HomeMy WebLinkAbout052703 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
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
MAY 27, 2003 - 7:00 P.M.
At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items
can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 P.M. and may continue all other items on which
additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 P.M.
6:t5 P.M. - Closed Session of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency pursuant
to Government Code Sections:
Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(a) with respect to one matter of existing litigation involving the
City. The following case will be discussed: (t) Corona Family Trust v. City of
Temecula and Newland Communities.
Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8 regarding real property acquisition at 27500 Jefferson Avenue.
Under negotiation is the price and terms of the real property interests. The
negotiating parties are the City of Temecula/Redevelopment Agency and Norm
Reeves Honda, Donna L. Reeves Trust. The City negotiators are Shawn Nelson,
Jim O'Grady, and John Meyer.
Public Information concerning existing litigation between the City and various parties
may be acquired by reviewing the public documents held by the City Clerk.
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 2003-05
Resolution: NO. 2003-55
CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor Jeff Stone
Prelude Music:
Nicole Choi
Invocation:
Pastor W. M. Rench, Calvary Baptist Church of Temecula
Flag Salute:
Councilman Pratt
ROLL CALL:
Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Robeds, Stone
PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
CAPIO/CALED/International Communicator Awards Presentation by Councilman Comerchero
R:~Agenda\052703
1
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Council on
items that appear within the Consent Calendar or ones that are not listed on the agenda.
Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on
an item which is listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a
pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all Public Hearing or Council Business matters on the agenda, a "Request to
Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Council addressing that item.
There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made
at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will
be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
Members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent
Calendar for separate action.
Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the
agenda.
Resolution Approvin,q List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
R:~Agenda\052703
2
3
4
Financial Statements for the nine months ended March 31, 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Receive and file the Financial Statements for the nine months ended March 31,
2003.
David Turch & Associates Contract for Federal Legislative Services
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Approve the contract for Federal Legislative Services to be provided by David Turch
& Associates in the amount of $36,000.00.
Second Amendment to State Lobbyist Contract
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Approve the Second Amendment for State Lobbying Services with the Wilson
Group, LLC, in the amount of $3,500.00 per month.
Emer,qency Management Pro,qram Grants
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Increase estimated grant revenue by $24,650;
6.2 Appropriate $10,000 to employ a consultant to develop the Annex for the Citizens
Corps Program into the City's Multi-Hazard Function Plan (Emergency Plan);
6.3 Appropriate $14,650 for the purchase of seven Automatic Biphasic External
Defibrillators (AEDs) for locating at City Hall and other public facilities.
A,qreement with Riverside County Chapter of the American Red Cross for Community-
based Services
RECQMMENDATION:
7.1 Approve an appropriation of $38,000 from the unallocated reserves of the General
Fund to Department 101, Account 5285 (Community Support, Council
Discretionary);
7.2 Approve an agreement with the Riverside County Chapter of the American Red
Cross for Community-based Services.
R:~Agenda\052703
3
8
Acceptance of an Easement for Drainage Purposes and execute a Quitclaim Deed
conveyin¢~ the easement to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District within Tract Map No. 23101-6 (located on the east side of Meadows Parkway
between La Serena Way and Rancho California Road and within the Marqarita Village
Specific Plan No. 199- Chardonnay Hills Subdivision
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE
PURPOSES LOCATED WITHIN TRACT MAP NO. 2310'1-6 AND
EXECUTING A QUITCLAIM DEED CONVEYING THE
EASEMENT TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
10
Authorize Temporary Partial Street Closures for Temecula Cycling Classic Event on June
8, 2003 (Business Park Drive and Single Oak Drive)
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING PARTIAL STREET
CLOSURES OF BUSINESS PARK DRIVE AND SINGLE OAK
DRIVE FOR THE TEMECULA CYCLING CLASSIC EVENT ON
JUNE 8, 2003, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO
ISSUE PERMITS FOR THIS SPECIFIC SPECIAL EVENT
Authorize Temporary Street Closure of Pauba Road between Margarita Road and Ynez
Road for the July 4, 2003, Fireworks Show and dele,qate authority to issue Special
Events/Street Closures Permit to Director of Public Works/City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURE
OF PAUBA ROAD BETVVEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND YNEZ
ROAD FOR THE JULY 4, 2003, FIREWORKS SHOW AND
AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY
ENGINEER TO ISSUE SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT INCLUDING
STREET CLOSURES
R:~genda\052703
4
11
Authorize Temporary Street Closures of Old Town Front Street between Moreno Road
and Second Street, Main Street from the bridge to Old Town Front Street, Second Street,
Third Street, Fourth Street, Fifth Street, Sixth Street, and Mercedes Street between
Moreno Road and Second Street for the Star Spangled Fourth of July Parade and
dele.qate authority to issue Special Events/Street Closures Permit to Director of Public
Works/City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY STREET
CLOSURES OF OLD TOWN FRONT STREET BETVVEEN
MORENO ROAD AND SECOND STREET, MAIN STREET
FROM THE BRIDGE TO OLD TOWN FRONT STREET,
SECOND STREET, THIRD STREET, FOURTH STREET, FIFTH
STREET, SIXTH STREET, AND MERCEDES STREET
BETWEEN MORENO ROAD AND SECOND STREET FOR THE
STAR SPANGLED FOURTH OF JULY PARADE AND
AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY
ENGINEER TO ISSUE SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT INCLUDING
STREET CLOSURES
12
Professional Services Agreement for Engineering and Landscape Architectural Services
for State Route 79 South Medians between 1-15 and Butter[ield Stage Road - Project No.
PW02-14
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1
Authorize an advance in the amount of $198,096.80 from the General Fund
Reserves, which will be reimbursed from AD 159 C and D Series Bonds to fund the
Design of the State Route 79 South Medians between 1-15 and Butterfield Stage
Road;
12.2
Approve an agreement with Project Design Consultants in an amount not to exceed
$180,088.00 to provide professional engineering and landscape architectural
services for the State Route 79 South Medians between 1-15 and Butterfield Stage
Road - Project No. PW02-14 - and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement;
12.3 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of $18,008.80 which is equal to 10% of the agreement amount.
R:~Agenda\052703
5
13 Reimbursement Aqreement between Rancho California Water District and the City of
Temecula for Rancho California Road Brid,qe Widenin,q over Murrieta Creek - Project No.
PW99-18
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Approve the Reimbursement Agreement between Rancho California Water District
(RCWD) and the City of Temecula for the Rancho California Road Bridge Widening
over Murrieta Creek - Project No. PW99-18.
14 Completion and Acceptance of the Asphalt Crackfill Project - Various Streets - FY2002-
2003 - Project No. PW02-24
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1 Accept the Asphalt Crackfill Project for FY 2002-2003 - Project No. PW02-24 - as
complete;
14.2 File a Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one-year
Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract;
14.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven months after filing the Notice of
Completion if no liens have been filed.
15
Agreement for Construction, Inspection, and Acceptance of Wolf Valley Draina,qe
Improvements
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1 Approve an agreement with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District, the County of Riverside, Centex Homes, and Redhawk
Communities, Inc. for the construction, inspection, and acceptance of Wolf Valley
Drainage Improvements;
15.2 Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement.
16 Request for Appropriation - Multi-purpose Maintenance Truck
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1 Approve an appropriation of $154,000.00 in the Vehicle Internal Service Fund for
the purchase of a large capacity, multi-purpose maintenance truck for use by the
Public Works and TCSD Maintenance Divisions;
16.2 Approve an operating transfer in the amount of $79,000 from the General Fund to
the Vehicle Internal Service Fund.
R:~Agenda\052703
6
17 Second Readinq of Ordinance No. 03-04
RECOMMENDATION:
17.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 03-04
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE TEMECULA
MUNICIPAL CODE TO CLARIFY THE PROCEDURES FOR
MODIFYING APPROVED PERMITS, TO MAKE OTHER MINOR
CHANGES AND PROVIDE FOR THE READOPTION OF
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY NOS. 5 AND 6
(PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 03-0109)
RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF
THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
AND
THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
R:~,genda\052703
7
i TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING
I *******************
*********************************************************************************************
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. CSD 2003-01
Resolution: No. CSD 2003-08
CALL TO ORDER:
President Jeff Comerchero
ROLL CALL:
DIRECTORS:
Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone, Comerchero
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Board of
Directors on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar.
Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of
Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to
Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk
Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit
for individual speakers.
Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink
"Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please
come forward and state your name and address for the record.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of May 13, 2003.
2 Children's Museum - Proiect No. PW02-01CSD
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Appropriate $269,780.00 to the Children's Museum Project Fund from
Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Bond proceeds;
2.2
Amend the contract with Sparks Exhibits and Environments to increase the
contract amount to include the cost of materials and installation of new flooring in
the amount of $60,000.00 plus a 10% contingency of $6,000,00;
R:~Agenda\052703
8
3
2.3
Amend the contract with 2H Construction, Inc. to increase the contract amount to
include the cost to complete additional structural repairs in the amount of
$171,224.25 for a new contract total of $308,647.25 plus a 15% contingency for
the new contract contingency total in the amount of $46,297.00.
Harveston Specific Plan - Service Level B, Service Level C, and Service Level D
Rates and Charges
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. CSD 03-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
ACKNOWLEDGING THE FILING OF A REPORT WITH
RESPECT TO SERVICE LEVEL B, SERVICE LEVEL C, AND
SERVICE LEVEL D RATES AND CHARGES FOR HARVESTON
SPECIFIC PLAN BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 AND
SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH
4 Financial Statements for the nine months ended March 31, 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1
Receive and file the Financial Statements for the nine months ended
March 31, 2003,
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Tuesday, June 10, 2003, 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business
Park Drive, Temecula, California.
R:~Agenda\052703
9
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. RDA 2003-01
Resolution: No. RDA 2003-08
CALLTO ORDER: Chairperson Ron Roberts
ROLLCALL
AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the
Redevelopment Agency on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent
Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the
Board of Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk
Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit
for individual speakers.
Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink
"Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please
come forward and state your name and address for the record.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of May 13, 2003.
2 Financial Statements for the nine months ended March 31, 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
Receive and file the Financial Statements for the nine months ended March 31,
2003;
2.2
Approve an appropriation of $32,800 for Admin Fees in the Low/Moderate
Income Housing Fund;
2.3 Approve an appropriation of $131,200 for Admin Fees in the Debt Service Fund;
R:~Agenda\052703
10
2.4 Approve a decrease of $164,000 for Admin Fees in the Redevelopment CIP
Fund;
2.5 Approve a decrease of $160,000 for Investment Interest in the Debt Service
Fund;
2.6 Approve an increase of $225,000 for Investment Interest in the Redevelopment
CIP Fund.
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 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 the hearing. If you challenge
any of the project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the
City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing.
3
Joint Public Hearing of Redevelopment Agency and City Council concerning A,qency
Payment for installation and construction of the Temecula Children's Museum, the Old Town
Community Theater, and widening of Rancho California Road Bridqe
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PAYMENT BY THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
FOR ALL OR A PART OF THE COST OF INSTALLING AND
CONSTRUCTING THE TEMECULA CHILDREN'S MUSEUM,
THE OLD TOWN COMMUNITY THEATER, AND THE RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD BRIDGE WIDENING PROJECT OVER
MURRIETA CREEK
3.2 That Redevelopment Agency adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 03-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING PAYMENT BY THE AGENCY FOR ALL OR A
PART OF THE COST OF INSTALLING AND CONSTRUCTING
THE TEMECULA CHILDREN'S MUSEUM, THE OLD TOWN
COMMUNITY THEATER, AND THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA
ROAD BRIDGE WIDENING PROJECT OVER MURRIETA
CREEK
Recess the City Council Meeting
R:~Agenda\052703
11
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Tuesday, June 10, 2003, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, California.
R:~Agenda\052703
12
RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public Hearing or
may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the Approval of the project(s)
at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any of the project(s) in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or
in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing.
18 Planned Residential Development Code Amendment
(continued from May t3, 2003)
RECOMMENDATION:
18.1 Continue this item off calendar.
19
Planning Application No. 02-0567 - Edqe Ni.qhtclub Appeal
(continued from May t3, 2003)
RECOMMENDATION:
19.1 Receive and file report.
20 Appeal of the Planninq Commission's decision to deny PA03-017 - a request for a
Temporary Use Permit to establish a fresh fruit stand (located on the northeast corner of
Nicolas Road and Winchester Road - known as Assessor's Parcel No. 920-100-013
RECOMMENDATION:
20.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA03-017 A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT TO
ESTABLISH A FRESH FRUIT STAND LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF NICOLAS ROAD AND
WINCHESTER ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
920-100-013
COUNCIL BUSINESS
21
Update to Development Impact Fee Schedule
RECOMMENDATION:
21.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R:~Agenda\052703
13
RESOLUTION NO. 03-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AND IMPOSING NEW
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND INCREASING CURRENT
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES EFFECTIVE JULY 26, 2003
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER ~15.06 OF THE TEMECULA
MUNICIPAL CODE AND RESOLUTION NOS. 97-94 AND 98-30
22 Prima Facie Speed Limit on Cedain Streets
RECOMMENDATION:
22.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 03-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, AMENDING SECTION 10.28.010(D) OF THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PRIMA FACIE
SPEED LIMITS TO INCLUDE PECHANGA PARKWAY
BETWEEN STATE ROUTE 79 (SOUTH) AND SOUTH CITY
LIMITS, RAINBOW CANYON ROAD BETWEEN PECHANGA
PARKWAY AND SOUTH CITY LIMITS, AVENIDA DE
MISSIONES BETWEEN STATE ROUTE 79 (SOUTH) AND VIA
RIO TEMECULA, VIA RIO TEMECULA BETWEEN AVENIDA DE
MISSIONES AND REDHAWK PARKWAY, COUNTRY GLEN
WAY BE'FWEEN STATE ROUTE 79 (SOUTH) AND VIA RIO
TEMECULA, DIAZ ROAD BETWEEN WINCHESTER ROAD
AND DENDY PARKWAY, AND WINCHESTER ROAD
BETWEEN DIAZ ROAD AND DENDY PARKWAY
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: City Council, Tuesday, June 10, 2003, at 7:00 P.M., City Council
Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
R:V~genda\052703
14
PROCLAMATIONS
AND
PRESENTATIONS
ITEM 1
ITEM 2
RESOLUTION NO. 03-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS
SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND
ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the
Office of the City Clerk, have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby
allowed in the amount of $2,405,209.60.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 27th day of May, 2003.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
R:/Resos2003/Resos 03- 1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 03- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Temecula on the 27th day of May, 2003 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
R:/Resos2003/Resos 03- 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
LIST OF DEMANDS
O5/O8/03 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
05/15/03 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
05/08/03 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN:
TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 05/27/03 COUNCIL MEETING:
DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND:
CHECKS:
001
165
190
192
193
194
210
261
28O
300
320
330
340
GENERAL FUND
RDA-LOW/MOD INCOME HOUSING
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ. FUND
CFD 88-12 ADMIN EXPENSE FUND
RDA-REDEVELOPMENT
INSURANCE
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
SUPPORT SERVICES
FACILITIES
$ 1,379,738.57
18,593.42
133,217.12
39,356.86
10,776.39
1,045.81
415,880.36
3,535.20
17,755.84
2,525.48
58,917.86
4,206.51
10,492.20
$ 1,221,101.87
874,939.75
309,167.98
$ 2,405,209.60
$ 2,096,041.62
001
165
190
192
193
194
28O
3OO
32O
33O
34O
GENERAL FUND
RDA-LOW/MOD INCOME HOUSING
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D
RDA-REDEVELOPMENT
INSURANCE
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
SUPPORT SERVICES
FACILITIES
TOTAL BY FUND:
PREPARED BY RETA WESTON, ACCOUNTING SPECIALIST
GEhllE ROBERTS, DIRECT E
SHAWN NELSON, CITY MANAGER
218,135.53
4,910.84
53,822.20
109.64
4,789.22
756.04
2,195.64
740.38
15,358.09
1,796.00
6,554.40
309,167.98
$ 2,405,209.60
, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING iS TRUE AND CORRECT.
