purchaser of the property as a
condition of the sale would provide adequate security for the
construction of the improvements.
Additionally, we have determined that the validity of such
an order will not terminate upon the closing of the case.
Assuming the court's authority to approve or confirm such an
order, the court has authority to enforce the order by keeping
the case open until a sale of the real property occurred or
reopening the case to enforce the requirement in the event of
non-compliance after the case had closed. The continuing
jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court will be written into the
Court's order.
DISCUSSION
1. Authority of Bankruptoy Court to Issue Order
The Bankruptcy Court has authority to issue any order,
process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry
out the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. In re Unioil, 948
F.2d 678, 682 (10th Cir. 1991); In re Hollander, 50 B.R. 15 (Bkr.
Fla. 1985); 11 U.S.C. S 105. Furthermore, no provision of the
Bankruptcy Code providing "for the raising of an issue by a party
in interest shall be construed to preclude the court from, sua
sponte, taking any action or making any determination necessary
or appropriate to enforce or implement court orders or rules, or
to prevent an abuse of process." In re Hollander, supra 50 B.R.
at 15; 11 U.S.C. S 105. The court's authority includes the power
to set aside a transaction that violates a stipulation and order
of the court. In re Unioil, supra, 948 F.2d at 682.
The Bankruptcy Code requires that a plan be submitted that
provides "adequate means for the plan's implementation, such
as .... sale of all or substantially all of the property of the
estate, and the distribution of the proceeds of such sale among
holders of claims or interests." 11 U.S.C. ~ 1123(a)(5).
Following the submission of a plan, the court is required to hold
a hearing on the confirmation of the plan. 11 U.S.C. § 1128(a).
LAX2:143~99.1
Mr. Joseph Kicak
December 11, 1995
Page 3
A party in interest may object to the court's confirmation of a
plan. 11 U.S.C. S 1128(b).
Therefore, an order of the Bankruptcy Court that real
property within the bankrupt's estate be sold subject to a
condition that new performance and subdivision bonds be obtained
and placed with the City will most likely be held to be within
the power of the Bankruptcy Court.
Continuing Jurisdiction of Bankruptcy Court to Enforce
Court's Order
After an estate is fully administered in a chapter 11
reorganization case, the court, on its own motion or on motion of
a party in interest, shall enter a final decree closing the case.
Bankruptcy Rules, Rule 3022. However, a final decree closing the
case after the estate is fully administered does not deprive the
bankruptcy court of jurisdiction to enforce or interpret its own
orders and does not prevent the court from reopening the case for
cause. In re Pocklin~ton, 21 B.R. 199, 202-203 (Bkr. Cal. 1982);
Bankruptcy Rules, Rule 3022, Advisory Committee Notes to 1991
Amendments. The plan or confirmation order may specify that the
case will remain open until a certain date or event. In re
Pocklington, supra, 21 B.R. at 203. Accordingly, a case should
remain open until that date or event. Id.
A case may be reopened in the court in which such case was
closed to administer assets, to accord relief to the debtor, or
for other cause. Hull v. Powell, 309 F.ed 3, 4 (C.A. Cal. 1962);
Matter of Shen, 7 B.R. 942, 946-947 (1980), vacated and remanded,
665 F.2d 1054 and Shen v. Katz, 665 F.ed 1054; 11 U.S.C. S 350.
Furthermore, Rule 9024(1) provides that a motion to reopen under
Rule 5010 is not subject to the one-year time limit generally
applicable to motions for relief from an order of the court under
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See In re
Chabot, 992 F.ed 891, 893 (C.A. Cal. 1993); Grand Union E~uiDment
Co. v. Lippner, 167 F.ed 958, 959-960 (ed Cir. 1948); In re
Lowerree, 157 F.ed 831, 833 (ed Cir. 1946). However, a motion to
reopen must be made within a reasonable time. See Hull v.
Powell, supra 309 F.ed at 4-5; In re Ridill, I B.R. 216, 218
(C.D. Cal. 1979). Furthermore, laches is a valid ground for
denial of the motion to reopen a case. Id.
143,~99.1
Mr. Joseph Kicak
December 11, 1995
Page 4
Assuming the court's authority to approve or confirm a
requirement to sell real property within the bankrupt's estate
subject to the provision of performance bonds to the City, the
court would have clear authority to require compliance with such
a requirement. The court could maintain its jurisdiction to
enforce the requirement by keeping the case open until a sale of
the real property occurred or the court could reopen the case to
enforce the requirement in the event of non-compliance after the
case had closed.
3. Other Risk Considerations
There are other considerations the City may want to evaluate
prior to making a decision with regard to exonerating any current
performance bonds it holds. First, the City should evaluate its
willingness to accept the risk of having no security for the
contemplated improvements during the period extending from the
effective date of the Court's Order until the eventual sale of
the property and placement of performance bonds with the City by
the new property owner. A second consideration is the risk that
the either a sale is completed without requiring that new
performance bonds be obtained by the new property owner or the
new property owner does not comply with the condition. In either
event, the City may need to take legal action in the Bankruptcy
Court to enforce the requirement. A third consideration to
evaluate is the possibility that no sale occurs. The City should
consider the ramifications of a sale not occurring in the
conjunction with the lack of security for the improvements.
If you have any further questions or comments, please
do not hesitate to call me.
Peter M. Thorson
of Burke, Williams & Sorensen
Enclosure
LAX~:I43599.1 /
Mr. Joseph Kicak
December 11, 1995
Page 5
CC:
Ronald Bradley
Gary Thornhill
John Meyer
A1 Crisp
Gregory G. Diaz, Esq.
Robert F. Messinger, Esq.
':143599.1
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Lara~m & WAT~I~
ATTOIkNgYS AT LAW
COSTA MeSA
LATHAM & WATKINS
Robert K. Break, Bar No. 065284
Darci A. Lanphcre, Bar No. 167548
650 Town Center Drive, Twentieth Floor
Costa Mesa, California 92626
Telephone: (714) 540-1235
LATHAM & WATKINS
Michael S. Lurey, Bar No. 048234
Robert A. Klyman, Bar No. 142723
633 West Fifth Street,//4000
Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: (213) 485-1234
Attorneys for Franklin CA Tax-Free Income Fund,
Inc., Allstate Insurance Company, and
Dreyfus California Municipal Income, Inc.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re
MARGARITA VILLAGE RETIREMENT
COMMUNITY, INC.,
Debtor.
Case No. SB 94-26832-MG11
Chapter 11
[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING
SECTION 363 SALE OF DEBTOR'S
REAL PROPERTY PURSUANT TO
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Date: December 1, 1995
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Place: Dept. 3
699 North Arrowhead
San Bernardino, California
AT SAN BERNARDINO, IN SAID DISTRICT:
The Debtor's chapter 11 petition was filed in this case on December 21, 1994.
Appearances in this action have been as follows: (1) Richard W. Page of Page, Polin, Busch
& Boatwright appeared as General Bankruptcy Counsel for Debtor; (2) Robert K. Break,
Robert A. Klyman and Darci A. Lanphere of Latham & Watkins appeared for Franlclin CA
Tax-Free Income Fund, Inc., Allstate Insurance Company and Dreyfus California Municipal
Income, Inc. (collectively, the "Bondholders"); (3) Jerry M. Cannon and Michael J. Dishe
LWOClX59967.1
of Lorenz A!hadeff Cannon & Rose appeared as counsel for secured creditor Ardenwood
Financial Corporation ("Ardenwood"); (4) Debra Solle Healy of Buchalter, Nemer, Fields &
Younger appeared for the Temecula Valley Unified School District (the "District") and its
Community Facilities District 89-3 (the "CFD"); (5) Todd Ringstad of the Law Offices of
Todd Ringstad and Robert F. LaScala of the Law Offices of Robert F. LaScala appeared for
PriMerit Bank ("PriMefit"); and (6) Timothy J. Farris appeared for the United States
Trustec's Office. Other appearances are as noted in the record.
The Court having considered the following motions: (1) motions to remove
related state cases to this Court and to sell the Debwr's real property. free and clear of all
interests jointly fled by the Debtor and Ardenwood and supported by PriMerit;x and (2)
motions to remand the removed state court actions, to dismiss the Debtor's chapter 11 case
or to abandon the Debwr's real property, and to lift the automatic stay jointly filed by the
Bondholders and the CFD; having presided over and participated in as mediator mediation
sessions between the parties on the following dates: August 1, August 31, September 11,
September 22, October 6, Ocwber 27, November 13, November 20, and December 1, 1995;
having entered into the record the basic terms of a global settlement of all contested issues
relating to this case at the November 20, 1995 mediation session; and good cause and
adequate notice appearing therefor, IT IS HEllFaY ORDERED THAT
1. Pursuant to the direction of the Court, the Dcbwr shall sell the
Debtor's real pwperty located in Tcmecula, California, commonly known as the Tcmeku
project (the "Property"), free and clear of all encumbrances and interests to
for $ unless a qualified higher all-cash bid is made and
accepted in an auction bidding process in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 363 (the "Sale") to
take place on January 9, 1996 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 3 of the United States Bankruptcy
Court, 699 North Arrowhead, San Bemardino, California. The Sale shall not constitute a
1. PriMefit is the guarantor of certain bonds securing the construction of certain
infrastructure improvements' relating to the Debtor's real property (the "Performance
Bonds"), which bonds benefit the City of Temecula (the "City").
LWOC1~967.1
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LATHAM & WATKINS
ATTOm~,'S AT Law
CO~TA MEIA
ruling by this Court regarding a bankruptcy court's ability to sell real property free and cl~
of a Mello-Roos special tax lien without the consent of the lienholder or the holders of bon,.
or other debt instruments secured thereby. The Sale is specifically being ordered with the
consent of all parties to this action, including, without limitation, the District, the CFD and
the Bondholders as those parties are defined herein and in the Mutual Release and Settlement
Agreement (the "Agreement"), which shall contain a complete recitation of the terms of the
parties' settlement. The Sale shall be conducted according to requirements and procedures
substantially similar in form and content to those set forth in the Notice of Bidding
Procedures for Sale of Debtor's Real Property attached hereto as Exhibit "A;" AND IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED THAT
2. In connection with the Sale, the City shall exonerate the Performance
Bonds so long as, as a condition of the Sale, the purchaser of the Property provides adequate
security for the construction of those infrastructure improvements on the Property which the
City deems necessary as a result of the purchascr's proposed use of the Property. The Court
shall have jurisdiction to resolve any disputes related to the exoncration of the Pefformanc~
Bonds and the purchaser's compliance with this Order; AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
THAT
3. The distribution of proceeds from the Sale, and all issues in this action
not addressed in this Order, shall be governed by the terms of the Agreement. The Court
has approved those terms through its participation as mediator in the parties' mediation
sessions and through review of the Agreement, and shall, under the tenus of the Agreement,
retain jurisdiction over this action to the extent necessary to enforce the Agreement as to all
parties thereto.
Date, d:
THE HONORABLE MITCHEL R. GOLDBERG
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
LWOC 1159967.1
--\ 1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
__ 14
,, 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LA'rH~ & WA'rK~
Arronntvs A'r LAw
COSTA MESA
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:
LATHAM & WATKINS
By:
Robert K. Break
Attorneys for Franklin CA Tax-Free
Income Fund, Inc., Allstate Insurance
Company, and Dreyfus California
Municipal Income, Inc.
BUCHALTER, NEMER, FIELDS & YOUNGER
By:
Debra Solle Healy
Attorneys for the Temecula Valley
Unified School District and its
Community Facilities District No.
89-3
LORENZ ,AI-~M2)EFF CANNON & ROSE
By:
Jerry M. Cannon
Attorneys for Ardenwood Financial
Corporation
PAGE, POLIN, BUSCH & BOATWRIGHT
By:
Richard W. Page
Attorneys for Margarita Village
Retirement Community, Inc:
LAW OFFICES OF TODD RINGSTAD
By:
Todd Ringstad
Attorneys for PriMefit Bank
LWOC1L~7.1
4
ITEM 14
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGEI~T~~
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
December 19, 1995
Parcel Map 27232 (located north of Rancho California Road and west of
Lyndie Lane)
PREPARED BY://~ Steven W. Cresswell, Principal Engineer
(~ Jim D. Faul, Assistant Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve Parcel Map 27232 subject to the Conditions of Approval.
BACKGROUND:
Tentative Parcel Map 27232, Revision No. 1 (PA95-0053) was approved by the City of
Temecula Planning Director on September 28, 1995. The Developer has met all of the
applicable Conditions of Approval.
Parcel Map 27232 contains seven (7) commercial parcels within 5.6 gross acres. The parcel
map is located on the northerly side of Rancho California Road westerly of Lyndie Lane. The
Developer is CDM WestMar.
The following fees have been deferred for Final Parcel Map 27232:
Flood Control Fee, ADP
Stephen's K-Rat Fee
Public Facilities Fee
Signal Mitigation Fee
Fire Mitigation Fee
Due prior to Grading Permit
Due prior to Grading Permit
Due prior to Building Permit
Due prior to Building Permit
Due prior to Building Permit
-1 - r:\agdrpt\95\1219\pm27232.map
The following bonds have been posted for Parcel Map 27232:
Faithful Labor & Subdivision
Performance Material Monument
Street and Drainage $335,000 $167,500
Water $46,500 $23,500
Sewer $12,500 $6,500
Survey Monuments
$3,000
Total $394,000 $197,500
$3,000
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
2.
3.
4.
Development Fee Checklist
Vicinity Map
Copy of Sheet 2, Parcel Map 27232
Fees and Securities Report
-2- r:\agd rpt\95\ 1219\pm 27232.map
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
Final Parcel MaD 27232
The following fees and deposits were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this
project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
(Quimby Fees)
Traffic Signal Mitigation
Public Facility
Fire Protection Mitigation
Flood Control (ADP)
Condition of ApprOval
Condition No. 5
Due Prior to Grading Permit
n/a
Condition No. 37
Due Prior to Building Permit
Condition No. 50
Due Prior to Building Permit
Condition No. 57
Letter dated September 21, 1995
Condition No. 46
-3- r:~agdrpt~95\l 219~pm27232.map
L~YIVDiE LN. o~
SITE
YNEZ
0
-r'
0
Z
ROAD
INTERSTATE
15
_.VICINITY MAP_..(NTS)
CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT
PARCEL MAP 27232
IMPROVEMENTS
STREETS & DRAINAGE
WATER
SEWER
TOTAL
Monument Security
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
335,000
46,500
12,500
394,000
$3,000.00
DATE: December19,1995
MATERIAL & LABOR
SECURITY
$ 167,500
$ 23,500
$ 6,500
$ 197,500
DEVELOPMENT FEES (PA95-0053)
City Traffic Signing and Striping Costs
RCFCD Drainage Fee - deferred
Fire Mitigation Fee - deferred
Signal Mitigation Fee - deferred
Road and Bridge Benefit Fee
Other Development Fees
N/A
T.B.D.*
T.B.D.*
T.B.D.*
N/A
T.B.D*
SERVICE FEES (LD95-005MP)
Planning Fee
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Plan Check Fee
Inspection Fee
Monument Inspection Fee
Letter of Map Revision (LOMR Review)
Fees Paid to Date
Balance of Fees Due
*T.B.D. - To be de~ermirmd
61.00
4.00
890.00
N/A
250.00
N/A
1,205.00
0.00
-4- r:\agdrpt\95%1219\pm27232.map
ITEM 15
APPROVA~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFI
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Manager/City Council
Genie Roberrs, Director of Finance
December 19, 1995
Lease Agreement for XEROX 5100A Copier
PREPARED BY:
Allie Kuhns, Senior Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve a five year lease and maintenance
agreement for a high volume Xerox 5100A copier at a cost of $3,469.14per month to replace
the current lease of a model 5100 copier.
DISCUSSION: The existing copier used for high volume copy jobs is nearing the end of
the third year of a five year lease, and costs the City approximately $4,123.62 ($2,986.12
lease plus $1,137.50maintenance) per month. By trading in the City's model 5100 for the
newer 5100A, the City will be paying $3,469.14 per month, which is $654.48 per month less
than the City is currently paying. This monthly reduction in cost results in an overall savings
of $7,853.76 per year. Additionally, the City was able to negotiate receiving a model 5765
color copier valued at over $35,000, at no cost to the City, which will allow the City to
provide color services instead of contracting through local vendors.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds appropriated from account 330-199-999-5239 for the
current lease agreement will be transferred to the new lease agreement, and are adequate to
cover the new agreement for the remainder of FY1995-96. For the next four fiscal years,
funds in the amount of $41,630will be appropriated for this agreement; and in the fifth year,
funds in the amount of $20,815 will be appropriated to complete the contract.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT
ITEM
1
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY/~
,,,
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Community Services Board of Directors
FROM:
Ronald E. Bradley, General Manager
DATE:
December 19, 1995
SUBJECT:
Completion and Acceptance of the Temecula Middle School Lighting
Project, No. PW95-01CSD
PREPARED BY: ,~hawn D. Nelson, Director of Community Services
~;~ Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects
Edward Stone, Assistant Engineer - Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors direct the City Clerk to:
File the Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one-
year Maintenance Bond (10% of contract amount).
Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after the filing of the
Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed to that date.
BACKGROUND:
On July 11, 1995, Building Energy Consultants was awarded a contract for the construction
of Sports Lighting at the Temecula Middle School in the amount of $277,600.00. The
contract included installation of 18 steel poles with multiple light fixtures, underground conduit
and an electrical transformer to light all athletic fields including the baseball, football and
soccer overlay areas at the Temecula Middle School.
The contractor has completed the work in accordance with the approved plans and
specifications within the allotted contract time to the satisfaction of the Community Services
Director. The construction retention for this project will be released on or about thirty-five
(35) days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded.
-1- r:~agdrpt\95\1219~pw95=01 .acc
FISCAL IMPACT:
On July 11,1995 the Board of Directors approved a contract with Building Energy Consultants
in the amount of $277,600.00. No changes were made to the contract during construction
and the final contract amount is $277,600.00. This project was funded through Development
Impact fees.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Notice of Completion
2. Contractor's Affidavit
3. Maintenance Bond
-2- r:~agdrpt\95\1219\pw95-Ol .acc
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND RETURN TO:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF TEMECULA
43174 Business Perk Drive
Temecule, CA 92590
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR
RECORDER'S USE
NOTI'CE 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: Building Energy Consultants. to
perform the following work of improvement:
PW95-01CSD, Temecula Middle School Lighting Project.
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 December
19, 1995. That upon said contract the Amwest Surety Insurance Company was surety for the bond
given by 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:
Assessor's Parcels No. 955-030-017
6. The street address of said property is: 32250 McCabe.
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~projects~pw95-01 ~compl
11/8'/1995 le: 3e 8859295815
'~' B.E.c.
'" P~E e2
~:~CUTED IN DUPL..T CAT C/TY OF TEME'CULA, PUBLIC' WOFIK,,~ DEPARTMENT
NL~J~NCE gOND 80ND NUiv~ER: 003005
KNOW ALL MEN ~y THESE laRES Uelf771Ve PROJE'CT'
BUlrLD~/~ ENERGy CONSUL TANTS_122 ELI:CAL YpTUS R
(fi# ~ w~eN~er · Co '
Alvml~ST SUPJ~Ty ZNS~ ' I~e""J*l';,' er in~rivi~eell · hereinefter railed Principal, and
- ENTy SB/EN THOU ECULA,
than ten · 0.00 I in/a IXILLARI SAND SEVEN HUNDRED
terms of the Co~70%) of the Contrect wful moneY of the United m~l 00/100 ZXTy
ContracO, NOlTlON OF THIS OBU · ~ofl and e~igns,
w( ith the OWNS2 y AT/ON is much th an of uece py of w ·
· eto attached end mad; dated the 13TH ~efwhereee, the Pr/ncipal
WHaRF. AS aaid Co PRODUCT. PROJj~ ;~O. pWI~Ohich
for the peri~ ofntrmct Provides that the Pri ·· 1C~D,
.,, .,.. ,. ...::, o, ,o
19.._... Contract has an complete nt dur/ne ~aid Perio~!; :nd
NOW, TNER~F · ' was ePProvad on
t.he date of aDpr0;',~;i of CONDITION Oie TNI8
· rwi~e this inslrumem d thereunder, then ~hi'et~a~e .of amid to
shall be void. · obhgetion
iAINTENANCE IOND
M.1 F
SEN~ BY: 11- 9-95: 9:54AM: CITY OF TEMECL'LA- 8059295815::
CITY Of TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE
PROJECT NO. PW95-O ICSD
TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOl, LIGHTING PROJECT
that E~::>ut ~r~ Ei12.,~ "}h~r~t-~ the
This is to certify Q.~ (heroinafter
"CONTRACTOR") declares to the City of Temecul~. undergO, that e/it has paid in full for
materials, supplies, labor, services, tools, equipment, and all other bills contracted for by the
CONTRACTOR or by any of the CONTRACTOR's agents, employees or subcontractors used or in
contribution to the execution of it's contract'with the City of Temecula, with regard to the building,
erection, construction, or repair of that certain work of improvement known as PROJECT NO.
PW95-OICSD. TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL LIGHTING PROJECT, situated in 'the City of
Temecula. State of California, more particularly described as follows:
TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL LIGHTING PROJECT
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
Pursuant to Public Contracts Code § 7200, the CONTRACTOR does hereby fully release and
acquit the City of Temecula and all 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 contact amount which the
CONTRACTOR has not disputed above.
Dated:
CONTRACTOR
Print Name and Title
ITEM 2
APPROVAL
CITY MANAGER '~,/\'
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Ronald E. Bradley, General Manager
DATE: December 19, 1995
SUBJECT: Award of Contract for Construction of Sam Hicks Monument Park
(Project No. PW94-15CSD)
PREPARED BY: ~ Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services
~ Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects
Steve Charette, Assistant Engineer - Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors:
1. Approve the plans and specifications for the construction ol~ Sam Hicks Monument Park
PW94-15CSD.
2. Award a construction contract in the amount of $484,593.00to Mahr Construction,
and authorize the President to execute the contract.
3. Authorize the General Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency of $48,459.30 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount.
4. Authorize the transfer of $71,812 from the Development Impact Fee Fund and
$67,188 from Community Development Block Grant Funds to the Capital Projects Fund
and appropriate $139,000 into Account No. 280-199-805-5804.
BACKGROUND:
On April 5, 1994, the City Council approved the master plan for Sam Hicks Monument Park,
authorized the preparation of construction plans and specifications, and authorized the
Department of Public Works to solicit public bids for construction. Construction of Sam Hicks
Monument Park includes, but is not limited to, restroom/concession stand facility, parking
facility, gazebo, play area, lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The total engineer's estimate
for this project is $470,000.
-1- r:~gdrpt\95\1219~pw94-15 .awd
Ten bids for the project were publicly opened on November 30 1995. The following bids were
received:
1. Mahr Construction .......................... $484,593.00
2. Great West Contractors ...................... $487,000.00
3. B K Construction ............................ $497,596.24
4. Old Hickory Construction ..................... $497,777.00
5. Sean Malek Eng. & Construction ................ $514,000.00
6. Micon Engineering, Inc ........................ $514,190.00
7. Chase MCD, Inc ............................ $524,400.00
8. Wyatt Construction ......................... $529,554.32
9. AMD Construction Group, Inc ................... $574,432.00
10. Marina Landscape .......................... $609,609.00
Staff has contacted the State Contractors License Board and confirmed that the license is
current and in good standing. We have also contacted references supplied by Mahr
Construction regarding the quality, timeliness and accuracy of previous work. We have
received favorable comments agencies for work of a similar scope. References contacted
included agencies in the Counties of Riverside and San Diego, and also the Department of the
Navy.
A total of 120 working days have been allowed for construction which is scheduled to begin
in early January of 1996 and be completed by mid June of 1996.
A copy of the bid summary is available for review in the City Engineer's office.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This Capital Improvement Project is funded by Development Impact Fees and CDBG Funds.
The total project cost of $533,052.30includes the Contract amount of $484,593.00plus the
10% contingency of $48,459.30. Funds in the amount of $469,688 have been budgeted for
the design and construction of the project. Of this amount $394,171 is available for
construction. An additional $71,812 needs to be transferred from the Development Impact
Fee Fund and 67,188 from Community Development Block Grant Funds to the Capital Projects
Fund and appropriated to Account No. 280-199-805-5804.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Construction Contract
-2- r:~agdrpt~95\1219~pw94-15 .awd
ATTACHMENT 1
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
-3- r:~gd~t\95\1219~.v~4-15 .awd
CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRACT
FOR
PROJECT NO. PW94-15 CSD
SAM HICKS MONUMENT PARK IMPROVEMENTS
THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 19TH day of DECEMBER, 1995, by and between
the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and MAHR
CONSTRUCTION, hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR."
WITNESSETH:
That CITY and CONTRACTOR, for the consideration hereinafter named, mutually agree as follows:
1.8.
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The complete Contract includes all of the Contract
Documents, to wit: Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Proposal, Performance
Bond, Labor and Materials Bond, Plans and Specifications entitled PROJECT NO. PW94-15
CSD SAM HICKS MONUMENT PARK, Insurance Forms, this Contract, and all
modifications and amendments thereto, the State of California Department of
Transportation Standard Specifications (1992 Ed.) where specifically referenced in the
Plans and Technical Specifications, and the latest version of the Standard SpecificatiOns
for Public Works Construction, including all supplements as written and promulgated by
the Joint Cooperative Committee of the Southern California Chapter of the American
Associated General Contractors of California (hereinafter, "Standard Specifications") as
amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications
for PROJECT NO. PW94-15 CSD SAM HICKS MONUMENT PARK. Copies of these
Standard Specifications are available from the publisher:
Building News, Incorporated
3055 Overland Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90034
(213) 202-7775
The Standard Specifications will control the general provisions, construction materials, and
construction methods for this Contract except as amended by the General, Specifications, Special
Provisions, and Technical Specifications for Project No. PW94-15 CSD SAM HICKS MONUMENT
PARK.
In case of conflict between the Standard Specifications and the other Contract Documents, the
other Contract Documents shall take precedence over and be used in lieu of such conflicting
portions.
Where the Contract Document describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in complete
detail, it is understood that the item is to be furnished and installed completed and in place and
that only the best general practice is to be used. Unless otherwise specified, the CONTRACTOR
shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and do all the work involved
in executing the Contract.
The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is called for by anyone shall be as binding
CA-I r:\cip\projects~w94-15 .csd\conlracl/ajp
as if called for by all. Any conflict between this Contract and any other Contract Document shall
be resolved in favor of this Contract.
SCOPE OF WORK. CONTRACTOR shall perform everything required to be performed, shall
provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility
and transportation services required for the following:
PROJECT NO. PW94-15 CSD SAM HICKS MONUMENT PARK
All of said work to be performed and materials to be furnished shall be in strict accordance with
the Drawings and Specifications and the provisions of the Contract Documents hereinabove
enumerated and adopted by CITY.
CITY APPROVAL. All labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and work
performed and completed under the direction and supervision and subject to the approval of CITY
or its authorized representatives.
CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHEDULE. CITY agrees to pay and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept
in full payment for the work above-agreed to be done, the sum of: FOUR HUNDRED AND BGHTY-
FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY-THREE DOLLARS and ZERO CENTS
($484,593.00),the total amount of the base bid.
CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed One Hundred Twenty {120)
working days, commencing with delivery of Notice to Proceed by CITY. Construction shall not
commence until bonds and insurance are approved by CITY.
CHANGE ORDERS. All change orders shall be approved by the City Council, except that the City
Manager is hereby authorized by the City Council to make, by written order, changes or additions
to the work in an amount not to exceed the contingency as established by the City Council.
6. PAYMENTS.
Before submittal of the first payment request, the CONTRACTOR shall submit to the City
Engineer a schedule of values allocated to the various portions of the work, prepared in
such form and supported by such data to substantiate its accuracy as the City Engineer
may require. This schedule, as approved by the City Engineer, shall be used as the basis
for reviewing the CONTRACTOR's payment requests.
Be
Pursuant to Section 20104.50 of the Public Contracts Code, within thirty (30) days after
submission of a payment request to the City, the CONTRACTOR shall be paid a sum equal
to ninety percent (90%) of the value of the work completed. Payment request forms shall
be submitted on or about the thirtieth (30th) day of each successive month as the work
progresses. The final payment, if unencumbered, or any part thereof unencumbered, shall
be made sixty (60) days after completion of the work and the CONTRACTOR filing a one-
year Warranty and an Affidavit of Final Release with the CITY on forms provided by the
CITY.
Payments shall be made on demands drawn in the manner required by law, accompanied
by a certificate signed by the City Manager, stating that the work for which payment is
demanded has been performed in accordance with the terms of the Contract, and that the
amount stated in the certificate is due under the terms of the Contract. Partial payments
on the Contract price shall not be considered as an acceptance of any part of the work.
CA-2 r:\cip\projccts~pw94-15 .csd\contract/ajp
Interest shall be paid on all undisputed payment requests not paid within 30 days pursuant
to Public Contracts Code Section 20104.50. Public Contracts Code Section 7107 is
hereby incorporated by reference.
WARRANTY RETENTION. Commencing with the date the Notice of Completion is recorded, the
CITY shall retain a portion of the Contract award price, to assure warranty performance and
correction of construction deficiencies according to the following schedule:
CONTRACT AMOUNT
$25,000-$75,000
$75,000-$500,000
Over $500,000
RETENTION PERIOD
180 days
180 days
One Year
RETENTION PERCENTAGE
3%
$2,250 + 2% of amount in
excess of $75,000
$10,750 + 1% of amount
in excess of $500,000
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES: EXTENSION OF TIME. In accordance with Government Code Section
53069.85, CONTRACTOR agrees to forfeit and pay to CITY the sum of One Thousand Dollars
($1,000.00) per day for each calendar day completion is delayed beyond the time allowed
pursuant to Paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due
to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to
or to become due to CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR will be granted an extension of time and will
not be assessed liquidated damages for unforeseeable delays beyond the control of and without
the fault or negligence of the CONTRACTOR including delays caused by CITY. CONTRACTOR
is required to promptly notify CITY of any such delay.
9. WAIVER OF CLAIMS. On or before making each request for payment under Paragraph 6 above,
CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY, in writing, all claims for compensation as to work related to
the payment. Unless the CONTRACTOR has disputed the amount of the payment, the acceptance
by CONTRACTOR of each payment shall constitute a release of all claims against the CITY related
to the payment. CONTRACTOR shall be required to execute an affidavit, release and indemnity
agreement with each claim for payment.
10.
PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of
the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per
diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each
craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract, from the
Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City
Clerk. Copies may be obtained at cost at the City Clerk's office of Temecula.
CONTRACTOR shall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and shall pay the
adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the
provisions of Sections 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor
Code.
Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, CONTRACTOR shall forfeit to the CITY,
as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer,
worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done
under this Contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of
the Contract.
CA-3 r:\cip\projccts\pw94-15 .csd\contract/sjp
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this contract.
INDEMNIFICATION. All work covered by this Contract done at the site of construction
or in preparing or delivering materials to the site shall be at the risk of CONTRACTOR
alone. CONTRACTOR agrees to save, indemnify, hold harmless and defend CITY, its
officers, employees, and agents, against any and all liability, injuries, or death of persons
(CONTRACTOR's employees included) and damage to property, arising directly or
indirectly out of the obligations herein undertaken or out of the operations conducted by
CONTRACTOR, save and except claims or litigations arising through the sole active
negligence or sole willful misconduct of the CITY.
GRATUITIES. CONTRACTOR warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents,
or representatives has offered or given any gratuities or promises to CITY's employees,
agents, or representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or securing favorable
treatment with respect thereto.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CONTRACTOR warrants that he has no blood or marriage
relationship, and that he is not in any way associated with any City officer or employee,
or any architect, engineer, or other preparers of the Drawings and Specifications for this
project. CONTRACTOR further warrants that no person in his/her employ has been
employed by the CITY within one year of the date of the Notice Inviting Bids.
CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT. After the completion of the work contemplated by this
Contract, CONTRACTOR shall file with the City Manager his affidavit stating that all
workmen and persons employed, all firms supplying materials, and all subcontractors upon
the Project have been paid in full, and that there are no claims outstanding against the
Project for either labor or materials, except certain items, if any, to be set forth in an
affidavit covering disputed claims or items in connection with a Stop Notice which has
been filed under the provisions of the laws of the State of California.
NOTICE TO CITY OF LABOR DISPUTES. Whenever CONTRACTOR has knowledge that
any actual or potential labor dispute is delaying or threatens to delay the timely
performance of the Contract, CONTRACTOR shall immediately give notice thereof,
including all relevant information with respect thereto, to CITY.
BOOKS AND RECORDS. CONTRACTOR's books, records, and plans or such part thereof
as may be engaged in the performance of this Contract, shall at all reasonable times be
subject to inspection and audit by any authorized representative of the CITY.
INSPECTION. The work shall be subject to inspection and testing by CITY and its
authorized representatives during manufacture and construction and all other times and
places, including without limitation, the plans of CONTRACTOR and any of its suppliers.
CONTRACTOR shall provide all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and
convenience of inspectors. All inspections and tests shall be performed in such manner
as to not unduly delay the work. The work shall be subject to final inspection and
acceptance notwithstanding any payments or other prior inspections. Such final
inspection shall be made within a reasonable time after completion of the work.
DISCRIMINATION. CONTRACTOR represents that it has not, and agrees that it will not,
discriminate in its employment practices on the basis of race, creed, religion, national
origin, color, sex, age, or handicap.
CA-4 r:~ip~proj~ts~pw94=15 .cKl~ontract/ajp
20.
GOVERNING LAW. This Contract and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed by
the law of the State of California.
21.
WRITTEN NOTICE. Any written notice required to be given in any part of the Contract
Documents shall be performed by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid,
directed to the address of the CONTRACTOR as set forth in the Contract Documents, and
to the CITY addressed as follows:
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the date first
above written.
DATED:
CONTRACTOR
By:
Print or type NAME
Print or type TITLE
DATED:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
CA-5 r:~cip~projectmXpw94-15 .csd\contracttajp
DEPARTMENTAL
REPORT
APPROV~
CITY MANAGER r~ ~- I i' ;~
\,,
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Board of Directors
FROM:
Ronald E. Bradley, General Manager
DATE:
December 19, 1995
SUBJECT: Departmental Report
PREPARED BY:
,~hawn
D. Nelson, Director of Community Services
On November 14, 1995, the City Council awarded the construction contract for the
Parkview fire station to Great West Contractors. A pre-construction meeting is scheduled
for December 19, 1995. The contractor has indicated he will begin construction on
January 2, 1996.
Plans for the Rancho California Stream Restoration Project are being checked. Staff
anticipates being able to let a bid for the improvements in late January to early February,
1996. The City of Temecula and Union for a River Greenbelt Environment (URGE) have
received a e50,O00 grant toward this project from the California Department of Water
Resources and will receive a second $50,000 grant upon completion of the construction.
Bids for the Sam Hicks Monument Park Improvement Project were opened on November
30, 1995. Staff will be taking the bid results forward to the City Council with a
recommendation to award to the low bidder, Mahr Construction. Upon receipt of all the
final documents, staff will schedule a pre-construction meeting and anticipates
construction will beginning in late January, 1996.
The second project committee meeting for the renovations at the Temecula Duck Pond is
scheduled for December 12, 1996. It is envisioned that the final improvements may
include parking facilities, fencing improvements, landscaping and irrigation improvements,
pedestrian walkways, limited picnicking amenities, and an outdoor City event facility. The
biologist is currently analyzing the water and soil conditions at the site with the intent of
making recommendations for treatment and maintenance to ensure a safe and healthful
environment. Staff is also researching the best methods and practices for effective water
fowl maintenance.
Escrow on the new City Hall building closed on November 27, 1995 and an Open House
was held December 1, 1995 to dedicate the facility to the City. Construction documents
are currently being prepared for the new City Hall and City Maintenance Facility. It is
anticipated that these projects will move forward on a similar time table and be completed
in fall, 1996.
Construction documents are also being prepared for Margarita Community Park. The first
phase of the Master Plan includes parking, lighting, tot lots, picnic facilities, landscaping
and irrigation, and pedestrian walkways. The bid will also included additive alternates for a
roller hockey rink, tennis courts, and improvements to the adjacent school district baseball
fields. This project will be presented to the Temecula Valley Unified School District Board
on January 2, 1996 for their support. Upon approval by the Board, staff will recommend a
joint use agreement between the school district and the City for improvements to and
maintenance of the fields.
The Santa's Electric Light Parade, held on December 1, 1995 was a great success. It is
estimated that approximately 15,000 people enjoyed the parade with about 115 entrants
participating. Staff received phone calls from other Cities as far away as
Whittier and Montebello desiring to attend our parade with an interest in creating
something similar for their own home towns.
Breakfast with Santa and the Winter Snow Frolic are scheduled for December 16, 1995.
As always, staff is anticipating a large turn out and lots of fun for all.
Preliminary judging for the Holiday Lights and Festive Sights is scheduled for December 11,
1995 with final judging on December 13, 1995. The Awards reception will be held on
December 17, 1995.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ITEM
1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
HELD NOVEMBER 28, 1995
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at
8:23 PM at the Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula,
California. Chairperson Ronald J. Parks presiding.
PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Roberrs,
Stone, Parks
ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
Also present were Executive Director Ronald E. Bradley, General Counsel Peter Thorson
and City Clerk June S. Greek.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Sam Pratt, 40470 Brixton Cove, spoke in opposition to the manner Redevelopment Funds
are being used in Temecula.
City Attorney Thorson responded that the Temecula Redevelopment Agency has always
complied with all State and Federal laws with regard to redevelopment.
CONSENT CALENDAR
It was moved by Agency Member Lindemans, seconded by Agency Member Birdsall to
approve Consent Calendar Item Numbers I and 2 with Agency Member Stone abstaining.
AYES: 4 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Roberts, Parks
NOES: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: I AGENCY MEMBERS: Stone
e
Minutes
1.1 Approve the minutes of November 14, 1995.
Revision to the Facade Improvement Rebate Proc~ram
2.1 Approve the revision to the Facade Improvement Rebate Program.
Minutee.rda\l 12895 -1-
PUBLIC HEARING
3 Professional HOSpital SUDDIV Owner Particioation AQreement
Assistant City Manager Mary Jane McLarney presented the staff report requesting
this item be continued.
Chairperson Parks opened the public hearing at 8:23 PM.
It was moved by Agency Member Lindemans, seconded by Agency Member Birdsall
to continue the public hearing to the meeting of December 12, 1995. The motion
was unanimously carried.
AGENCY BUSINESS
4.
Minutee.rde~l 12895
Consideration of RDA Commercial Rehabilitation Small Business Loan
Assistant City Manager Mary Jane McLarney presented the staff report.
Agency Member Stone asked what collateral is being used on this loan. Ms.
McLarney answered existing equipment and all new equipment.
Donna Cochran, 41915 Motor Center Parkway, Manager of Health Zone, asked for
approval of loan.
Dr. Cecil Barton, P.O. Box 890485, spoke in support of the loan stating this type of
service is needed in the area.
Roberta Maso, 43537 Ridge Park Drive, stated she is the accountant that prepared
financial statements and is available for any questions.
Dr. Scott Hewlett, 42145 Lyndie Lane, Ste 132, spoke in support of Health Zone
proposal, stating there is a need for this service in the community.
Agency Member Stone stated he will not support this loan without a co-signer,
since the collateral is based on fixtures which the City could not expect to recover
its money on.
Agency Member Lindemans stated he disagrees with the small business loan policy
and believes loans should only be for tenant improvements and moving expenses.
Agency Member Birdsall stated she is in favor of this loan since the applicants have
complied with all existing guidelines.
Agency Member Roberts stated he is in support of the loan since the applicant has
gone completely through the process and met all criteria.
-2-
Chairperson Parks stated that this company has a five year track record and has
complied with all loan criteria, and for that reason he will support staff's
recommendation.
It was moved by Agency Member Birdsall, seconded by Agency Member Roberts to
approve staff recommendation as follows:
4.1
Consider approval of an RDA small business loan to the Health Zone
(natural/health food store) to be located at the Temecula Plaza, Ynez and
Solana Way.
AYES: 3 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Roberts
NOES: I AGENCY MEMBERS: Stone
ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: I AGENCY MEMBERS: Lindemans
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Executive Director Bradley stated that based on previous discussion and the fact that no
other small business loan applications are pending, if the Agency wishes to review the loan
criteria, staff should be directed to bring this policy back and to suspend acceptance of any
new applications until a review is complete. Agency consensus was received to review
the loan criteria.
AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS
Agency Member Birdsall suggested doing a comparison of small business loan procedures
of other cities.
Minutes.rda~l 12895 -3-
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Agency Member Birdsall, seconded by Agency Member Lindemans to
adjourn at 8:55 PM to a meeting on December 12, 1995, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation
Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously
carried.
Ronald J. Parks, Chairperson
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk/
Agency Secretary
Minutes.rda%l 12895 -4-
ITEM 2
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER J~,/<~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/Redevelopment Agency
Ron E. Bradley, Executive Director -.~/~
December 19, 1995
Use of HOME Funds in association with the purchase and resale of Rancho
West Apartments
Prepared By: John Meyer, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Redevelopment Agency authorize the Chairperson to execute a sub-recipient
agreement with the County of Riverside for the use of HOME Funds subject to the
approval of the Executive Director and City Attorney.
FISCAL IMPACT
The $150,000 in County HOME Funds will be applied to the purchase and resale of the
Rancho West Apartments.
R:\HOUSING\HOHEFUND,CC 12/15/95 1
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
, APPROVAL ER~t~
. CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE DIRE
CITY MANAG
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA REPORT
Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Members
Mary Jane McLarney, Assistant City Manager
December 19, 1995
Balloon and Wine Festival Sponsorship Request
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Agency Members consider a request for sponsorship of the 1996 Balloon and Wine
Festival.
DISCUSSION:
Staff has received the annual sponsorship request in the amount of ~ 10,000 from the Balloon
and Wine Festival, which is attached for your review.
Due to the fact that this activity promotes tourism in Temecula, funding would come from the
Redevelopment Agency Economic Development budget.
In 1995, the Balloon and Wine Festival had over 50,000 in attendance of which 39,000 were
tourists. Hotels in Temecula were filled to capacity and restaurants experienced increased
business.
This well attended event brought into the community a large number of merchant sales and
tax dollars, in addition to $300,000 in tourism dollars earned supporting local merchants for
goods and services used by the festival.
Last year the City of Temecula received wide spread media exposure from this event through
newspaper, magazine, radio, and television coverage on local and national levels. Newspaper
coverage exceeded 3.2 million in circulation reaching areas in Los Angeles, Orange County,
San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. Some of the major newspapers included the Los
Angeles Time, Orange County Register, San Diego Union Tribune and the San Bernardino Sun.
The festival was highlighted on television networks including NBC, ABC, CBS, and KTTV Good
Day LA.
Currently, the Balloon and Wine Festival has an outstanding balance on their loan in the
amount of ~15,000. The balance is to be repaid in annual installments of ~5,000 due in May
of each year with the term ending in 1998.
FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficient monies are budgeted in the RDA to fund this request.
ATTACHMENT: Sponsorship Package
"A Tradmtm Since 19S3"
October 16, 1995
City Council
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92589
Dear City Council,
On behalf on the entire Board of Directors thank you for the
generous sponsorship for the 1995 Temecula Valley Balloon and
Wine Festival.
The Temecula Valley Balloon and Wine Festival is entering it's
13th year of tradition. The tradition of offering our guests
with main stage entertainment, wine tasting, hot air ballooning,
children activities, a health fair, a western village, and due to
the success of last year we are going to continue to offer our
guests the opportunity to see what Temecula has to offer through
the Tourism Tent.
It is our hope that The City of Temecula will continue to be the
main sponsor of the Tourism Tent. The Tourism Tent is to promote
our fine city, offering reasons to return either to live or play.
Last year The Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival had over
50,000 in attendance of which 79% were guests to the City of
Temecula (approx. over 39,000).
The 39,000 that visited The City of Temecula stayed at the
hotels, had their meals at local restaurants, and filled up their
cars at the gas stations before heading home, and directly earned
the City of Temecula over $10,000.00. Indirectly the City of
Temecula possibly earned another $10,000 based on the California
State tourism statistic which states that any new dollars spent
are turned over 5-7 times in the city spent. In addition to the
tourism dollars earned, the Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine
Festival spent over $300,000 with local merchants for goods and
services used by the festival and in turn earning the City of
Temecula and it's residents additional income.
27475 Ynez Road, Suite 335 · Temecula, California 92591 · (909)676-4713
'g"g'g'T'l ~' A__L_
"A Tradlturn SInce 1983"
The Temecula Valley Balloon and Wine Festivals' mission is:
To produce a premier event with unique, quality
family entertainment that attracts guests from Southern
California; directly contributing to the economic
development of the environmentally-conscious master-planned
community; thereby providing proceeds to charitable
organizations.
Please look over the sponsorship proposal, we are proposing that
the City of Temecula continue the sponsorship of the Tourism Tent
which promotes tourism in The City of Temecula and promotes the
mission of the Temecula Valley Balloon and Wine Festival.
The Tourism Tent will again be strategically placed at the bus
loading and unloading area, there will be a demographics study
done by the Chamber of Commerce. The Tourism Tent will feature
over twelve Temecula businesses offering reasons to come back and
visit The City of Temecula to either live or play. In addition
there will be an ongoing presentation of the Temecula Valley,
with information tables on up and coming events in the Valley.
We are proposing a sponsorship package worth $(to be agreed upon)
in marketing for the City of Temecula for $10,000.00.
The enclosed sponsorship package includes tons of marketing
publicity and media exposure, along with statistics for
information. Please review and then we can discuss any and all
amenities, Tourism Tent ideas and marketing proposals that The
City of Temecula would like to entertain.
Thank you for the tremendous support The City of Temecula has
shown towards the "premier" event of Riverside County. The
Temecula Valley Balloon and Wine Festival Association looks
forward to another prosperous event with your sponsorship, and
is looking forward to the opportunity to showcase The City of
Temecula with the Tourism Tent.
Sincerely,
Teresa Kolbas
General Manager
27475 Ynez Road, Suite 335 ' Temecula, California 92591 · (909) 676-4713
ITEM 3
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Members
Mary Jane McLarney, Assistant City Manager
December 19, 1995
Professional Hospital Owner Participation Agreement
RECOMMENDATION:
1)
That the Redevelopment Agency and City Council conduct a joint public hearing
and,
2) That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED ' OWNER PARTICIPATION
AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA AND PROFESSIONAL HOSPITAL SUPPLY COMPANY, A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION" DATED AS OF NOVEMBER 28, 1995
2)
That the Agency adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED "OWNER
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND PROFESSIONAL HOSPITAL
SUPPLY COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION' DATED AS OF
NOVEMBER 28, 1995
DISCUSSION:
Professional Hospital Supply, Inc. (PHS) has operated a medical supply business in the project
area since November 1987 and presently employs 250 full-time employees. In April 1995,
the City was notified by PHS representatives that the company was planning an expansion and
R:~Agenda.ept~phs 1
was considering sites in the Temecula area, as well as San Diego. The expansion would
provide an additional 50 jobs.
In order to induce PHS to expand within the City of Temecula, the Redevelopment Agency is
able to reimburse all or a portion of sales tax. The Owner Participation Agreement (OPA)
provides that the RDA may reimburse $100,000 over three years. In return, PHS agrees to
operate the 290,000 sq. ft. facility for a minimum of 5 years and provide 50 new jobs within
2 years of initiation of business at the facility. If PHS is unable to perform under the
agreement, the $100,000 must be repaid.
The attached Resolution provides a description of the expansion and cites the existing location
within the project area. Further, findings are made concerning elimination of blight in the
project area by providing employment and offsite public improvements.
FISCAL IMPACT: Reimbursement of $100,000 to be paid over three years.
ATTACHMENTS:
Owner Participation Agreement
Resolution No. 95-
Resolution No. RDA 95-
R:\Agenda.rpt~phs 2 ;
RE~OL~ON NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED
*OWNER PARTICIPATION AGIIRRlV[ENT BY AND BETWREN THE
RI~nEVRI.0PIV!I~NT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND
PROFESSIONAL HOSPITAL SUPPLY COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA
CORI~ORATION'' DATED AS OF NOVEMBER 28, 1995
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLII2)WS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby fmd,
determine and declare as follows:
a. The purpose of the Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Temecula ("Agency") and Professional ]'losDim] Supply (the "Agreement")
is to effectuate the Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan ") for the Temecula Redevelopment
Project Area 1988-1 (the "Project Area") by providing for the elimination of blight in
the Project Area and for economic revitalization within the Project Area through the
stimulation of new and expanded business activity and the creation of employment
opportunities.
b. The Site consists of two components. The first is the Business Park
component which is located at 43174 Business Park Drive in the City of Temecula.
The Winchester component of the Site is located at 4 1980 Winchester Road, City of
Temecula. Both components of the Site are economically and physically integrated
and will provide for a unified business operation for the Participant. The Business
Park component is located within the Project Area, while the Winchester component
is located just outside the Project Area.
c. Participant will construct on the Winchester component of the Site a
building of approximately 290,000 square feet (the "Facility"), to be used to produce
and distribute medical supplies. Participant presen~y employs eighty (80) full-time
employees at the Business Park component of the Site. Participant proposes to
employ fifty (50) new full-time employees within two (2) years from the date of the
initiation of business activities at the new Facility.
d. Completing the development of the Project and the redevelopment of
the Site pursuant to the Agreement will assist in the elimination of blight in the
Project Area of the Redevelopmerit Plan of the Temecula Redevelopmerit Project Area
1988-1 and is consistent with the Implementation Plan adopted by the Agency for the
Project Area by creating additional employment opportunities in the Project Area,
~:140467.1 -1-
preventing the underutilization of industrial buildings in the Project Area by allowing
for expansion of Participant' s business operations, and the Project will contribute to
the development of manufacturing and commercial businesses in the Project Area.
Completing the redevelopmerit of the Site as proposed will also assist in eliminating
blight in the Project Area by generating new employment oppommities and
development opportunities in the Project Area.
e. Prior to the consideration and adoption of this Resolution, both the City
Council of the City of Temecula and the Re. development Agency of the City of
Temecula held a duly noticed joint public hearing on December 19, 1995 to consider
the proposed Owner Participation Agreement. The hearing was duly noticed pursuant
to legal advertisements in a newspaper of general circulation within the community.
f. The Agreement pertains to and affects the ability of the Agency to
f'mance its statutory obligations and for all parties to finance and carry out the
purposes of this Agreement and the goals of the Plan and is intended to be a contract
within the meaning of Government Code Section 53511.
g. Following the Joint Public I-Iearing described in Section 1.e. hereof, the
City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution No. 95- expressing its
consent to the Agency entering into the Owner Participation Agreement and making
certain findings in connection with the Project.
h. The Redevelopment Agency has carefully considered all of the written
information and documents presented to it prior to and during the public hearing as
well as the oral comments received at the public hearing.
Section 2. The Agreement provides for the payment by the Agency of certain
funds to Participant to construct Public Improvements consisting of offsite public
improvements which the Participant is required to construct and install for the development
of the Facility as more particularly defined in the Projects land use entitlements CPublic
Improvements.') With respect to the Agency's assistance for the Public Improvements as
described in the Agreement, the Council hereby finds, determines and declares that:
a. Providing for such Public Improvements is necessary to effectuate the
purposes of the Redevelopmerit Plan for the reasons set forth in Section 1. and for the
reasons set forth in the Plan and accompanying reports, which speci~y
contemplate the construction of such Public Improvements, as well as the findings
made by the Board of Supervisors in adopting the Redevelopmerit Plan and
subsequcn~y validated in a court challenge.
b. The Public Improvements are of direct benefit to the Project Area and
the immediate area in which the Project is located for the reasons set forth in Section
1. and for the reasons set forth in the Plan and accompanying reports, which
LAX2:140467.1 -2-
specifically contemplate the construction of such Public Improvements, as well as the
findings made by the Board of Supervisors in adopting the Redevelopment Plan and
subsequently validated in a court challenge.
c. No other reasonable means of financing the Public Improvements are
available to the community to finance the Public Improvements based upon the
reasons set forth in the Redevelopment Plan and accompanying reports, which
specifically contemplate the construction of such Public Improvements, as well as the
findings made by the Board of Supervisors in adopting the Redevelopmerit Plan and
subsequen~y validated in a court challenge.
d. The payment of funds for the Public Improvements will assist in the
elimination of one or more of the blighting conditions inside the Project Area and is
consistent with the Implementation Plan adopted for the Project Area for the reasons
set forth in Section 1. and for the reasons set forth in the Plan and accx}mpanying
reports, which specifically contemplate the construction of such Public Improvements,
as well as the findings made by the Board of Supervisors in adopting the
Redevelopment Plan and subsequently validated in a court challenge.