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1
05/08/2003 12:49:35PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
Check # Date Vendor Description
114 05/08/2003 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PREMIU Blue Shield HMO Payment
001065 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SO
000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA),
000642 TEMECULA CITY FLEXIBLE
Nationwide Retirement Payment
OBRA - Project Retirement Payment
Employee contribution to flex
000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIREME PERS ER Paid Member Contr Pmt
115 05/08/2003
116 05/08/2003
118 05/08/2003
119 05/08/2003
120 05/08/2003 000283 INSTATAX (IRS)
121 05/08/2003 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
83949 05/08/2003 005277 2 H CONSTRUCTION INC
83950 05/08/2003 003552 A F L A C
83951
Federal Income Taxes Payment
State Disability Ins Payment
Mar prgss pmt: Children's Museum
Stop Notice: Rehmann Construction
AFLAC Cancer Payment
05/08/2003 003392 AARON BROTHERS ART & FRA Museum exhibit supplies
83952 05/08/2003 004973 ABACHERLI, LINDI
83953 05/08/2003
83954 05/08/2003
83955 05/08/2003
83956 05/08/2003
83957 05/08/2003
83958 05/08/2003
83959 05/08/2003
000434 ACCELA. COM
000434 ACCELA.COM
003304 ADAMS ADVERTISING INC
006243 ALEGRIA, FERMIN
006244 AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATIO
006213 APODACA, SUZANNE
000101 APPLEONE, INC.
TCSD instructor earnings
Ann'l cf:7/27-31: CB/SW/LB
Ann'l Conf:7/27-31:Ching/Beal
May billboard rental: Old Town
Refund:Citation #0039
Clean Air Awds:5/13:Yates/Adams
Refund: Sports- Kids Love Soccer
Temp help PPE 04/26/03 Kissam
Temp help PPE 03/29/03 Armstrong
Amount Paid Check Total
49,895.36 49,895.36
16,997.39 16,997.39
2,145.16 2,145.16
8,216.04 8,216.04
49,809.27 49,809.27
64,194.30 64,194.30
14,870.52 14,870.52
39,629.92
-8,575.50 31,054.42
1,470.70 1,470.70
144.34 144.34
449.20 449.20
900.00 900.00
600.00 600.00
2,082.50 2,082.50
50.00 50.00
50.00 50.00
56.25 56.25
448.50
104.00 552.50
Page:l
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2
05/08/2003 12:49:35PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description
83960 05/08/2003 001323 ARROWHEADWATER INC
83961 05/08/2003 004855 BABER, GABRIELE
83962 05/08/2003 006234 BALDAUF, RUTH
83963 05/08/2003 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGERA
83964 05/08/2003
83965 05/08/2003
83966 05/08/2003
83967 05/08/2003
83968 05/08/2003
83969 05/08/2003
83970 05/08/2003
83971 05/08/2003
83972 05/08/2003
83973 05/08/2003
83974 05/08/2003
83975 05/08/2003
83976 05/08/2003
003466 BASKET & BALLOONS TOO!
002541 BECKER CONSTRUCTION SRV
Bottled wtr servs @ City Hall
Bottled wtr servs @ West Wing
Bottled wtr servs @ CRC
Bottled wtr servs @ Museum
TCSD instructor earnings
TCSD instructor earnings
Refund:Citation #0276
Amount Paid
HVAC Repair @ TCC
City promotional baskets
Repair bridge deck - Margarita Rd
Repair bridge deck - Margarita Rd
004828 BEVERLEY SIMMONS & ASSOC Jan-Mar consultant svcs: Library
Credit: incorrectly billed prjt expenses
321.86
188.02
85.99
29.73
518.40
216.00
50.00
006232 BROWN, CONSTANCE
002099 BUTTERFIELD ENTERPRISES
004038 CAD ZONE INC, THE
765.60
109.91
2,247.25
2,126.39
6,583.64
-18.72
006075 CAMPBELL, KENTON SCOTT
003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE CO
002534 CATERERS CAFE
006086 CENTER STAGE KIDS
Refund:Citation #0451
May restroom lease: Old Town
Crime Zone Software & Viewer: Police
50.00
826.00
609.00
004248 CALIFDEPTOFJUSTtCE/ACCT DUl:Drug/AlcoholScreeningsvc:P.D.
002543 CALIF STATE WATER Notice of Intent Fee:Pechanga Pkwy
005384 CALIFORNIA BAGEL BAKERY & Refreshments:Mgmt Academy
Refreshments: Council meeting
Refreshments: Council meeting
TCSD instructor earnings
Mandatory Life Insurance Payment
Refreshments: City Staff Training
TCSD instructor earnings
2,240.00
700.00
484.88
213.35
204.73
355.60
2,371.25
162.63
1,080.00
Check Total
625.60
734.40
50.00
765,60
109.91
4,373.64
6,564.92
50.00
826.00
609.00
2,240.00
700.00
902.96
355.60
2,371.25
162.63
1,080.00
Page2
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3
05/08/2003 12:49:35PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Check#
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
Date Vendor
05/08/2003 006226 CERTEZA, LAMBERT
83977
83978 05/08/2003
83979 05/08/2003
83980 05/08/2003
83981 05/08/2003
83982 05/08/2003
83983 05/08/2003
83984 05/08/2003
83985 05/08/2003
83986 05/08/2003
83987 05/08/2003
83988 05/08/2003
83989 05/08/2003
83990 05/08/2003
83991 05/08/2003
(Continued)
Description
Refund: Event cancelled
006212 CHAPMAN, PEGGY Refund: Ex- Getty Museum
006242 CHAVEZ, JESUS Refund:Citation #1995
006215 CLUB DEMONSTRATION SERVI Refund: Security Deposit
006239 COFIELD, APRIL
004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARI
001193 COMP U S A INC
006223 COMPANY 1 CONSULTING
001320 CROWE-PELLETIER, JULIE
006247 DAHLSTROM & COMPANY
001393 DATATICKET INC
002990 DAVID TURCH & ASSOCIATES
004222 DIAMONDBACK FiRE & RESCU
004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUEU
001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVICES
Refund:Citation #1021
Community Health Charities Payment
Misc. Computer Supplies: IS
Misc. Computer Supplies: IS
Refund: Eng Depst 31850 Calle Sarag
Reimb:Military Dependants Day:4/19
Stop thinking like an ee handouts
Parking citation processing svcs
May Retain Advocacy Firm:Federal
AMKUS rescue system svcs:Stn 92
Fuel for city vehicles: 61353
Fuel for city vehicles: 61343
Fuel for city vehicles: 61345
Fuel for city vehicles: 61347
Fuel for city vehicles: 61348
Fuel for city vehicles: 61351
Fuel for city vehicles: 61349
Fuel for city vehicles: 61953
Temp help PPE 04/04/03 Rush
Temp help PPE 04/18/03 Rush
Temp help PPE 04/18/03 Jones
Amount Paid
208.50
12.00
50.00
100.06
50.00
173.50
82.53
59.57
995.00
173.83
135.00
268.18
3,000.00
294.13
649.52
592.25
568.78
443,82
352.43
158.49
125.89
29.80
1,943.78
1,693.35
782.88
Check Total
208.50
12.00
50.00
100,00
50.00
173.50
142.10
995.00
173.83
135.00
268.18
3,000.00
294.13
2,920.98
4,420.01
Page3
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4
05/08/2003 12:49:35PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
Check # Date Vendor
83992 05/08/2003 003223 EDAW INC
83993 05/08/2003 004974 EN POINTE TECHNOLOGIES
83994 05/08/2003 003959 EVERE3T- & EVERETT PAINTI
83995 05/08/2003 002037 EXPANETS
83996 05/08/2003 006241 FAY, CHAD
000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE
83997 05/08/2003
(Continued)
Description
Biological/Monitoring: Lg Cyn Basin
Accessories for Fire laptop program
Res Imp Prgm: Watson, Mark
83998 05/08/2003
83999 05/08/2003
EOC Cabling for Data Room
Refund:Citation ~O239
003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER
004239 FISHER MERRIMAN SEHGAL
CLTA Guarantee: Comm Theater
CLTA Guarantee:Winchester Widen
CLTA Guarantee:Winchester Widen
xx-9277 R.Roberts:Conf expenses
xx-2292 G.Rober[s:Prof Mtg:SW Air
Amhitactual Design:Old Town
84000 05/08/2003 006148 FORTUNE SIGNS CORPORATIO Faclmp Prgm: Butterfieldlnn
002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
004944 FULLCOURT PRESS
006233 GLIDDEN, RONALD
003640 GRAYNER ENGINEERING
84001 05/08/2003
84002 05108/2003
84003 05108/2003
84004 05/08/2003
84005 05/08/2003 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC
State Withholding Payment
Qty 5000 Cash Receipt Forms
Refund:Citation #0277
Mar engineer svcs:Children's Museum
Mar-Apr eng svcs: Children's Museum
Mar engineer svcs:Children's Museum
Hardware supplies: Parks
Hardware supplies: City Hall
Hardware supplies: Info System
Hardware supplies: Police Dept
Hardware supplies: Sr Center
Hardware supplies: CRC
Hardware supplies: Planning
Museum exhibit supplies
Hardware supplies: TCC
Hardware supplies: Aquatics
Hardware supplies: B&S
Amount Paid Check Total
1,477.64 1,477.64
132.92 132.92
2,500.00 2,500.00
2,548.38 2,548.38
50.00 50.00
500.00
500.00
500.00 1,500.00
1,525.05
275.65 1,800.70
2,440.04 2,440.04
2,000.00 2,000.00
138.40 138.40
595.04 595.04
50.00 50.00
7,500.00
1,897.50
1,236.25 10,633.75
607.83
173.96
102.04
55.46
48.92
35.24
30.80
29.66
24.20
19.82
19.51 1,147.44
Page~
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5
05/08/2003 12:49:35PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Sank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description
84006 05/08/2003 000116 HEALTH NET DENTAL AND VI
84007 05/08/2003 006214 HIATr, TRUDY
84008 05/08/2003 002107 HIGHMARK INC
84009 05/08/2003 006217 HINKSON, SANDRA
84010 05/08/2003 005748 HODSON, CHERYLA.
Amount Paid Check Total
Health Net DentaINision Plan Pmt
Refund:Picnic Shelter
Voluntary Supp Life Insurance pmt
1,010.15 1,010.15
30.00 30.00
573.20 573.20
Refund: Secudty Deposit
Support Payment
100.00 100.00
5.51 5.51
84011 05/08/2003
84012 05/08/2003
84013 05/08/2003
84014 05/08/2003
84015 05/08/2003
84016 05/08/2003
84017 05/08/2003
84018 05/08/2003
84019 05/08/2003
84020 05/08/2003
84021 05/08/2003
84022 05/08/2003
84023 05/08/2003
000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUST 45 ICMA Retirement Payment
006057 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS, INC
001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY I
001186 iRWiN, JOHN
006245 J. G~-~ ~ ¥ TRUST, THE
DesigrvTrng svcs: Annual Op Budget
Pool sanitizing chemicals
DJ svcs:Family fun night 4/25/03
Museum excumion prkg fee:6/19/03
002140 JAGUAR COMPUTER SYSTEMS Network equipment mntc/repairs
006231 JENNINGS, LEA
006230 JONES, LUCILLE
003986 KEVIN COZAD & ASSOCIATES I
000205 KIDS PARTIES ETC
006237 KLOCK, DORIS
000209 L & M FERTILIZER INC
001719 L PAINC
Refund:Citation #0046
Refund: Citation #0299
Mar-Apr Design svcs:Pala Sound Wall
4 party jumps w/attendants:Egg hunt
Refund:Citation #0161
Misc. Maint Supplies: PW Maint
Mar design svcs:Library prjt
8,188~18 8,188~18
4,500.00 4,500.00
604.35 604.35
100.00 100.00
100.00 100.00
571.02 571.02
50.00 50.00
50.00 50.00
2,060.00 2,060.00
480.00 480.00
50.00 50.00
37.82 37.82
6,976.25 6,976.25
Page5
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6
05/08/2083 12:49:35PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
Check# Date
84024 05/08/2003
84025 05/08/2003
84026 05/08/2003
84027 05/08/2003
84028 05/08/2003
84029 05/05/2003
84030 05/08/2003
84031 05/08/2003
84032 05/08/2003
84033 05/08/2003
84034 05/05/2003
84035 05/08/2003
84036 05/08/2003
84037 05/08/2003
84038 05/05/2003
84039 05/08/2003
84040 05/08/2003
Vendor
006246 LA QUINTA, CITY OF
000596 LEAGUE OF CALIF CITIES
003286 LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVICE
003726 LIFE ASSIST INC
004174 LIGHT IMPRESSIONS
006225 LYNCH ASSOCIATES
003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS
004141 MAINTEX INC
(Continued)
Description
League-Rvsd Division:5/12:R.Roberts
2003 CalPACS membership dues
Reimb VoL Recognition Lunch
Paramedic squad supplies: Fire
Amount Paid Check Total
Museum exhibition supplies
Refund: Security Deposit
30.00 30.00
100.00 100.00
1,500.00 1,500.00
352.49 352.49
004068 MANALILI, AILEEN
001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SER Temp help PPE 4/20 Dankworth
Temp help w/e 4/06 Ceballes
143.17 t43.17
100.00 100.00
Signs & hardware for PW Maint.
Constr. Notification Signs:R.C.Bridge
O.T. Pkg Lot A Custodial Supplies
West Wing Custodial Supplies
Senior Center Custodial Supplies
T.V. Museum Custodial Supplies
TCSD instructor earnings
306.01
172.40 478.41
463.81
266.31
202.39
71.60 1,004.11
336.00 336.00
1,523.08
550.13 2,073.21
000217 MARGARITA OFFICIALS ASSN
004929 MARK FISHER COMPANY, THE
006219 MARTINEZ, TERI
003448 MELODYS AD WORKS
003076 MET LIFE INSURANCE
003163 MINOLTA BUSINESS SYSTEMS excess meter billing:CRC copier
001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS Envelopes for CityClerk Dept
Business Cards:C. V~ahos
Apr Officiating Services
Full page ad:'03 Balloon/Wine Festival
Ref und:Sec. Deposit:4/26/03
Consulting Svcs: Western Days
Reimb exp: Bluegrass/Dixielaod
Metlife Payment
3,150.00 3,150.00
56~.40 562.4O
100.00 100.00
2,000.00
175.09 2,175.09
7,270.14 7,270.14
135.00 135.00
227.65
128.49 356.14
Page~
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7
05/08/2003 12:49:35PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
Check# Date
84041 05/08/2003
84042 05/08/2003
84043 05/08/2003
84044 05/08/2003
84045 05/08/2003
84046 05/08/2003
84047 05/08/2003
84048 05/08/2003
84049 05/08/2003
84050 05/08/2003
84051 05/08/2003
84052 05/08/2003
84053 05/08/2003
84054 05/08/2003
84055 05/08/2003
84056 05/08/2003
84057 05/08/2003
84058 05/08/2003
(Continued)
Vendor Description
004534 MOBILE SATELLITE VENTURES EOC stn sateltite phone svcs
004586 MOORE FENCE COMPANY Res Imp Prgm: Sotomayor, J & S
006137 MORRIS MAGNETS Promotional Items:Econ. Dev.
Promotional Items:Econ. Dev.
Credit:Sales Tax on Freight Chrgs
002292 OASIS VENDING City Hal[ Coffee/Kitchen Supplies
006248 PAYNE, JESSICA Reimb:Family Fun Night Supplies
001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PROG PERS Long Term Care Payment
004790 PETER D BRANDOW & ASSOCI
006238 PINAVO, LARRY
006216 PITKIN, DONAClANA
005886 PLUMBING SPECIALISTS INC.
000252 POLYCRAFT INC
000253 POSTMASTER
006084 POWER DISTRIBUTORS INC
005820 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES I
003155 PRICE CHOPPER INC
003493 PRO-CRAFT OVERHEAD DOOR
004519 PYRO SPECTACULARS INC
004029 R J M DESIGN GROUP INC
Reimbursables:SR 79S Sidewalk
Refund:Citation #1937
Refund:Sec. Deposit:4/12/03
Shower repair/maint svcs:Stn 84
City Seal Decals:PW
City Seal Vehicle Decals:Police
Express mail & postal svcs
Relocate light kits:Sprts Prk N/S Field
Retrofit light fixtures @ Sprts Prk
Prepaid Legal Services Payment
Wristbands for Aquatics prgms
Res Imprv Prgm: Watson, Mark
Res Imprv Prgm: Watson, Mark
deposit:fireworks display:July 4th
Feb dsgn svcs:W.C. Sports Complex
Amount Paid
70.82
2,958.00
4,432.76
1,487.92
-7.34
291.92
62.62
227.08
50.09
50.00
100.00
185.00
835.87
108.94
188.85
6,000.00
3,662.00
143.55
580.00
595.00
245.00
12,500.00
5,713.84
Check Total
70.82
2,958.00
5,913.34
291.92
62.62
227.08
50.09
50.00
100.00
185.00
944.81
188.85
9,662.00
143.55
580.00
840.00
12,500.00
5,713.84
Page~
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8
05/08/2003 12:49:35PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
Check # Date Vendor
84059 05/08/2003 005332 RAHN, WILLIAM
84060 05/08/2003 006228 REED, TINA
84061 05/08/2003 004584 REGENCY LIGHTING
(Continued)
Description
Reimb:Every 15 Min. Prgm.