Section 3. The Council hereby finds and determines that based upon the prior
Environmental Review prepared for this Project in connection with the land use entifiements
and the findings made in this Section, no further environmental review is required for the
Project. In addition to the environmental review conducted by the City in approving the land
use entitlements, the Board of Supervisors in approving the Plan airproved and certified an
Environmental Impact Report for the Redevelopmerit Plan which specifically addressed the
environmental impacts of the Public Improvements which were also described in the
Redevelopmerit Plan. Therefore, pursuant to 14 Cat. Admin. Code Section 15180, no
further environmental review is required on this Project unless required by 14 Cal. Admin.
Code Sections 15161 or 15163. Neither a subsequent EIR nor a Supplemental EIR nor
additional environmental review is required for the Project based on the following findings of
the Agency:
a. All of the private elements of the Project and the Public Improvements
were contemplated and fully and properly analyzed in the prior environmental review
and all of the Public Improvements were also contemplated and analyzed in the ErR.
certified and approved as part of the approval of the Redevelopment Plan.
b. There have been no subsequent changes to the Project since approval of
the land use entitlements and the environmental review of such entitlements which
would require major revisions of the previous environmental review due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects.
!:140467.1 -3-
c. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances
under which the Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the
previous environmental review due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
' significant effects.
d. There is no new information since the certification of the previous
environmental review which wouM show or tend to show that the Project might have
one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous environmental review.
e. There is no new information since the certification of the previous
environmental review which would show or tend to show that significant effects
previously examined might be substantially more severe than shown in the previous
environmental review.
~ There is no new information since the certification of the previous
environmental review which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or
alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would
substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project.
g. There is no new information since the certification of the previous
environmental review which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or
alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous
environmental review would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on
the environment.
Section 4. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby gives its consent
to and approves of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula entering into that
certain Agreement entitled 'Owner Participation Agreement by and between the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and Profession Hospital Supply, Inc., A
California Corporation,* dated as of November 28, 1995, in substantially the form attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
LAX2:I404~7.1 '~-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Temecula on the st day of , 1995.
ATTEST:
JEFFREY STONE
MAYOR
JUNE S. GREEK
CITY CLERK
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMEC~A
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
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, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
JIJNES. GR~nK
SBCRBTARY
2:140467.1 -5-
RESOLUTION NO. RDA
A RF_SOLUTION OF THE RE1}EVELOPMENT AGENCY OF ~
CITY OF TE/vlECLrLA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT
ENTITI,ED "OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BY AND
BETWEEN THE liEDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AND PROFESSIONAL HOSPITAL SUPPLY COMPANY, A
C~LIFORNIA CORPORATION" DATED AS OF NOVEMBER 28, 1995
THE liEDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Re. development Agency of the City of Temecula does hereby
find, determine and declare as follows:
a. The purpose of the Agreement between the Agency and Professional
Hospital Supply (the "Agreement") is to effectuate the Redevelopmerit Plan (the
"Plan") for the Temecula Re, development Project Area 1988-1 (the "Project Area") by
providing for the elimination of blight in the Project Area and for economic
revitalization within the Project Area through the stimulation of new and expanded
business activity and the creation of employment opportunities.
b. The Site consists of two components. The first is the Business Park
component which is located at 43174 Business Park Drive in the City of Temecula.
The Winchester component of the Site is located at 4 1980 Winchester Road, City of
Temecula. Both components of the Site are economically and physically integrated
and will provide for a unified business operation for the Participant. The Business
Park component is located within the Project Area, while the Winchester component
is located just outside the Project Area.
c. Participant will construct on the Winchester component of the Site a
building of approximately 290,000 square feet (the "Facility"), to be used to produce
and distribute medical supplies. Participant presen~y employs eighty (80) full-time
employees at the Business Park component of the Site. Participant proposes to
employ fifty (50) new full-time employees within two (2) years from the date of the
initiation of business activities at the new Facility.
d. Completing the development of the Project and the redevelopmerit of
the Site pursuant to the Agreement will assist in the elimination of blight in the
Project Area of the Redevelopment Plan of the Temecula Re, development Project Area
1988-1 and is consistent with the Implementation Plan adopted by the Agency for the
Project Area by creating additional employment opportunities in the Project Area,
2:141788.1 -1-
preventing the underutilization of industrial buildings in the Project Area by allowing
for expansion of Participant's business operations, and the Project will contribute to
the development of manufacturing and commercial businesses in the Project Area.
Completing the redevelopment of the Site as proposed will also assist in eliminating
blight in the Project Area by generating new employment opportunities and
development opportunities in the Project Area.
e. Prior to the consideration and adoption of this Resolution, both the City
Council of the City of Temecula and the Reclevelopment Agency of the City of
Temecula held a duly noticed joint public hearing on December 19, 1995 to consider
the proposed Owner Participation Agreement. The hearing was duly noticed pursuant
to legal advertisements in a newspaper of general circulation within the community.
f. The Agreement pertains to and affects the ability of the Agency to
finance its statutory obligations and for all parties to finance and carry out the
purposes of this Agreement and the goals of the Plan and is intended to be a contract
within the meaning of Government Code Section 53511.
g. Following the Joint Public I-Iearing described in Section I.e. hereof, the
City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution No. 95- expressing its
consent to the Agency entering into the Owner Participation Agreement and making
certain findings in connection with the Project.
h. The Redevelopment Agency has carefully considered all of the written
information and documents presented to it prior to and during the public hearing as
well as the oral comments received at the public hearing.
Section 2. The Agreement provides for the payment by the Agency of certain
funds to Participant to construct Public Improvements consisting of offsite public
improvements which the Participant is required to construct and install for the development
of the Facility as more particularly defined in the Projects land use entitlements ("Public
Improvements.") With respect to the Agency's assistance for the Public Impwvements as
described in the Agreement, the Agency hereby finds, determines and declares that:
a. Providing for such Public Improvements is necessary to effectuate the
purposes of the Redevelopmerit Plan for the reasons set forth in Section 1. and for the
reasons set forth in the Plan and accompanying reports, which specifically
contemplate the construction of such Public Improvements, as well as the findings
made by the Board of Supervisors in adopting the Redevelopmerit Plan and
subsequently validated in a court challenge.
b. The Public Improvements are of direct benefit to the Project Area and
the immediate area in which the Project is located for the reasons set forth in Section
1. and for the reasons set forth in the Plan and accompanying reports, which
LAX2:I41788.1
specifically contemplate the construction of such Public Improvements, as well as the
findings made by the Board of Supervisors in adopting the Re. development Plan and
subsequently validated in a court challenge.
c. No other reasonable means of financing the Public Improvements are
available to the community to finance the Public Improvements based upon the
reasons set forth in the Redevelopment Plan and accompanying reports, which
specifically contemplate the construction of such Public Improvements, as well as the
findings made by the Board of Supervisors in adopting the Redevelopmerit Plan and
subsequen~y validated in a court challenge.
d. The payment of funds for the Public Improvements will assist in the
elimination of one or more of the blighting conditions inside the Project Area and is
consistent with the Implementation Plan adopted for the Project Area for the reasons
set forth in Section 1. and for the reasons set forth in the Plan and accompanying
reports, which specifically contemplate the construction of such Public Improvements,
as well as the findings made by the Board of Supervisors in adopting the
Redevelopment Plan and subsequently validated in a court challenge.
Section 3. The Redevelopmerit Agency hereby finds and determines that based
upon the prior Environmental Review prepared for this Project in connection with the land
use enti~ements and the findings made in this Section, no further environmental review is
required for the Project. In addition to the environmental review conducted by the City in
approving the land use entitlements, the Board of Supervisors in approving the Plan approved
and certified an Environmental Impact Report for the Redevelopment Plan which specifically
addressed the environmental impacts of the Public Improvements which were also described
in the Redevelopmerit Plan. Therefore, pursuant to 14 Cat. Admin. Code Section 15180, no
further environmental review is required on this Project unless required by 14 Cal. Admin.
Code Sections 15161 or 15163. Neither a subsequent EIR nor a Supplemental EIR nor
additional environmental review is required for the Project based on the following findings of
the Agency:
a. All of the private elements of the Project and the Public Improvements
were contemplated and fully and properly analyzed in the prior environmental review
and all of the Public Improvements were also contemplated and analyzed in the EIR
certified and approved as pan of the approval of the Redevelopmerit Plan.
b. There have been no subsequent changes to the Project since approval of
the land use entitlements and the environmental review of such en~~ements which
would require major revisions of the previous environmental review due to the
involvement of new significant environmenUd effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects.
2:141788.1 -3-
c. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances
under which the Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the
previous environmental review due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects.
d. There is no new information since the certification of the previous
environmental review which would show or tend to show that the Project might have
one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous environmental review.
e. There is no new information since the certification of the previous
environmental review which would show or tend to show that significant effects
previously examined might be substantially more severe than shown in the previous
environmental review.
L There is no new information since the certification of the previous
environmental review which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or
alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would
substantially reduce one or more signifwant effects of the Project.
g. There is no new information since the certification of the previous
environmental review which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or
alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous
environmental review would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on
the environment.
Section 4. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula hereby
approves that certain Agreement entitled 'Owner Participation Agreement by and between the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and Profession Hospital Supply, Inc., A
California Corporation,' dated as of November 28, 1995, in substantially the form attached
hereto as Exhibit A, and hereby directs the Chairperson of the Agency to execute the
Agreement on behalf of the Agency.
Section 5. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
LAX2:1417811.I
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Temecula on the __ day of , 1995.
RONALD J. PARKS
CHAIRPERSON
ATltST:
JUNES. GREEK
SECRETARY
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMBZULA
SS
I, June S. Greek, Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula,
do hereby certify that the Resolution No. 95- was duly and regularly adopted by the
Re, development Agency of the City of Temecula at an adjourned regular meeting thereof,
held on the st day of ,1995, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS:
NOES: AGENCY lVrEMBERS:
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: AGENCY MEMBERS:
/UNE S. GI~I~-EK
SECRETARY
~2:141788.1 -5-
OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEM'ENT BY AND
BETWEEN THE R~nEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA AND PROFESSIONAL HOSPITAL
SUPPLY
THIS OWNER PARTICIPATION AGI~EEMENT (the "Agreement") is entered into
and effective as of , 1995 (the "Effective Date"), by and between the
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a public body corporate and
politic (the "Agency') and PROFESSIONAL HOSPITAL SUPPLY, INC., a California
Corporation (the 'Participant'). In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
contained herein, the Agency and the Participant hereby agree as follows:
Section 1. Recitals
The parties enter into this Agreement on the basis of the following facts, understandings
and intentions:
a. The purpose of this Agreement is to effectuate the Redevelopment Plan
(the "Plan") for the Temecula Redevelopment Project Area 1988-1 (the "Project Area")
by providing for the elimination of blight in the Project Area and for economic
revitalization within the Project Area through the stimulation of new and expanded
business activity and the creation of employment opportunities.
b. Participant is prepared to expand its business at the Site which will
enhance the goals of the Agency in eliminating blight by creating additional employment
opportunities in the Project Area, prevent the under utilization of industrial buildings in
the Project Area by allowing for expansion of business operations, and contribute to the
development of manufacturing and commercial businesses in the Project Area. The
development of the Site is consistent with the Agency's Implementation Plan for the
Project Area.
c. Participant will construct on the Winchester component of the Site a
building of approximately 290,000 square feet (the "Facility"), to be used to produce and
distribute medical supplies. Participant presen~y employs eighty (80) full-time
employees at the Business Park component of the Site. Participant proposes to employ
fifty (50) new full-time employees within two (2) years from the date of the initiation of
business activities at the new Facility.
d. This Agreement is entered into for the purpose of inducing the Participant
to relocate and expand its business within the City of Temecula and to remain business
at the Site and not for speculation in land holding.
130878.2 September 5, 19~5
e. This Agreement pertains to and affects the ability of the Agency to finance
its statutory obligations and for all parties to finance and carry out the purposes of this
Agreement and the goals of the Plan and is intended to be a contract within the meaning
of Government Code § 535 11.
Section 2. The Redevelopment Plan
The Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area was approved by Ordinance No. 658 of
the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County on July 12, 1988, prior to the incorporation of the
City of Temecula. Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 91-11, which became effective May 9, 1991,
and City Ordinance No. 91-15, which became effective April 9, 1991, the City approved the
Plan. Said Ordinances had the effect of adopting the Plan and transferring jurisdiction over said
Plan to the Agency, as of July 1, 1991. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 93-04 and 94-03, Ordinance
No. 91-11 was codified at § 8.04.010 of the Temecula Municipal Code. The Plan was amended
by Ordinance No. 94-33, adopted on December 20, 1994.
Section 3. The Site
The Site consists of two components. The first is the Business Park component which
is located at 43225 Business Park Drive in the City of Temecula. The Winchester component
of the Site is located at 4 1980 Winchester Road, City of Tem~ecula. Both components of the Site
are economically and physically integrated and will provide for a unified business operation for
the Participant. The Business Park component is located within the Project Area, while the
Winchester component is located just outside the Project Area.
Section 4. Parties to the AI, reement
a. The Agency is a public body, corporate and politic, exercising
governmental functions and powers and is organized and existing under the Community
Redevelopmerit law of the State of California (§ 33000, et s~_., Health and Safety Code;
the "Act"). The principal office and mailing address of the Agency is 43174 Business
Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. All references to approvals by the Agency
shall mean the Agency Board, unless another Agency Officer is specifically designated
in this Agreement.
b. The Participant is a California corporation duly organized and existing
under the laws of the State of California. The principal office and mailing address of the
Participant is: Professional Hospital Supply, Inc., P.O. Box 9010, Temecula, California
92590. Participant is the record owner of the Site and therefore qualifies as an "Owner
Participant' within the meaning of the Redevelopment Plan and the California
Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code § 33000, et sea_.).
LAX2:130878.2 September 5, 1995 -2- ;
Section 5. Agency and Participant Oblil, ations
a. In order to induce Participant to expand its operations on the Site and to
remain in business at the Facility, the Agency agrees to reimburse the Participant a total
of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to be paid over three (3) years for the
purposes of offsetting the offsite public improvements which the Participant is required
to construct and install for the development of the Facility in the City of Temecula,
subject to the following conditions:
(1)
Participant shall operate the Facility to produce and distribute
medical supplies for a minimum of five (5) years from the date of
the ini'ua~on of business activities at the Facility; and
Participant shall continuously employ not less than two hundred
fifty (250) full-time employees and shall add not less than fifty
(50) new employees to the business within the City of Temecula
within two (2) years from the date of initiation of business
activities at the Facility.
The parties hereto agree that the ~date of initiation of business activities at the Facility" as used
in this Agreement is December, 1995.
b. Participant warrants and represents that any information it has supplied to
the Agency pertaining to the relocation of Participant is true, correct and complete in all
material respects. Participant represents that any projection, including but not limited
to information concerning the projected job creation resulting from the Facility contained
at Section 1, is true, correct and complete in all material respects according to the best
available information.
c. In the event the Participant fails to comply with the conditions set forth
in this section, the Agency may demand that Participant repay the $100,000 relocation
payment to the Agency within thirty (30) days of the Agency's demand for such
payment, subject to the default pwvisions of this Agreement.
d. With respect to the Agency's assistance for the Public Improvements as
described in the Agreement, the Agency hereby finds determines and declares that:
(1)
Providing for such Public Improvements is necessary to effectuate
the purposes of the Redevelopmerit Plan for the reasons set forth
in Section 1.b. and for the reasons set forth in the Plan and
accompanying repom, which specifically contemplate the
construction of such Public Improvements, as well as the findings
made by the Board of Supervisors in adopting the Redevelopment
Plan and subsequently validated in a court challenge.
:130878.2 September
(2)
The Public Improvements are of direct benefit to the Project Area
and the immediate area in which the Project is located for the
reasons set forth in Section 1 .b. and for the reasons set forth in the
Plan and accompanying reports, which specifically contemplate the
construction of such Public Improvements, as well as the findings
made by the Board of Supervisors in adopting the Redevelopment
Plan and subsequently validated in a court challenge.
(3)
No other reasonable means of fmancing the Public Improvements
are available to the community to finance the Public Improvements
based upon the reasons set forth in the Redevelopmerit Plan and
accompanying reports, which specifically contemplate the
construction of such Public Improvements, as well as the findings
made by the Board of Supervisors in adopting the Redevelopmerit
Plan and subsequently validated in a court challenge.
(4)
The payment of funds for the Public Improvements will assist in
the elimination of one or more of the blighting conditions inside
the Project Area and is consistent with the Implementation Plan
adopted for the Project Area for the reasons set forth in Section
1.b. and for the reasons set forth in the Plan and accompanying
reports, which specifically contemplate the construction of such
Public Improvements, as well as the findings made by the Board
of Supervisors in adopting the Re, development Plan and
subsequen~y validated in a court challenge.
Section 6. Anti-Discrimination Oblil,ations
The Participant agrees by and for itself and any successors in interest that there shall be
no discrimination against or segregation of any person or group of persons on account of race,
color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, age, handicap, national origin or ancestry in the sale,
lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Site, nor shall the
Participant itself or any person claiming under or through it establish or permit any such practice
or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number,
use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees of the Site.
Section 7. Notices. Demands. and Communications Amont, the Parties
Written notices, demands and communications between the Agency and the Participant,
shall be sufficien~y given by personal service or dispatched by registered or certified mail,
postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the principal offices of the Agency or the
Participant described in Section 4. Such written notices, demands and communications may be
sent in the same manner to such other addresses as either party may from time to time designate
LAX2:130878.2 September 5, 1~5 -4-
by mail as provided in this Section. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein,
notice personally served shall be deemed to have been received as of the date of such service.
Section 8. Enforced Delay: Extension of Times of Performance
a. In addition to specific provisions of this Agreement, performance by any
party hereunder shall not be deemed to be in default, and all performance and other dates
specified in this Agreement shall be extended, where the party seeking the extension has
acted diligently and delays or defaults are due to events beyond the reasonable control
of the party such as but not limited to: war, insurrection, strikes, lockouts, riots, floods,
earthquakes, fires, casualties, acts of God, acts of the public enemy, epidemics,
quarantine restrictions, freight embargoes, intergalactic invasion, lack of transportation,
litigation, unusually severe weather, or any other causes beyond the control or without
the fault of the party claiming an extension of time to perform.
b. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, an extension
of time for any such cause shall be for the period of the enforced delay and shall
commence to run from the time of the commencement of the cause, if notice by the party
claiming such extension is sent to the other party within thirty (30) days of the
commencement of the cause.
C$
writing by
Participant.
Times of performance under this Agreement may also be extended in
the mutual agreement of the Executive Director of the Agency and the
Section 9. Inspection of Books and Records
Each party has the right to inspect, at reasonable times, the books and records of the
other parties pertaining to the Site as pertinent to the purposes of the Agreement.
Section 10. Indemnification
The Participant shall defend, indemnify, assume all responsibility for and hold the
Agency, and its respective elected and appointed officers and employees, harmless from all costs
(including attorney's fees and costs), claims, demands or liabilities judgments for injury or
damage to property and injuries to persons, including death, which may be caused by any of the
Participant's activities under this Agreement and on the Site, whether such activities or
performance thereof be by the Participant or anyone directly or indirectly employed or
contracted with by the Participant and whether such damage shall accrue or be discovered before
or after termination of this Agreement. This indemnity includes, but is not limited to, any
repair, cleanup, remediation, 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 including petroleum and its
fractions as defined in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
:130878.2 September 5, 1995 -5-
Act ["CERCLA"; 42 U.S.C. Section 9601, et se~_.], the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act ["RCRA"; 42 U.S.C. Section 6901 e_!t Seq.] and California Health and Safety Code Section
Code Section 25280 et Seq. at any place where Participant owns or has control of real property
pursuant to any of Participant's activities under this Agreement. The foregoing indemnity is
intended to operate as an agreement pursuant to Section 107 (e) of CERCLA and California
Health and Safety Code Section 25364 to assure, protect, hold harmless and indemnify Agency
from liability.
Section 11. Defaults - General
a. The failure or delay by either party to perform any term or provision of
this Agreement constitutes a default under this Agreement. A party claiming a default
(claimant) shall give written notice of default to the other party, specifying the default
complained of. The defaulting party shall have thirty (30) days within which to cure the
default.
b. In the event the Participant fails to cure the default, the Agency may
terminate this Agreement upon two (2) business days notice to Participant. In the event
the Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the Participant shall repay to the
Agency all funds paid by the Agency to Participant pursuant to this Agreement within
thirty (30) days of the demand for such funds.
Section 12. LeSal Actions
a. In the event a default is not cured as provided in this Agreement, the non-
defaulting party may exercise all fights and remedies available to it by law.
b. In the event such litigation is ~ed by one party against the other to
enforce its fights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the
Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for
the relief granted.
c. The laws of the State of California shah govern the interpretation and
enforcement of this Agreement.
d. Except as otherwise expressly stated in this Agreement, the fights and
remedies of the parties are cumulative, and the exercise by any party of one or more of
such fights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different
times, of any other fights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the
other party.
e. Any failures or delays by any party in asserting any of its fights and
remedies as to any default shah not operate as a waiver of any default or of any such
fights or remedies, or deprive any such party of its fight to institute and maintain any
LAX2:130878.2 September 5, 1~5
actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert or enforce any
such rights or remedies.
Section 13. Compliance With All Laws and Re~,ulations
The Participant shall carry out the provisions of this Agreement in conformity with all
applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations, including, without limitation, such laws
and regulations pertaining to the payment of prevailing wages which might be applicable to its
obligations.
Section 14. Entire A~reement. Waivers & General
a. This Agreement is executed in duplicate originals, each of which is
deemed to be an original. This Agreement includes pages 1 through 7, which constitutes
the entire understanding and agreement of the parties.
b. This Agreement integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein
or incidental hereto, and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the
parlies or their predecessors in interest with respect to all or any part of the subject
matter hereof.
c. All amendments hereto must be in writing executed by the appropriate
authorities of the Agency and the Participant.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the
Effective Date.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
RONALD PARKS
Chairperson
130878.2 September 5, 1995 -7-
ATTEST:
JUNE S. GREEK
Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PETER M. THORSON
General Counsel
PROFESSIONAL HOSPITAL SUPPLY, INC.,
a California Corporation
By
President
LAX2:1:~0878.2 September 5, 1~5 -8-
ITEM 16
APPROV
CITY ATTORNEY~/[~
FINANCE OFFICE
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager ~
Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director'
December 19, 1995
Draft Development Code
Prepared by: John Meyer, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council:
1. Open the public hearing and receive public testimony;
2. Adopt a Negative Declaration
3. Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ADOPTING THE CERTAIN GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S GENERAL PLAN
4. Introduce and Approve the first reading of an Ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 95-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ADOPTING THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND
CONSISTENCY ZONING MAP, AND AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP OF THE CITY TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL
PLAN
BACKGROUND
This item was heard by the Council on November 28, 1995, but was continued to allow staff
to respond to concerns regarding the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zoning District and the
manner in which single family homes are reviewed.
R:~DEVCODE\DEVCODE.CC2 12/11/95 klb
Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District
The issues over the permitted and conditionally permitted uses within the NC District center
around an approved project located at the southwest corner of Margarita and Pauba Roads.
Staff has met with the concerned neighbors on several occasions to discuss their concerns.
The neighbors also provided testimony at the Planning Commission Hearings. Based on their
testimony, several adjustments were made by both staff and the Commission.
The remaining issues deal with the total elimination of alcohol sales from the NC District.
Neither staff nor the Commission felt this was appropriate or necessary. By requiring alcohol
sales to go through the Conditional Use Permit process, a case-specific review will occur by
the Commission or the Director for each application. Therefore staff is recommending no
changes other than those raised by staff at the last Council meeting. An exhibit showing the
location of all the NC districts has been attached.
The property located at the southwest corner of Margarita and Pauba Roads received the NC
designation consistent with Council Policy at the time of the General Plan hearings. Should
the Council wish to reconsider this land use designation, then it may direct staff to advertise
this site as a proposed General Plan amendment and schedule it for a review and
recommendation before the Planning Commission. Staff would recommend this site be
advertised as being amended to Low Density Residential consistent with the adjacent land use
designations.
Single Family Home Review
One individual was concerned with how the City will review Residential Development projects
(merchant-built subdivisions). The Code requires these projects to be processed as a
Development Plan approved by the Director of Planning. The intent is to provide a minimum
level of review for single family homes. The development plan can be processed concurrently
with a tentative tract map. Therefore, it will not increase the length of processing time for the
builder. Under the old County Ordinance, single family homes are not reviewed other than
when the Model Home complex is approved. Single-family home development is major
component of this community. The staff, advisory committee, and the Planning Commission
all felt it was suitable for this minimal level of review.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
GPA Parcel Specific Land Use Request Matrix - Page 3
Chapter 17.17, Planned Commercial Development Overlay - Page 4
Neighborhood Commercial Zoning Districts - Page 5
Resolution No. 95- - Page 6
Ordinance No. 95- Page 9
R:~DEVCODE\DEVCODE.CC2 12112195 klb 2
DEC-13-95 NED 13:35
MGIkll OFFIC!
111WEITIX11,tIT11BIT
litEll00
I~IA IIl,,,OlOO
VBITtIIA COIIITY QFFICl
wa I0 PQNDIIOIA NIPJ!