Refund:Sports-Kids Love Soccer
CRC electrical supplies
Var. parks electrical supplies
84062 05/08/2003 003591 RENES COMMERCIAL MANAGE Clean Rancho Calif. Bridge
006235 REYNOLDS, SANDRA
000353 RIVERSIDE CO AUDITOR
000418 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK &
000418 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK &
000267 RIVERSIDE CO FIRE
84063 05/08/2003
84064 05108/2003
84065 05/08/2003
84066 05/08/2003
84067 05/08/2003
84068 05/08/2003
84069 05/08/2003
84070 05/08/2003
84071 05/08/2003
84072 05/08/2003
84073 05/08/2003
84074 05/08/2003
84075 05/08/2003
000268 RIVERSIDE CO HABITAT
004773 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS
000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEP
003587 RIZZO CONSTRUCTION INC
006220 RODRIGUEZ, ALICIA
006211 RUIZ, HECTOR
006227 RUSH, BRANDI
002226 RUSSO, MARY ANNE
Refund:Citation #1933
Mar '03 parking citation assessments
Ntc/Determination:Pechanga Pkwy Ph
Ntc/Exemption Fee:Sprts Prk ADA Acc
Firefighter-1 Basic Academy:6/2-11/03
Firefighter-I Basic Academy:6/2-11/03
Firefighter-1 Basic Academy:6/2-11/63
Firefighter-1 Basic Academy:6/2-11/03
Firefighter-1 Basic Academy:6/2-11/03
Firefighter-1 Basic Academy:6/2-11/03
April 2003 K-Rat Payment
Mamh 2003 Booking Fees
2/6-3/5/03:1aw enfomement
Construction CosLs:Data Room
Refund:Picnic Shelter:5/11/03
Refund:Penmit:31839 Carnie Chamb.
Refund:Sports-Multi-Sport
TCSD instructor earnings
Amount Paid
111.00
47.50
249.12
236.51
300.00
50.66
1,957.00
914.00
64.60
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
1,705.00
91825.60
720,688.55
14,923.00
50.00
Check Total
111.00
47.50
485.63
300.00
50.00
1,957.00
914.00
64.60
240.00
1,705.00
9,825.60
720,688.55
14,923.00
50.00
35.20
44.00
728.00
Page~
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9
05108/2003 12:49:35PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
Check # Date Vendor
84076 05/08/2003 005227 SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF
84077 05/08/2003
84078 05/08/2003
84079 05/08/2003
84080 05/08/2003
84081 05/08/2003
84082 05~08/2003
84083 05~08/2003
84084 05/08/2003
84085 05/08/2003
84086 05/08/2003
84087 05/08/2003
84088 05/08/2003
84089 05/08/2003
84090 05/08/2003
84091 05/08/2003
84092 05/08/2003
006229 SELDERS, KARLA MARIE
006236 SMITH, SALLY
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
002503 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY
(Continued)
Description
Support Payment
Refund:Ci~tion #0035
Refund:Citation #2225
000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST
various electric meters
I:WV various electric meters
Apr various electric meters
permit for emerg, generator @ CRC
emissions fee:emerg, gen. @ CRC
Pest Control Srvcs: Maint Fac.
004420 STATE COMP INSURANCE FUN Apr workers' comp premium
006240 STEWART, MIKE
003840 STRONGS PAINTING
003599 TY LIN iNTERNATIONAL
000305 TARGET STORE
001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL911
003673 TECH 101 ARCUS INC
000309 TEMECULA COPIERS
Refund:Citation #0320
Maint. to wrought iron fence:CRC pool
Mar dsgn svcs:R.C. Bridge Widening
Volunteer Recognition Supplies
Union Dues Payment
Misc Computer Supplies
G3 fax board:Canon copiers:W. Wing
001672 TEMECULA DRAIN SERV & PLU 6th St. Restrcom Plumbing Svcs
000168 TEMECULA FLOWER CORRAL Sunshine Fund
003677 TEMECULA MOTORSPORTS LL P.D. motomycle repair/maint svcs
P.D. motorcycle repair/maint svcs
P.D. motorcycle repair/maint svcs
Amount Paid
107.00
50.00
50.00
4,052.31
710.17
379.83
195.89
75.00
40.00
30,998.50
50.00
4,500.00
3,229.64
5.38
3,286.00
553.85
2,417.91
65.00
204.45
943.34
74.29
23.04
Check Total
107.00
50.00
50.00
5,142.31
270.89
40.00
30,998.50
50.00
4,500.00
3,229.64
5.38
3,286.00
553.85
2,417.91
65.00
204.45
1,040.67
Page9
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10
05/08/2003 12:49:35PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
Check# Date
84093 05/08/2003
(Continued)
Vendor Description
004541 TEMECULA RADIATOR/AUTO R Fire Prev. vehicle repair/maint svcs
84094 05/08/2003 000307 TEMECULATROPHYCOMPAN RecognitionPlaque:DuaneWeisner
Nameplates:Tyler/Childs
84095 05/08/2003 004274 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY Meadows Park locksmith svcs
84096 05/08/2003 004875 TEMECULAVALLEYTIME MAC
84097 05/08/2003 003849 TERRYBERRY COMPANY
84098 05/08/2003 004963 TEXAS INDUSTRIAL
84099 05/08/2003 004895 TUMBLES, J.W.
84100 05/08/2003
84101 05/08/2003
84102 05/08/2003
84103 05/08/2003
84104 05/08/2003
84105 05/08/2003
84106 05/08/2003
84107 05/08/2003
84108 05/08/2003
84109 05/08/2003
005592 TWINING LABORATORIES
004486 UNION 75
004981 UNISOURCE SCREENING &
000325 UNITED WAY
004819 UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERI
004504 VAIL RANCH SELF STORAGE
006224 VALENZUELA, VICKI
000332 VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATE
004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA
004480 WALDEN DAHL
City Hall Locksmith Svcs
12 duplicate keys for P.D.
TCSD Instructor Earnings
ee service recogn, awards
Mobile 911 Keyboards for Laptops
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
Mar Svcs:Memantile Seismic Retrofit
City vehicle fuel usage
Apr 16-30 background screening svcs
United Way Charities Payment
Longterm Disability Payment
May Off-Site Storage:Records Mgmt
Refund:Sec. Deposit/Room Rental
Apr plan check svcs:B&S dept.
Apr xxx-1408 P.D. Satellite Stn
Sound System:Bluegrass Festival
Amount Paid
689.68
328.37
24.24
166.51
77.04
58.19
1,216.00
48.58
1,194.00
384.00
128.00
128.00
128.00
2,036.32
62.85
392.00
318.30
6,318.38
30.09
180.00
388.63
2,000.00
CheckTotal
689.68
352.61
301.74
1,216.00
48.58
1,194.00
768.00
2,036.32
62.85
392.00
318.30
6,318.38
30.00
180.00
4,090.60
388.63
2,000.00
Page:10
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 11
05/08/2003 12:49:35PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
Check # Date Vendor
84110 05/08/2003 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC
84111 05/08/2003
84112 05/08/2003
84113 05/08/2003
84114 05/08/2003
84115 05/08/2003
84116 05/08/2003
003730 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC
004829 WILSON GROUP LLC, THE
006249 WINDOWS & .NET MAGAZINE
005869 YMCA
006218 YOUNG, R.E.
(Continued)
Description
CRC Custodial Supplies
Citywide Tree Trimming Maint Svcs
May Legislative Lobby/Consult Svcs
renew subscription:l.S, dept
YMCA Fundraisen S. Pratt:5/03/03
Refund:Sec. Deposit:4/23/03
Amount Paid Check Total
003776 ZOLLMEDICALCORPORATION Paramedic Supplies
Sub total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA:
164.08 164.08
30,80 30.80
3,500,00 3,500.00
49,95 49.95
75.00 75.00
100.00 100.00
762.71 762.71
1,221,101.87
Page:11
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1
05/15/2003 10:19:44AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
Check # Date Vendor
122 05/14/2003 000166 FIRSTAMERICANTITLE
84117 05/15/2003 001985 A E P (ASSOC OF ENVIRO
84118 05/15/2003 002038 ACTION POOL & SPA SUPPLY
84119 05/15/2003 001916 ALBERTAWEBBASSOCIATES
84120 05/15/2003 004169 ANAHEIM ORANGE COUNTY V
Description
Amount Paid
RC Rd Widening APN 921-320-009
60,150.00
100.00
Membership: Thomas Thomsley
Pool sanitizing chemicals
Depst credit on Pool chemicals cases
02-03 Adm CFD 88-12 Prof Svcs
02-03 Sales Tax Reimb CFD88-12
Annual membemhip: Gloria Wolnick
107.24
-30.00
1,500.00
1,500.00
579.00
84121
84122 05/15/2003
84123 05/15/2003
84124 05/15/2003
84125 05/15/2003
84126 05/15/2003
84127 05/15/2003
84128 05/15/2003
84129 05/15/2003
84130 05/15/2003
84131 05/15/2003
84132 05/15/2003
05/15/2003 002187 ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE VALL April animalcontml services
000101 APPLE ONE, INC.
000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGERA
002541 BECKER CONSTRUCTION SRV
005055 BROWN, STEVE
003138 CAL MAT
000413 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
006276 CALIF RESOURCE RECOVERY
002543 CALIF STATE WATER
002543 CALIF STATE WATER
004228 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY
006075 CAMPBELL, KENTON SCOTT
Temp help PPE 04/26/03 Delarm
Temp help PPE 04/26/03 Atkinson
Instal] two floodlights @ Stn 92
Install NC outlet: Old Twn Sound Room
R&R Iow pressure switch: TCC
Remove slit & debds from Channel
Citywide AC Saw Cuffing for PW
Repair Catch Basin 1st & Front Str
Reimb: 4 digital camera cases
PW patch truck materials
Streambed agrmnt fee:Comm Theater
CRRA Conf: 7/20-23/Smith
NOI Fee: Comm Theater Pdt
initial Fee: Comm Theater Prjt
Helium tanks rafill:TCSD
TCSD instructor earnings
6,362.69
624.00
429.00
475.00
285.00
237.00
2,835.00
2,340.00
400.00
236.83
1,598.20
1,390.50
515.00
700.00
500.00
27.50
400.00
Check Total
60,150.00
100.00
77.24
3,000.00
579.00
6,362.69
1,053.00
997.00
5,575.00
236.83
1,596.20
1,390.50
515.00
700.00
500.00
27.50
400.00
Page:l
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2
05/15/2003 10:19:44AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
Check # Date Vendor
84133 05/15/2003
84134 05/15/2003
84135 05/15/2003
84136 05/15/2003
84137 05/15/2003
84138 05/15/2003
84139 05/15/2003
84140 05/15/2003
84141 05/15/2003
84142 05/15/2003
84143 05/15/2003
84144 05/15/2003
004093 CARDIO CARE PLUS
002534 CATERERS CAFE
005417 CINTAS FIRSTAID & SAFETY
001193 COMP U S A INC
006277 CORONA FAMILY LTD PARTNE
001320 CROWE-PELLETIER, JULIE
006274 CUEVAS, FIDEL
002701 DIVERSIFIED RISK
006270 DIVICENZO, ALLEN
001689 DUNN EDWARDSCORPORATI
004799 E C S IMAGING INC
(Continued)
Description
TCSD instructor earnings
Refreshments: Prevention Mtg @ Stn
Refreshments: Prevention Luncheon
Refreshments: Permits Plus Mtg
First Aid supplies:TCSD
Ac power adapters:Code Enfome
Misc. Computer Supplies: IS
Refund: Approved Special Tax Appeal
Reimb:CPRS Conf:3/19-23/03
Refund: Citation No. 0041
Apr special events premiums
Refund: Citation No. 2098
Supplies for graffiti removal
LaserFiche annual svc Contract
001380 ESIEMPLOYMENTSERVICES TemphelpPPE05/02/03Cammarota
84145 05/15/2003 004974 EN POINTETECHNOLOGIES
84146 05/15/2003 002037 EXPANETS
84147 05/15/2003 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC
84148 05/15/2003 000166 FIRSTAMERICANTITLE
84149 05/15/2003 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER
Temp help PPE 05/02/03 Jones
Laptop accessories: Fire Dept
Repair/mntc city hall telephone equip
Express mail services
Lot Book Repod: Menchaca
Lot Book Report: Christen
xx-6165 Yates:Fire Cf Fee/Prof Mtg/Mi
xx-7824 Comemhero:SW/Military day
xx-1143 Parker:Airline tickets MNPR
xx-0432 Elmo:IAPMO Book/Prof Mtg
Amount Paid
409.60
72.34
67.95
14.01
398.68
207.25
207.25
3,818.46
127.21
50.00
1,258.79
50.00
267.91
14,073.59
978.51
880.74
814.60
96.00
125.96
150.00
150.00
1,165.30
795.00
613.22
107.18
Check Total
409.60
154.30
398.68
414.50
3,818.46
127.21
50.00
1,258.79
50.00
267,91
14,073.59
1,859.25
814.60
96.00
125.96
300.00
2,680.70
Page2
apChkl.st Final Check List Page: 3
05/15/2003 10:19:44AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
Check # Date Vendor
84150 05/15/2003 004239 FISHER MERRIMAN SEHGAL
84151 05/15/2003 001989 FOX NETWORK SYSTEMS INC
84152 05/15/2003 006261 FRISBEE, BRYCE
84153 05/15/2003 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS
84154 05/15/2003 005905 GLOBAL ROAD SEALING INC
84155 05/15/2003 005947 GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT
84156 05/15/2003 006123 GRAFIX SHOP, THE
84157 05/15/2003 003640 GRAYNER ENGINEERING
84158 05/15/2003 005157 GUERRIERO, RON
84159 05/15/2003 005968 GYMBOREE PLAY & MUSIC
84160 05/15/2003 000520 H D L COREN & CONE INC-
84161 05/15/2003 005311 H20 CERTIFIED POOLWATER
84162 05/15/2003 004053 HABITATWESTINC
84163 05/15/2003 000871 HILTON
84164 05/15/2003
(Continued)
Description
Architectural design: comm. Theater
Digital Switch for Data Room
Refund: Tiny Tots-Creative Beg
Office Supplies: IS
Office Supplies: Fire Dept
Office Supplies: City Mgr
Office Supplies: Bldg & Safety
Office Supplies: Copy Center
Office Supplies: Records Mgmt
Office Supplies: Eco Devel
Office Supplies: HR
Office Supplies: Finance
Office Supplies: RDA
Asphalt Crackfill Prjt: Various Streets
Asphalt Cmckfil] Prjt: Various Str CO 1
10% Retention: Asphalt Crack Prjt
Express Mail Service: Fire/Eco Devel
Civil Eng drafter software: PW
Professional Svs: Children's Museum
Reimb:APA 03 Nat'l Conf:3/28-4/01/03
TCSD instructor earnings
Apr-Jun Property Tax Consulting Svcs
CRC - Swimming Pool Mntc Svcs
Lg Cyn Detention Basin: Mntc agrmnt
Htl:Prev 2A Class: Fire Staff:31583481
001013 HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS & AS 4~hQtrSalesTaxAnalysis/FinderFee
Amount Paid
9,450.00
13,897.60
30.00
1,394.30
1,084.57
1,045.10
1,013.87
293.45
277.14
91.24
62.39
57.92
56.77
77,600.00
6,359.00
-7,760.00
48.97
300.00
230.00
801.57
144.00
2,400.00
1,200.00
761.66
724.30
5,635.39
Check Total
9,450.00
13,897.60
30.00
5,376.75
76,199.00
48.97
300.00
230.00
801.57
144.00
2,400.00
1,200.00
761.66
724.30
5,635.39
Page3
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4
05/15/2003 10:19:44AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
Check # Date Vendor
84165 05/15/2003 003198 HOME DEPOT, THE
84166 05/15/2003
84167 05/15/2003
84168 05/15/2003
84169 05/15/2003
84170 05/15/2003
84171 05/15/2003
84172 05/15/2003
84173 05/15/2003
84174 05/15/2003
84175 05/15/2003
84176 05/15/2003
84177 05/15/2003
84178 05/15/2003
84179 05/15/2003
84180 05/15/2003
84181 05/15/2003
84182 05/15/2003
006267 HYLTON, AMY
000193 ICMA
003296 INTERNATIONAL CODE
003266 IRON MOUNTAIN OFFSITE
001186 IRWiN, JOHN
000820 K R W & ASSOCIATES
006272 KEARNS, WILLIAM
(Continued)
Description
Tools & Supplies for Fire Prevention
Refund:Picnic Shelter
Membemhip: Shawn Nelson 265746
Membership: James B O'Grady 1633
000193 I C M A 2003 Muni Year Book: City Mgr
001123 INDUSTRIAL DISTRIBUTION GR Maint Supplies for Public Works
004219 INDUSTRIAL DISTRIBUTiON GR Maint Supplies for Public Works
001573 INLAND EMPIRE TOURISM Co-op ad: 2004 Official CA Visitors
001517 INTEGRATED INSIGHTS DBA: H Employee Assistance Program
2001 Calif Fire & BIdg Code Manuals
2001 Calif Fire & BIdg Code Manuals
Records mgmt microfilm storage unit
TCSD instructor earnings
Engineering Plan Check Svcs: PW
Refund:Citation No, 0258
003986 KEVIN COZAD & ASSOCIATES I Engineering Svs: Corem Theater
001091 KEYS E R MARSTON ASSOCIAT
001282 KNORR SYSTEMS INC
001085 L N CURTIS & SONS
003286 LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVICE Apr svcs-library system agrmt
Apr svcs-library system agrmt
Consultant Svs: Comm Theater
Surveying Svcs: Diaz Realignment
Prof Svcs: Affordable Housing Prjt
Relay board parts: CRC pool
Pool sanitizing chemicals supplies
Fire Truck gas detector mntc
Amount Paid
516.65
25.00
1,255.97
1,176.61
101.03
332.17
409.21
4,589.92
674.31
1,330.41
272.06
372.50
108.00
4,560.00
50.00
4,800.00
3,100.00
1,480.00
3,693.75
998.34
157.06
287.89
10,317.17
979.09
Check Total
516.65
25.00
2,432.58
101.03
332.17
409.21
4,589.92
674.31
1,602.47
372.50
108.00
4,560.00
50.00
9,380.00
3,693.75
1,155.40
287.89
11,296.26
Page~
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5
05/15/2003 10:19:44AM CiTY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
Check # Date Vendor
84183 05/15/2003 003726 LIFE ASSIST INC
84184 05/15/2003
84185 05/15/2003
84186 06/15/2003
84187 05/15/2003
84188 05/15/2003
84189 05/15/2003
84190 05/15/2003
84191 05/15/2003
84192 05/15/2003
84193 05/15/2003
84194 05/15/2003
84195 05/15/2003
84196 05/15/2003
84197 05/15/2003
84198 05/15/2003
84199 05/15/2003
006278 LIONSGATE
006256 LOS AMIGOS
004087 LOWE'S
004697 LOWES HIW INC
000394 MAINTENANCE
001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SER
005565 MCSI MEDIA CONSULTANTS
001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS
000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING
004128 MORAMARCO, ANTHONY J.
001986 MUZAK INC
002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES- ATTN:
006281 NORTH NET FIRE TRAINING C
006281 NORTH NET FIRE TRAINING C
006281 NORTH NET FIRE TRAINING C
(Continued)
Description
Paramedic squad supplies: Fire
Htl:Public Safety Tmg:6/2-6:Ridley
Entertainment; Cinco De Mayo
Misc hardware supplies: TCSD
Misc hardware supplies:Fire
Renew membemhips:B.H./B.B./R.W.
Temp help w/e 4/13 Ceballes
City Hall Traffic Mgmt Center prat
Credit:install not 100% complete
Envelopes for Tern. Museum
Clean various channels & ponds
TCSD instructor earnings
O. T. sound system repair/maint svcs
Military Dependent Support Day Ads
Apr recruitment ads:H.R, dept
Apr constr, update ads
Rescue Systems I: 9/8-12/03:Young
Rescue Systems I: 9/8-12/03:Longmore
Rescue Systems I: 9/8-12J03: Gutierre
003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS Office Supplies for Planning
Scanner for PW CIP Division
Amount Paid
52.92
316.00
450.00
347.28
731.44
120.00
364.50
28,682.46
-5,000.00
186.94
21,500.00
270.00
675.00
2,390.35
836.02
782.31
250.00
250.00
250.00
344.62
107.18
Check Total
52.92
316.00
450.00
347.28
731.44
120.00
364.50
23,682.46
186.94
21,500.00
270.00
675.00
4,008.68
250.00
250.00
250.00
451.20
Page5
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6
05/15/2003 10:19:44AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description
84200 05/15/2003 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
84201 05/15/2003 006269 OTTO, TAMMY
84202 05/15/2003 006073 PAPP, EMERY
84203 05/15/2003 004805 PEACOCK ENTERPRISES INC
84204 05/15/2003 003218 PELA
84205 05/15/2003 000249 PETFY CASH
City vehicle maint/repair svcs: CH
City vehicle maint/repair svcs: PW
City vehicle maint/repair svcs: PW
City vehicle maint/repair svcs: B&S
Refund: Citation No. 0234
Reimb: APA '03 Conf:3/28-4/01
Replacement printers for various dept
Apr Idscp plan ck svcs: 79S sidewalks
Petty cash reimbursement
84206 05/15/2003 000580 PHOTO WORKS OF TEMECULA Apr film/photo development: TCSD
84207 05/15/2003 006264 POWELL, ROBERT
Refund permit: 30585 Colina Verde
84208 05/15/2003
84209 05/15/2003
84210 05/15/2003
000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN Apr recruitment ads:H.R, dept
Apr legal notices:City Clerk
Apr legal notices:City Clerk
003697 PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTAN Feb Eng Svcs:Jefferson Ave Ph 2
Mar Survey Svcs:Jefferson/Winch.
Credit; reimb, expenses exceed agrmnt
000635 R & J PARTY PALACE Equip rental: Dixieland: 4/12-13
84211 05/15/2003 004318 R J BULLARDCONSTRUCTION Apr prgspmt:PechangaSoundwall
84212 05/15/2003
84213 05/15/2003
000728 RAMSEY BACKFLOW & PLUMB
000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST
Testing/repairs:backflow devices: slope
Testing/repair:backfiow devices: parks
Testing/repair:backflow devices: Medians
Testing/repair:backf]ow devices: parks
Testing/mpa[r:backfiow devices: slopes
Various water meters
Apr various water meters
Apr 01-02-02001-0 CRC
Apr various water meters
Apr various water meters
Amount Paid
156.83
150.12
141.36
109.41
50.00
248.93
5,279.75
215.00
272.22
49.57
30.00
3,059.14
915.90
587.45
15,932.40
7,115.00
-3,216.40
1,415.10
182,925.00
1,459.00
1,256.00
322.00
126.00
126.00
17,371.10
1,191.94
366.58
365.63
90.27
Check Total
557.72
50.00
248.93
5,279.75
215.00
272.22
49.57
30.00
4,562.49
19,831.00
1,415.10
182,928.00
3,289.00
19,385.52
Pages
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7
- 05/15/2003 10:19:44AM CITY OFTEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
Check # Date Vendor
84214 05/15/2003 003761 RANCHO METALS & SUPPLY
84215 05/15/2003
84216 05/15/2003
84217 05/15/2003
84218 05/15/2003
84219 05/15/2003
84220 05/15/2003
84221 05/15/2003
0O6282 RCLEAA
004584 REGENCY LIGHTING
(Continued)
Description
metal supplies for var. parks
annual membership dues:J. Domenoe
round base cover for lights
Old Town electrical supplies
Old Town electrical supplies
000525 REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF Revised review for PA02-0145
003591 RENES COMMERCIAL MANAGE Citywide R-O-W's weed spraying svcs
002412 RICHARDS WATSON &
000411 RIVERSIDE CO FLOOD
000357 RIVERSIDE CO
84222 05/15/2003 001365 RIVERSIDE COUNTY OF
84223 05/15/2003 001097 ROADLINE PRODUCTS INC
84224 05/15/2003 000271 ROBERT BEIN WM FROST & A
84225 05/15/2003 003001 ROSS FENCE INC.
84226 05/15/2003 006268 RUBALCAVA, JOSEPH
84227 05/15/2003 004598 S T K ARCHITECTURE INC
Mar 2003 legal services
encroachment permit:Murdeta Crk
3rd qtr traf sgnl/light maint svcs
renew pen'~it:Temeku Hills Park
parts for stencil truck PW Maint
parts for stencil truck:PVV Maint
Credit:item returned
Mar svcs:l-15/79S/Santiago Rd.
Res imp Prgm: Comstock
Refund:Picnic Shelter:5/10/03
Apr dsgn svcs:Rodpaugh Fire Sin
Credit:reimb.expenses exceed agrmnt
84228 05/15/2003 006280 SACRAMENTO REGIONAL PUB Reserve Coordinator Course:6/3-5
84229 05/15/2003 005944 SALING, SHANTASA TCSD Instructor Earnings
84230 05/15/2003 000278 SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE Apr recruitment ads:H.R. Dept
Amount Paid
37.71
50.00
180.48
171.43
139.26
45.00
6,950.00
97,495.75
500.00
33,465.00
73.00
769.10
133.37
-199.58
6,057.27
3,176.00
45.00
24,744.76
-111.14
20.00
144.00
855.24
Check Total
37.71
50.00
491.17
45.00
6,950.00
97,495.75
500.00
33,465.00
73.00
702.89
6,057.27
3,176.00
45.00
24.633.62
20.00
144.00
855.24
Paget
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8
05/15/2003 10:19:44AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
Check # Date Vendor
84231 05/15/2003 000537 SO CALIF EDISON
84232 05/15/2003
84233 05/15/2003
84234 05/15/2003
84235 05/15/2003
84236 05/15/2003
84237 05/15/2003
84238 05/15/2003
84239 05/15/2003
84240 05/15/2003
84241 05/15/2003
001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY
006047 SOUND TECHNOLOGY
000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST
000293 STADIUM PIZZA
005906 STANDIFIRD, SHIRLEY
006145 STENO SOLOUTIONS
003840 STRONGS PAINTING
006271 TAIPALE, CHRISTA
000305 TARGET STORE
003673 TECH 101 ARCUS INC
(Continued)
Description
May 2-10-331-1353 Stn 84
May 2-23-548-1975 various mtrs
May various electric meters
May various electric meters
May 095-167-7907-2 Stn 84
Consultant Svcs:C.C. Audio Room
Pest Control Svcs for Stn 84
Pest Control Svcs for Stn 92
Refreshments: Nat'l PW Week 5/20
TCSD Instructor Earnings
Transcription Svcs:Temecula Police
O. T. restroom bldg roof maint svcs
Refund:Citation No. 1931
Office Supplies - PW Dept
Volunteer recogn, supplies
Computer Workstation: Medic Stn 84
Computer workstation @ Stn 84
Printer Plus:DVD labels:Council
84242 05/15/2003 005985 TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION G Printer Cartridges supplies
On-site software support svcs
84243 05/15/2003 001672 TEMECULA DRAIN SERV & PLU CRC plumbing svcs
84244 05/15/2003 004541 TEMECULA RADIATOR/AUTO R Repair/maint to Fire vehicle
Repair/maint to Fire Prev. vehicle
84245 05/15/2003 000515 TEMECULAVALLEYCHAMBER 4thqtrprntFY02/03sponsorship
84246 05/15/2003 000306 TEMECULA VALLEY PIPE & SU Apr var. irrigation supplies
84247 05/15/2003 003140 TEMECULA VALLEY TAEKWON TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
Amount Paid
969.85
29.97
59,678.11
81118.35
156.10
2,542.00
80.00
42.00
202.06
234.00
2,424.64
2,400.00
50.00
415.16
31.34
1,242.68
1,242.68
516.81
158.54
100.00
65.00
639,28
611.62
37,000.00
19.57
60.00
40.00
Check Total
68,796.28
156.10
2,542.00
122.00
202.06
234.00
2,424.64
2,400.00
50.00
446.50
3,002.17
258.54
65.00
1,250~90
37,000.00
19.57
100.00
Pages
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9
05/15/2003 10:19:44AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
Check # Date Vendor
84248 05/15/2003 004030 TEMECULA VOLUNTEER FIRE
84249 05/15/2003 006275 THORNSLEY, THOMAS
84250 05/15/2003 005937 TOMCZAK, MARIA, T.
84251 05/15/2003 002452 TOP LINE INDUSTRIAL
84252 05/15/2003 000320 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS
(Continued)
Description
Amount Paid
Reimbursement of operating expense 1,398.46
Reimb:APA '03 Conf:3/28-4/01 179.93
TCSD Instructor Earnings 24.00
Hoses/fitting supplies for PW Maint 10.62
Hoses/fitting supplies for PW Maint 3.60
Office supplies for Land Dev 620.84
84253 05/15/2003 000332 VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATE Feb application dev svcs:Planning
Jan application der svcs:Planning
Oct application dev. svcs:B&S
Mar application dev. svcs:Planning
I.S. dept application dev svcs
84254 05/15/2003 006262 VERGARA, ALEX Refund:Arts/Crafts-Cartooning
84255 05/15/2003 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA May various local phone svcs
Apr xxx-9897 general usage
84256 05/15/2003 004789 VERIZON INTERNE-I- SOLUTION Phone svcs/EOC backup @ stn 84
84257 05/15/2003 006265 WEBSTER, STEVE Refund:Day Camp
84258 05/15/2003 000339 WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY I Apr City Hall legal publications
84259 05/15/2003 006263 WILLIAMS, JOHN
84260 05/15/2003 006273 WILSON, PAMELA
84261 05/15/2003 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLIN
5,940.00
4,275.00
3,420.00
750.00
540.00
7.50
1,188.28
89.42
69.95
73.00
226.50
Refund:Eng.deposit:31755 R.Vista Rd 995.00
Refund:Citation No. 0287 50.00
fax toner supplies 300.63
Sub total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA:
CheckTo~l
1,398.46
179.93
24.00
14.22
620.84
14,925.00
7.50
1,277.70
69.95
73.00
226.50
995.00
50.00
300.63
874,939.75
Page9
ITEM 3
APPROVAL ~"'
CITY ~
FINANCE DIRECTOR~:~__~_
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City ManagedCity Council
Genie Roberts, Director of Finance
May 27, 2003
Financial Statements for the Nine Months Ended March 31,2003
PREPARED BY:
Karen Jester, Assistant Finance Director
Pascale Brown, Senior Accountant
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the Financial Statements
for the Nine Months Ended March 31,2003.
DISCUSSION: The attached financial statements reflect the unaudited activityof the
City for the nine months ended March 31,2003. Please see the attached financial statements for an
analytical review of financial activity.
FISCALIMPACT:
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Combining Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2003
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the
Nine Months Ended March 31, 2003 Combining Balance Sheet (Internal Service
Funds) as of March 31,2003
Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings (Internal
Service Funds) for the Nine Months Ended March 31,2003
Combining Balance Sheet (Community Facilities Districts) as of March 31,2003
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
(Community Facilities Districts) for the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2003
CITY OF TEMECULA
Combining Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2003 and
the
Statements of Revenues, Expenditures and
Changes in Fund Balance
For The Nine Months Ended
March 31, 2003
And the
Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes
In Retained Earnings
For The Nine Months Ended
March 31,2003
(Unaudited)
Prepared by the Finance Department
City of Temecula
Combining Balance Sheet
As of March 31, 2003
Assets:
Cash and investments
Receivables
Due from other funds
Advances to other funds
Deposits
Land held for resale
Total assets
Liabilities and fund balances:
Liabilities:
Due to other funds
Other current liabilities
Deferred revenue
Total liabilities
General Gas Tax State Trans Dev Impact CDBG
Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund
$ 23,359,386 $ $ 10,307,587
1,147,781 $ 355 182 49,980
3,517,041 106,889 $
3,387,435
35,016
530,401
$ 31,977,060 $ 107,244 $ 182 $ 10,357,567 $
17,434
5,595,297
570,758 $ 69,971
6,183,489 69,971
Fund balances:
Reserved
Designated
Undesignated
Total fund balances
Total liabilities
and fund balances
$
25,793,571
$ 107,244 $ 182 10,287,596
25,793,571 107,244 i82 10,287,596
$ 31,977,060 $
107,244 $ 182 $ 10,357,567 $
Please note thatthese balances are unaudited
City of Temecula
Combining Balance Sheet
As of March 31, 2003
Assets:
Cash and investments
Receivables
Due from other funds
Advances to other funds
Deposits
Land held tbr resale
Total assets
Liabilities and fund balances:
Liabilities:
Due to other funds
Other current liabilities
Del~rred revenue
Total liabilities
AB 2766 AB3229 Measure A CIP
Fund Fund Fund Fund Total
165,733 $ $ 1,606,260 $ 23,558,140 $ 58,997,106
704 445 14,256 378,395 1,592,098
17,100 14,117 958,081 4,613,228
3,387,435
35,016
530,401
183,537.$
445 $ 1,634,633 $ 24,894,616 $ 69,155,284
$ 1,946,500 $ 1,963,934
329,013 5,924,310
640,729
2,275,513 8,528,973
Fund balances:
Reserved
Designated
Undesignated
Total fund balances
Total liabilities
and fund balances
183,537 445 1,634,633 12,213,637
22,619,103 48,412,674
183,537 445 1,634,633 22,619,103 60,626,311
183,537 $
445 $ 1,634,633 $ 24,894,616 $ 69,155,284
Please note that these balances are unaudited
City of Temecula
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
General Fund
For the Nine Months Ended Marchr 31, 2003
Annual
Amended YTD Pement
Budget Activit~ of Budget
Sales tax $ 21,100,000 $ I5,977,738 76%
Developmental services:
Planning 569,420 377,049 66%
Building & Safety 1,402,000 1,374,320 98%
Land Development 1,304,890 1,1 i0,001 85%
Fire 220,000 180,397 82%
Grants 115,000 126,665 110%
Motor vehicle in lieu 3,438,300 3,177,512 92%
Property tax 2,474,850 1,485,857 60%
Property transfer tax 415,200 381,758 92%
Franchise fees 1,954,000 1,001,057 51%
Transient occupancy tax 1,585,000 1,164,404 73%
Reimbursements 285,700 256,147 90%
Reimbursements from TCSD 162,000 121,500 75%
Reimbursements from RDA 225,000 168,750 75%
Reimbursements from CIP 1,503,360 824,140 55%
Investment interest 646,000 453,392 70%
Business licenses 205,000 240,787 117%
Vehicle code fines 432,300 524,073 121%
Miscellaneous 72,500 127,952 176%
Parking citations/impound fees 73,000 44,740 61%
Operating transfers in 1,509,000 1,079,315 72%
Total Revenues $ 39,692,520 $ 30,197,554 76%
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
City of Temecula
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
General Fund
For the Nine Months Ended Marchr 31, 2003
Expenditures:
Amended YTD
Budget Activity
YTD
Activity
+ Encumbr
City Council $ 395,400 $ 311,046 $ 2,163 $ 313,209
Community Support 436,500 323,383 65,754 389,137
City Manager 844,390 590,299 30,969 621,268
Economic Development 808,175 554,328 57,764 612~092
City Clerk 827,740 541,526 6,896 548,422
City Attorney 790,000 617,556 617,556
Finance 1,507,676 1,007,362 105,060 1,112.422
Human Resources 463,158 315,591 43,995 359,586
Planning 3,166.605 2.080.586 239~400 2,319~986
Building & Salary 2,189,473 1,463,453 92,272 1,555,725
Land Development 1,603,658 990,935 26,260 1,017,195
Public Works 5,079,267 2,775,670 462,833 3,238,503
CIP Admin 1,895,776 1,277,352 17,348 1,294,700
Police 9,981,210 6,514,421 58,351 6,572,772
Fire 3,791,703 2,630,154 38,077 2,668,231
Animal Control 102,500 66,355 66,355
Non-departmental 4,973,835 3,775,273 3,775,273
Total Expenditures (Excluding Transfers)
Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures
Operating Transfers Out
Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures
and Operating Transfers
Beginning Fund Balance, July I. 2002
Ending Fund Balance. March 31,2003
Percent
of Budget
79%
89%
74%
76%
66%
78%
74%
78%
73%
71%
63%
64%
68%
66%
70%
65%
76%
(1,405,346) 2,232.264
23,561,307 23,561,307
22,155,961 $ 25,793,571
(1) The variance is due to several development plan reviews that have not been collected yet.