IllTit
CAkIAJiA~ PAUllewis*' iJ01O
i~efd ll7,-,14el
BNS CCSTA
FAX NO, 7147555848
P. 02
FIlEDNO OFRCI
NORTH PALM A'q4MI,l(
~ 101
13011MlI41&,I
UgHTON PLAZA
7306 COLLEGE I, OULEYMO
OVBLAND IMMo KANIAI 11131)
December 13, 1995
Mr, Gary Thornhill
Director of Community Development
City of Temecula
43174 Business Perk Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Re:
Concerns Raised et City Council Meeting on CUP
Revocation/Modification Provisions in Draft Development Code
Dear Gary;.
During the last City Council meeting on the draft Development Code,
concern was expressed regarding the language proposed to be added by the City
Attorney's Office regarding medl~caUon or revocation of Conditional Use Permits
or "CUPs." This letter will explain the legal authority for the provision and the
rational behind it.
There are situations in which cities would like to review a CUP for "changed
clrcurnstances" -- especially wtth potentially problem uses such as businesses
connected with alcoholic beverages, pool halls, video arcades, etc. The difficulty
arises from the fact that CUP's run with the land and give the operator a right to
operate if the conditions are satisfied. When the size, scope, nature, or
configuration of The business with the approved CUP changes, the City will
generally want To review the CUP. However, Callfornla case law indicates that
modification of a CUP generally must be based on the same standards that would
be used for revocation of the permit, Garavattl v. Fairfax Planning Cornmiss/on
(1971), 22 CaI.App.3d 146; 99 CaI.Rptr. 260. Other cases have held That the
revoCatiOn standard is one based on a "compelling necessity" to revoke the permit.
The Gafavaftl case, as well as commentary on this issue, have suggested that if
the CIty - either in its zoning ordinance or in the actual conditions of approval -
reserves the right to review the CUP for changed circumstances, then this
DEC-13-95 Fr, I) 13:38 B~S COSTA IIESA FAX NO. 7147555848 P. 03
Mr, Gary Thornhill
Director of Community Development
City of Temecula
December 13, 1995
Page 2
reservation would provide a basis for review of the CUP Independent of the
standards necessary to revoke a CUP for s vloJ~ltlon of conditions. Based on fie
Garavattl decision, we recommended that the City add the language to the draft
Development Coda to Include the reservation of this right of review in the sections
dealing with Conditional Use Permits. It may be best from a due process
perspective to include the reservation in both places.
One Important factor in this decision is that the City in no way gives Jig Its
right to review or revoke r-UP's for violations of tl~e ~onditions imoosed. For
example, if the City grants a CUP to operate a nightclub with the requirement that
the buslnes~ not have loud music after midnight and the CIty is receiving
complaints of loud music from the business at 1:00 a.m., the City Independently of
these factors outlined in this letter and proposed for the Development Code may
review and either recondition the project or revoke the CUP. This is based on the
fact ~hat the applicant violated the eatabllshed conditions of the CUP. However, if
the applicant were to receive a CUP to operate a coffee house with occasional llve
entertainment and utilizes that CUP to have nightly live music, this would present
the situation of a changed circumstance Justifying the review of the CUP to add
additional conditions of approval to address the situation or to consider actual
revocation of the CUP.
I hope this Information helps facilitate a discussion of this Important issue.
Should you have any questions or need additional information, please let me know.
Sincerely,
DI~'~ '~('~
Attorney
CITY OF TEMECULA
CC:
John Meyer, Senior Planner
Peter M. Thorson, Esq., City Attorney
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
GPA PARCEL SPECIFIC LAND USE REQUEST MATRIX
R:~DEVCODL:~DEVCODE.CC2 12/12/95 Idb ~
Z
,¢
,¢
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CHAPTER 17.17
PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY
R:~DEVCODE~DEVCODE.CC2 12/12/95 klb 4
CHAFFER 17.17
PLANNED CO1VI1VIERCIAL DEV~I-OPNIENT OVERLAY DISTRICT
Sections:
17~ 17.020
17.17.040
17.17.060
17.17.080
17.17.100
17.17.110
17.17.120
17.17.140
17.17.160
17.17.180
17.17.200
17.17.210
Planned Commercial Development Overlay District ('PCDOD) Established.
Purposes
DefL, u'tions.
General Requirements: PCDOD.
Uses Permitted in the PCDOD Subject to Site Plan Approval
Requirements for Uses in the PCDOD Subject to Site Plan Approval
Uses Permitted in the PCDOD Subject to Specific Plan Approval
Procedures for Specific Plan Approval
Effect of Approval
Content of Specific Plan
Specific Plan Consistency
Amendment W Approved Plans
17.17.020 Planned Commercial Development Overlay District Established. The
Planned Commercial Development Overlay District is hereby established and shall be known
as "PCDOD."
17.17.040 Purposes. The Planned Commercial Development Overlay District is
designed to achieve the foliowing purposes:
Ae
Ce
To pwvide for the chssificafion and development of parcels of land as
complete, comprehensive, and integrated commercial pwjects so as to take
advantage of the superior environment which can result from large scale
community planning, and thereby reduce adverse environmental impacts of
uncoordinated development.
To permit limited uses as a matter of fight, such as a comprehensive retail
center, while allowing for the diversification of land uses as they rehte to each
other in a physical and environmental arrangement within the general
parameters of a retail or business park setting, while ensuring substantial
compliance with the provisions of this Chapter.
To provide for a zoning district encompassing various types of land uses such
as business parks, industrial parks, commercial centers, major value retailers,
power centers, or a combination of the uses through:
The development of a major retail center or "power center" as provided
in this Chapter, subject to site plan approval by the Planning
DEVCODE\CHPTR17 :
Commission and City Council; or
The adoption of a specific plan and text materials which set forth land
use relationships and development standards to ensure that other
commercial development not approved through the site plan process
will be a comprehensive, integrated, and coordinated development for
property subject to this land use district.
17.17.060 Definitions. For the purposes of this Chapter, the following words and
phrases shall have the meanings set forth below:
'Major Value Retailer' shah mean an individual commercial retail establishment
containing a gross floor area in excess of sixty-five thousand square feet (65,000 sq.
ft.). Such major value retailers shall include large discount warehouse-style retail
sales enterprises such as Home Base, Home Depot, Price Club/Costco, as well as
large-space high-volume specialty stores, such as Good Guys, Circuit City, Super
Crown Books and Toys R Us. Major value retailers also include major discount
department stores, like Wal-Mart, K Mart and Target. Such retailers do high
volume, large quantity, low frills service and sales. The terminology for a major
value retailer shall mean either a single retail use or single user of retail floor area
within a free-standing building or a single use or single user of retail floor area
incorporated within or attached to a power center.
'Power Center' shall mean a combination of one or more commercial establishments
planned, developed, and constructed on a single lot or parcel of land which includes
at least one major value retailer utilizing a gross floor area in excess of ninety
thousand square feet (90,000 sq. ft.).
Section 17.17.080. General Requirements:
shall apply to all PCDOD aw~s:
PCDOD. The following requirements
Use regulations as set forth in Section 17.08.030 of this Development Code
pertaining to the Service Commercial (SC) zoning district, including uses listed
in Table 17.08(a).
Special use reguhtions and standards as set forth in Section 17.08.050 of this
Development Code.
Landscape requirements and standards as set forth in Section 17.08.060 of this
Development Code pertaining to the Service Commercial (SC) zoning district.
Performance standards as set forth in Section 17.08.070 of this Development
Code.
30E\CHPTR17 -2-
Environmental standards as set forth in Section 17.08.080 of this Development
Code.
All other relevant chapters of Title 17 of the Development Code, including,
but not limited to, Off-Street Parking and Loading (Chapter 17.24) and
Covenants for Easements (Chapter 17.26).
In the event of a conflict between PCDOD requirements set forth in Sections
17.17.110 et seq. below and those requirements set forth in Section 17.17.080
A - F above, the Director of Community Development shall determine which
requirement best implements the intent of the Development Code.
Section 17.17.100. Uses Permitted in the PCDOD Subject to Site Plan Approval.
The following shall be permitted uses in the PCDOD subject to site plan approval and not
subject to commercial development standards under Section 17.08.040 of this Development
Code:
Detached major value retailer containing a gross floor area in excess of sixty-
five thousand square feet (65,000 sq. ft.) with no more than ten percent (10%)
of the gross floor space dedicated to use by multiple subvendors.
Power center including at least one major value retailer utilizing a gross floor
area in excess of ninety thousand square feet (90,000 sq. ft.). No major value
retailer tenant may dedicate greater than ten percent (10 % ) of its gross floor
area to multiple subvendors.
Section 17.17.110. Development Standards for Uses in the PCDOD Subject to Site
Plan Approval. The development standards for the PCDOD are generally the same as for
the requirements listed under Section 17.17.040. However, modifications to those standards
may be approved to allow for greater flexibility in reaching the objectives of the Planned
Commercial Development and compatibility with the General Plan. Variations to the base
standards shall be considered as a part of the review and appwval of the PIned
Commercial Development
Section 17.17.120. Uses Permitted in the PCDOD Subject to Specific Plan Appwval.
All other uses in the PCDOD overhy zone are subject to specific plan appwval, including
general requirements outlined under Section 17.17.080 for all PCDOD uses and subject to
commercial development standards set forth in Section 17.08.040 of this Development Code.
Section 17.17.140. Pmce~!ures for Specific Plan Appwval.
A. Pre-Submittal and Preparation of Specific Plan
DEVCOOE\CHPTR17 -3- i
(1)
A preliminary application and application fee as set by resolution of the
City Council are required prior to ~ing a formal Specific Plan
application. A pre-application conference with the Planning
Depaxtment representatives is required prior to filing of the formal
specific plan application. This is intended to provide direction to the
applicant and to provide information prior to preparation of detailed
plans.
(2)
Prior to the preparation of a Specific Plan, the applicant shall hold a
public scoping meeting to identify potential community concerns about
the project. Public notice of the scoping meeting is required. Noticing
procedures shall be defined by the Planning Depamnent at the pre-
application conference.
Hearing and Notice
Upon receipt in proper form of a Specific Plan application, or direction of the
City Council, a public hearing shall be set before the Planning Commission
and City Council. Notice of the hearings shall be given pursuant to the
requirements of Section 17.03,040 of this Development Code.
Planning Commission Action on SpeCific Plans
The Planning Commission shall make a written recommendation on the
proposed Specific Plan whether to approve, appwve in modified form or
disapprove, based upon the findings contained in this Chapter.
Planning Commission action recommending that the proposed Specific Plan be
approve, d, approved in modified form, or denied shall be considered by the
City Council following Planning Commission action.
City Council Action on Specific Plans
Upon receipt of the Planning Commission' s recommendation, the City Council
may approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the proposed Specific
Plan based upon the fmdings contained in this Chapter.
Findings
A Specific Plan may be adopted only ff all of the following fmdings are made:
(1)
The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code.
OE\CHPTR17 .-4-
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
The proposed Specific Plan would not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience or weftaxe of the City.
The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use
designations and the anticipated land use developments.
The proposed Specific Plan shall ensure development of desirable
character which will be compatible with existing and proposed
development in the surrounding neighborhood.
The proposed Specific Plan is a fully integrated project.
Section 17.17.160. Effect of Approval. The Adoption of a Planned Commercial
Development Overlay District shall include an amendment to the Zoning Map. The
designation on Zoning Map shall include the designation "PCDOD" followed by a reference
number that corresponds to the name of the Specific Plan. Land Use designations and zoning
for the area will then be guided by the provisions of this Development Code or adopted
Specific Plan. ff the Specific Plan does not address a particular standard, the provisions of
this Development Code shall apply.
Section 17.17.180. Content of a Specific Plan. A Specific Plan application shall
include a text and diagrams which contained all of the provisions outlined in Government
Code Sections 65451 and 65452.
The form and content of the Specific Plan shall contain, at a minimum, the following:
A boundary survey map of the property and calculations of the gross land area
within the proposed zoning district. A tentative subdivision map may be
substituted ff the application proposes to subdivide the property.
B,
A topographical map and general grading concept plan with specific sections
for sensitive areas.
A diagram, text, and exhibits describing the site, proposed land uses,
circuhtion, public facilities and services, and phasing.
A preliminary report describing anticipated requirements and proposed means
of providing utility facilities and public services, including but not limited to,
storm drainage, sewage disposal, water supply, parks and recreation and
school facilities.
E. A discussion of how the Specific Plan implements the applicable elements of
DEVCOOE\CHPTR17 -5- '
the General Plan.
F,
A description of site development standards including but not limited to, listing
of allowable uses, maximum and minimum regulations, required setbacks and
supplemental ~ustrations as required, establishing the basic community
architectural character, environmental character, and environmental design
qualities to be attained throughout the Specific Plan area.
A Phasing and Financing Plan to assure the adequate provision of public
utilities, improvements, and other facilities.
Other data and related exhibits deemed neces~ by the Director of
Community Development, Planning Commission, or City Council.
Section 17.17.200. Amendment to Approved Plans. No public works project,
tentative map or parcel map may be approved, adopted, or amended within an area covered
by a Specific Plan, unless found to be consistent with the adopted Specific Plan.
Section 17.17.210. Specific Plan Consistency. Amendments to an approved Specific
Plans shall be made in the same procedure as followed when the plan was adopted. Any
adopted Specific Plan may also be repealed by the same procedure as the plan was originally
adopted. Prior to the adoption of an ordinance to repeal and discontinue a Specific Plan, the
City Council with a recommendation from the Planning Commission shall f'md that the plan
is no longer necessa~ for the orderly and systematic implementation of the General Plan.
The repealing ordinance shall include provisions for the immediate application of appropriate
zoning to the area covered by the repealed plan.
OOE\CHPTR17 -6-
A~:~roved Specific
Proposed Specific P'.::.'.
Areas
Nm=: Se: ~m ~'SmaG: P.$c
~ on [c~iimln~ F~lc-
~ned CoTr~er~ ~-_
Development Are~
/i
F
General Plan Program
,, f
*
FIGURE 2-5
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
R:\DEVCODE~.DEVCODE.CC2 12/12195 klb 5
,
t!TTS
FTS t~ 2W
../
,4
\
/
CITY OF TEMECULA
NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL
ZONING DISTRICTS
RANCHO
/
,//
CITY OF TEMECULA
NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL
ZONING DISTRICTS
~N
/
I1
II
tl
11
,\
CITY OF TEMECULA
NEIGHBORHOOD \., '.,/' "~
COMMERCIAL
ZONING DISTRICTS \, " "/
CITY OF TEMECULA
NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL
ZONING DISTRICTS
N
Ill I~(, / ~ i'Z"</ I\~/
J " j,Z_ II
,/" I
i
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
R:\DEVCODEXDEVCODE.CC2 12112195 klb 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY
OF TEMECULA ADOPTING CERTAIN GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S
GENERAL PLAN
WItEREAS, Section 65300 of the Government Code requires that cities adopt a
comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the jurisdiction as well
as any adjacent areas which, in the judgement of the city, bears a relationship to its planning;
and
WHEREAS, On November 9, 1993, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted
the General Plan.
WHEREAS, Sections 65350 of the Government Code permits a city to amend the
general plan; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended (Sections
21000 through 21177 of the Public Resources Code), requires that prior to the approval of any
project the Lead Agency consider the potential impacts and effects of said project, consider
alternatives to the project, and identify mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate the
impact of the project on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula has prepared a Negative Declaration for the General
Plan Amendment in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines
prepared by the Office of Planning and Research; and
WHEREAS, the Planing Commission has held duly noticed public hearings on March
20th, April 3rd, June 5th, June 19th, July 17th, August 21st, September 18th, and October 16th
1995 to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, on October 16, 1995, the Planing Commission recommended to the City
Council that the Council approve and adopt the General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public heating on November 28,
1995 to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Amendment to the General
Plan for the City of Temecula, as set forth on exhibit "A" as amended attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference. The General Plan Land Use Designation map for the City
R:XDEVCODE'~DEVCODE.CC2 12112/95 klb 7
of Temecula is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Environmental Study was prepared
for this project. The Initial Study identified no additional significant impacts beyond those
impacts identified in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan.
Therefore, the Negative Declaration for the General Plan Amendment is hereby adopted.
Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of December, 1995.
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 19th day of
December, 1995 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
R:\DEVCODE\DEVCODE.CC2 12/12/95 klb 8
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
ORDINANCE NO. 95-
R:\DEVCODE~DEVCODE.CC2 12/12/95 klb 9
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
ORDINANCE NO. 95-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE DEVELOPMENT CODE
AND CONSISTENCY ZONING MAP, AND AMENDING THE
ZONING MAP OF THE CITY TO BE CONSISTENT WITH
THE GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and
administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities to implement such
general plan as may be in effect in any such city; and
WHEREAS, Sections 65860 of the Government Code requires that a zoning ordinance
shall be consistent with the adopted general plan of the city; and
WHEREAS, the process of preparing the zoning ordinance has included a number of
opportunities for public and citizen involvement included a number of town meetings, technical
committee meeting and public hearings, and by making numerous copies of the plan and
associated documents available to the public; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended (Sections
21000 through 21177 of the Public Resources Code), requires that prior to the approval of any
project the Lead Agency consider the potential impacts and effects of said project, consider
alternatives to the project, and identify mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate the
impact of the project on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula has prepared a Negative Declaration for the Draft
Development Code and Consistency Zoning in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the
CEQA 6uidelines prepared by the Office of Planning and Research; and
WHEREAS, the Planing Commission has held duly noticed public hearings on March
20th, April 3rd, June 5th, June 19th, July 17th, August 21st, September 18th, and October 16th
1995 to consider the proposed Development Code, Consistency Zoning, and Negative
Declaration; and
WHEREAS, on October 16, 1995, the Planing Commission recommended to the City
Council that the Council approve and adopt the Draft Development Code, Consistency Zoning
and Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on November 28,
1995 to consider the proposed Development Code, Consistency Zoning and Negative
Declaration; and
R:~DEVCODE\DEVCODE.CC2 12/12/95 klb
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. NEGATIVE DECLARATION. The City Council hereby adopts the Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act for the Development Code and consistency rezoning.
Section 2. DEVELOPMENT CODE. The City Council hereby adds Title 17, Zoning,
to the Temecula Municipal Code, as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference as the Development Code and Zoning Ordinance for the City of
Temecula.
Section 3. ZONING MAP. The City Council hereby adopts Exhibit "B" as the Zoning
Map for the City of Temecula.
Section 4. 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 5. 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 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. 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 and
cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places.
Section 7. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of December, 1995.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
R:\DEVCODE~DEVCODE.CC2 12/12/95 klb 11
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 19th day of
December, 1995 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
R:\DEVCODE'~DEVCODE.CC2 12/12195 lab 12
Avvroved Specific Plan
Proposed Specific Plan
Arc'as
Planned Commercial
Development Area
F
i
i
i'
General Plan Proaram ": ........ ""[ ~ /
FIGURE 2-5
"EXHIBIT B"
Land Use Plan
|
I
Residential Uses
[ RH llilIside(0-.1 du/acmax.)
~ VL Very Low (.2 - .4 du/ac max.)
I L Low (.5 - 2 du/ac max.)
t_M ; Low Medium (3- 6 du/ac max.)
[ M Medium (7 - 12 du/ac max.)
H ' High (13 - 20 du/ac max.)
Non-Residential Uses
[ uC i Neighborhood Commercial
(2:12: ; Community Commercial
IHTC Highway/Tourist Commercial
[ O ' ~ Professional Office
SC ' Service Commercial
BP' ' Business Park
(~ Public/Institutional Facilities
oS ' !Open Space/Recreation
[~ Temecula City Limit Boundary
]'...,,,.,,'~9 Sphere of Influence Boundary
~tal Study Area Boundary
i
Revision Table
The City of
TEMECULA
General Plan Program
ITEM 17
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
APPROVA
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFI
CITY MANAG
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
City Council/City Manager
Anthony Elmo, Chief Building Official//~
December 19, 1995
SUBJECT:
Adoption of the 1994 Editions of Various
Model Building Codes
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
1. Reopen the continued Public Hearing and receive public comment.
2. Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SETTING FORTH THE LOCAL
CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE
CITY COUNCIL THAT MODIFICATIONS TO CHAPTER 15.04 OF THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE,
1994 EDITION, THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, 1994 EDITION AND THE
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, 1993 EDITION ARE REASONABLE AND
NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE.
3. Conduct a second reading of Ordinance 95--- entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 95---
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 15.02TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE
PROVIDING FOR FEES AND ENFORCEMENT OF BUILDING REGULATIONS;
AND AMENDING CHAPTERS 15.04AND 15.08 OF THIS MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ADOPT BY REFERENCE THE FOLLOWING CODES WITH CERTAIN
AMENDMENTS THERETO: THE 1994 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING
CODE; THE 1994 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE; THE 1994
EDITION OF THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE; THE 1994 EDITION OF THE
UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE; THE 1994 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM
CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS; THE 1994 EDITION
OF THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE; THE 1994 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM
SWIMMING POOLS. SPAS AND HOT TUB CODE; AND THE 1993 EDITION OF
THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE.
Agenda%1994Code.2ND
DISCUSSION:
The State of California Building Standards Commission has adopted the 1994 editions of the
Uniform Codes as published by the International Conference of Building Officials and the
International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, along with state agency
amendments for enforcement at the local level. This action makes it necessary for each local
jurisdiction to adopt these codes and any local amendments necessary to assist them in the
protection of the public safety in buildings in their jurisdiction. The recommended
amendments that appear in this Ordinance, are those that are generally administrative in
nature. This ordinance does, however, contain several amendments that staff feels are
necessary for maintaining the public safety in buildings within the City. Draft copies of this
ordinance have been distributed to the Building Industry Association and the Economic
Development Corporation, Expediting Committee, for review and comment.
Agenda~,1994Code.2ND
RESOLLrrlON NO. 95.-
A RESOLIYrION OF THE CITY OF TEMECUI,A SETtING
FORTH THE LOCAL CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A
DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE CITY
COUNCIL THAT MODIFICATIONS TO CHAFFER 15.04 OF
THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE AIrlENDING THE
UNIFORM BUILr}ING CODE, 1994 EDITION, THE
UN~O~ MECHANICAL CODE, 1994 EDITION, THE
UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, 1994 EDITION, AND THE
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, 1993 EDITION, ARE
REASONABLY NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC
WItEREAS, certain building standards and other related uniform codes are adopted by
the State of California in the California Building Standards Code which becomes applicable in
the City unless amended by the City pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17958; and,
WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Section 17958.5 provides for the City Council to
make reasonably necessary changes or modifications based on certain local conditions before
adopting the most current edition of the model codes; and,
WHEREAS, the Building Official of the City of Temecula has determined and
recommended that the modifications to the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code,
Uniform Plumbing Code, and the National Electrical Code are reasonably required to be adopted
by the City of Temecula; and,
WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7 requires the City Council to make
express findings of the necessity for modifications to the building standards in the most current
editions of the model codes as adopted by the State of California.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEM~CULA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula finds that the following
amendments and modifications to the Temecuh Municipal Code and the Uniform Building Code,
1994 edition, the Uniform Mechanical Code, 1994 edition, the Uniform Plumbing Code, 1994
edition, and the National Electrical Code, 1993 edition, contained in Ordinance 95-__ are
reasonably necessary due to consideration of specific local climatic, geological or topographical
conditions as follows:
R:~ityatty~354.1 1
I. SECTION 15.04,030 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1994 EDITION.
A. Section 106.2 Work Exempt from Permits.
5. Retaining walls...
This amendment is reasonably necessary because of the following local
conditions:
Geolo2ical Conditions:
The City of Temecula is located in an area near high seismic activity. Because
of the degree of the City' s urbanization and close proximity to major fault lines, the risk
of structural damage and loss of life due to ground shaking is considerable. During a
major earthquake, emergency resources would be extremely taxed, and the ability to
respond to such emergencies would be complicated. Local standards in excess of
statewide minimums will assist in reducing risks associated with earthquakes and the
consequent disruption of traffic flow.
B. Section 904 F'tre-Extinguishing Systems.
Section 904.2.1 Where required...
This amendment is reasonably necessary because of the following local
conditions:
Climatic Conditions:
Generally Riverside County and the City of Temecula has an arid climate.
Annual rainfall varies from 3 inches in Blythe to over 33 inches in Pine Cove. Hot, dry
Santa Ana winds are common to areas within Riverside County. These winds constitute
a contributing factor which causes small fires originating in high density development
presently being constructed in the County of Riverside and the City of Temecula which
spread quickly and create the need for an increased level of fh'e protection. This added
protection, including, but not limited to on-site protection, will supplement normal Fire
Department response available in new development, and provide immediate fire
protection for life and safety of multiple-occupancy occupants during fire occurrence.
Topographical Conditions:
Traffic and circulation congested in urban areas often place Fire Department
response time to emergencies at risk. This condition makes the need for enhanced on-
site protection for property occupants necessary.
R:x.~ityatty~5354.1
Geological Conditions:
The City of Temecula is located in an area near high seismic activity. Because
of the degree of the City' s urbanization and close proximity to major fault lines, the risk
of structural damage and loss of life due to ground shaking is considerable. During a
major earthquake, emergency resources would be extremely taxed, and the ability to
respond to such emergencies would be complicated. Local standards in excess of
statewide minimums will assist in reducing risks associated with earthquakes and the
consequent disruption of traffic flow.
C. Section 1503 Roof-Covering Requirements...
This amendment is reasonably necessary because of the following local
conditions:
Climatic Conditions:
Generally Riverside County and the City of Temecula has an arid climate.
Annual rainfall varies from 3 inches in Blythe to over 33 inches in Pine Cove. Hot, dry
Santa Ana winds are common to areas within Riverside County. These climatic
conditions cause extreme drying of vegetation and common building materials and
predispose the area to large destructive fires. Higher building standards are necessary
to protect against the increased risk of fire.
D. Section 1924. ~V[Inlmnm Slab Thickness...; and Section 1924.1 Slab Dowels...
These amendments are reasonably necessary because of the following local
conditions:
Topographical Conditions:
The City is comprised of varying soft conditions and a fluctuating water table that
is fed by artesian springs. This water table will elevate substantially following heavy
rain. The addition of a moisture barrier will mitigate excess moisture absorption into
concrete placed on grade.
Geological Conditions:
The City of Temecula is located in Seismic Zone No. 4 and contains two (2)
faults running north and south within its boundaries. The addition of slab dowels as an
additional means of attachment of added structures to existing is intended to help mitigate
the effects of seismic activity on these connections.
R:X~ityatty~5354.1 3
Deletion of Appendix Chapter 16, Division I, Snow Load Designs...; and
deletion of Appendix Chapter 19 Protection of Residential Concrete Exposed
to Freezing and Thawing...
These amendments are reasonably necessary because of the following local
conditions:
Climatic Conditions:
The City of Temecula is located in an arid climate with an annual avenge
temperature of seventy (70) degrees fahrenheit. Moist ocean air blows through Rainbow
Canyon into Temecula and prohibits freezing. Therefore, building problems associated
with snow and freezing are not applicable to the structures in Temecula and building
standards protecting against snow and freezing are not necessary.
Deletion of Appendix Chapter 21 Prescriptive Masonry in High-Wind
Areas...; and deletion of Appendix Chapter 23 Conventional Light-Frame
Construction in High-Wind Areas...
These amendments are reasonably necessary because of the following local
conditions:
Climatic Conditions:
The City of Temecula is located in an arid climate with an annual average
temperature of seventy (70) degrees fahrenheit and avenge winds of 55 to 60 miles per
hour. The City's design criteria is set at winds up to seventy (70) miles per hour.
Therefore, building problems associated with high winds are not applicable to the
structures in Temecula and building standards protecting against high winds are not
necessary.
H. SECTION 15.04.040 UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, 1994 EDITION.
A. Section 504 Environmental Air Ducts.
Section 504.1 Makeup and exhaust ducts...
This amendment is reasonably necessary because of the following local
conditions:
Climatic Conditions:
Generally Riverside County and the City of Temecula has an arid climate.
Annual rainfall varies from 3 inches in Blythe to over 33 inches in Pine Cove. Hot, dry
R:~ityattyX5354.1 4
Santa Ana winds are common to areas within Riverside County. These climatic
conditions cause extreme drying of vegetation and common building materials and
predispose the area to large destructive fifes. Higher building standards are necessary
to protect against the increased risk of fire.
SECTION 15.04.050 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, 1994 EDITION.
A. Section 411 Floor Drains.
Section 411.1 Floor drains shall be...
This amendment is reasonably necessary because of the following local
conditions:
Topographical and Climatic Conditions:
This amendment does not restrict the use of floor drains but requires their
installation in certain applications. Due to the proximity to the ocean and the influx of
moist air experienced in the City, the need to properly and efficiently drain wash down
water or water caused by plumbing fixture failure is necessary to protect occupants from
excess standing water. This problem is generally experienced in restrooms used
commercially where frequent supervision is lacking or exposure to vandalism is
experienced.
B. Appendix Chapter 3, Section 318. Rodent proof'mg...
This amendment is reasonably necessary because of the following local
conditions:
Topographical Conditions:
The City is located adjacent to areas of undeveloped and undisturbed animal
habitat. As development progresses into these areas, and habitats are disturbed, adjacent
residents are exposed to and experience rodent infestation as these displaced rodents are
relocating to find shelter.
SECTION 15.04,100 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, 1993 lmlTION.
A. Article 336 Nonmetallic-Sheathed Cable.
Section 336-3 Uses Permitted...
R:~ityatty~5354.1 $
This amendment is reasonably necessary because of the following local
conditions:
Topographical Conditions:
The City is located on a north/south transportation corridor and is developing both
a medical manufacturing and micro component business base. These occupancies
typically contain hazardous uses of varying degree. Non-metallic sheathed cable is not
prohibited from use in the city, but only in commercial and industrial type applications
where the type of construction and constant tenant improvement needs cause a concern
for the potential damage that may be caused to this cable' s soft insulation and protection
sheathing.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
APPROVEn AND ADOPTED, this day of
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
R:~ityauy~S3S4.1 6
ORDINANCE NO. 95-
AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA, CALwORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER
15.02 TO THE TEM CULA MUNICIPAL CODE
PROVIDING FOR FEES AND ENFORCEMENT OF
BUILr}ING REGULATIONS; AND AlV!I~NDING
CHAPTERS 15.04 AND 15.08 OF THIS MUNICIPAL
CODE TO ADOIrE BY REFERENCE THE FOLLOWING
CODES WITH CERTAIN AlV~~S THERETO:
THE 1994 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM BUILdING
CODE; THE 1994 EDITION OF TF~ UNIFORM
MECHANICAL CODE; THE 1994 EDITION OF THE
UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE; THE 1994 EDITION OF
THE UNWORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE; THE 1994
EDITION OF THE UNWO RM CODE FOR ABATEM'F~NT
OF DANGEROUS BU1Lr}INGS; THE 1994 EDITION OF
THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE; THE 1994 EDITION
OF THE UNIFORM SWIMMING FOOL, SPA AND HOT
TUB CODE; AND THE 1993 EDITION OF THE
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE.
The City Council of the City of Temecula does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: CHAFFER 15.02, "Fees and Enforcement," is added to Title 15, Buildings
and Construction, of the Temecula Municipal Cede to read as follows:
l&02,010 Permit Fees. Fees for permits and services rendered pursuant to
these Building and Construction Regulations shall be paid to the Building Official as set forth
in schedules established by Resolution of the City Council. The determination of value or
valuation under any of the provisions of these codes shall be made by the Building Official.
The value to be used in computing the fees shall be the total value of all consU'uction work
for which the permit is issued, as well as all finish work, painting, roofing, electrical,
plumbing, heating, air conditioning, elevators, fire extinguishing systems and any other
permanent equipment.
1&02.020 Plan Review Fees. When submittal documents are required by
Section 302.2 of the Uniform Administrative Cede as adopted in Section 15.04.060 of this
Municipal Code, a plan review fee shall be paid at the time of submitting the submittal
documents for plan review. Said plan review shall be 75 percent of the building permit fee
as established by Resolution of the City Council pursuant to Section 15.02.010 herein.
The plan review fees specified in this Section are separate fees from the permit fees specified
in Section 15.020.010 herein and are in addition to the permit fees.
When submittal documents are incomplete or changed so as to require additional plan review
or when the project involves deferred submittal items as defined in Section 302.4.:2 of the
Uniform Administrative Code, an additional plan review fee shall be charged at the rate
established by Resolution of the City Council.
15.02.030 Expiration of Plan Review. Applications for which no permit is
issued within 180 days following the date of application shall expire by limitation, and plans
and other data submitted for review may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed
by the Building Official. The Building Official may extend the time for action by application
of the applicant for a period not exceeding 180 days on written request by the applicant
showing that circumstances beyond the control of the applicant have prevented action from
being taken. An application shall not be extended more than once. An application shall not
be extended if this code or any other pertinent laws or ordinances have been mended
subsequent to the date of application. In order to renew action on an application after
expiration, the applicant shall resubmit plans and pay a new plan review fee.
15.02.040 Civil Penalty. Any person, firm or corporation who shall proceed
with or commence work for which a permit is required by these Building and Construction
Regulations without first having obtained such permit shall, ff subsequently permitted to
obtain a permit therefor, pay double the fee fixed for such work. The original permit fee
shall be for issuance of the permit and the balance shall be a civil penalty. This provision
shall not apply to emergency work when it shall be proved to the satisfaction of the Building
Official that such work was urgen~y necessary and that it was not practical to obtain a permit
before commencement of the work. In all such cases a permit must be secured as soon as it
is practicable to do so, and if there is an unreasonable delay in securing the required permit,
the civil penalty as provided herein shall be charged. In no event shall such civil penalty
exceed the permit fee plus $500.00. The civil penalty provided in this Section shall be in
addition to any other frees and remedies prescribed elsewhere in this Municipal Code. The
payment of such fee and Free shall not relieve any persons from fully complying with the
requirements of these Building and Construction Regulations in the execution of the work.
15.02.050 Fee Refunds. The Building Official may authorize refunding of a fee
paid hereunder which was erroneously paid or collected. The Building Official may
authorize refunding of not more than 80 percent of the permit fee paid when no work has
been done under the permit issued in accordance with this Code. The Building Official may
authorize refunding of not more than 80 percent of the plan review fee paid when an
application for a permit for which a plan review fee has been paid is withdrawn or canceled
before any examination time has been expended. The Building Official shall not authorize
the refunding of any fee paid except upon written application fried by the original permittee
not later than 180 days after the date of fee payment.
2
15.02.060 Violations. It shall be unlawful for any person, fn'm or corporation to
erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish, equip,
use, occupy or maintain any building or structure or cause or permit the same to be done in
violation of Title 15, Buildings and Construction, of this Municipal Code. Violations and
violation penalties are subject to Chapter 1.20 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
SECTION H: The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby amend Title 15,
Buildings and Construction, of the Temecula Municipal Code to adopt by reference certain
uniform codes with amendments as follows:
15.04,010 Codes Adopted. The following are hereby adopted by reference as
amended by Section HI of this Ordinance, as the Building Codes of the City of Temecula,
one (1) copy of which is on ~e in the office of the City Clerk:
A. Uniform Building Code, volumes 1, 2 and 3 of the 1994 edition with appendices and
California State amendments;
B. Uniform Mechanical Code, 1994 edition with appendices and California
State amendments;
C. Uniform Plumbing Code, 1994 edition with appendices and California
State amendments;
D. Uniform Administrative Code, 1994 edition;
E. Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1994;
F. Uniform Housing Code, 1994 edition;
G. Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa and Hot Tub Code, 1994 edition;
H. National Electrical Code, 1993 edition.
SECTION ._IH_: The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby amend Ti~e 15,
Buildings and Construction, of the Temecula Municipal Code to provide for amendments to
certain Uniform Codes adopted by reference under Section H of this Ordinance as follows:
15.04,020 In general. The following amendments are made to the Building Codes,
1994 editions, as adopted by this Chapter:
15.04.030 Uniform Building Code. The following amendments, additions and
deletions are made to the Uniform Building Code, 1994 edition, adopted by this Chapter:
3
A. Section 103 is hereby mended by adding the following:
Violations and violation penalties are subject to Sections 15.02.060 and
Chapter 1.20 of this Municipal Code.
B. Section 106.2 is hereby mended to read as follows:
Section 106.2 Work Exempt from Permits. A building permit shall not
be required for the following:
Retaining walls which are not over two (2) feet in height, and
garden walls not over 4' measured from the top of footing to
top of wall unless supporting a surcharge or impounding
flammable Class I, Class II or III-A liquids.
Section 106.3.1 is hereby mended by adding thereto Subsection (8) to
read as follows:
All contractors and their subcontractors must have current and
valid city business licenses.
Section 107 is hereby deleted in its entirety and superseded by Sections
15.02.010 thru 15.02.050 of this Municipal Code, expressly
incorporated herein by reference. All references in the Uniform
Building Code to fees, fee schedules, or fee tables shall mean the fee
schedule as established by Resolution of the City Council in accordance
with Section 15.02.010 herein.
E. Table No. 1-A Building Permit Fees is hereby deleted in its entirety.
F. Section 502 is hereby mended by adding thereto the following:
Numbers for commercial and industrial buildings must be a minimum
of twelve (12) inches in height facing the street or front of the building.
All suites must have a minimum of (4) inch high letters on both front
and rear doors. Residential usages must have as a minimum four (4)
inch high letters. All letters must be placed upon a contrasting
background.
G. Section 904 is hereby mended to read as follows:
Section 904.2.1 Where required. An automatic fire-extinguishing
system shall be installed in the occupancies and locations as set forth in
4
Exception:
this Section except where the 1994 U.F.C. applies. In that case, the
most restrictive provisions wffi apply.
Section 1503 is hereby mended to read as follows:
Section 1503. The roof covering on any structure regulated by this
Code shall be as specified in Table No. 15-A and as classified in
Section 1504, except that no roof covering shall be less than a Class B
roofing assembly.
1. The roof covering on any structure regulated by this Code
within the Historical District Overlay, generally known as the Old
Town Temecula Historical Preservation District, shall not be less than a
Class C roofing assembly.
2. The roof covering of any structure located on a parcel
with a minimum of one-half acre in area may have a roof
covering of not less than a Class C Roofing Assembly when
approved by the Building Official.
3. The roof covering of all re-roofing shall conform to the
applicable provisions of this Section as mended herein, except
that the roof covering for the re-roofing of ten percent (10%) or
less of the area of any roof may consist of material comparable
to the remainder of the roof.
Section 1924 is hereby mended to read as follows:
Section 1924. The minimum thickness of concrete floor slabs
supported directly on the ground shall not be less than three and one-
half (3 1/2) inches. All group R occupancies shall have a minimum six
(6) rail moisture barrier with minimum two (2) inch sand cover.
Exception: 1. A moisture barrier shall not be required under slabs on
grade of open or enclosed patios as defined in Section 2 17.
Section 1924 is hereby further mended by adding thereto a new
paragraph to read as follows:
Section 1924.1 Slab Dowels. In all occupancies, slab connection from
existing slabs to new construction shall be placed at twenty-four (24)
inches on center with reinforcing steel on one half inch minimum
diameter, eighteen (18) inches in length.
Appendix Chapter 4. Section 42 1.1 paragraph 1 is hereby amended to
read as follows:
The top of the barrier shall be at least 60 inches above grade
measured on the side of the barrier which faces away from the
swimming pool.
L. Appendix Chapter 16. Division I is hereby deleted in its entirety.
M. Appendix Chapter 19 is hereby deleted in its entirety.
N. Appendix Chapter 21 is hereby deleted in its entirety.
O. Appendix Chapter 23 is hereby deleted in its entirety.
15.04,040 Uniform Mechanical Code. The following amendments, additions and
deletions are made to the Uniform Mechanical Code, 1994 edition, adopted by this Chapter.
A. Section 111 is hereby amended by adding the following:
Violations and violation penalties are subject to Sections 15.02,060 and
Chapter 1.20 of this Municipal Code.
Section 115 is hereby deleted in its entirety and superseded by Sections
15.02,010 thru 15.02.050 of this Municipal Code, expressly
incorporated heroin by reference. All references in the Uniform
Mechanical Code to fees, fee schedules, or fee tables shall mean the fee
schedule as established by Resolution of the City Council in accordance
with Section 15.02.010 herein.
C. Section 504 is hereby amended by adding the following:
Section 504.1. Makeup and exhaust ducts. Bathroom and laundry
room exhaust ducts may be of gypsum wallboard subject to the
limitation of Section 1002(a). Aluminum flex ducts are not permitted
to be installed horizontally in rooms that produce steam. An angle
greater than forty-five (45) degrees from the vertical is considered a
horizontal run.
15.04,050 Uniform Plumbing Code. The following amendments, additions and
deletions are made to the Uniform Plumbing Code, 1994 edition, adopted by this Chapter:
A. Section 102.3.2 is hereby amended by adding the following:
Violations and violation penalties are subject to Sections 15.132.060 and
Chapter 1.20 of this Municipal Code.
Section 103.4 is hereby deleted in its entirety and superseded by
Sections 15.02,010 thru 15.02,050 of this Municipal Code, expressly
incorporated her,in by reference. All references in the Uniform
Plumbing Code to fees, fee schedules, or fee tables shall mean the fee
schedule as established by Resolution of the City Council in accordance
with Section 15.02.010 her.in.
C. Section 202(I) is hereby amended to read as follows:
(a) Indirect Waste Pipe. An indirect waste pipe is a pipe that does not
connect directly with the drainage system but conveys liquid wastes by
discharging through an approved air gap into a plumbing fixture,
interceptor or receptacle which is directly connected to the drainage
system.
D. Section 411 is hereby amended by adding the following:
Section 411.1 Floor drains shall be installed in all compartments
containing urinals or where hose bibs are provided for washing down
floors.
Section 719.5 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Cleanouts installed under concrete or asphalt paving shall be made
accessible by yard boxes, or extended flush with paving with a "brass
cap" or other approved material for installation where subject to
vehicular traffic.
Section 1204.3.2 is hereby amended by adding the following:
Testing of gas piping over two (2) inches in diameter shall require a
twenty-four (24) hour graph test wimessed by the jurisdiction.
Section 1211.3 is hereby amended by adding the following exceptions:
Exception: 1. The installation of natural gas line for island fixtures is
allowed beneath the slab as approved by the Building Official.
7
Exception: 2. The installation of propane gas line for island fixtures is
allowed beneath the slab as approved by the Building Official.
The following chapters from the appendices are hereby deleted from the
Uniform Plumbing Code, 1994 edition, adopted by this ordinance.
1. Appendix E - mobile home parks and recreational vehicle parks,
is hereby deleted in its entirety.
2. Appendix H - commercial kitchen grease interceptors, is hereby
deleted in its entirety.
H. Appendix Chapter 3 is hereby amended by adding a new Section thereto as
follows:
Section 318 Rodent proofing.
318.1 Rodent proofing. Plumbing systems shall be designed and
installed in accordance with Sections 318.2 through 318.4 so as to
prevent rodents from entering structures.
318.2 Strainer plates.
designed and installed
in least dimension.
All strainer plates on drain inlets shall be
so that all openings are not greater than 1/2 inch
318.3 Meter boxes. Meter boxes shall be constructed in such a
manner that rodents are prevented from entering a structure by way of
the water service pipes connecting the meter box and the structure.
318.4 Openings for pipes. In or on structures where openings have
been made in walls, floors or ceilings for the passage of pipes, such
openings shall be closed and protected by the installation of approved
metal collars that are securely fastened to the adjoining structure.
15.04,060 Uniform Adminl~rative Code. The following amendments, additions
and deletions are made to the Uniform Administrative Code, 1994 edition, adopted by this
Chapter.
A. Section 205 is hereby amended by adding the following:
Violations and violation penalties are subject to Sections 15.02.0d0 and
Chapter 1.20 of this Municipal Code.
Sections 304.1 and 304.2 are hereby deleted in their entirety and
superseded by Section 15.02.010 of this Municipal Code, expressly
incorporated herein by reference. All references in the Uniform
Administrative Code to fees, fee schedules, or fee tables shall mean the
fee schedule as established by Resolution of the City Council in
accordance with Section 15.02.010 herein.
Section 304.3 is hereby deleted in its entirety and superseded by
Section 15.02.020 of this Municipal Code, expressly incorporated
herein by reference.
Section 304.5 is hereby deleted in its entirety and superseded by
Section 15.02.040 of this Municipal Code, expressly incorporated
herein by reference.
15.04.070 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. The
following amendments, additions and deletions are made to the Uniform Code for the
Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1994 edition, adopted by this Chapter:
A. Section 203 is hereby amended by adding the following:
Violations and viohtion penalties are subject to Sections 15.02.060 and
Chapter 1.20 of this Municipal Code.
15.04.080 Uniform Housing Code. The following amendments, additions and
deletions are made 'to the Uniform Housin~ Code, 1994 edition, adopted by this Chapter:
A. Section 204 is hereby amended by adding the following:
Violations and violation penalties are subject to Sections 15.02.060 and
Chapter 1.20 of this Municipal Code.
Section 302 is hereby deleted in its entirety and superseded by Sections
15.02.010 thru 15.02,050 of this Municipal Code, expressly
incorporated herein by reference. All references in the Uniform
Housing Code to fees, fee schedules, or fee tables shall mean the fee
schedule as established by Resolution of the City Council in accordance
with Section 15.02,010 herein.
15.04.090 Uniform Swlmm|n~ Pool, Spa and Hot Tub Code. The following
amendments, additions and deletions are made to the Uniform Swimming Pool. Spa and Hot
Tub Code, 1994 edition, adopted by this Chapter:
A. Section 1.7 is hereby amended by adding the following:
Violations and violation penalties are subject to Sections 15.02.060 and
Chapter 1.20 of this Municipal Code.
Section 1.11 is hereby deleted in its entirety and superseded by Sections
15.02,010 thru 15.02.050 of this Municipal Code, expressly
incorporated herein by reference. All references in the Uniform
Swimming Pool, Spa and Hot Tub Code to fees, fee schedules, or fee
tables shall mean the fee schedule as established by Resolution of the
City Council in accordance with Section 15.02.010 herein.
Chapter 15.08 National Electrical Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and
superseded by the following:
15.64.100 National Electrical Code. The following amendments, additions and
deletions are made to the National Electrical Code, 1993 edition, adopted by this Chapter:
A. Section 904 is hereby amended by adding the following:
Violations and violation penalties are subject to Sections 15.02.060 and
Chapter 1.20 of this Municipal Code.
B. Section 110-5 is hereby amended by adding the following:
Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, no aluminum conductors
smaller than #6 A.W.G. shall be used.
C. Section 210-1 is hereby amended by adding the following:
Accessory uses or other building, signs, etc., separately located on the
same lot or premises, shall have connecting conductors mn
underground. (Agricultural area excepted.) Where spare circuit
protective devices are provided or space for future circuit protective
devices are provided on the bus in any flush or semi-flush mounted
panel, then raceways of sufficient capacity to permit utilization of such
space or spaces shall be provided to an approved accessible location.
Such accessible location is normally described as follows: Where
sufficient attic space is available or under floor space is available, a
raceway shall terminate conveniently for future use in each such space.
Where this condition does not exist or other factors govern, then such
terminations shall be approved by the Building Official.
10
D. Section 336-3 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 336-3 Uses PermiRed. Non-metallic sheathed cable shall not be
used for exposed wiring, except as provided in Section 336-10(b), and
shall only be used in one and two family dwellings or multi-family
dwellings (apartment houses) not exceeding three (3) floors above
grade.
SECTION IV: Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7,
amendments to building standards as set forth herein shall be accompanied by findings as
adopted by Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula.
SECTION V: If any Section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, or portion of this
Ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its
application to other persons or places. The City Council hereby declares that it would have
adopted this Ordinance, and each Section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase,
or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more Sections, subsection,
subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portions of the application thereof to any person or
place be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VI: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall
cause the same to be posted as required by law.
SECTION VII: This ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days following the date of
adoption hereof.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __ day of
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
11
ITEM 18
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
APPROVA
CITY ~
ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFI R
CITY MANA('
3
City Council/City Manager
Anthony Elmo, Chief Building OfficiaL/j~
December 19, 1995
Adoption of the 1994 Edition of The Uniform Fire Code
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
Reopen the continued Public Hearing and receive public comments.
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SETTING FORTH THE LOCAL
CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE
CITY COUNCIL THAT MODIFICATIONS TO CHAPTER 15.16 OF THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, 1994
EDITION, ARE REASONABLE AND NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC
HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE.
3. Conduct a second reading of Ordinance 95-__ entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 95-_
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 15.16 OF THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE
THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, 1994 EDITION AND THE UNIFORM
FIRE CODE STANDARDS, 1994 EDITION.
Agenda%,1994Fire.2ndRpt
DISCUSSION:
The State of California Building Standards Commission has adopted the 1994 edition of the
Uniform Fire Codes as published by the International Fire Code Institute along with certain
amendments made by state agencies specifically the State Fire Marshall's Office. This action
makes it necessary for each local jurisdiction to adopt these codes and any local amendments
necessary to assist them in the protection of the public safety in buildings in their jurisdiction.
The recommended amendments that appear in Ordinance No. 95-_ are those that are generally
administrative in nature. This ordinance does, however, contain several amendments that
staff feels are necessary for maintaining the public safety in buildings within the City. Draft
copies of this ordinance have been distributed to the Building Industry Association and the
Economic Development Corporation and Expediting Committee for review and comment.
Agenda~,1994Fire.2ndRpt
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SETTING
FORTH THE LOCAL CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A
DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE CITY
COUNCIL THAT MODIFICATIONS TO CHAPTER 15.16 OF
THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING THE
UNIFORM FIRE CODE, 1994 EDITION, ARE
REASONABLY NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC
WtlEREAS, certain building standards and other related uniform codes are adopted by
the State of California in the California Building Standards Code which becomes applicable in
the City unless amended by the City pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17958; and,
WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Section 17958.5 provides for the City Council to
make reasonably necessary changes or modifications based on certain local conditions before
adopting the most current edition of the model codes; and,
WHEREAS, the Building Official of the City of Temecula has determined and
recommended that the modifications to the Uniform Fire Code are reasonably required to be
adopted by the City of Temecula; and,
WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7 requires the City Council to make
express findings of the necessity for modifications to the building standards in the most current
editions of the model codes as adopted by the State of California.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula finds that the following
amendments and modifications to the Temecula Municipal Code and the Uniform Fire Code,
1994 edition, contained in Ordinance 95-_ are reasonably necessary due to consideration of
specific local climatic, geological or topographical conditions as follows:
Section 15.16.020. [Uniform F'we Code] Amendments
Section 1003.2 of the Uniform F'we Code is mended to rend as follows:
Required Installations
1. All Occupancies
R:\C~tyAuy~5353.1 I
Unless State Codes, the Uniform Fire Code, or Uniform Building Code is more
restrictive, every structure hereafter constructed, except a residential structure of two
dwelling units or less, which exceeds the square footage listed in Table No. A-HI-A-1
of the Uniform Fire Code requiring a fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute, shall have
an approved automatic fire sprinkler system installed throughout therein.
2. Existing Occupancies
Uniess State Codes, the Uniform Fire Code, or Uniform Building Code is more
restrictive, every existing structure to which additions are made, where either addition
itself exceeds the square footage list~l in the Uniform Fire Code Table No. A-HI-A-1
requiring a fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute, shall have an approved automatic fire
sprinkler system installed throughout therein.
3. Change of Occupancy
Every existing structure to which a change of occupancy occurs shall install sprinklers
when required by the Uniform Building Code or Uniform Fire Code.
Section 1003.3.1 of the Uniform F'we Code is amended to read as follows:
Where Required
All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and water-flow
switches on sprinkler systems shall be electrically monitored.
Valve monitoring and water-flow and trouble signals shall be distinctly different and shall
be automatically transmitted to an approved central station, remove station or proprietary
monitoring station as defined by U.F.C. Standard 10-2 or, when approved by the Chief,
shall sound an audible signal at a constantly attend location. (Exception not modified).
These amendments are reasonably necessary because of the following local conditions:
Climatic Conditions:
Generally Riverside County and the City of Temecula has an arid climate. Annual
rainfall varies from 3 inches in Blythe to over 33 inches in Pine Cove. Hot, dry Santa Aria
winds are common to areas within Riverside County. These winds constitute a contributing
factor which causes small fires originating in high density development presently being
constructed in the County of Riverside and the City of Temecula which spread quickly and
create the need for an increased level of fire protection. This added protection, including, but
not limited to on-site protection, will supplement normal Fire Department response available in
new development, and provide immediate fife protection for life and safety of multiple-
occupancy occupants during fire occurrence.