(2) The variance is due to several grants (Trees for the Millenium, Office of Traffic Safety,
California Law Enforcement Equipment Program) received this quarter.
(3) The second portion of property taxes payment is scheduled to received by the end of May of this fiscal year.
(4) The variance is due to the first quarter payment from Edison and CR&R payment received in April of this fiscal year.
(5) The variance is due a decreasing cost recovery for CIP Admin Charges from various capital projects.
(6) The variance is due to several unexpected late renewals of Business License.
(7) The variance is due to higher than anticipated Vehicle Code fines (Booking, Criminal, Traffic, etc.) for the year.
(8) The variance is due to legal cost recovery related to settlement of a development project with the County.
835,454 4,362.264
2,240,800 2,130,000
38,857,066 25,835,290 1,247,142 27,082,432 70%
City of Temecula
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
Gas Tax Fund
For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2003
Section 2105-2107
Investment interest
Total Revenues
Expenditures:
Operating transfers out
Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures
Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2002
Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2003
Annual
Amended YTD
Budget Activity
1,372,500 $ 1,042,958
6,500 2,453
1,379,000 1,045,41 l
1,379,000 938,167
107,244
$ 107,244
Encumbr.
Total
Activity
$ 1,042,958
2,453
1,045,411
938,167
of Budget
76%
38% (I)
76%
68%
(I) Investment interest rate is lower than expected this year.
City of Temecula
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
State Transportation Fund
For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2003
Investment interest
Traffic congestion relief
Total Revenues
Expenditures:
Operating transfers out
Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures
Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2002
Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2003
Annual
Amended YTD
Budl~et Activity
Encumbr.
Total
Activity
$ 14,000 $ 1,495
205,000 81,192
219,000 82,687
121,244 105,125
97,756 (22,438)
22,620 22,620
$ 120,376 $ 182
1,495
81,192
82,687
105,125
Percent
of Budget
11% H)
40% (1)
87%
Notes;
(I) Investment interest rate is lower than expected this year.
(2) Funds are expected to be received by April of the fiscal year.
City of Temecula
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
Development Impact Fund
For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2003
Revenues: (I)
Annual
Amended YTD
Budget Activity
Quimby $ 231,000 $ 283,929
Street improvements 656,000 572,963
Traffic signals 140,000 130,590
Parks 625,000 869,820
Corporate thcilities 178,000 150,038
Fire protection 59,000 199,213
Library 150,000 116,618
Public facilities 1,005
Investment interest 182,501
Total Revenues 2,039,000 2,506,677
Expenditures: (2)
Operating transfers out 4,331,500 1,014,965
Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures (2,292,500) 1,491,712
Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2002 8,795,884 8,795,884
Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2003
Encumbr.
Total
Activity
283,929
572,963
130,590
869,820
150,038
199,213
116,618
1,005
182,501
2,506,677
1,014,965
of Budget
123%
87%
93%
139%
84%
338%
78%
123%
23%
$ 6,503,384 $ 10,287,596
Notes;
(1) The variance is due to developers pulling more permits than anticipated thereby increasing the DIF revenue collected at the time of
building permit issuance.
(2) The variance is due several CIP projects funded through DIF that have not started yet.
City or Temecula
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
Community Development Block Grant
For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2003
Revenues: (1)
Grant revenue
Total Revenues
Expenditures: (1)
Other outside services
Operating transt~rs out
Total Expenditures
Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures
Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2002
Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2003
Annual
Amended YTD
Budget Activity
Encumbr.
$ 425,120 $
425,120
52,893
72,500
125,393
131,507
131,507 $
Total
Activity
Percent
of Budget
(1) The variance is due to Rancho California Sports Park ADA funded through CDBG that have not started yet. Also, the
County has not yet released the City's portion of the funds to the non-profit groups who were awarded grant funding.
City of Temecula
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
AB 2766 Fund
For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2003
AB 2766
investment interest
Total Revenues
Expenditures:
Operating transfers out
Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures
Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2002
Ending Fund Balance, March 31,2003
Annual
Amended YTD Total Percent
Budget Activity Encumbr. Activity of Budget
$ 50,000 $ 59,734 $ 59,734 119%
2,278 2,278
50,000 62,012
150,000
150,000
(lO0,O00) 62,012
121,525 121,525
$ 21,525 $ 183,537
62,012 124%
(i)
(1) The State Route 79 South Sidewalk and Landscape CIP project budgeted from this fi~nd has not been started yet.
City of Temecula
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
AB 3229 COPs
For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2003
Total Revenues (1)
AB 3229 - COPS
Investment interest
Expenditures: (1)
Operating transfers out
Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures
Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2002
Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2003
Annual
Amended YTD
Budget Activity
Encumbr.
Total
Activity
126,000 $ 140,258
4,000 468
130,000 140,726
130,000 141,148
140,258
468
140,726
141,148
0 (422)
867 867
$ 867 $ 445
of Budset
111%
12%
109%
Notes:
(1) The variance is due higher than estimated revenue received this quarter.
City of Temecula
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
Measure "A"
For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2003
Annual
Amended YTD
Budget Activity
Revenues:
Measure"A" $ 1,653,000 $ 1,822,734
Investment interest 47,670
Total Revenues 1,653,000 1,870,404
Expenditures:
Debt service - principal 414,888 310,084
Debt service - interest 151,578 114,781
Operating transfers out 2,792,700 1,650,000
Total Expenditures 3,359,166 2,074,865
Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures (1,706,166) (204,461)
Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2002 1,839,094 1,839,094
Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2003 $ 132,928 .- $ 1,634,633
Total
Activity
$ 1,822,734
47,670
1,870,404
310,084
114,781
1,650,000
2,074,865
Noles:
(1) Revenue estimates are higher than expected and June 2002 revenue is also included in the current fiscaI year.
(2) The C1P projects (Diaz Rd Realignment and Jefferson Pavement Rehab ) budgeted from this fund have not
been started yet.
of Budget
110%
113%
75%
76%
59%
62%
(I)
(2)
City of Temecula
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
Capital Improvement Projects Fund
For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2003
Annual
Amended YTD
Budget Activity
Revenues: ( ] )
Operafing transfers in $ 22,926,844 $ 6,842,202
Grants 8,588,000 590,033
Reimbursements 2,759,700 1,900,000
Investment interest 301,323
Total Revenues 34,274,544 9,633,558
Expenditures:O)
Total Percent
Encumbr. Activity of Budget
6,842,202
$ 590,033
1,900,000
301,323
9.633.558
3O%
7%
69%
28%
Murrieta Creek Bridge/Overland Ext 165-602
Overland Overcrossing 165-604
Pauba Rd Improvements II 165-606
Intersection monitoring system I65-607
Winchester Rd Widening 165-608
Rancho Ca Rd Wide/Ynez Rd 165-611
Emergency Generator 165-612
Cherry Extension Diaz/Jefferson 165-614
Guardrail [nstallation/Rainfiow Can 165-619
Guidam Corp Rd Impr 165-620
Jefferson Pavement Rehab 165-621
Medians Citywide 165-622
Pauba Rd Improvements/Margarita 165-623
Rancho Ca wide old town fi'ont 165-624
79 South Medians 165-625
Traffic SignaIs-Diaz@Rancho Way 165-626
Western Bypass Corridor Phase 1 165-628
Bus Bench Upgrades 165-629
Pa la Rd. bridge 165-631
Diaz realignment 165-632
Old Town Front 79S Landscape imp 165-633
Pavement management 165-655
I 15/79S interchange (ultimate) 165-662
Pala Road improvements 165-668
Diaz road extension at Cherry St 165-684
I I5/Winchester Road ramp improvements 165-697
I 15/Samiago interchange 165-705
Margarita improvements Plo Pico/79S 165-706
Murrieta Creek Interim/Via Montezuma 165-707
Rancho Ca Bridge/Murrieta Creek wide 165-710
Traffic signal equipment installation 165-712
Localized Storm Drain Imp 165-715
(continued)
29,250 1,992 27,965 29,957 102%
500 500
7,016 5,I21 7.016 12,137 173%
1,214,481 335,780 843.239 1.179,019 97%
1,097,729 65,360 16.785 82,145 7%
176,649 85,966 371 86,337 49%
790 790
50.000
334,000 3,827 3~827
450.000
1,841,120 9,363 19,995 29~358
190,000 48 48
90,000
200,000
700,000 8,834 8,834
100,000
119,772
120,000 6,053 6,053
127,413 8,089 119,825 127,914
1,221,380 80,123 2,641 82,764
30,000 967 967
1,482,514 678,601 59,544 738,145
375,936 4,171 15,657 19,828
6,879,787 417,377 3,413,714 3,831,091
114,257 242 114,257 114,499
68,316 12,500 12,500
7,393 1,555 5,838 7,393
54,327 10,214 44,177 54,391
363 363
4,718,178 128,501 49~072 177,573
199.986
50,000 43,016 43.016
1%
2%
0%
1%
5%
100%
7%
3%
5O%
5%
56%
100%
18%
100%
100%
4%
86%
City of Temecula
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
Capital Improvement Projects Fund
For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2003
Annual
Amended YTD
Budget Activity
Total
Activity
of Budget
Fiber optic conduits 165-718 118,000 118,000 118,000 100%
Date/Cherry Streel S,B. offrarnp 165 719 5,370~722 12,622 451,582 464,204 9%
Bridge Barrier Rail Replacement 165-722 255,332 10,985 20,666 3 L651 12%
Butterfield Stage Rd Extension 165 723 1,675,000
Date/Cherry I- 15 OflYamp 165-726 3,999,454 640.648 761,370 1,402,018 35%
John Warner/Santiago Rd 165-727 1,585,907 94,409 32,761 127,170 8%
WinchesterF]9S Landscape 165-729 100,000
Tax Defaulted Properties 165 -731 5,015 5,015 5,015 100%
Fire Station Wolf Creek 165-733 57,983 946 57,037 57,983 100%
79S Sidewalk/Landscape 165-734 294,174 12,572 407 12,979 4%
Murrieta Creek Imp 165-735 169,985
Rainbow Canyon Sidewalks 165-736 57,959
Pedestrian Bridget79N 165-738 473,133 3,749 3,749 I%
Vail Ranch Interim Fire Station 165-739 1,000 1,000 1,000 100%
info Systems 165-740 110,800 10,000 94,409 104,409 94%
Murrieta Creek multi-purpose trail 190-142 1,492,503 80,102 80,102 5%
Northwest sports complex 190-146 106,089 6,270 84,444 90,714 86%
Vail Ranch Park Site D 190-160 59,000 95 95 0%
Children's museum 190-165 1,948,520 976,140 849,126 1,825,266 94%
Community theater 190-167 6,006,753 135,671 87,304 222,975 4%
Chaparral HS swimming pool 190-170 139~565 39,481 17,342 56,823 41%
Desihation pond 190-171 ] ,800 1,350 90 1.440 80%
Northwest sports complex 190-173 3~ 182.413 30.902 9,767 40,669 1 ~
Play Structure Retrofit 190- 179 25,535 25,640 25,640 100%
RC Sports Park ADA access 190-180 72,121 12,123 12,123 17%
Vail Ranch Amenities 190-182 301,438 10,442 6,918 17,360 6%
Mercantile Building Retrofit 190-183 648,100 401,062 103,128 504,190 78%
Library 199-129 485,108 43,595 177,331 220,926 46%
City Hall Complex 199-166 75,000
50,867,913 4,464,172 7,611,778 12,075,950
Total Expenditures (Excluding Transfers)
(16,593,369) 5,169,386
Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures
17,449,715 17,449,715
Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2002
$ 856,346 $ 22,619,103
Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2003
(1) The variances in CIP Fund revenues and in projected expenditures are due to the timing of when the various projects
24%
Internal Service Funds
Combining Balance Sheet
As of March 31, 2003
Information Support
Insurance Vehicles Systems Services Facilities
Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Total
Assets:
Cash and investments $ 1,321,031 $ 264,998 $ 971,621 $ 229,262 $ 111,162 $ 2.898,074
Receivables 5,858 1,065 5,044 918 1,946 14,831
Prepaid assets 230,609 230,609
Property, plant and equipment (net of
accmnulated depreciation) 785.315 519,141 171,494 1,475,950
Total assets $ 1,557,498 $ 1,051,378 $ 1,495,806 $ 401,674 $ 113,108 $ 4,619,464
Liabilities and fund equity:
Liabilities:
Currem liabilities $ 645,669 $ 111,808 $ 65,362 $ 1,908 $ 26,547 $ 851,294
Capital leases payable 174,794 174,794
Total liabilities 645,669 111,808 65,362 176,702 26,547 1.026.088
Fund equity:
Contributed capital
Retained earnings 911,829 939,570 1,430,444 224,972 86.56I 3,593,376
Total fund equity 911,829 939,570 1,430,444 224,972 86,561 3,593,376
Total liabilitiesandfundequity $ 1,557.498 $ 1,051,378 $ 1,495,806 $ 401,674 $ 113.108 $ 4,619,464
Please tlote that these balances are unaudited.
City of Temecula
Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings
Internal Service Funds
For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2003
Information Support
Insurance Vehicles Systems Services Facilities
Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Total
Revenues:
Charges for services $ 382,547 $ 181,039 $ 1,275,565 $ 215,736 $ 376,013 $ 2,430,900
Investment interest 26,229 5,254 10,292 3,655 1,019 46,449
Miscellaneous 18,008 213 18,221
Total Revenues 426,784 186,293 1,286,070 219,391 377,032 2,495,570
Expenses:
Salaries & wages 31,738 338,547 70,714 209,772 650,771
Operating expenses 366,429 375,323 62,211 154,841 958,804
Interest 4,081 4,081
Depreciation 155,243 313,111 65,414 533,768
Total Expenses 398,167 155,243 1,026,981 202,420 364,613 2,147,424
Net Income (Loss) 28,617 31,050 259,089 16,971 12,419 348,146
Retained Earnings, July i, 2002 883,212 908,520 1,171,355 208,001 74,142 3,245,230
Retained Earnings, March 3 I, 2003 $ 91 !,829 .$ 939,570 $ 1,430,444 $ 224,972 $ 86,561 $ 3,593,376
Community Facilities Districts
Combining Balance Sheet
As of March 31, 2003
Assets:
Cash and investments
Receivables
To[al assets
Liabilities and fund balances:
Liabilities:
Current liabilities
CFD 88-12 CFD01 2 CFD 88-12 CFD01 2 CFD 98-01
Admin Non- Debt Debt Admin
Expense Departmental Service Service/Admin Expense
Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Total
$ 4,600,214 $ 2,982,630 $ 1,137,549 $ 62,787 $ 8,783.180
$ 5,322 37,458 1,124 43,904
$ 5,322 $ 4,600,214 3,020,088 $ 1,137,549 $ 63,911 $ 8,827,084.
$ 27.116 $ 2,497 $ $ 510 $ 30,123
Total liabilities 27,116 0 2,497 0 510 30,123
Fund balances:
Reserved
Designated (21,794) 4,600,214 3,017,591 1,137,549 63,401 8,796,961
Total fund balances (21,794) 4,600,214 3,017,591 1,137,549 63,401 8,796,961
Tt~talliabilities and fundbalances
$ 5,322 $ 4,600,214 $ 3,020,088 $ 1,137,549 $ 63,911 $ 8,827,084
Please note that these balances are unaudited.