R:XCilyAny~5353. I 2
Topographical Conditions:
Traffic and circulation congested in urban areas often place Fire Department response
time to emergencies at risk. This condition makes the need for enhanced on-site protection for
property occupants necessary.
Geological Conditions:
The City of Temecula is located in an area near high seismic activity. Because of the
degree of the City's urbanization and close proximity to major fault lines, the risk of structural
damage and loss of life due to ground shaking is considerable. During a major earthquake,
emergency resources would be extremely taxed, and the ability to respond to such emergencies
would be complicated. Local standards in excess of statewide minimums will assist in reducing
risks associated with earthquakes and the consequent disruption of traffic flow.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVEI) AND ADOFrED, this day of__
, Mayor
ATrF. ST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
R:~CitlAuI~5353.1 3
ORDINANCE NO. 95-_
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAFFER
15.16 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE BY
ADOPTING BY REFERENCE ~ UN~ORM FIRE CODE,
1994 EDITION AND THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE
STANDARDS, 1994 EDITION.
WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby ordain as follows:
ARTICLE I CODES ADOPTED
SECTION 15.16.010. The following are hereby adopted by reference, as amended by
Article H of this Ordinance, as the fire code of the City of Temecula, three copies of which are
on file in the office of the City Clerk.
A. Uniform Fire Code, 1994 edition with appendices and California State
amendments.
B. Uniform Fire Code Standards, 1994 edition.
ARTICLE H A1VIENDMENTS
SECTION 15.16.020. Amendments. The following amendments, additions and
deletions are made to the Uniform Fire Code, 1994 edition, as adopted by this Ordinance.
A. Section 204 is hereby amended by adding thereto:
Corporate counsel shall mean the City Attorney of the City of Temecula.
B. Section 207 is hereby amended by adding thereto:
F'we Chief, Fire Safety Specialist, F'tre Systems Inspector, F'we
Prevention Officer is the officer, regardless of rank, who has been
appointed by the Fire Chief to be in charge of the Fire Prevention Bureau,
and includes the duly authorized representative of the Fire Chief for the
purpose of enforcing this code.
C. Section 214 is hereby amended by adding thereto:
Fire Ordinance
Page 2
Municipality is the City of Temecula.
Section 901.4.4 of the Uniform Fire Code is mended to read as follows:
Premises Identification
Approved numbers of addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the
street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be contrast with their
background. Commercial establishments shall have 12" numbers with
suite numbers being 6" in size. Single and multi-family residents shall
have 4" letters, or as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau.
Section 902.2.2.1 of the Uniform Fire Code is mended to read as
follows:
Dimensions
Fire apparatus roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24
feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet and 6
inches. (Exception not modified).
Section 902.2.2.2 of the Uniform Fire Code is mended to read as
follows:
Surface
Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support
the imposed loads of the apparatus and shall be with a surface so as to
provide all-weather driving capabilities. Access roads shall be 70,000 lbs.
GVW with a minimum of AC thickness of .25 feet.
Section 902.2.2.3 of the Uniform fife Code is mended to read as follows:
Turnin~ Radius
The turning radius of a fire apparatus road shall be a minimum of a 45-
degree radius.
Section 902.2.2.4 of the Uniform Fire Code is mended to read as
follows:
Fire Ordinance
Page 3
Dead Ends
Dead end fife apparatus roads in excess of 150 feet (45 720mm) in length
shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire
appaxams.
Section 902.2.2.6 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read as
follows:
Grade
The gradient for a fife apparatus access shah not exceed 15 %.
Subsection (a) of Section 902.2.4.1 of the Uniform Fire Code is added as
follows:
Penalty
The required width of fire department access roadways shall not be
obstructed in any manner, including the parking of vehicles. "No
Paxking, Fire Lane" signs or red painted curbs or other appropriate notice
prohibiting obstructions shall be required and maintained. Any
obstruction or impedance to said fire lane may be cited, as an infraction,
or removed at the owners expense, forthwith, by any public agency.
Section 901.4.3 of the Uniform Fire Code is mended to read as follows:
Fire Protection Equipment and Fire Hydrants
Fire protection equipment and fife hydrants shall be clearly identified in
a manner approved by the chief to prevent obstruction by parking and
other obstructions.
Hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective
markers (blue dots). Installation of blue dots shall be in accordance with
Temecula fire services guidelines.
Section 902.4 is hereby amended to read:
Site Access
Fire Ordinance
Page 4
Where gates are proposed to be installed that are electronically activated
for access to a commercial or residential site, an approved electronic key
switch shall be installed for emergency vehicle access.
Section 1003.2 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read as follows:
Required installations
1. All Occupancies
Unless State codes, Uniform Fire Code or Uniform Building Code is more
restrictive, every structure hereafter constructed, except a residential
structure of two dwelling units or less, which exceeds the square footage
listed in Table No. A-IH-A-1 of the Uniform Fire Code requiring a fire
flow of 1,500 gallons per minute, shall have an approved automatic fire
sprinkler system installed throughout therein.
2. Existing Occupancies
Unless State codes, Uniform fire Code or Uniform Building Code is more
restrictive, every existing structure to which additions are made, where
either the addition itself exceeds the square footage listed in the Uniform
Fire Code Table No. A-IH-A-1 requiring a fire flow of 1,500 gallons per
minute.
3. Change of Occupancy
Every existing structure to which a change of occupancy occurs shall
install sprinklers when required by the Uniform Building Code or Uniform
Fire Code.
Section 1003.3.1 of the Uniform Fire Code is mended to read as follows:
Where Required
All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems
and water-flow switches on all sprinkler systems shall be electrically
monitored.
Valve monitoring and water-flow and trouble signals shall be distinctly
different and shall be automatically transmitted to an approved central
Fire Ordinance
Page 5
station, remove station or proprietary monitoring station as defined by
U.F.C. Standard 10-2 or, when approved by the chief, shall sound an
audible signal at a constan~y attended location. (Exception not modified).
Appendix Chapter II-A, Section 24 is mended to read as follows:
Cost Recovery
Section 24.1. Any person who negligently, or in violation of the law, sets
a fire, allows a fire to be set, or allows a fire kindled or attended by him
to escape his control or bum any structure, improvement, forest, range or
grassland, is liable for the expense of fighting the fire, and such expense
shall be a charge against that person, and that charge shall constitute a
debt of such person which is collectible by the person, or by the federal,
state county, public, or private agency or the County Fire Department
incurring such expenses in the same manner as in the case of an obligation
under a contract, expressed or implied.
Section 24.1.1. Any person who negligently, or in violation of any statute
regulation or ordinance dumps, or causes to be dumped, or releases or
causes to be released, any hazardous or extremely hazardous material or
bnT~rdous waste onto the ground or into the environment is liable for the
expense of mitigating and/or removing the hazard created by said actions
or omissions, and such expense shall be a charge against such person or
persons. Said charges shall constitute a debt of such person or persons
which shall be coliectible by the person, or by the federal, state, county,
public or private agency or by the County Fire Department and/or the
County Health Department incurring the expense of mitigation and/or
removal in the same manner as in the case of an obligation under arising
contract, expressed or implied.
Section 24.2. The expense of securing any emergency which is a result
of a violation of this ordinance is a charge against the person whose
violation of this ordinance caused the emergency. Damages caused by and
expenses incurred by the Fire Department for securing such emergency
shall constitute a debt of such manner as in the case of an obligation under
a contract, expressed or implied.
Section 24.2.1. The expense of securing any hazardous or extremely
hazardous materials or waste incident which is a result of negligence or
a violation of any statute, regulation or ordinance is a charge against the
Fire Ordinance
Page 6
person or persons whose actions or omissions caused the incident. The
expenses incurred by the Fire Department and/or Health Department for
securing such incident shall constitute a debt of such person or persons
and shall be colleetible by the County Fire Chief or Health Officer in the
same manner as in the case of an obligation arising under contract,
expressed or implied.
24.3. Structure, improvement shall mean, for the purposes of this
Division only, any building, garage, tent, out-building, barn, corral,
fence, or bridge whether or not in actual use at the time of the fire.
24.4. Requests for copies of public and legal documents, photographs,
etc., relating to department activities are available as authorized by law
through the Fire Department's Custodian of Records. All document
requests shall be in writing, accompanied by a check made payable to the
Riverside County Fire Department, in the amount(s) set forth in Ordinance
671.
SECTION 3. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or pangraph of this
Ordinance of the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or applications of the provision of this Ordinance,
which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or applications, and to this end, the
provisions of this ordinance are declared severable.
SECTION 4. City Clerk. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance
and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __ day of
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
ITEM 19
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER ~/~.,~~_
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director
December 19, 1995
Amendment No. 1 to the Old Town Specific Plan
Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the City Council:
1. Open the public hearing and continue the item to the January 9, 1996 City
Council Hearing.
BACKGROUND
Staff is recommending that the public hearing be opened and then continued to the January
9, 1996 City Council Hearing.
R:\STAFI~m..Iq~OTSP-AI.(X~I 12/12195 ¢dr 1
ITEM 20
APPRO
CITY ATFORNEY
FINANCE OFF~~
CITY MANAG
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director ~r//
December 19, 1995
Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Specific Plan No. 199,
Taylor Woodrow Homes California LTD
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve the Memorandum of Understanding concerning Specific Plan
No. 199 for Taylor Woodrow Homes California LTD 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.
ANALYSIS
The attached MOU authorizes Taylor Woodrow Homes California LTD to obtain 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 and Van Daele Development Corporation. The City is
currently negotiating a new Development Agreement between the City and Taylor Woodrow
Homes California LTD for this project. Approval of this MOU will not mandate that the City
Council approve the draft Development Agreement. In the event that the City Council denies
the draft Development Agreement, the Memorandum of Understanding provides that Taylor
Woodrow Homes California LTD will then pay the Public Facilities Fees as provided in the
existing Development Agreement No. 5.
This MOU will allow the development of homes in the Taylor Woodrow Homes California LTD
project to move forward in an expeditious fashion. Taylor Woodrow Homes California LTD is
agreeing to pay an Interim Public Facility Fee in the amount of ,~3,000.00 per unit.
The indemnity provisions of this MOU are not the same as the MOU between the City and Van
Daele or BCI/CCL. The existing Development Agreement (Riverside County Development
Agreement No. 5) contains very broad indemnity language sufficient to protect the City's
interests. This MOU contains adequate language protecting the City against any challenges
to the fee issue.
R:'~TAFFRFI~II6PAgS.MOU 12/'//9~ mf 1
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:
Development Agreement No. 5 Fee:
Interim Public Facilities Fee to be Collected:
98 Dwelling Units X 95,271 = 9516,558
98 Dwelling Units X 93,000 = 9294,000
Attachments:
Exhibit (Vicinity Map) - Page 3
Memorandum of Understanding - Page 4
R:~STAPPRFI~II6PAg~.MOU 1~/419~ mf 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
EXHIBIT (VICINITY MAP)
R:~TAFFRP'I~II6PA95.MOU 1214195 mf ~
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199
ATTACHMENT- 1
CITY COUNCIL DATE - DECEMBER 19, 1995
R:XSTAFFRPT~l16PA95.MOU 12/4/95 mf
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
R:\STAPPRPT~lI6PA95.MOU 12/4/95 mf 4
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING
PLANNING AREA NO. 16 OF SPECWIC PLAN NO. 199
T!tI~ MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, (the "Memorandum") is made and entered
into as of December 19, 1995 by and between the City of Temecula (the "City") and Taylor
Woodrow Homes California LTD, a California corporation ("Owner").
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 known as Planning Area No.
16 of Specific Plan No. 199, Tract No. 22916 and 22916-2 (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-Rancho
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 ce_rtain development fees (the
"Development Fee").
C. Riverside County Ordinance No. 659, as adopted by the City, establishes public
facilities and services impact fees for residential development with City CRSA 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 C~i)
the entry level nature of the homes to be built in the Project.
E. The 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 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 the RSA Fees.
R:kS'TAFFRPT~II6PA95.MOU 12/4/95 mf 5
F. The Draft Agreement provides for Owner to pay the sum of Three Thousand
Dollars ($3,000.00) for each residential unit 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 f'u st production home built in the
Project.
G. Owner contemplates commencing construction of the homes for the Project (98
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 T!IF~REFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, and for
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, City and Owner agree as follows:
1. 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 Dollars ($3,000.00) per dwelling unit. If City fails to approve or adopt the Draft
Agreement or ff the Interim Public Facilities Fee, as established by City, is some number other
than Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) 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.
2. The Interim Public Facilities Fee for all units shall be deferred until such time as
a certificate 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.
3. Indemnity and Cost of Liti~,ation.
3.1 County Litigation Concerning Agreement. In the event the County seeks to
challenge the right 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 parties, 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 lis pendens) and to share the costs
associated with attorneys, fees, and costs that the parties may incur as the result of any such
action or hwsuit to challenge City and/or Owner's legal authority to enter into this
Memorandum. ff the County action is against all impacted developments for which the City has
R:\STAFFR.P'Bl16PA95.MOU 12/4/95 mf 6
lowered the County fees, the Owner's defense costs herein shall be its pro rata share among all
impacted landowners based on a fraction, the numerator of which is the total units owned by
Owner which are subject to this Memorandum and the denominator is 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 against 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 extent 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. 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. If 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.
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 that 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 shorffall 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
R:~STAFPRPT~II6PAg~.MOU 12/4/9~ mf 7
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 promptly notify Owner of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and City shall
cooperate in the defense. If City fails to promp~y 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 proceexling.
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. ff the Draft Agreement is disapproved by the City Council or the voters of
the City, then the obligations of Owner under this Memorandum shall terminate and Owner
thereafter shall be subject to the terms of Development Agreement No. 5.
R:\STAFFRFI~l16PA95.MOU 12/4/95 nff 8
IN WITNESS WI{EREOF, the parties executed this Memorandum as of this 19th day
of December, 1995.
CITY OF TEMECULA
ATFKST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
By:
PROPERTY OWNER
TAYLOR WOODROW
CAt-rFORNIA LTD,
a California corporation
, Mayor
HOMES
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
By:
Its:
By:
Its:
R:XgTAFI:tRFrXlI6PAgni.MOU 12/4/95 mf 9
ITEM 21
APPROV
CITY ATTORNER~
FINANCE DIREC
CITY MANAGE
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Shawn D. Nelson, Director of Community Services
December 19, 1995
Solid Waste Update
PREPARED BY:
'Phyllis L. Ruse, Development Services Administrator
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council direct staff to forward the Council's
recommendations relative to the establishment of reduced tipping fees and development of
waste transfer station policies to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors for their
consideration.
DISCUSSION: Over the past 18 months, the County Waste Resources
Management District (WRMD), its constituent agencies, and haulers have analyzed alternative
methods of funding and operating the County's landfill and corollary solid waste facilities. The
result of this study has been an independent report prepared by the consultant, Hilton
Farnkopf & Hobson (HF&H), making several recommendations for the most efficient and cost
effective method of operating and maintaining the County's solid waste system. The
Executive Summary of this report is included for your review as Attachment 1. As a result
of the study, on November 21, 1995 the WRMD presented a report to the District Board of
Directors recommending that the Board consider several policy decisions relative to the
District's sponsorship of future urban transfer station facilities and a tiered tipping fee
reduction to become effective July 1, 1996.
The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Executive Committee requested that
the Board of Directors not adopt any final policies until each member City's Council had an
opportunity to review the proposals and provide their support or alternative recommendations
on the issues. A copy of the staff report to the Board of Directors is also attached for your
review.
The Board of Directors is considering a tiered tipping fee reduction from $38.50 per ton to
$30.00 per ton for regular customer rate and $25.00 per ton for transfer rig deliveries. The
proposed reduction is possible because of several factors addressed in the HF&H study. It is
anticipated that these rates will remain static for the first two years (FY 96/97 and 97/98),
increasing annually thereafter at the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rate. The District supports
the rate reduction to ensure economic waste flow necessary to maintain the overall operations
of the waste system.
It is no longer the District's intent to construct and operate materials recovery facilities (MRFs)
or transfer stations. The District and Cities al3pear to be better served by allowing private
industry to meet this demand and accept the financial responsibility for such endeavors. Two
privately funded facilities are currently or very soon to be under construction in western
Riverside County and are projected to meet the western county needs. Fees that have
previously been collected as a component of the tipping fee for acquisition, construction and
operation of such facilities are no longer necessary and it is proposed the tipping fee be
reduced accordingly.
Another component of the existing tipping fee is for unfunded liabilities for closure, post
closure and remediation of landfills. By reducing the rate and using existing reserves for
facilities construction, it is estimated that the unfunded liabilities will be fully funded in 10
years. The District will continue to set aside a 25% operating budget reserve annually, with
all other fund balance allocated to the unfunded liability reserves.
Staff supports the WRMD's proposals and recommends that the City Council sends its
endorsement of these recommendations to the District Board of Directors. The proposal will
help ensure the continued tonnage levels necessary to maintain the landfill system while
providing for reasonable tipping fees for all rate payers. It will provide for the collection of the
system's unfunded liabilities and protect the Cities and District from potentially much higher
costs associated with some users exiting the system. The proposed new rate will be very
competitive and stable for all users over the long term.
FISCAL IMPACT: It is anticipated that the implementation of the proposed decrease in
tipping fee will coincide with the commencement of transfer fees at the transfer station and
annual CPI adjustment to the City's solid waste franchise agreement.
Attachments:
Executive Summary of the Riverside County Cooperative Waste Management Study - Final
Report
WRMD Staff Report Presented to the Board of Directors, November 21, 1995
September 1, 1995
SECTION I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Executive Summary briefly describes the report contents and is organized to correspond
to the report sections. Readers that desire additional information may refer to the referenced
report sections.
STUDY GOAL, SCOPE & APPROACH (Section II)
Study Goal
The Cooperative Countywide Integrated Waste Management Study was undertaken with the
goal of determining:
... the appropriate mix of policies and facilities that will yield the most effident and
effective management of waste in Riverside County, with existing collection policies,
both at the present rate of recycling and at the required 50% reduction rate.
Scope & Approach
Our analysis is based upon:
· Existing data from previous studies;
· Relevant studies and data from WRCOG, CVAG and WRMD; and,
· Data collected from the dries, their haLtiers, and owners of non-District facilities.
We reviewed this data, identified key factors that could affect future events and obtained
support for assumptions regarding these key factors.
Based on this data, we performed analyses of the cost effectiveness of various options. Our
findings regarding proposed facilities are largely based upon cost effectiveness to the ratepay-
er, in accordance with our scope of work. However, there are many other considerations that
influence policy decisions that cannot be readily quantified but are nevertheless important,.
such as public convenience, environmental impacts, and other factors that should be consid-
ered during the policy development process.
The results of our analyses, including the underlying data and assumptions, were presented
to the Steering Committee for comment and direction regarding additional options for
consideration. Based on that direction, we completed our analyses, documented our findings
and presented them to the Steering Committee for comment.
We prepared a draft report, presented it to the Steering Committee, received their comments
and prepared this revised final draft report which we anticipate presenting to various public
bodies.
-1-
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson
September 1, 1995
Subsequent to the last public presentation, we will prepare a final report to clariby any points
that arise during the above referenced presentations.
The approach to any study involves certain limitations. Because this study requires the
projection of events over a fifteen year planning period, the more significant limitations of the
study include the following:
· Current and historical information provided from the cities, their haulers, WRMD,
and the owners of non-District facilities, was reviewed for thoroughness, consistency
and reasonableness based on the experience of HF&H and HDR. It was beyond the
scope of this engagement to independently develop the information provided.
· Certain key cost factors significantly affect our findings (e.g., the cost of disposal at
non-District fadlities). Assumptions regarding these factors are based on the best
information available to us as of May 30, 1995. (Refer to Section II for a description of
key factors and assumptions.) As time passes, additional information may become
available and current information may significantly change, and these changes could
affect the conclusions contained in this report.
· The average tipping fee calculations assume that all users of the District's landfills
continue to use the District's radiities at projected disposal quantities.
· Current waste characterization data does not exist. Such data is necessary to
confidently plan waste diversion programs that would cost effectively achieve the
50% diversion requirements of AB 939.
· District landfill expansion will occur at the costs anticipated by the District and re-
viewed by HDR.
· The waste diversion calculations are based on the State's adjustment formula using
1994 disposal records. Changes in economic factors affecting waste generation or
changes in disposal quantities could materially affect the calculation for 1995.
· Certain issues could not be quantified, such as potential benefits from developing
transfer fadlities as existing land fills close to provide the public with convenient ac-
cess to disposal sites, and minimize the risk of illegal dumping.
Because future events are typically different than anticipated, and these differences can be
material, we have provided a financial model which will allow the study sponsors to perform
certain sensitivity analyses or update the model for changing conditions. In this manner, we
believe that we have delivered not just a report but a decision making tool that will assist the
jurisdictions in setting future polldes resulting in the most effident and cost effective program
for managing solid waste.
RESPONSE TO RFP QUESTIONS (Section III)
Our findings are organized in response to six major questions concerning the mix of polides
and facilities that should be part of the "cooperative system". The cooperative system is de-
fined as the system that, 'as a whole, mimmizes the average cost of services to the 24 cities and
the County (the local jurisdictions).
-2-
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson
_]
_3
]
]
_]
]
]
-3
J
September 1, 1995
Should the processing of waste or recyclables be a part of the cooperative system?
· Currently, based on economic considerations and existing diversion levels achieved,
there appears to be no need for material recovery facilities to be part of the
cooperative system. Based on currently available information, there is no reason to
believe that replacing existing diversion programs with material recovery facilities
would be a cost effective approach to achieving the AB 939 diversion goals.
· I/transfer stations are developed as landfills dose it may be feasible to purchase suffi-
cient land and design the station to allow processing capability to be added in the fu-
ture, as a "contingency plan", in the event that it is later desired or required as a result
of changes in expected conditions.
2. Should transfer stations be a part of the cooperative system?
· It would be cost effective to provide transfer stations at the following locations:
- One small transfer station to replace the Mecca II landfill in the rural Coachella
Valley, and one or two larger facilities for the urbanized Coachella Valley will be
required.
- One small transfer facility to replace the Anza landfill will be required in Western
Riverside County.
· The transfer stations' predse locations would not have a material impact on system
-wide costs. Public convenience and suitability of sites are also important concerns.
· Transfer stations should be either part of the cooperative system or separately owned
by munidpalities (or combinations of munidpalifies). Because transfer stations are
an integral part of the solid waste disposal system, necessary to provide for public
health and safety, and because the siting of transfer stations is difficult, public
ownership of these fadlities provides the greatest control and assurance of long-term
availability.
· Including transfer station costs (at the recommended locations described ab6ve) in
systemwide tipping fees are ILkely to result in the largest volumes of waste going into
the cooperative system and lowest system wide unit costs. However, such a policy
will result in subsidies among the various customers which will change over time.
· The District has proposed two additional transfer stations in Western Riverside at
Agua Mansa and Perris, to replace the Highgrove and Mead Valley landfills. A1;
though it appears less costly to direct haul to other District landfills rather than devel-
op transfer stations, there are other derision factors that should also be considered,
such as providing convenient public access to disposal facilities, and reducing the
risk of illegal dumping. The jurisdictions should determine whether the higher cost
of using transfer stations is offset by related public benefits.
3. Should disposal be a part of the cooperative system?
The landfill disposal of solid waste should be part Of the cooperative system, if it can
be provided cost-effectively.
The lowest cost method of acquiring future landfill capadty would be to do so on a
pay-as-you-go basis from disposal fees.
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson ~
September 1, 1995
Fortunately, the District's plan to utilize fewer large landfills will increase cost
effectiveness and reduce disposal fees below what they would otherwise be.
Numerous alternatives to the District's disposal fadlities are available, however,
based on currently available information, the average cost of the District's landfills
over the next 15 years appears competitive with alternatives.
4. What financing structure would be most suitable for the cooperative system?
· The most cost-effective financing structure for the cooperative system would be a
pay-as-you-go structure financed from disposal fees, assuming existing users
continue to dispose of their waste in the District's land fills.
· Fortunately, jurisdictions can best minimize their costs, and minimize the impact on
other jurisdictions and the District, by continuing to dispose of waste at the District's
landfills.
If the cost advantage of this approach changes and non-District fadlities become less
costly for some jurisdictions, then there are a few strategies that would minimize
impacts on the remaining partialpants in the cooperative system. These include:
Timing their exit from the District to coinride with the importation of a
corresponding amount of waste;
Paying the District an incremental surcharge to offset its incremental costs; and/or,
Joining with all jurisdictions using a particular landfill to take their waste to
another landfill, allowing the District to close the landfill, and compensate the
District for the then u.n-funded portion of its closure/post-closure costs related to
the landfill.
· Compliance with the 50% diversion requirement would increase average system costs
of collection, hauling, processing, and disposal by approximately 1% to 2% in
Western Riverside and the Coachella Valley, assuming that separation of materials is
performed at the source by the generator.
· Solid waste transfer and disposal fadEties should be publicly owned, as discussed
above. The decision regarding public or private operation can be resolved tkrough a
competitive proposal process.
· Material recovery fadllties have been, and can reasonably be expected to be,
successfully privately owned and operated and there is currently no apparent
necessity for munidpalities to assume the risks related to these fadlities.
· District facilities can be financed on a pay-as-you-go basis. Non-District munidpal
facilities could be debt financed with public funds. Private facilities can be cost-
effectively financed based on finandng methods available to the private sector and
may not require direct public finandng commitments.
· Continuation of existing systemwide pricing practices appear cost effective for dispo-
sal services and the recommended transfer stations at Anza, Mecca E, and the urban
Coachella Valley, because it should maintain the price stability of the system and
reduce the risk of waste flows being routed to more distant fadlities.
-4-
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson
1
3
-3
_]
]
]
L1
]
-]
September 1, 1995
5. Which, if any, of the landfill closure and remediation costs should be covered by the
District versus all the cooperative system users?