City of Temecula
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
Community Facilities Districts
For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2003
Investment interest
Reimbursements
Special assessments
Bond Proceeds
Operating Transfers In
Total Revenues
Expenditures:
Legal services
Other outside services
Debt service - principal
Debt service - interest
Bond Premium Expense
Operating Transfers Out
Total Expenditures
Revenues Overt(Under) Expenditures
Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2002
Ending Fund Balance. March 31, 2003
CFD 88-12 CFD 062 CFD 88-12 CFD 01-2 CFD 98-1
Admin Debt Debt Admin
Expense Improvement Service Service/Admin Expense
Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Total
$ 169 $ 24,226 $ 36,828 $ 12,685 $ 1,971 $ 75,879
221 12,601 12,822
841,753 446.734 1,288,487
5,150,000 12,110,000 50,000 17,310.000
21,036 21,036
390 5,174,226 891,182 12,569,419 73,007 18,708,225
$ 32,802 $ 2,130,529 $ 12,300 $ 2.175,631
$ 665,000 665,000
844,898 115,289 960,187
10,746,457 10,746,457
574,012 21,036 595,048
32,802 574,012 1,509,898 13,013,311 12,300 15,142,323
(32,412) 4,600.214 (618.716) (443,891) 60,707 3,565,902
10,618 3,636,307 1,581,441 2,694 5,231,059
$ (21,794) $ 4,600,214 $ 3,017,591 $ 1,137,549 $ 63,401 $ 8,796,962
t7
ITEM 4
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE~)i~____
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council ,,
Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manage/~¢/~'/'''-
May 27, 2003
David Turch & Associates contract for Federal Legislative Services
PREPARED BY:
Aaron Adams, Sr. Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the contract for Federal legislative services
to be provided by David Turch & Associates in the amount of $36,000.
BACKGROUND: David Turch & Associates have been providing Federal legislative
lobbying services for the City since 1997. The City has been very satisfied with these services and
staff is recommending the contract be extended for the upcoming fiscal year.
in the past, David Turch & Associates have provided groat assistance in obtaining Federal funds.
David Turch & Associates have assisted us with lobbying efforts and have been instrumental in
obtaining funding on the following projects:
Overland Bridge Overcrossing (TEA 21 )- $3,750,000.00
Pierce's Disease (House Appropriations FY 2001)- $ 2,000,000.00
Pierce's Disease (Agricultural Research Svcs)- $1,100,000.00
Murrieta Creek (Flood Control 1999)-$100,000.00
Bus Shelters (FY 2001 )- $200,000.00
Last year FY 2002-2003, David Turch and Associates were instrumental in obtaining additional
funding. Listed below is a list of accomplishments:
· Transportation-Transportation Appropriations Bill providing $4,000,000 in funding
for the Pala Road Improvement Project
· Energy & Water- Funding of $1,000,000 was included for the Murrieta Creek flood
control project
· VA/HUD (EDI)- Old Town Joint-Use Gymnasium $162,000
Projects currently being requested for funding by David Turch & Associates include: French Valley
Parkway/I-15 Overcrossing and Interchange, 1-15/State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange
Project, Temecula Park and Ride Project, Multi-Trails System Citywide Project, and
Telecommunications Master Plan.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21 ), the six-year authorizing bill for major
transportation projects, will expire on September 30, 2003. Hearings on reauthorizing legislation
have already begun. Staff, in conjunction with David Turch and Associates has submitted funding
requests for two transportation projects to be included in the successor to TEA-21. Funding
requests were submitted for French Valley Parkway/l-15 Overcrossing and Interchange and I-
15/State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange.
It is staff's recommendation to extend the contract one-year with David Turch and Associates. Total
costs for one year of service is $36,000.
FISCAL IMPACT: Contract costs remain the same at $3,000 per month from last year.
Appropriate funding has been budgeted in the amount of $36,000 in 001-999-110-5248 and have
been programmed in the FY 03-04 operating budget.
Attachments: David Turch & Associates Contract
David Turch & Associates Memo for Proposed Services
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGREEMENT
FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
FEDERAL LOBBYIST SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of July 1,2003, between the City of
Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City"), and David Turch & 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 July 1, 2003, and shall remain
and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30,
2004, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. If the City is satisfied
with consultants performance, then the contract can be extended on a year to year basis.
2. SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the services and tasks described and
set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant
shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit
A.
3. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to
the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant
shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons
engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its
obligations under this Agreement.
4. PAYMENT.
a. The City shall pay a monthly fee for these services upon receipt of the signed
agreement in the amount of $3,000.00/month. This amount shall not exceed Thirty six thousand
dollars ($36,000) 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 amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City
Manager and Consultant at the time City's written authorization is given to Consultant for the
performance of said services. The City Manager may approve additional work not to exceed ten
percent (10%) of the amount of the Agreement, but in no event shall such sum exceed ten thousand
dollars ($10,000.00). Any additional work in excess of this amount shall be approved by the City
Council.
c. Because this project will be billed at a fixed fee, rather than on an hourly
basis, two invoices will be submitted in accordance to the specifications outlined in section 4a
above.
Updated 2/2/01
5. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE.
a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or
terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10)
days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all
work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. Ifthe City suspends or terminates
a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the
remainder of this Agreement.
b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City
shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination,
provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement
pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 4.
6. DEFAULT OFCONSULTANT.
a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall
constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this
Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work
performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice
to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work
hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of
the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default.
b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default
in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant
with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (10) days after service upon it of said
notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the
Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right,
notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further
notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under
this Agreement.
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 identi-
fied and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its
designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and
audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts there from as necessary, and
shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this
Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of
three (3) years after receipt of final payment.
b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this
Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data
generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the
services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and
may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant.
With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make
Updated 2/2/01
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, including attorney fees and expert
witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may
sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to
property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any
way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising
out of the negligence of the City.
9. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for
the duration of the contract general liability 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 in an aggregate amount of
not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000). City Manager shall verify the amount of coverage.
10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent
contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant
shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its
officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any
of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant
shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are
in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the
power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner.
b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the
performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the
Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing
services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to
Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of pertorming services hereunder.
11. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all
local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those
employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The
Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations.
The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure
of the Consultant to comply with this section.
12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION.
a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall
be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written
authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written
authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide
declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other
information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or
Updated 2/2/01
property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered
"voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers,
employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of
deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery
request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed
there under or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right,
but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar
proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to
review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review
any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said
response.
13. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other
party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (I) personal service, (ii)
delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that
provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail,
certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as
set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be
effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following
deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above.
To City:
To Consultant:
City of Temecula
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: City Manager
David Turch & Associates
517 2nd Street
Northeast, Washington D.C. 20002
Attention: David Turch
14. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this
Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the
City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for
actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise
agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant.
15. LICENSES. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall
have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services
described in this Agreement.
16. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Consultant understand and agree that the
laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties
to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning
this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic
jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the
Updated 2/2/01
other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's
judgement, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief
granted.
17. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No officer, or employee of the City of Temecula
shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the
Contractor, or Contractor's sub-contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year
thereafter. The Contractor hereby warrrants and represents to the City that no officer or employee of
the City of Temecula has any interest, whether contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise,
in this transaction, or in the business of the Contractor or Contractor's sub-contractors on this
project. Contractor further agrees to notify the City in the event any such interest is discovered
whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement.
18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding
between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or
contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are
merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this
Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own
independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material.
19. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons
executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the
authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind
Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
Updated 2/2/01
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the
day and year first above written.
CITY OF TEMECULA
Jeff Stone, Mayor
Attest:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
Approved As to Form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
CONSULTANT
David Tumh & Associates
517 2nd Street
Northeast, Washington D.C. 20002
By:
Name:
Title:
By:
Name:
Title:
Updated 2/2/01
(Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations)
Updated 2/2/01
EXHIBIT A
TASKS TO BE PERFORMED
SCOPE OF WORK
Government Affairs-Legislative Advocacy
I. Scope of Project
City hereby engages the services of Consultant to advise, counsel and represent Temecula with,
principally but not limited to, its affairs with the Legislative and Executive Branches of the
Federal Government.
Consultant hereby agrees to faithfully and to the best of its ability, promote and represent
Temecula and its interests with, principally but not limited to, the advancement of federal
legislative proposals, grants and funding sources for transportation, economic development and
emergency preparedness which could have a substantial impact on Temecula or the conduct of
its operations.
It is further understood and expected, that from time to time, or on a continuing basis, other
tasks, whether general or specific, may be requested and performed by the mutual consent of
the parties. Adjustments to the compensation schedule, if any, for such other tasks shall be
mutually agreed to by the parties on a case-by-case basis.
Updated 2/2/01
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE
The City shall pay a monthly fee for these services upon receipt of the signed agreement in the
amount of $3,000.00/month. This amount shall not exceed Thirty six thousand dollars ($36,000)
for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this
Agreement.
Updated 2/2/01
C- avid urch and , ssociatcs
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Shawn Nelson
Aaron Adams
Marilyn Campbell
April 23, 2003
Recap of the City of Temecula's Federal Funding Requests
Renewal of TEA-21 and FY 2004 Appropriations
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), the six year authorizing bill for
major transportation projects, expires on September 30, 2003. David Turch and Associates is
working with House and Senate members and committees to include the City's following
transportation projects in reauthorization legislation.
French Valley Parkway/I-15 Overcrossing
The estimated federal funding required for this project is $25 million over the next six years.
1-15/State Route 79 South Interchange
The estimated federal funding required for this project is $6 million over the next six years.
Also, we are also pursuing FY 2004 federal funding through annual appropriations legislation for
the two projects mentioned above as well as for two additional transportation related projects and
an economic development project:
Proiect
French Valley Parkway/I-15 Overcrossing
1-15/State Route 79 South Interchange
Multi-Trails System - Citywide Project
Temecula Park and Ride Project
Telecommunications Master Plan
Amount Requested
$3 million
$3 million
$ 525,000
$ 451,000
$ 200,000
FY 2002 and FY 2003 Appropriations
Below is a recap of the City of Temecula projects that were funded in the FY 2002 and 2003
VA/HUD, transportation and energy and water appropriations bills.
Old Town Temecula Gymnasium
$162,000
Funding is for the Old Town Temecula gymnasium, a recreation facility to be built adjacent to
the existing Boys and Girls Club that will become a cooperative/joint use facility between the
Club and the City of Temecula.
Pala Road Improvement Project
$4 million
Funding is for improvements to Pala Road as it enters the Pechanga Indian Reservation.
Murrieta Creek
$1 million
Funding is for the Murrieta Creek flood control project. The Committee report included
language directing the Secretary of the Army to use the funds in accordance with cost sharing
established in Public Law 106-377, i.e., an estimated Federal cost of $59,063,900 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $31,803,100 (basically a 65/35 percent split).
517 2nd STREET, NORTHEAST, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 543-3744
ITEM 5
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINA NC,.~.~
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council _
Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manag~
V
May 27, 2003
Second Amendment to State Lobbyist Contract
PREPARED BY:
Aaron Adams, Sr. Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Second Amendment for State lobbying
services with the Wilson Group, LLC in the amount of $3,500 per month.
BACKGROUND: On November 27, 2001, the City Council approved a 7-month contract for
State lobbying services with the Wilson Group, LLC. It was since renewed for a one-year period
ending June 30, 2003 and could be extended by the City Council based upon performance.
City Council and City Staff have met several times with Mr. Wilson and his staff in discussing State
Policies and legislation that may adversely impact our community and we have been satisfied with
his performance to date. In addition, the Wilson Group has made significant efforts in preserving
the City's interests and providing influence surrounding the City's submittal of an $8.5 million dollar
grant application for new library construction.
The main focus and effort of The Wilson Group, LLC, will continue to revolve around the City's
Library Grant application, which is now being reviewed by staff members in Sacramento for the
Office of Library Construction. Upon completion of this process, the Library Bond Council made up
of elected officials will be making critical funding decisions for this first round of disbursement. The
Wilson Group has and will continue to play an active role in supporting the City's submittal for
funding a new public library.
Costs for lobbying services will remain unchanged and in the amount of $3,500 per month.
It is staff's recommendation to extend the term of the contract with the Wilson Group, LLC for one
year to allow them to remain committed to lobbying on the City's behalf. The City may at any time,
for any reason, suspend or terminate this agreement by serving the consultant at least ten (10) days
prior written notice.
FISCAL IMPACT:
fiscal year 2003-2004.
Funds for the proposed increase are within the budgeted amounts for
Attachments:
1. Second Amendment to State Lobbyist Agreement
SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND
THE WILSON GROUP, LLC
STATE OF CALIFORNIA LOBBYIST SERVICES
THIS SECOND AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of May 27, 2003 by and
between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and "The Wilson Group, LLC"
("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the
parties agree as follows:
1. This Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes:
On December 1, 2001 the City and Consultant entered into that certain
agreement entitled "City of Temecula Agreement for "State of California
Lobbyist Services" ("Agreement") in the amount of $24,500.00.
On July 1, 2002 the contract was amended to extend the term of the
agreement to July 1,2003.
The parties now desire to extend the term of the agreement to July 1,
2004 and amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment.
2. Section 1 TERM. of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2003, and shall remain and continue
in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than
July 1, 2004, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this
Agreement. If the City is satisfied with consultants performance, then the contract
can be extended for one additional year.
Exhibit B to the Agreement is hereby amended by adding thereto the items set
forth on Attachment "A" to this Amendment, which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein as though set forth in full.
Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions
of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
R:/Purchasing/Agreementsm-z.Wilsongrp.amend2.2003 1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first above written.
R:/purchasing]agreementsm-z.wilsongrp amend2.2003
CITY OF TEMECULA
BY:
ATTEST:
BY:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
BY:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
CONSULTANT:
The Wilson Group, LLC
Attn: Bob Wilson
1725 Capitol Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone (916) 448-2187
Fax (916) 448-5346
BY:
NAME:
TITLE:
BY:
NAME:
TITLE:
(Two Signatures Required For Corporations)
2
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
Approved As to Form:
ATTACHMENT A
Attached hereto and incorporated herein is the year 2003 scope of work as provided by the
Consultant.
R:/purchasing/agreementsm-z.wilsongrp amend2.2003 3
ITEM 6
CITY ATTORNEY ~"
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City ,~er/City Council
Grar~t~tes, Assistant to the City Manager
May 27, 2003
Emergency Management Program Grants
PREPARED BY:
Aaron Adams, Sr. Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
1. Increase estimated grant revenue by $24,650
2. Appropriate $10,000 to employ a consultant to develop the Annex for the Citizens Corps
Program into the City's Multi-Hazard Function Plan (Emergency Plan)
3. Appropriate $14,650 for the purchase of 7 Automatic Biphasic External Defibrillators
(AED's) for locating at City Hall, and other public facilities
BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula has been active in seeking grant funding to
enhance the City's Emergency Management Program. Recently the City has received
notification that we have been awarded two grants totaling $24,650. This requested
appropriation would provide the needed funds to move these two programs forward. When the
City receives these grant funds, this appropriation will be fully reimbursed. Staff is expecting
that these grant funds will be provided to the City in the next 3 months.
The grant to develop the Citizen Corps Annex can be attributed to the fact that the Citizen Corps
Program is fully operational. This grant will allow for the program to be fully incorporated into
the City's Emergency Management Plan. We would also like to report that the Citizen Corps
Program is making great strides and the development of the Citizen Corps Annex will make it
easier for the City to gai.n future grant funds.
Staff is pleased to announce that we have also secured FEMA funding to purchase 7
defibrillators to be installed at City Hall and other public facilities including: Community
Recreation Center (CRC), Senior Center, Police Storefront (Promenade Mall), and the
Temecula Community Center. In addition, Mayor Stone will be hosting a community meeting
with businesses to explain the benefits of having an AED unit in their facility. It is anticipated
that these AED units will be delivered to the City in June with the community meeting being
scheduled shortly thereafter.
FISCAL IMPACT: These purchases will be funded entirely through grant funding. General
Fund Grant Revenues will be increased by $24,650 and appropriated in the amount of $10,000
in the City Manager's budget and $14,650 in the Fire Department budget.
R:~CITYM G R~ADAM SAICOU N ClLIE merg equip 2003.doc
ITEM 7
CITY ATTO.NFY
DIRECTOR OF FINAI~.~/F.~.
CITY MANAGER
CITY OFTEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City ManagedCity Council
FROM: Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manag r~/
DATE: May 27, 2003 ~,/
SUBJECT: Agreement with Riverside County Chapter of the American Red Cross for
Community-Based Services
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
1) Approve an appropriation of $38,000 from the unallocated reserves of the General
Fund to Department 101, Account 5285 (Community Support, Council
Discretionary).
2) Approve an Agreement with the Riverside County Chapter of the American Red
Cross for Community-Based services.
BACKGROUND: At your regular meeting of May 13, 2003, Councilmember Roberts noted
the many contributions of the Riverside County Chapter of the American Red Cross to the
citizens of Temecula. Councilmember Roberts further noted that the local chapter of the
American Red Cross has experienced fund-raising difficulties during the past two years and the
continued operation of the Temecula facility is in jeopardy.
At your budget workshop on May 15, Councilmember Roberts recommended that the City
Council set aside funding to assist the Red Cross meet its facility rental costs. He further noted
that the Red Cross is currently looking at alternative locations that may reduce its rental costs in
the future, improving the ability of the Chapter to again become se~f-sustaining. Other
members of the City Council also noted the many accomplishments of the Red Cross and
indicated support for this idea.