· Current District reserve funds should be used to finance approximately 44% of
currently estimated accrued closure, post-closure and remediation costs. Future
District users can finance the remaining 56%, assuming use of the District's landfills
at projected disposal quantifies.
· Numerous theoretical options to finance the future users' requirements are
conceivable, however, the most practical method is a surcharge of approximately
$2.45 to $3.95 on the disposal fee (1995 dollars), of which approximately $3.70 per ton
is already included in projected fees.
· The use of a surcharge on the disposal fee to finance the future users' requirements
appears to be a practically equitable distribution of the obligation, assuming existing
users continue to use the District's landfills.
6. What would be the impacts on WRMD of jurisdictions discontinuing their use of the
District's landfills?
The District has insuffident assets to finance its total obligations, if existing land fill
users discontinue their use of the District's landfills. The District's landfills, if
unused, would have to be closed and post closure maintenance costs would be
incurred earlier than anticipated. Ultimately, residents and businesses in the County
would have to finance the shortfall from a general obligation bond or some form of
special revenue assessment.
SYSTEMWIDE FINDINGS (Section IV)
District Landfills
1. The District plans to close up to seven of its thirteen landfills during the next seven years,
resulting in 60% of its tonnage being rerouted to other landfills.
Assuming that inflation increases by 3% per year, the District's average tipping fee is
calculated to be $33 per ton for disposal and development of rural transfer stations to re-
place landfills at Anza and Mecca II over the next 15 years, compared to the existing fee
of $38.50 per ton.
3. The average tipping fee over the next 15 years would be approximately $36 per ton, if
transfer stations are developed at Anza, Mecca H, Coachella and Edom Bill.
The average tipping fee over the next 15 years would be approximately $40 per ton, if
transfer stations are developed at Anza, Mecca II, Edom Hill, Coachella, Agua Mansa,
and Perris.
-5-
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson
September 1, 1995 ~ I
5. Most of the District's existing landfills are older, unlined facilities, that may pose
additional unknown remediation risks. These risks may result in additional costs to the
District that would increase tipping fees.
6. Since it is unclear whether significant savings could be realized from privatization, the
District should solicit bids from private contractors to operate the landfills under contract
to the District.
i
i
I
Non-District Landfills
7. The price charged to the rate payers for disposal at non-District landfills cannot be
precisely estimated, without seeking competitive bids.
8. 'It is not possible to determine which, if any, of the proposed super-regional landfills will
be successfully permitted and developed.
I
I
I
Diversion
9. On a region-wide basis, the County appears to have achieved a 40% diversion rate for
1994 using the CAIWMB's approved disposal adjustment formula, based on available
data. The diversion rate may increase to 47% if credit is approved for inert materials div-
erted in 1990. However, some jurisdictions are achieving less than 25% using this formu-
la.
10. Since most of the diversion being achieved is not accounted for by franchise hauling
programs, the existing mix of recycling activities is probably market driven and cost
effective.
11. Inert processing and commercial waste stream recycling appear to be the most cost
effective future waste diversion programs.
WESTERN RIVERSIDE FINDINGS (Section V)
Disposal
1. The District's planned expansion of existing landfiRs is antidpated to provide the system
with more than 35 years of capacity.
2. The average system cost of hauling, transfer and disposal at the District's landfills
appears to be less costly than out-of-county alternatives.
3. Although Western Riverside generates sufficient waste quantities to minimize rail haul
costs, the total system costs of utilizing rail haul fadlities appears more costly than the
District's landfills.
-6-
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
September 1, 1995
Transfer
A rural transfer station is needed to replace the Anza landiill. However, other transfer
stations proposed for the urban areas may not be required from an economic perspective
because direct hauling to the District's landfills appears to be the least costly system for
Western Riverside.
The cost of hauling and transfer to out-of-county landfills from Agua Mansa and Perris is
approximately three dollars per ton higher than developing five transfer stations ideally
located within the center of Area Planning Districts, but there is no assurance that suita-
ble sites are available within the Area Planning Districts at such locations.
Diversion
6. Based on the State's formula, Western Riverside achieved 40% diversion during 1994. Di-
version may be higher if credit for inert materials diverted in 1990 is approved.
7. Implementing additional recycling programs to achieve the 50% diversion goal would
increase the system cost by approximately 1%, based on 1991 waste characterization data.
COACHELLA VALLEY FINDINGS (Section VI)
Disposal
1. The Coachella Valley's urban landfills at Coachella and Edom Hill may dose by 2002,
although solid waste may be transferred to other landfills.
2. The system cost of hauling, transfer and disposal at the District's land/ills appears to be
competitive with out-of-county alternatives.
The Coachella Valley does not currently generate enough solid waste to result in the rail
haul alternative being cost-effective, unless a partial load from another region could be
combined with Coachella Valley solid waste.
Transfer
4. The District's plans to replace the Mecca II land fill with a transfer station appears cost
effective.
One or two transfer stations could be developed in the urban Coachella Valley to transfer
waste to the District's Badlands lanctfill or out-of-county when the District's existing
landfills dose.
The cost of locating two transfer stations simultaneously at or near the Coachella and
Edom Hill landfill sites is approximately $3 to $6 per ton more costly than the cost of
developing a single station in the mid-valley area. If the stations are phased in during
subsequent years, as proposed by the District, the average cost impact would be less.
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson ~ --'----
September 1, 1995
Diversion
7. Based on the State's formula, Coachella Valley achieved 41% diversion during 1994. Di-
version may be higher if credit for inert materials diverted in 1990 is approved.
8. Implementing additional recycling programs to achieve the 50% diversion goal would
increase the system cost by approximately 2%, based on 1991 waste characterization data.
FAR EASTERN RIVERSIDE FINDINGS (Section VII)
Disposal
1. The District's Blythe Landfill will provide Far Eastern Riverside with more than 35 years
of capacity.
2. The system cost of direct hauling to the District's Blythe landfill appears to be
competitive with out-of-county alternatives.
Diversion
Based on the State's formula, the incorporated and urdncorporated areas of Far Eastern
Riverside achieved diversion of 21% in 1994, although reported disposal is under dispute
and diversion may be higher than reported. Diversion may also be higher if credit for in-
ert materials diverted in 1990 is approved.
-8-
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson
11/1G/19~5 i7:29 90978~991 WRCOG PAGE
SLrB1VIITTAL 'TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF C~,Y .n::ORNIA
FROM: Wasm Rr_som'ce$ Managanmt District SUBMIITAL DATE: November 21, 1995
SUKIFL'T: Esmbli-~hment o£RMumi Tipping Feea and Dcvclop~ient of Waste Transfer Station
Policies
RECOM19~NDJeF~ MOTION:
Adopt as a gmeral policy, i decision that tl~ District will not sponsor future urban trarmfc~
station facilities as pm of the disposal system funding, iatc~alnE ins,_~,t to focus on
"economic flow eonlroi" by cz-,,tlng tim most ~conomic di~poml system, minimi~rlg
dhposal m~c~ and pattitipping only in small remote ar~a transfers to avoid ~ disposal
site. s, thus leaving urbaa'~ncrer stations and material recovca~ facilities to the Cities and
privale scant to dcvclop m~l olgta~.
lnd;c~t,' the Board's iatmt.t~ ctmidcr adopting a tipping fcc of $30 pcr ton for t!~ regular
cttstomcr mte, and $?.5 lgr'too for qualifying ~rig de. livcri~, effective July 1, 1996,
directing smffto return to mc Board within 60 days with tlg ~ hcmix~ and Ordinance
changes to impleme~rt e~ r~e reduction.
Dircgt the Chicf Exmai~ Ofllcex to develop ,~.o--..,--d,~l policies to offer the lowest
tipping fcc rat~ to agcti¢~ or vetdon offering to commit tramsfcr rig ticliveries to the
disposal system over muooablc term corn which p~tanote stability of waste flow and
rate predi~ for all users. (CONT'D)
FINANCIAL DATA:
CURRENT YP_AR COST:
NET COUNTY COST:
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
ANNUAL COST:$ N/A
$ N/A IN CURRENT YEAR BEET: YES_ NO__ NIA
$ N;A BUDGET ADrGSTIvfENT: YES__ NO_ FOR FY:
See Iustiflcstion Narrative
Pr~. Agn. Ref. Dist. Agcmda No.
11/1G/1995 17:29 9097877991 ~ PAGE e2
Page 2
4.
Direct the Chief Ex~utive Officer and County Administrative Officenv to bring ba~k a
proposal to the respe~ve Boards within 90 days r~garding a sharing of any out of County
import fe~s or paymena~ ~oll~l at r~gional landfills aria July 1, 1996, for the purpose of
assisting the District in funding closure and remediation liabilities at existing landfills.
5. Adopt the policy slaUnnent auaehed as F..xhibit 1 regarding the designation of reserves for
elosuredpostclosure and remediation costs.
BACKGROUND: For the ~'t 1'8 months or mo~ the District Board and its constim_ent agencies,
haulers, customers and st-if, have been di.se~sing and considering alternative roles the District
should play to best serve its customers.
An enmsive sysn~m review study and supplemental wodc has been funded by the District, in a
cooperative effort with the tw~ Regional associations of governments (WRCOG & CVAG) in the
County. A eolry of the latest "Draft Pepon on Additional Analysis of Disu'ict Transfer & Disposal
Options" by Hilton Farnkopf ~ Hobson (HF&H) is enclosed for your reference. (See
AUrjnnent 1). This latest report amongst other mmlels, considered an option presemwxl to your
Board on August 2 I, 1995 by staff which if adopted, assumed a system that constructed and
opern~d the two "perime*.er" urtyan transfer stations (Agua Mansa and Coachella), downsized the
Idunb Canyon landF~II to selflm~ only, and fir~nebrly supported mid valley tnm~f='s at the private
Pen:m transfer station, now under colon ('m exchange for assumed waste commitments to the
District disposal system, and a vendor subsidy for thc fotrai ramslets then n~essary out of Hemet
and San Jaeinto). A reduced tipping fee of $33,50 per ton wns proposed which modeling of the
system indicated would be an neaptable initial rate with sur-.h a sysunn.
Staff no longer supports that pmpo~nl for various reasons, chief of which is input r,3c-eived from
cities, haulets and odaers indicating ther~ eoald be more equiUnble use of Distrie~ funds to promote
our common goals if a tiered tipping fee promoting all U~nsfer deliveries wen considered-
Additionally, although the modeling completed by FIF&H indieaU:s there would be small sys'tetn
savings with thc August proposal, there were nct incresscs in hauling costs xo some cities due to the
addcd disumcc,
District surf has utilLzed the computer model developed by I-IFIcH and has analyzed a number of
additional options m help _r~__ch' the conckt~ions recommcnded herein-
Several sig-ificant facts x~fnain prc~ in our minds which benr on the policies wc must soon
decide:
1. Thc District has a total of $54 million in various operating and closure reserves- Noncthei--~.
there remains an unfundccl $19 million lapdrill closure liabLlity dcfincd by thc recent HF&H
study which must be addressed in whstever option we select.
2. Disposalsysxemmlx:safcquitescnsi~ivctov°lunxc;al°ss°f5%°fthcw'L~tcincreaScS~"'3~
aidout $1.00 l~r ion ( and incrc2singly morc Lf~ 15% i8 gone).
11/1G/1995 17:29 98978~991 ~ PAGE
Page 3
3.
The current tipping fe~ rams, intentionally raised wixh ttg support of our Cities nearly two
years ago to address ne~v t~gulations and closur~ funding mquire, ments, ar~ too high m
cornperu long term with th~ aa,e~it Orange County 'Txre~e' for out of county waste. They
have in County rates for th~ own customers of $35 per ton, but are trying to raise quick
mon~ for thdr bankrupt~ laoblems on marginal out of County warn with rates in the $18
to $25 per ton rate.
Small vol,'m~ (about 3% of total waste) have r~e, cufly smrttd to "leak" into the San
Be~nardho County Milliken !andfill for th~ $3 Igr wn incrgment bercve~m our respective
Cottory rules-
As regional dislxml options (mepfills) come on line,, the District's disposal volume will
likely m:luce unless rat~ am redumi. Tlg La Paz Arizona lmqdfi|l (~10 miles NE of Blythe)
is alr~_dy smm as th~ primary thinaria loss of Coac, hella Valley waste,
If volume is lost dm'ing'th~ remaining period of %arch up" on closu~ requix~ments, the
thai our San Diego Coum7 tmightmts find theamelves ix~ We should use er)'
If we g-taine~i the currant ram of $38.50 for 3,5 mow yearn, and all gunt~ users stayed with
t!~ sym~ our rrnfinxled liabiliti~ would be banked, and rCamtion of cu.stomgra would b~
of lem impoxuu~ to re~,,,i~ing
$7 to $9 marion of existhag Distfigt ramryes, and add an average of $225 per n, p -
pe~ ton (restgctively) to.the systemwide tipping fe~ for operating the~ facilities; ov. er the
next 15 yeats if this w~re to b~ include~t in the aeleaed policy.
9. If the system loses the City of RiVerside tonnage, (and no other tonnage replaced it) the
system rates would need tO be increased ~.00 per ton.
10. If the system loses the Coachelh Valley tonnage, (and no ofigr Wrmage rephceut it) the
system rates would need to be ~ $6.00 per tom
These mat~ have bemm dlscuss~l most thorot~ghly in the WRCO(3, Technical Advisory (i.e. City
Managers) and Executive (i.e. mayors and Coundpezsons) subcommitte~ on Solid WasU: over the
last several months. The joht Subcorntnitt~s made a recommend_talon at their meeting on
November 6, 1995, which was ~hen considexed later that day by the Executive Cmnmittee- AlthonSh
not approved, the subcommittee recommendations were then referred to individual cities for
consideration and for rax~n to the Ex~-cu~ve committee in January. The full report of their actions
are enclosed as Attachment 2. Th~-y have ssked the District to defer its decision until them
11/16/1995 17:29 9097877991 WRCDG PAGE 04
Page 4
W~th all of the 31Ine faglois di.sctllscd ~ th~ ~l,~_~te~t. COIX.Se~.~U~ ~ tile rcfer::llced. sllbc~wrnittees
centered around a recommendation that the District retain it's tipping fee rate at $3850 per ton
through I=Y 96/97 and then lower it to competitive ISS~L The concept advanced was that no one can
practically leave the system anyivay (in ~ither end of the County) until one or more of the private
lran~er stations is ready. By rc~ning the ~ higher for that extra year, about $13 million
additional dollars cotrid be banked against the closure liabilities and further posture the District in
the market- In fact, however, the pen-is uan.~er station is now expected to be completed in
September 96, and the Moreno Valley transfer station Ls expected to I~ completed in late spring 96.
We believe the Orange County options become viable at that time, under the current ram s'l~cture.
St-fr respects the thoughtful consideration given to this issue by these agency representatives, who
genuinely want the local disposal system to ~ at competitive rates. Atkr cax~ul conside. ration
of the matt~ however, we believe ra~ payers are put at greater risk by this OVRCOG) subcommillee
proposal than if the rate Ls dropped in July 96 as recommended hcxin.
The CVAG response to these finding has been less active than the interest shown in the Western
County. This reaction is triggex~l by the alxpareat belief that their competitive RFP activities for
traa~fer stations and disposal, will cause the Disu-ict out of necessity to respond to market forces-
The Board, as you know has authoriz~ the District to submit proposals to CVAG on both RFP
r~quests (minaret station, followed with disposal capacity). The disposal capacity respons-- were
delayed 2 days by a CVACi addcndnm; to Nove~nber 17,1996. The re-stxnxse submitted by the
District is compatible with th~ rec~rom-ndmions hexiu, but did not include answers to the ~icr~"
tipping fee concept recommended he:tin- Such a decision must of cotuse be made by the Board.
Although these ~ will be 'subrnitL,~J to CVAG on November 17, it is tmimown when the bids
will bc m:.ele public. The Board may ~ to understand ttmir intenl before finnliving all of these
decisions. They indicate thei~ dee. isioni are scheduled for January 1996.
In another forum, the Divider Im l~t the C, ounty~cl~ Solid Waste Advisory Council/Task .Force
abrm~st of these st,.,dies and fluclings. A special meeting was held on November 2, 1995 to focus
emirely on these isstms. The Task Force meets again on Thursday, November 16, 1996, and the
primary issues befor~ the Board'have also been framed at their ~qucst to p~ovide their advice- The
issues are framed mor~ simply .on their agc:ada bux provide the opportunity to comment on the
primary issues. (Scc Attachment 3). Wc will bring their comments to the rnc.~ting,
In statutory, n~_,_el;v, the rates as'recommeaded hc:~in is eucpected to ret-in customer3 and provide
tl~ best long term protection to'all ushrs. The l~roposal will requi~ a 10 year period to complete
the "catch up" on unfunded cl~u~ costs, but is believed to provide raxe~ whc-~ "economic flow
control" will work in our inte:l:sts.
Wc expect the rates Foposed Will be able ~o be held for two or more years after adoption, and that
increases after that wxll not exceed the consumer price index. Some hav~ asked how such a rate
decrease is possible. It is due to two main factors; the large reserves already accumulated allow the
reduction of the rate of "catcling up" on closure and remediation funding, and the significant
reduction in operating costs coming on line in the neax futtu~ with Double Butte, Coachella,
Highgrove and Mead Valley lm~_..~lls clo~q_-g~ each representing about $1.5 million reduction (plus
or minus) in system costs. Shortly ~=r these, the smaller Anza and Mecca landfills will also close.
ll/1G/1995 17:29 9097877991 ~ P~ 85
Page 5
The r~cornmem~tion regarding out of county import fee~ is consistent with verbal requests th~ CEO
has made to Board members and the CAO for some time, and consideration of this maxl~ during this
period with adoption of some support by the County for the Disposal system as a policy, is believed
important to show good faith to our systr~l users. Likewise, the proposed policy lo allocate existing
excess operating re,ryes to lho closure, postclosure main~ce and remeAisdon activities as
r~commended in Exln'bit 1 is believed to be a good faith gesnu~, which (lithe Board agre~ with
dropping pursuit of the two remaining "perimeter" urb~m transfer ststim~s) would cffoc~ively put the
non benefitring cities, and others, at ~ over the use of these reserve funds. There is also a level
of concern e~pressed by s~eral fl~at the District Board may somehow u-ansfer its reserves or futun:
revenues into the County General fund- These actions are proposed to help address these issues.
Dropping punuit of constructing and operating the two "perimeter" urban transfer stations would
not necessarily stop some participation with cooperative vendors or agencies on existing District
properties (consisumt with Board action taken on November 14,1995), to cor~ider lease options for
these or other sites. However, any new significant capi~l commitments would now be precluded
under the policies herein recommended.
We are recornmevmn~ (subject tO Board concurrence in the tiered tipping f~e) that Wanglet station
operaton, who would r~ruest the lower tier rate for their uansfer rig deliveries, be r~tuired to
execute a reasonable tr.x~ aga e,~nent (i.e, 5 year evergreen). The d~tails of such an agreement stir
need to be worked out, after further disonion with the Board, but should probably include some
mecl~ni~rn where xhe affecu:d City or rate payer using the facility is also assured of the benefit of
the lo~/~r ~ier cliz~sal rate, not simply the U-a~rfer station vendor.
Tlzre ate of course otlzr tier ~ts, and other tippin~ fe~ ~s that the. Board my want
to c~nsider. St~ff will discuss other options at tlz Board meeting if you r~que~ it. Then: arc
numerous vm~bles and optioi which could be presented, but w~ ~lieve would be confusing and
x~ot aluminaring at th~ point
Staff senses an urgency to get a policy defined, befor~ hanlen or agencies toying with leaving the
systan, reduce our options and long term viability.
11/16/1995
17:29
9897877.991
RESERVES POLICY STATE1VIEiN~
EXHIBIT I
86
It shah be the policy of the District Board of Direaors to use ~g excess reserve~ above and
beyond a r~asonable operating reserve of approximatety 25% of annual budgacd expenditures,
for the purpose of funding accrued liabilities for closure/postdosure and remediation- Excess
r~vcnues beyond thos~ required to ma~ain the openring reserve shall bc designated for use in
funding thcsc accrued liabilities until such time as the rescrve balances reflect an equivalent
percentage of funding when compared to the total system landfill capacity failed. When these
reserves are fully funded the tipping fee etemcnt$ for closur¢~x~stclosurc and rcmcdhtlon shall be
set to reflect the current dollar amount necessary to fund these costs in a proportion to the
projected capacity 1o be filled dttring the next budget year or as ncccf,-ury to insure compliance
with State or Federal closurc funding requirements.
17:29
9897877991
RESERVES POLICY STATEMLuNT
EXHIBIT I
It sh~dl be th= policy of the Dis~ict Board of Direaors to use existing exce~s reservc3 abov~ and
beyond a rcason,tble openring r~s~'ve of approximately 25% of annuai budge~e.d expenditures,
for the purpos~ of funding acvrued liabirstie~ for closure/postclosure and remediafion- Excess
revemue$ beyond thos~ required to maintain the operating reserve shall b~ designated for use in
funding ~cs¢ accrued liabilities tmtil such time as the reserve balances rettect a.a equivalent
pt:s'c, en~l~e offtma~g when compared to the total system hndfiI1 c~adty fillext. When these
reserves are fully funded the tipping fee elememts for ctosure~vostclosure and re:mediation shaJl be
set to rdlex:t the current dollar amount nece~,sazy to fund these costs in a proportion to the
project~'d capacity to be filled during the next budget year or as nr..ces-sary to insure complinnc~
with State or Federal closure funding requirements.
11/16/1B95
17:29 98978~991 WRC~G
RF, SER~S POLICY STATEMENT
EXHIBIT I
It shall be the policy of the District Board of Directors to use existing excess reserves above and
beyond a reasonable operating reserve of approximatdy 25% of annual budgae, d a-penditur~,
for the purpose of fi~nding accrued liabilities for closure~postclosure and rernediation, Excess
revenues beyond thos~ required to maintain the openting resente sha/l b~ designated for use in
funding these accrued liabilities until inch time as the reserve balances reflect an equivalent
per,,exttage of fund:rag when compared to the total system landfill capacity filled. When ~ese
reserves are fully funded the tipping fee dements for closure~stclosure and remediation shall be
set to reflect the current dollar amount nec~saz3r to fund these coats in a proportion to the
projecte~l capacity to be filled during ~e next budget year or as ne~ to insure complian~
with State or Federal closure fixplg requirements.
ITEM 22
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL R~~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE DIREC
CITY MANAGE
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
December 19, 1995
Consideration of a Joint Committee to Facilitate
the Extension of Diaz Road
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
Appoint an Ad-Hoc Committee of two (2) members of the City Council, one (1)
member of the Planning Commission, and one (1) member of the Public/Traffic Safety
Commission to meet with the City of Murrieta Ad-Hoc Committee to discuss Diaz Road
extension to connect Murrieta and Temecula.
2. Appropriate $15,000 of Public Facilities Development Impact Fees.
BACKGROUND:
The staff of both the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta have met on several occasions in the
past to discuss the proposed project. Alternatives for both, the alignment as well as funding
were discussed.
Recently, we were advised by the staff of the City of Murrieta that they had some major
concerns regarding the construction of Diaz Road connection between the two (2) cities, and
further that construction of Diaz Road is a very low priority project for the City of Murrieta.
It would therefore, in staffs opinion be appropriate for the City Council to appoint a committee
to begin discussions at a higher than staff level.
The City of Temecula staff disagrees with the City of Murrieta staffs' position on this issue
and feels that the proposed project is of mutual benefit and should be considered high priority.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Total Diaz Road extension project costs of $1,350,000have been programmed for expenditure
in 1996-97 is included in the current Capital Improvement Program budget. An appropriation
of $15,000 will need to be accelerated from FY1996-97 to FY1995-96 to cover the cost of
preliminary design studies.
- 1 - r: ~agdrpt\95~, 1212\jointcorn .dia/ajp
ITEM 23
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE DIRECTOR
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
-SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council
Ronald E. Bradley, City Manager
December 19, 1995
Consideration of Offer to Donate Park Site
PREPARED BY:
City Clerk June S. Greek
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider an offer made by Kemper Real Estate Development Corporation to donate a
Park Site located adjacent to the Rancho Elementary School on La Serena Way.
BACKGROUND: Staff will finalize a staff report on the negotiations involved in the City's
acceptance of this proposed Park Site and will provide that report during the scheduled closed
session on this matter prior to the meeting.
jsg
DEPARTMENTAL
'REPORTS
FINANCE OFFICER ,,
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City ~dnCil
iC~-'
Debble Ubnoske; Planning Manager
December 19, 1995
Monthly Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and File
Discussion:
The following is a summary of the Planning Department's
caseload and project activity for the month of November 1995:
Caseload Activity:
The Department received applications for administrative cases and applications for public
hearing cases for the month of November:
Development Agreement
Minor Conditional Use PM
Plot Plan subject to CEQA
Plot Plan - w/CEQA
Public Use Permit
TOTAL 5
Ongoing Projects:
Old Town Streetscape Improvement Project: As part of their work on the Sixth Street
parking lot, Webb & Associates will be designing the offsite improvements and
standards for the related components of the project. These will then be used as design
standards for off-site improvement in Old Town.
Desion Guidelines: A field trip with the City's consultant, Design Guideline Committee
and staff was held September 25, 1995. Draft design guidelines preparation is
underway.
Development Code: The Planning Commission has completed the public hearing
process. The Council will review the Code on December 19, 1995.
R:~MONT~LY.RP'BI995~OV 12111195 vrw 1
Murdv Ranch Soecific Plan and Environmental Imoact Reoort: Staff has reviewed the
revised Specific Plan and is finalizing comments for the applicant to address. The
screen check draft EIR has been submitted for review.
Johnson Ranch Specific Plan: This item will be scheduled for a public hearing after the
City Council takes action on Annexation policies for the City. These policies are
currently being formulated and will be presented to the City Council as soon as they
are completed.
Rorioauah Ranch Specific Plan: The Planning Commission held a public workshop on
September 11, 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 providing a transition of lot sizes. The Commission
provided additional direction to the applicant. No future hearing date has been
established.
Attachment:
1. Revenue and Status Report - Page 3
R:~MONTHLY.RPT~I99S~iOV 12/11/95 vgw 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
REVENUE STATUS REPORT
R:XMONTHLY.RFI~I995~iOV 12/11/95 vgw ~
REVPRIN2
12/11/95
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
4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
4140
4141
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
15:43:10
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
CONOITIONAL 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 (IN/TIAL STUDIES)
CEQA ENVIROMENT IMPACT REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
GEOLOGY CEQA
GEOLOGY ORD, 547 APZ
LAFCO
PARCEL MAP/WAIVER
MERGER
AMENDED FINAL TRACT/PAR, NAP
CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION
CONDO TRACT NAP
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 CONPL. PLN. CK.
CERT. OF PAR. MERGER PLAN CK
CITY OF TENECULA
REVENUE STATUS REPORT
NOVEMBER 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
NOVEMBER
REVENUE
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
4.00
460.00
459.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
590.00
.00
.00
4,343.00
3,707.00
.00
.00
.00
185.00
196.00
.00
.00
.00
1,295.00
.00
4,000.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1995-96
REVENUE
.00
325.00
300.00
1,676.00
.00
.00
2,124.00
1,380,00
459.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2,746.00
1,180.00
.00
4,128.00
13,185.00
8,004.00
2,272.00
250.00
.00
2,543,30
464.00
.00
571.00
.00
5,393.35
.00
8,000.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
500.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
PAGE I
BALANCE X COL
.00
.00 100.0
500.00 37.5
4,324.00 27.9
6,850.00 0.0
5,332.00 0.0
6,872.00 23.6
.00 100.0
481.00 48.8
1,000.00 0.0
.00
392.00 0.0
.00
520.00 0.0
10,510.00 20,7
28,068.00 4.0
4,440.00 0.0
699.00 85.5
44,005,00 23.1
2,761.00 ~
4,174.00 ~
1,000.00 20.0
9,254.00 0.0
828.30' 148.3
2,084.00 18.2
.00
571.00 50.0
.00
5,393.35- ***
6,202.00 0.0
4,000.00- 200.0
.00
.00
.00
,00
500.00- ***
.00
.00
.00
78~.00 0.0
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00 -
.00
REVPRIH2
j2/11/95
001
161
ACC(XJNT #
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4169
4170
4175
4180
4200
4206
4226
4260
1
,2
'~369
4370
15:43:10
GENERAL FUND
PLANNING
DESCRIPTION
VACATIONS PLAN CK
DOCUMENT PROCESSING
CONDEMNATION PLAN CHECK
REVERSION TO ACRE. PLAN CHECK
PARCEL MAP PLAN CHECK
TRACT MAP PLAN CHECK
AMENDED NAP PLAN CHECK
4TH & SUBS. SUBMITTALS
FENA STUOY 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 HASTE FACILITY
LAND DIV UNIT NAP
LANDSCAPE 'PLAN CHECK
REVENUE TO DATE
GENERAL FUND
CITY OF TEMECULA
REVENUE STATUS REPORT
NOVEMBER 1995
ADJUSTED
ESTINATE
.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
198,585.00
198,585.00
NOVEMBER
REVENUE
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
590.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1,660.00
17,489.00
17,489.00
1995-96
REVENUE
.00
.00
.00
o00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
3,610.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
187.00
6,770.00
66,067.65
66,067.65
PAGE
BALANCE
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1,480.00
.00
.00
6,435.00
710.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
561.00
6,770.00-
132,517.35
132,517.35
COL
0.0
35.9
0.0
25.0
33.3
33.3
REVPRIN2
12/11/95
15:43:10
GRAND TOTALS
'DESCRIPTION
CITY OF TEMECULA
REVENUE STATUS REPORT
NOVEMBER 1995
PAGE 3
ADJUSTED NOVEMBER 1995-96 BALANCE ~ COL
ESTIMATE REVENUE REVENUE
REVENUE TO DATE
198,585.00 17,489.00 66,067.65 132,517.35 33.3
GRAND TOTALS
198,585.00 17,489.00 66,067.65 132,517.35 33.3
REVPRIN2
12/11/95
15:43:10
CITY OF TEMECULA
REVENUE RECAP REPORT
NOVEMBER 1995
PAGE
001-161
DESCRIPTION
PLANNING
GRAND TOTALS
ADJUSTED
ESTIMATE
198,585.00
198,585.00
NOVEMBER
REVENUE
17,~89.00
17,~89.00
1995-96
REVENUE
66,067.65
66,067.65
BALANCE
13Z,517.35
132,517.35
COL
33.3
33.3
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Anthony Elmo, Chief Building Official /~---
December 19, 1995
Building and Safety November 1995, Activity Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
DISCUSSION:
The following is a summary of activity for November, 1995.
Building Permits Issued ...................................... 79
Building Valuation .................................... 96,001,521
Revenue Collected ..................................... 982, 121
Housing Starts ............................................ 53
New Commercial Starts ...................................... 0
Commercial Additions/Alterations .................... 8 = 2,646 Sq. Ft.
Building Inspections ...................................... 2,513
Valuation FY Year-to-Date .............................. 53,079,809
Code Enforcement Actions .................................. 1,152
Active Cases Pending ....................................... 51
Closed Cases ............................................ 52
V:%Wl~Agend~k~v'gS.R~
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE DIRECTCR
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
December 19, 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 November, 1995.
r:~agdt~t~noacttpt/ajp
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Monthly Activity Report
DECEMBER, 1995
Submitted by: Joseph Kicak
Prepared by: Don Spagnolo '
Date: December 19, 19952~'
I. WORK UNDER CONSTRUCTION:
1. Moraga Road Street Widening:
The project has been completed, City
December 12, 1995 Council meeting.
Council acceptanced
the project at the
2. Sports Park Parking and Skate Board Park:
The contractor has placed the concrete for the roller hockey rink, placed concrete for
the sidewalks, install the pedestrian bridge and completed the structural block and
framing for the restroom building. The contractor will continue constructing the
restroom and start the landscaping operation in December. The project is expected
to be completed by February, 1996.
3. Temecula Middle School Lighting Project:
The contractor has completed all construction of the lighting project and has provided
his as-built drawings and required documentation for acceptance by the City Council.
Staff will prepare the recommendation for acceptance and filing of the notice of
completion at the December 19, 1995 Council meeting.
4. Solana Way Storm Drain Improvements:
The contractor has completed the 78" and 54" storm drain pipe construction and has
started placing concrete for the transition structures that connect the new system to
the existing pipes. This project is scheduled to be completed by the beginning of next
year.
5. Walcott Corridor:
Staff will recommend that all bids be rejected and that the project be re-advertised
early next year. 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.
pwO4\moactrpt\cip~.95\DEC.mar 12/19/95
Monthly Activity Report
December 19, 1995
Page 2
II. OUT TO BID
1. Sam Hicks Monument Park Imorovement Project:
Bids were opened on November 30, 1995. A recommendation will be made to City
Council to award the project to Mahr Construction on December 19, 1995. The
improvements include the construction of a 950 square foot concession stand and
restroom facility, asphalt parking lot, landscaping and irrigation improvements, and
assorted park site amenities. Construction is anticipated to start in early January and
be completed by June of 1996.
2. Fire Station #84:
Bids were opened on October 19, 1995. The City Council awarded the project to
Great West Contractors. A pre-construction meeting will be held on December 19,
1995 and construction is anticipated to start during the beginning of January and be
completed by October, 1996. The project will include grading, new sewers, road
improvements on Pauba Road between the new church site and Margarita Road,
construction of the new fire station and landscaping.
3.1-15/Winchester Road Interchange Modifications:
The plans and specifications have been approved and the acquisition of the two
sections of property became effective on September 1, 1995. Solicitation of Public
Construction Bids, which has been authorized by the City Council, began the week
of November 13, 1995 and sealed bids will be opened at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday,
December 7, 1995. It is anticipated that a contract will be awarded at the Council
meeting on December 19, 1995. The project provides for the widening of the
Winchester Road Bridge over the I-15 freeway, the widening of the Santa Gertrudis
Creek Bridge, and the construction of a new northbound loop ramp.
4. Pavement Management System
Staff will be advertising the project by end of the year. The project plans and
specifications are proposing two (2) types of pavement rehabilitation which include
asphalt overlay with a stress relief membrane (geotextile fabric), and the removal and
reconstruction of the existing asphalt pavement. There are fifteen (15) roadways to
be rehabilitated, four (4) are arterial, which includes portions of Margarita Road, Pala
Road, Rancho California Road and Ynez Road, and eleven (11) are second/local
residential streets at various locations throughout the City.
pwO4\moactrpt\cip\95\nov.mar 12/19~95
Monthly Activity Report
December 19, 1995
Page 3
III. WORK IN DESIGN
1. I-15/Rancho California Road Interchange Modifications:
The Project Report and the plans and specification were submitted to Caltrans on July
28, 1995 and August 2, 1995, respectively. Caltrans is in the process of reviewing
these items and staff is expecting comments to be returned to the Consultant during
the month of December, 1995. This project provides for the widening of the Rancho
California Road bridge over the I-15 freeway and construction of a northbound loop
ramp. Utility relocations are being coordinated with Southern California Gas Company
and Rancho California District.
2. I-15/Overland Drive Overcrossing Improvements:
The plans and specifications were submitted to Caltrans for final review at the end of
July, 1995. Caltrans has returned their comments to the Consultant. Based on a
request by Caltrans, the consultant has completed an additional soils investigation
along the alignment of the new piles and revisions to the structural plans are now
being completed. Legal plats and descriptions are being prepared for those properties
that need to be acquired for construction of the project. The revised plans should be
submitted to Caltrans during the month of December, 1995.
3. Emergency Generator:
The project includes installing an emergency generator at the Community Recreation
Center to provide power for emergency operations. The decision was made to change
the location of the generator to allow better delivery and public access to the gym
entrance. The new location would be in an area west of the gym along the south side
of the parking lot. The engineer is presently making the necessary changes. Staff will
be requesting authorization to solicit public construction bids from the Council in
December.
4. Traffic Signal (~ Route 79S and Margarita Road/Redhawk Parkway
Caltrans has approved the plans and is currently issuing the encroachment permit. A
complete 4-way traffic signal will be installed as part of the project as well as the
removal of the median island on the south leg of the intersection to provide for a dual
north bound left turn pocket. This project requires an agreement between the County
of Riverside and the City for the costs of the design and construction since the
southeast corner of the intersection is within the County. Recommendation to solicit
bids and to approve the agreement between the City and the County is scheduled for
pwO4~moactrpt~cip\95\nov.mar 12119/95
Monthly Activity Report
December 19, 1995
Page 4
the December 12, 1995 Council meeting.
5. Interim Traffic Signal (~ Route 79S and La Paz Street
Caltrans has completed the final review which was submitted to them on October 16,
1995 and any corrections will be made by the consultant. The project will then be
sent out to bid. A 4-way interim traffic signal will be installed as part of the project
at the intersection of Route 79S and La Paz St. The ultimate signal and striping
improvements will be constructed when the highway is widened.
6. Interim Traffic Signal ~i) Route 79S and Pala Road
Plans have been approved by Caltrans and the encroachment permit could be issued
within the next few weeks. This project was designed to install a 3-way interim traffic
signal at Route 79S and Pala Road. The ultimate improvements will be constructed
when the new Pala Road Bridge is constructed and the highway is widened.
Solicitation for bids is scheduled for December 12, 1995 Council meeting.
7. Barrier Rail on Front St. (~ Emoire Creek
The plans and specifications have been completed. This project is designed to install
a barrier rail on each side of Empire Creek at Front Street so that vehicles that deviate
from the roadway will not enter the channel. This project will be Federally funded
under the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRR). Staff will
recommend to the City Council for authorization to bid the project upon approval by
Caltrans.
pwO4\rnoactrpt\cip\95\nov.mar 12/19195
LAND DEVELOPMENT
Monthly Activity Report
Special Projects
November, 1995
Submitted by: Joseph Kicak
Prepared by: Steve Cresswell4b--
Date: December 1, 1995
FEMA/OES REIMBURSEMENT:
Staff is continuing to coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the State Office
of Emergency Services (OF_S) 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 aim 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):
Rough grading construction has been completed and the City Council accepted the improvements at the
November 281h meeting. The property exchange is currently being reviewed by the City Attorney. T
Record of Survey for the exchanged property and the vacation/dedication of Pauba Road right-of-way
currently being prepared and processed.
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 159 (AD 159):
Highway 79 South plans were approved by Caitrans. Phase I construction (Butterfield Stage Road to
Avenida de Missions) will go out to bid in October 1995 and is scheduled to begin in mid-January 1996.
Phase II construction (1-15 interchange to Avenida de Missions) will go out to bid in March 1996 and
scheduled to begin in mid-June 1996.
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 161 (AD 161):
Winchester Road (Area II) - estimated completion date is January 1996
OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT/ENTERTAINMENT CENTER:
The following engineering design/study projects associated with the Old Town Redevelopment
Project/Entertainment Center are currently underway.
PW95-07 - Phase I Western Bypass Corridor. The preliminary plan and profile of Western Bypass
Corridor from Vincent Moraga Drive to Rancho California Road, with a grade separated intersection-
configuration, and the connector ramp, has been established and is eurren~y being reviewed along w
the improvement plans of Western Bypass Corridor from the bridge to Vincent Moraga Drive and th,,
r:lmoactrptldcv195/Novcmbcr
improvement plans of Vincent Moraga Drive extension.
PW95-08 - First Street Extension. The hydrologie and hydraulic analysis of Murrieta Creek from the
latter's confluence at Temecula Creek upstream to Rancho California Road will be completed by early
December for review. The report will be presented to Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District for consent. Once the criteria has been finalized, both Western Bypass Corridor
bridge and First Street bridge designs will commence.
RFP#32 - Western Bypass Corridor Assessment District. The preliminary report is being prepared
to be presented for hearing before the City Council.
RFP#38 - 6th Street Parking Project. The final design will proceed as soon as the approval of the
proposed transportation depot has been obtained. The concerns regarding lighting in Old Town for on
and offsite developments/improvements are being analyzed and alternative methods are being
considered.
r:lmoactrpt/dev/95/November
,J
,,I
~a.w
W ~, I-
~ w~: ¢
I....
Z
o
,.J
m
U,
o
Z
UJ
W
0000
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent
December 1, 1995
Monthly Activity Report - November 1995
The following activities were performed by Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division
in-house personnel for the month of November 1995:
II.
III.
IV.
Ve
VI.
SIGNS
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. 336 new and repainted legends
B. 32,838 L.F. of red curb new and repainted
C. 0 S.F. of sandblasting/grinding
VII.
11
6
0
15
123
368
47,566
42
7,525
r:~roede\eCtrpt\95\11 jle
MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT- October 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 15 service order requests for the month of October, 1995.
The Maintenance Crew has also put in 80 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 following:
· 0 L.F. of new and repainted striping
· 0 L.F. of sand blasting
The total cost for I.P.S. striping services was 90.00 compared to 90.00 for October, 1995.
PESTMASTER SERVICES has comoleted the following:
· 0 S.F. of right-of-way weed control, total cost 90.00 compared to 90.00 for October, I
The total cost for Street Maintenance performed by Contractors for the month of November, 1995
was 924,366.00compared to 914,775.00for the month of October, 1995.
Account No. 5402
Account No. 5401
91805.00
922,561.00
CC:
Steve Cresswell, Principal Engineer - Land Development
Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects
Martin C. Lauber, Traffic Engineer
r:~roads\actrpt\95\11 jle
~z g g g g g g. o. o
00¢~ o
.J
m
:::)
r,
u.
0 v
I-
Z 0
uJ
0
w
0
(J
U
,¢
DATE
1-08-95
1-09-95
1-12-95
1-14-95
1-15-95
1-15-95
1-16-95
1-17-95
1-22-95
1-27-95
1-28-95
1-29-95
'LOCATION
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
WORK COMPLETED
NOVEMBER, 1995
CATCH BASIN MAINTENANCE
.!
Area #1
Area #1
Area #1
Area #1
Area #1
Area #1
Area #1
Area #1
Area #1 and Area #2
Area #2
Area #2
Area #2
WORK COMPLETED
Cleaned & Secured
Cleaned & Secured
Cleaned & Secured
Cleaned & Secured
Cleaned & Secured
Cleaned & Secured
Cleaned & Secured
Cleaned & Secured
Cleaned & Secured
Cleaned & Secured
Cleaned & Secured
Cleaned & Secured
3
10
15
42
40
41
54
20
60
60
8
15
Catch Basins
Catch Basins
Catch BasIns
Catch Basins
Catch Basins
Catch Basins
Catch BasIns
Catch Basins
Catch Basins
Catch Basins
Catch Basins
Catch Basins
TOTAL CATCH
BASINS CLEANED
368
pwO3~'oad\wkcmpltd',95\l 1 .Cli 120495
DATE
11-01-95
11-01-95
11-01-95
11-01-95
11-01-95
11-01-95
11-01-95
11-02-95
11-02-95
11-02-95
11-06-95
11-06-95
11-06-95
11-06-95
11-06-95
11-06-95
11-06-95
11-06-95
11-06-95
11-06-95
11-06-95
11-06-95
11-06-95
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
GRAFFITI REMOVAL - NOVEMBER, 1995
'L:OCATION
Pina Colada ~ Salt River
29766 Rancho California Road
Humber L~
Rancho California Road
Humber W/O
Rancho California Road
Longs Drugs
Rancho California Road
~ Moraga Road
Rancho California Road
500' W/O Humber
Via Lobo Channel
Granny's Antique Mall
Meadows ~
Rancho California Road
Main Street L~ Bridge (Paint)
Under Bridge (Paint)
28555 Pujol
28559 Pujol
First Street ~ Pujol
42200 Pujol
Main Street Bridge (Sand blast)
Main Street Apartments
28550 Pujol
28450 Felix Valdez
28555 1/2 Pujol
28559 Pujol
28747 Pujol
I
Removed
Removed
Removed
WORK COMPLETED
15 S.F. of Graffiti
220 S.F. of Graffiti
788 S.F. of Graffiti
Removed
2,280 S.F. of Graffiti
Removed
Removed
30 S.F. of Graffiti
16 S.F. of Graffiti
Removed
112 S.F. of Graffiti
Removed
Removed
Removed
5 S.F. of Graffiti
20 S.F. of Graffiti
2 S.F. of Graffiti
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
75 S.F. of Graffiti
305 S.F. of Graffiti
44 S.F. of Graffiti
44 S.F. of Graffiti
5 S.F. of Graffiti
39 S.F. of Graffiti
29 S.F. of Graffiti
60 S.F. of Graffiti
125 S.F. of Graffiti
169 S.F. of Graffiti
304 S.F. of Graffiti
380 S.F. of Graffiti
78 S.F. of Graffiti
-1- pw03\toads\wbmpltd\95\ll.Graffiti 120195
GRAFFITI REMOVAL - NOVEMBER, 1995
11-08-85
~ 1-09-95
11-09-95
11-09-95
11-12-95
11-16-95
11-17-95
11-17-95
11-17-95
11-20-95
11-20-95
11-21-95
~-~ 1-21-95
1-28-95
11-28-95
11-28-95
11-28-95
11-28-95
11-29-95
Margarita between Via La Vida
& Solana Way
Solana Way @ Margarita
Rancho Vista @ Paseo Goleta
Felix Valez @ Sixth Street
Rancho Vista @ CalIE Rio Vista
Ave. Barca @ Margarita
Rancho California Road
@ Vintage Hills
Rancho California Road
@ Meadows
Calle Tajo @
Rancho California Road
Mervyn's
Palm Plaza Center
Liefer Road Bridge
Seraphina @ Andrews
28550 Pujol
28555 1/2 Pujol
42200 Pujol
Vintage ViiIs @
Rancho California Road
29770 Solana Way
Humber @ Yukon
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
32 S.F. of Graffiti
25 S.F. of Graffiti
170 S.F. of Graffiti
22 S.F. of Graffiti
10 S.F. of Graffiti
4 S.F. of Graffiti
415 S.F. of Graffiti
90 S.F. of Graffiti
75 S.F. of Graffiti
20 S.F. of Graffiti
450 S.F. of Graffiti
135 S.F. of Graffiti
270 S.F. of Graffiti
120 S.F. of Graffiti
90 S.F. of Graffiti
12 S.F. of Graffiti
330 S.F. of Graffiti
75 S.F. of Graffiti
35 S.F. of Graffiti
TOTAL
LOCATIONS
TOTAL S.F.
REMOVED
42
7.525
-:2- pw03Lroads\wbmpltd\95\l 1 .Grafliti 17.0195
(D
DATE
-03-95
-09-95
-09-95
-09-95
11-13-95
11-17-95
11-20-95
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
WORK COMPLETED - NOVEMBER, 1995
SERVICE ORDER'REQUEST LOG
LOCATION REQUEST
45338 Silverado
Leifer Road
30921 White Rock Circle
40312 Widsor Road
45343 Esmerado Court
30777 Rancho California
Road
45610 Olympic Way
Basketball Hoop in Street
Grading
Tree trimming
Kids playing in E.M.W.D.
easement.
Trash truck collapsed C.B.
Pothole
Stump Removal
I WORK.COMPLETE
11-06-95
11-09-95
11-O9-95
11-09-95
11-27-95
11-17-95
11-20-95
TOTAL S.O.R.'S
7
pwO3Lmads~wkcmpltd\95\l 1 .svsrq 120595
DATE
11-01-95
11-01-95
11-06-95
11-06-95
11-09-95
11-12-95
11-14-95
11-16-95
11-16-95
11-16-95
11-20-95
11-28-95
11-28-95
11-29-95
11-30-95
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
LOCATION
N. General Kearny @ Nicolas
Sonomo @ Corte Cantera
Main Street @ Pujol Street
Pujol Street @ Sixth Street
Meadows Parkway @
Rancho California Road
Madera @ El Greko
Loma Linda @ E. Loma Linda
Sky Terrace Drive @ Agena
Corte Florecita @
Camino de la Torre
Ave. de la Reina @ Corte Talvera
Del Rey Road @ Calle Pina Colada
Pujol Street @ Sixth Street
Enterprise Circle South @
Winchester
Calle Cortez @ Del Rio
Ave. Barca @ Del Rey
ROADS DIVISION
NOVEMBER, 1995
SIGNS
!
Installed
Installed
Replaced
Replaced
Replaced
Replaced
Replaced
Installed
Installed
Replaced
Replaced
Replaced
Replaced
Replaced
Replaced
WORK COMPLETED
2 W-54A
2 W-80
R 2-1
R-1 Graffiti
R-1 Graffiti
Type "N" "Faded"
R-1 "Faded"
R-1 Graffiti
W-53
W-53
R-1 "T.C."
R-1 Graffiti
W-17 Graffiti
Delineator
R-1 "T.C."
W-1 "T.C."
TOTAL SIGNS
REPLACED
TOTAL SIGNS
INSTALLED
TOTAL SIGNS
REPAIRED
11
PW03~ROADS/WKCI~PLTD\95%.II.SIGN~'~ISTALL 120495
DATE
11-02-95
11-07-95
11-08-95
11-13-95
11-14-95
11-20-95
11-20-95
11-28-95
11-28-95
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
NOVEMBER, 1995
STENCILING
· LOCATION 'ii
Front Street N/O Sixth Street Repainted 114
Area #2 Repainted 842
Area #2 Repainted 693
Area #2 Repainted 6,950
Area #3 & #4 Repainted 5,115
Area #3 Repainted 4
Area #3 Repainted 615
Area #3 Repainted 40
Area #1 & 4 Repainted 225
11-29-95 Area #3 Repainted
WORK COMPLETED
L.F. of Red Curb
L.F. of Red Curb
L.F. of Red Curb
L.F. of Red Curb
L.F. of Red Curb
Legends
L.F. White Curb
Legends
L.F. of Red Curb
73 Legends
TOTAL NEW &
REPAINTED
LEGENDS
L.F. OF RED CURB
& REPAINTED
117
14,554
PW03~ROADS~WI(CMPLTI)\95~I 1 .STENCIL 120595
DATE
11-02-95
11-02-95
.LOCATION
41556 Riesling Court
Pala Road S/O Masters
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
TREE TRIMMING
NOVEMBER, 1995
I
Trimmed
Trimmed
WORK COMPLETED
2 Tree
13 Tree
TOTAL
TREES
TRIMMED
15
-].= pwO3~roads\wkcmpltd\95\ll.Tr~s 120595
11-02-95
11-07-95
11-08-95
11-09-95
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
NOVEMBER, 1995
R.O.W. WEED ABATEMENT
I
Temecula Road N/O
Loma Linda
Temecula Road N/O
Loma Linda
Rancho California Road
@ Meadows Parkway
Meadows Parkway
Abated
Abated
Abated
Abated
WORK COMPLETED
1,200 S.F. of R.O.W.
Weeds
35,000 S.F. of R.O.W.
Weeds
11,016 S.F. of R.O.W.
Weeds
350 S.F. of R.O.W.
Weeds
TOTAL S.F.
R.O.W. WEED
ABATEMENT
47,566
-1- pwO3~oads~wkcmpltd\95\ll.We.~ls 120595
TRAFFIC DIVISION
Monthly Activity Report
For November, 1995
Submitted by: Joseph Kicak
Prepared by: Marry Lauber
Date: December 13, 1995
TRAFFIC REQUESTS and PLAN CHECKS
TRAFFIC REQUESTS: Sept Oct Nov
Received 13 14 15
Completed 8 11 7
Active 24 28 36
WORK ORDERS ISSUED I 4 3
STRIPING PLANS REVIEWED 2 3 7
TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS REVIEWED 0 1 0
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES REVIEWED I 0 2
II. DIVISION PROJECTS:
Traffic signal plans have been reviewed for the intersections of Rancho California
Road/Lyndie Lane, Rancho California Road/Western Bypass and Ynez Road/Rancho
Vista Road.
Interviews have been held with the top four (4) project teams for our traffic signal
interconnect project funded by a CMAQ Grant. The most qualified consulting firm
has been selected and will begin work as soon as contract documents have been
executed.
Implemented traffic signal modifications at the intersection of Jefferson Avenue and
Winchester Road to add a northbound to eastbound right turn overlap during the
westbound green phase.
The Radar Trailer Display Unit has been scheduled for various locations over the next
three (3) months. This should bring us up to date with regard to locations requested
by the public.
r:~oactrpt\traffic\95\01 .nov