The Red Cross currently pays $38,000 per year in rent. Since funds are not presently budgeted
for such assistance, staff recommends that the City Council appropriate funds from the
unallocated reserves of the General Fund. This would allow funding in the current fiscal year.
Staff has worked with the Red Cross to develop an agreement that would provide such funding
assistance. The attached Agreement provides for quarterly payments of up to $9500 for rent
assistance based on actual rental costs, provided that the Red Cross submits regular reports
and continues to provide services from a Temecula location.
FISCAL IMPACT: Costs to the City will not exceed $38,000. Funds are available in the
unallocated reserves of the General fund for this appropriation.
ATTACHMENT:
Agreement with Riverside County Chapter of the American Red Cross
R;\Ogradyj~Agenda Repods~ed Cross Agreement and Report, 5-27-03,doc
COMMUNITY GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND
THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY CHAPTER
OF THE
AMERICAN RED CROSS
THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Temecula ("City"), a
municipal corporation, and the Riverside County Chapter of the American Red Cross
("RARC"), a non-profit corporation, and is dated as of May 27, 2003 in consideration of the
mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and
purposes, which each of the parties hereto acknowledge and agree to be true and correct:
The RARC coordinates many programs for emergency services
serving the citizens of the City of Temecula, which are not provided
by the City's other programs.
The RARC coordinates many of these programs and provides direct
services from its Temecula office currently located at 27715
Jefferson Avenue, Suite 117, Temecula, CA 92590.
c. The RARC warrants and represents to the City that it is a non-profit,
tax-exempt corporation under the tax laws of the United State and California, and
agrees to continue in such status during the term of this Agreement.
d. On May 27, 2003, the City Council awarded a community services
grant to the RARC in the amount of Thirty Eight Thousand Dollars ($38,000) for the
purpose of continuing and enhancing its programs within the City of Temecula.
e. This Agreement provides for the manner in which the grant will be
paid to the PARC.
2. Upon approval by the City and the RARC, and upon submittal of
insurance verification required by this Agreement, the City shall pay to the RARC, the sum of
$9,500, which is an amount approximately equal to the actual costs of three months of rent
currently incurred by the RARC. On or prior to September 15, 2003, and thereafter by
December 15, 2003 and March 15, 2004, PARC shall submit a quarterly report to the
Assistant City Manager showing the actual costs of rent during the previous three month
period as well as a report outlining programs and services provided by the Temecula facility
during that period. The RARC shall also submit an invoice based on the estimated rent for the
upcoming three month period, not to exceed $9500. The City shall pay such invoice within
30 days of receipt of this invoice, provided that the RARC is not in breach of any of the terms
of this Agreement.
R:\Ogradyj\Agenda Reports\Red Cross Grant Agreement.doc
3. If the actual cost of rent was less than $9,500, any such savings shall be
applied to the upcoming rental period, and the amount of the invoice to the City shall be
reduced accordingly. In no case shall payment by the City exceed $9,500 for any quarterly
period, nor shall the total payment by the City exceed $38,000. Invoices shall be accompanied
by such documentation as reasonably required by the Director of Finance to establish that such
costs were incurred by the RARC. At the conclusion of this agreement, any funds advanced
by the City and not used for rent shall be returned to the City of Temecula by August 1, 2004.
4. The RARC will provide a final report to the City of Temecula outlining
programs and services provided by the Temecula facility by August 1, 2004.
5. During the term of this Agreement, the RARC will continuously operate
a local office within the City Limits of the City of Temecula.
The term of this agreement shall be from June 1, 2003 through June 30,
2004.
7. The RARC and City have developed goals and objectives which are set
forth in Exhibit A. The RARC is committed to implementing these Goals and Objectives.
8. The City may at any time, for any breach of this Agreement, suspend or
terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the RARC at least ten (10)
days prior written notice. If the breach is corrected during this ten day period, City may, in
its sole and exclusive discretion, rescind the termination. 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. RARC shall make available to the City its books, records and
financial documents in such form as to allow City to verify RARC's compliance with the terms
of this Agreement.
9. The RARC agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the
City, its officers, officials, and employees from and against any and all claims, demands,
losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability
of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur
or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property
arising out of RARC's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way
related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability
attributable to the active negligence of the City.
10. RARC shall procure and maintain, or shall have provided on its behalf,
for the term of this Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to
property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the activities of the
RARC, its agents, representatives, or employees.
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
(1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No.
CG 00 01 11 85 or 88, including a non-owned auto endorsemem.
R:\Ogredyj\Agenda Reports\Red Cross Grant Agreement.doc
a. Minimum Limits of Insurance. RARC shall maintain limits on the
policies described in Subsection a. of no less than the following amounts unless
otherwise approved by the City Manager:
(1) General Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence
for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage.
b. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-
insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager.
c. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability policies shall 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 RARC; premises owned, occupied or used by the RARC;
or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the RARC. 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 Agreement, the RARC'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
RARC's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
(3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the
policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to
the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
(4) The RARC'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 to the City by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to
the City.
d. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a
current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self
insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements.
e. Verification of Coverage. RARC 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
R:\Ogradyj\Agenda Reports\Red Cross Grant Agreement.doc
City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the RARC's insurer may
provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements
effecting the coverage required by these specifications.
11. RARC 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 RARC shall at all times be under RARC's exclusive direction and control. Neither
City nor any of its officers, employees or agents shall have control over the conduct of RARC
or any of RARC's officers, employees or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement.
RARC 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. RARC shall not incur
or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City
in any manner.
12. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party
under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii)
delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express,
that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States
Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the
party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice.
Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third
business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as
provided above.
To City:
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Attention: City Manager
To RARC:
Riverside County Chapter of the American Red Cross
7001 Indiana Avenue, Suite 3
Riverside, CA 92506
Attention: Dave Stovall, Senior Operations Manager
13. The RARC shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any
part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City.
14. 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.
R:\Ogradyj\Agenda Reports\Red Cross Grant Agreement.doc
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to
be executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF TEMECULA
Jeffrey Stone, Mayor
Attest:
Susan Jones, CMC
City Clerk
Approved As to Form:
Peter M. Thorson
City Attorney
RIVERSIDE COUNTY CHAPTER OF THE
AMERICAN RED CROSS, a California non-profit
corporation
By:
Name:
Title:
By:
Name:
Title:
R:\Ogradyj~Agenda Reports\Red Cross Grant Agreement.doc
Exhibit "A"
Description of Services
provided by
The Riverside County Chapter of the American Red Cross
through its Temecula Office
Number of Families/Agencies aided:
Proiected 03/04 1st Quarter
30
2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4thQuarter
Number of Individuals aided:
Proiected 03/04 1st Quarter
145
2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4thQuarter
Total Dollars Spent in direct aid:
Projected 03/04 1st Quarter
$12,000
2nd Quarter
3rd Quarter 4thQuarter
Number of Individual Collaborative casework and referrals with local agencies:
Projected 03/04 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4thQuarter
1,500
Number of Health & Safety Classes taught:
Proiected 03/04 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter
300
3rd Quarter 4thQuarter
Number of Individuals taught:
Projected 03/04 1st Quarter
3,500
2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4thQuarter
Number of Armed Forces Emergency Services calls:
Proiected 03/04 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter
300
3rd Quarter 4thQuarter
R:\Ogradyj~Agenda Reports\Red Cross Grant Agreement. doc
ITEM 8
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL ~'~/~r'~
CITY ATTORNEY ,/~' ~'~ "~., Ii
DIRECTOR OF FINANCe]I
II
ClTY OFTEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
~4j, J//VVilliam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
May 27, 2003
Acceptance of an Easement for Drainage Purposes and execute a quitclaim deed
conveying the easement to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District within Tract Map No. 23101-6 located on the East side of
Meadows Parkway between La Serena way and Rancho California Road and within
the Margarita Village Specific Plan No. 199, Chardonnay Hills Subdivision.
PREPARED
BY: ~.~ Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works
Gerald L. Alegria, Senior Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE
PURPOSES LOCATED WITHIN TRACT MAP NO. 23101-6 AND
EXECUTING A QUITCLAIM DEED CONVEYING THE EASEMENT
TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BACKGROUND: Tract Map No. 23101-6 was approved by the City Council on October 19,
1999. The easement is located within Lot 37 in Tract Map No. 23101-6 and is offered for
dedication on Tract 23101-6 but was not accepted by the City of Temecula.. The Temecula
Valley - La Serena Way Storm Drain, Stage 3, Project No. 7-0-0315, Temecula Valley -
Chardonnay Basin Project No. 7-0-0314, Tract Map No. 23101-6 - Cooperative Agreement
was approved by City Council March 25, 2003. Pursuant to the Cooperative Agreement, the
developer will construct said facilities and the County Flood Control District will assume
ownership and maintenance responsibility for the storm drain system, including the
underground concrete pipe and sediment basin within Lot 37, as shown on Exhibit "A". In
accordance with the Cooperative Agreement, City is to accept and convey the drainage
easement to the Flood Control District. Staff recommends acceptance of the drainage
easement and the execution of the quitclaim deed conveying the easement to the Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
Upon City Council acceptance of the drainage easement and execution of the quitclaim
deed the quitclaim deed will be forwarded to Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation and County of Riverside Board of Supervisors for their approval.
1
R:~AGENDA REPORTS~2003\052703\TM23101 ~.ACCEPT STORM DRAIN.doc
FISCAL iMPACT:
ATrACHMENT:
The City and Riverside County Flood and Water Conservation District will
share equally in periodic maintenance of the basin and storm drain system.
1. Resolution No. 2003-
2. Quitclaim Deed
3. Location Map
__ with Exhibit "A", inclusive.
2
R:~AGENDA REPORTS~003~052703~TM23101-6.ACCEPT STORM DRAIN.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE
PURPOSES LOCATED WITHIN TRACT MAP NO. 23101-6 AND
EXECUTING A QUITCLAIM DEED CONVEYING THE EASEMENT
TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER
AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, On March 25, 2003, the City Council of the City of Temecula authorized the
execution of the Temecula Valley - La Serena Way Storm Drain, Stage 3, Project No. 7-0-0315,
Temecula Valley- Chardonnay Basin Project No. 7-0-0314, Tract Map No. 23101-6 - Cooperative
Agreement: and,
WHEREAS, The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is
preparing to accept La Serena Storm Drain, Stage 3 system for maintenance in accordance with the
terms of the Temecula Valley - La Serena Way Storm Drain, Stage 3, Project No. 7-0-0315,
Temecula Valley- Chardonnay Basin Project No. 7-0-0314, Tract Map No. 23101-6 - Cooperative
Agreement
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Temecula
hereby accepts the offer of dedication for an easement for drainage purposes within Lot 37 of
recorded Tract Map No. 23101-6 as described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto, and authorizes the
execution of the quitclaim deed, attached hereto, by the Mayor and City Clerk, conveying the
easement to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a
regular meeting held on the 27th day of May, 2003.
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
3
R:~AGENDA R EPO RTS~2003'~52703\TM23101 ~.ACCEPT STORM DRAIN.doc
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 27th day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: 0
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
4
R:~AGENDA R E PO RTS'~-°003~052703\T M23101 ~.ACCEPT STORM DRAIN.dCc
EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
Accepting an offer of dedication to public use an easement for
drainage purposes within Lot 37 of recorded Tract Map No. 23101-6
in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, as filed in Book 286,
Pages 30 through 35 Inclusive, of Maps, in the Recorder's Office of
said county
5
R:~AGENDA R E PORTS~003~52703\TM23101-6.ACCEPT STORM DRAIN.doc
Recorded at request of, and return to:
Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District
1995 Market Street
Riverside, Califomia 92501
NO FEE (GOV. CODE 6103)
Project No.: 7-0-0315
Tract No. 23101-6
RCFC Parcel 7315-501
QUITCLAIM DEED
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the CITY OF
TEMECULA, a municipal corporation, does hereby remise, release, and forever quitclaim to
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT all fight,
title and interest in and to the easement situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State
of California, described as:
Parcel 7315 -501
The "drainage easement" within Lot 37 as shown and dedicated on Tract Map No. 23101-6,
recorded in Map Book 286, Pages 30 through 35 inclusive, records of the Recorder's Office,
Riverside County, State of California, as shown as Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a
part hereof.
CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation:
Date By:
JEFFERY E. STONE, Mayor
Date By:
SUSAN W. JONES, City Clerk
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the within deed to RIVERSIDE
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT is hereby accepted
by the undersigned officer pursuant to authority conferred by resolution of the Board of Supervisors
of said District adopted on May 12, 1961, and the grantee consents to the recordation thereof by its
duly authorized officer.
Date By:
WARREN D. WILLIAMS,
General Manager-Chief Engineer
1
· ~o~ SHEET 2 OF 6 SHEETS
TRACT NO. 23101-6
MAY ~ROUP ~JNE. lg98
TRACT 23100-6
LOT~2
AM=NDcD
INDEX MAP ~ LOT 37
EXHIBIT "A"
Page '1 of 2
SHEET 6
TRACT NO. 23101-6
OF 6 SH[~TS
SEE SHEET 5
19
SEE SHEET 5
$5 ~6
TF',/.CT
40"
EXHIBIT "A" .~
57
COMMON OPEN
SPACE AREA
/
/
/
/
/
/Page 2 of 2
SHEET 2 OF 6 SHEETS
TRACT NO. 23101-6
TRAOT 23100-6
281/54-55
LOT 82
PARCEL MAP 22554
P,M,Bo 147/94-58
AMENDED
/ '"'--- ,...._.. "'"~. _...,.,
INDEX MAP · tOT J7 ~~~~
/--~ LOCATION MAP "--""~=':"'~'
ITEM 9
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE.~
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City ManagedCity Council
William G. Hughes, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer
May 27, 2003
Authorize Temporary Partial Street Closures for Temecula Cycling Classic
Event on June 8, 2003. (Business Park Drive and Single Oak Drive)
PREPARED BY:
Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works
Aldo Licitra, Permit Engineer.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE ClTY COUNClL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING PARTIAL STREET
CLOSURES OF BUSINESS PARK DRIVE AND SINGLE OAK
DRIVE FOR THE TEMECULACYCLING CLASSIC EVENT ON
JUNE 8,2003, AND AUTHORIZING THE ClTY ENGINEER TO
ISSUE PERMITSFORTHISSPECIFIC SPEClAL EVENT
BACKGROUND: There have been several bicycle races held on the two more
appropriate closed courses in the industrial park areas of the City beginning in 1990. One of these
courses has been on the Rancho California Business Park course (Business Park Drive and Single
Oak Drive). The other was on the Winchester Highland Business Park course (Ynez Road, Equity
Drive, and County Center Drive).
As these business/industrial parks have developed, there has been increased weekday use of these
areas. Both ofthese parks also have chumh tenants with principal uses on Sunday. Staff requires,
as a condition of Special Event Permit issuance, notification of all affected parties and businesses
when such events inter[ere with the normal flow of traffic.
The Rancho California Business Park course has been used several times as the pdme bicycle
course with such event sponsors as Team Temecula/Rancho Cycling Club, and most recently the
Temecula Cycling Classic Stage Race in 1999.
This year, the current applicant for use of the Rancho California Business Park Course proposes to
stage their race on Sunday, June 8, 2003. Partial street closures will satisfy their racing
requirements.
I
r:~Agenda Reports~2003\052703\Temecula Cycling Classic
Under Vehicular Code Section 21101, "Regulation of Highways", local authorities, for those
highways under their jurisdiction, may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution for,
among other instances, "temporary closing a portion of any street for celebrations, parades, local
special events, and other purposes, when, in the opinion of local authorities having jurisdiction, the
closing is necessary for the safety and protection of persons who are to use that portion of the street
during the temporary closing".
The City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-96 on September 10, 1991, which provided standards
and procedures for special events on public streets, highways, sidewalks, or public right of way.
While a process was established for reviews and approvals, no mechanism was provided for
delegating authority to temporarily close streets, or portions of streets, for these special events.
The recommended resolution delegates the authority to approve temporary partial street closures for
the Temecula Cycling Classic Event on June 8, 2003. This authority is limited to and delegated to
the City Engineer (or an authorized representative) only. Any other special events requiring
temporary street closures, construction related closures, etc., remain subject to the approval of the
City Council subject to rules and regulations established by the City Council. These rules and
regulations shall also be adopted by resolution in accordance with California Vehicular Code Section
21101.
A proposed racecourse and traffic controls are indicated on the attached diagram. Traffic Staffand
Police Department will review prior to issuance of these special event permits. All required signs
and devices shall be provided by the sponsors/permittees. The sponsors shall post insurance in
accordance with the requirements of Resolution No. 91-96, which adopted standards for special
events on public streets, highways, sidewalks or public rights of way.
Some partial closures, as limiting lane widths for construction purposes or partial closures for "Block
Parties" on cul-de-sac streets only, have not been submitted for City Council action in order to
reduce the impact on City Council and staff time.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. Any police services required for these events will be negotiated by the
Police Department and sponsors, and the sponsors shall be responsible for
such costs.
ATrACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 2003-
2. Permit Application.
3. Location Map.
2
r:\Agenda Reports~2003\052703\Temecula Cycling Classic
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY
PARTIAL STREET CLOSURES OF BUSINESS PARK DRIVE AND
SINGLE OAK DRIVE FOR THE TEMECULA CYCLING CLASSIC
EVENT ON JUNE 8, 2003, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
ENGINEER TO ISSUE PERMITS FOR THESE SPECIFIC SPECIAL
EVENT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER
AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, The California State Vehicular Code provides for the promulgation of rules and
regulations for the temporary closure of public streets by local authorities by Resolution; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish rules and regulations for the temporary
closure of public streets in the interest of promoting safety and protection; and,
WHEREAS, The City of Temecula desires to authorize the partial closure of public streets for
the Temecula Cycling Classic Event, for which such temporary street closures promote the safety
and protection of persons using or proposing to use those streets for the special event: and,
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to facilitate the issuance of permission to temporarily
close portions of public streets for the Temecula Cycling Classic Event on June 8, 2003: and,
NOW, WHEREAS, the City Council desires to authorize the City Engineer to approve
temporary partial street closures for the Temecula Cycling Classic Cycling Event, and to establish
the general rule that all other proposed temporary street closures shall be reviewed and approved
subject to conditions, or disapproved, by the City Council; and,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Temecula, hereby
authorizes the City Engineer to permit temporary partial street closures for the Temecula Cycling
Classic Bike Event on June 8, 2003, and establishes the general rule that all other temporary public
street closures shall be approved or denied approval by the City Council.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a
regular meeting held on the 27th day of May 2003.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W.Jones, CMC, City Clerk
3
r:~genda Reports~003\052703\Temecula Cycling Classic
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 27th day of May 2003, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
4
r:~Agenda Reports~003\052703\Temecula Cycling Classic
05/06/20~3 22:04 1 CPN CONSULTING P~GE
05/06/~'003 12:04 FAX 909 694 $471~ CIT~ OF TEi~CULA pT.T~ W]~3 l~100~
CITY OF TEMECULA
SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION
('/fO BE HEI, D O)V Pf]BLI¢ $I2tF~T~, IIIGIfWA Y$,
.~DEWALI~ OR Pf/~LIC ~JGIIT. OF-W,4 rs)
!. Appllcant't Nn~ & A. ddre. sst
O3
8. Type of Good~lServb:es tO be Sold/Provided:
Uudn~d A.~ 0~- 0~MZ ~ OI~X*~O3VlTI~t~S p eelnl Kv~ot Aj~t~a~6ou
Permit Number: LD03-007SE
PUBLIC WORKS SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT
Job Address:
Location:
BUSINESS PARK DRIVE, SINGLE OAK DRIVE
Applied:
Issued:
Expired:
05/12/2003
Stares: PENDiNG
Permit Fee: $100.00
NOTE: PERMIT FEE DOES NOT INCLUDE OTHER
FEES AUTHORIZED BY CITY ORDINANCE
Applicant:
BEN CARDENAS
8721 APPERSON STREET SUNLAND, CA
91240 818-293 -0046
Description: TEMECULA CYCLiNG CLASSIC.
1.3-MILE BICYCLiNG EVENT/SUNDAY JUNE 8, 2003, 7:00 AM TO
APPROXIMATELY 4:30 PM. THIS EVENT W1LL REQUIRE PARTIAL STREET
CLOSURES PER ATTACHED PLAN. CLOSURES iNCLUDE BOTH LANES ON SINGLE OAK
DR1VE, THE NORTH-BOUND LANE ON THE WEST SIDE OF BUSiNESS PARK DRIVE,
AND BOTH LANES OF BUSINESS PARK DR1VE ON THE EAST SIDE FROM RANCHO
WAY TO SINGLE OAK DRIVE. PARKING AND REGISTRATION ON CITY HALL
PARKING LOT. CARE AND CLEANUP OF PARKING LOT AND CITY STREETS
PROVIDED BY SPONSOR. ANY ON-STREET PARKING PRIOR TO THE EVENT WILL
REQU1RE CONING OFF TO PROTECT PUBLIC AND PARTICIPANTS. ATTACHMENTS
DEF1NE ROUTES, ACTIVITIES, ETC. SPONSOR TO CONTACT TENANTS WITHIN
EVENT AREA. SPONSOR AND CHP TO PROVIDE COURSE MARSHALS AND TRAFFIC
SIGNAGE FOR TRAFFIC/EVENT CONTROL. CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE
PROV1DED BY UNITED STATES CYCLING FEDERATION.
THIS PERMIT IS ISSUED AND ACCEPTED SUBJECT TO THE ATTACHED PROVISIONS
BEFORE YOU DIG - CALL (TOLL FREE) 800-422-4133
-Permissio
n is hereby requested to encroach into public right of way to perlbrm work as set forth above. It is understood that this permit is limited to
the work described herein and that all work is to be done in compliance with the provisions attached to this permit and with all other
applicable rules, responsibility for said compliance, for acceptability of the work, and for repair or replace~nent thereof if defective, and for
repair or replacement of any existing improvement damaged by the doing of the work.
I hereby certii~ and agree that all Ordinances of the City of Temecula and the State of California will be complied with whether herein
stated or not,
Permittee's Signature:
City Engineer or Authorized Representative Date
Highways
Streets
[~1 city
Temecula Cycling Classic
N
May 14, 2003
200 0 200 400 Feet
RIDGE pARK DR
ITEM 10
APPROVAL ~7///f
ClTYATTORNEY /~'~
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER ~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OFTEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
l City ManageflCity Council
g,l~ William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
May 27, 2003
Authorize Temporary Street Closure of Pauba Road between Margarita Road
and Ynez Road for the "July 4th, 2003 Fireworks Show" and Delegate
Authority to Issue Special Events/Street Closures Permit to Director of Public
Works/City Engineer.
PREPARED BY: tl'Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works
Aldo Licitra, Associate Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURE OF
PAUBA ROAD BETWEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND YNEZ ROAD
FOR THE "JULY 4TM 2003, FIREWORKS SHOW", AND
AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY
ENGINEER TO ISSUE SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT INCLUDING
STREET CLOSURES
BACKGROUND: The Annual City-sponsored "July 4th 2003 Fireworks Show"
necessitates temporary street closures to protect the participants and facilitate this event. The
subject special event requires the closure of a portion of a major City highway and the streets
abutting this highway for a period of 11:00 AM until 11:00 PM on July 4, 2003.
Under Vehicular Code Section 21101, "Regulation of Highways", local authorities, for those
highways under their jurisdiction, may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution for,
among other instances, "temporary closing a portion of any street for celebrations, parades, local
special events, and other purposes, when, in the opinion of local authorities having jurisdiction, the
closing is necessary for the safety and protection of persons who are to use that portion of the street
during the temporary closing".
The City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-96 on September 10, 1991, which provided standards
and procedures for special events on public streets, highways, sidewalks, or public rights-of-way.
This resolution set forth processes for staff reviewing applications, denying approval or approving
subject to conditions including events requiring changes in normal traffic patterns, and an appeal
1
r:~Agenda Reports~2003\052703~4"' of July 2003 fireworks.street c[osure
process to the City Manager. However the resolution did not delegate authority to temporarily close
streets for these special events.
The subject resolution delegates the authority to approve temporary street closures for the specific
event, the Temecula Community Services Department sponsored "July 4th 2003 Fireworks Show" to
the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. All other special events requiring temporary street
closures, construction-related closures, etc, shall remain subject to the approval of the City Council
subject to rules and regulations established by the City Council. These rules and regulations shall
also be adopted by resolution in accordance with California Vehicular Code Section 21101.
Some partial closures, such as limiting lane widths for construction purposes or partial closures for
block parties on cul-de-sac streets only do not require full street closures. These and similar partial
street closures or restrictions are not submitted for similar resolutions in order to reduce or eliminate
the administrative impact on City Council and staff time.
FISCAL IMPACT: The costs of police services, and for provision, placement, and retrieval of
necessary warning and advisory devices by the Temecula Community Services Department and the
City Public Works Maintenance Division are included in budgetary items.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 2003-
2. Permit Application
3. Location Map
2
r:~Agenda Reports~2003\052703\4"' of July 2003 fireworks.street closure
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURE OF
PAUBA ROAD BETWEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND YNEZ ROAD
FOR THE "JULY 4TM 2003 FIREWORKS SHOW", AND
AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY
ENGINEER TO ISSUE SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT INCLUDING
STREET CLOSURES.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER
AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, The California State Vehicular Code provides for the promulgation of rules and
regulations for the temporary closure of public streets by local authorities by Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish rules and regulations for the temporary
closure of public streets in the interest of promoting safety and protection; and
WHEREAS, The City of Temecula sponsors the annual "July 4th 2003 Fireworks Show", for
which such temporary street closures promote the safety and protection of persons using or
proposing to use that street or streets for the special event; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to facilitate the issuance of permission to temporarily
close public streets for this annual "July 4t' 2003 Fireworks Show" on July 4th, 2003; and,
NOW, WHEREAS, the City Council desires to authorize the Director of Public Works/City
Engineer to approve temporary street closures for annual "July 4th 2003 Fireworks Show", and to
establish the general rule that all other proposed temporary street closures shall be reviewed and
approved subject to conditions, or disapproved, by the City Council; and
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Temecula, hereby
authorizes the Director of Public Works/City Engineer to permit temporary street closures for the
annual "July 4th 2003 Fireworks Show" on July 4, 2003, and affirms the general rule that all other
temporary public street closures shall be approved or denied approval by the City Council.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a
regular meeting held on the 27~h day of May, 2003.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
3
r:~Agenda Reports~2003\052703\4th of July 2003 fireworks.street closure
[SEAL]
STATE Of CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 27th day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
4
r:tAgenda Repor~s~2003\052703\4a of July 2003 fireworks.street closure
Permit Number: LD03-009SE
PUBLIC WORKS SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT
Job Address:
Location:
PAUBA ROAD
Applied:
Issued:
Expired:
05/13/2003
Status: PENDING
permit Fee: $0.00
NOTE: PERMIT FEE DOES NOT INCLUDE OTHER
FEES AUTHORIZED BY CITY ORDINANCE
Applicant:
CITY OF TEMECULA
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE TEMECULA CA
92589 909 694 6411
Description: JULY 4TH 2003 FIREWORKS SHOW.
THE ANNUAL 4TH OF JULY FIREWORKS SHOW AT THE SPORTS PARK REQUIRES THE
TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURE OF PAUBA ROAD BETWEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND
YNEZ ROAD. STREET CLOSURE IS SCHEDULED FROM 11:00 AM TO 11:00 PM.
PARKING PASSES WILL BE ISSUED FOR SOME RESIDENTS AFFECTED BY THE
STREET CLOSURE. POLICE, FIRE, PUBLIC WORKS, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT WILL
PROVIDE SECURITY.
THIS PERMIT IS ISSUED AND ACCEPTED SUBJECT TO THE ATTACHED PROVISIONS
BEFORE YOU DIG - CALL (TOLL FREE) 800-422-4133
:Permissio
n is hereby requested to encroach into public right of way to perform work as set forth above. It is understood that this permit is limited to
the work described herein and that all work is to be done in compliance with the provisions attached to this permit and with all other
applicabIe rules, responsibility for said compliance, for acceptability of the work, and for repair or replacement thereof if defective, and for
repair or replacement of any existing improvement damaged by the doing of the work.
I hereby certify and agree that all Ordinances of the City of Temecula and the State of Califomia will be complied with whether herein
stated or not.
Permittee's Signature:
City Engineer or Authorized Representative Date
CITY OF TEMECULA
SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION
(TO BE HELD ON PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS,
SIDEWALKS OR PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS)
4. Date, Hours & Precise Location of Event:
5. Fees to be Charged by Permitee:
6. Type & Nature of Vehicles, Equipment, Etc.:
7. Sound System - Number & Amplification Range:
8. Type of Goods/Services to be Sold/Provided:
9. Vendor's Name & Business Address:
10. Security Plan for Event: , <~,)CL//~7 ~ ~ ~.
The applicant hereby states that the above information is accurate under penalty or perjury. The Applicant agrees to fully compensate the
City of Temecula for any damage to public property, as well a.v to clean and otherwise restore the event site to the condition in which it
existed prior to the conduct of the event.
Print Applicant / Agent Name ~/ Applicant / Agent Signature
FOR CITY STAFF USE ONLY:
1. Application Fee Amount: $
2. Special Event
3. Major Special Event
4. Meet/Confer with Transportation Division
5. Insurance Certificate Required
6. Traffic Control Planfrraffie Study Required
Paid: ReceipV4:
Updated As Of: 06/25/2002 R:kFORMSkPERMITS',Sp e~ial Event Appliea~lon
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
SPECIAl, EVENT INSURANCE PROGRAM GUIDELINES
As a service to our citizens, special event insurance is available from the City of Temecula ("City") to
those apphcants who meet the requirements set forth in these guidelines. The insurance is provided
by an insurance company that has been deemed satisfactory to the City, and is intended to satisfy the
City's insurance requirements for special events, including the requirement that the City be named as
additional insured. Likewise, the City shall be named as Additional Insured on all certificates issued.
In order for an applicant to be considered for insurance coverage through the City's program, a
complete application must be submitted a minimum of three weeks prior to the event. The
application (on reverse) is a one page document which contains basic information concerning the
event to be held. All blank lines must be filled in completely for the application to be processed.
The completed application is submitted to the City's Risk Manager in the Finance Department, who
will determine whether the event qualifies for the City's Special Event Insurance Program and will
advise the applicant on the status of the insurance coverage. If the Risk Manager determines that the
City cannot provide insurance coverage, then the applicant will be provided an explanation as to why
the event did not qualify. If the City is able to provide insurance coverage, then the applicant will be
provided a Quote for the premium and the non-refundable administrative fee.
If the applicant elects to obtain coverage through the City, payment must be received by the Risk
Manager prior to issuance of a Certificate of Insurance. Payment for insurance coverage must be by
cash, cashier's check or money order only. Cashier Checks and Money Orders should be made
payable to the City of Temecula.
If an applicant decides to cancel the insurance coverage prior to the event, the applicant will be
refunded the premium only; not the $25.00 non-refundable administrative fee.
A~~ questi~ns pertaining t~ special events insurance and c~verage certi~cates sh~uld be directed t~ the Risk
Manager at (909) 694-6430.
I have read and agree to comply with all of the guidelines provided herein. Additionally, I understand that:
Applying for insurance coverage through the City's Special Event Insurance Program does not
guarantee I will qualify for such coverage, and I may be required to obtain insurance coverage
elsewhere.
I understand that the City's special event insurance program is offered to those citizens who are
unable to secure insurance that meets City requirements. I, also, have the option to obtain insurance
elsewhere provided it satisfies the City's insurance requirements.
Although the coverage provided by the City's special event insurance program may satisfy the City's
requirements for insurance, it may not cover all of the exposures I have relative to the special event,
and I have been encouraged to consult my insurance representative.
Mail or deliver this completed application to: City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SPECIAL EVENT INSURANCE APPLICATION
(To be attached to Permit Application)
NameofOrganizntion(ifapplicable): b'~ O~ ~m ~C~/It~'
!
Name & Address of Renter (same as on Facility U/se Request):
Name:
Address:
City:
State: Zip:
NOTE: If approved, the Certificate of Insurance will be mailed to the above address **
Contact Person:
Daytime Phone No.:
EVENT INFORMATION
Date(s) Held:
Location:
TJnle:
(Include set-up and take-down days and times)
Coma Res Center ~ Temeeula Coma Center ~
(Rancho Vista Road) (Pujol Street)
Senior Center
(6th Street)
Type of Event:
Total Attendance, including participants (Per Day):
Day One 50-500 Attendees
Day Two 50-500 Attendees
Day Three 50-$00 Attendees
Day Four 50-500 Attendees
501-1500 Attendees ~-~
501-1500 Attendees
501-1500 Attendees ~
501-1500 Attendees
Total Number of Vendors/
Exhibitors/Concessionaires
Additional Exposures Yes No
Liquor (Beer, Wine, Champagne) served?
Liquor (Beer, Wine, Champagne) sold?
Caterer?
Vendors/Exhibitors/Concessionaires?
Food/Non-alcoholic beverages served?
Food/Non-alcoholic beverages sold?
Entertainment or Recreation Activities?
(Provide a list)
Please review contract and attach separate sheeg listing names and addresses of all parties requiring to be
named as Additional insuretL
For Finance Department Use Only
Date Quoted: Amount of Quote:
A~ccount Code: 300-199-4086 Amount of Processing Fee: $25.00
Account Code: 300-2180 Amount of Insuranes Premium:
Amount & Method of Payment: Cash ~ Money Order ~ Cashler*s Check~
ALL PAYMENTS MUST BE MADE BY ONE OF TttI~SE METHODS ONLY
?rocessedBy: Date:
Updated As Of: 06/25/2002 R:~FOR]~ER~peclal Event lnmrance Application
ITEM 11
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
City ATTORNEY _~_~_~_~.
DIRECTOR OF fINaNCE~:~
CiTY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
,~J~William g. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
May 27, 2003
Authorize Temporary Street Closure of Old Town Front Street between
Moreno Road and 2nd Street; Main Street from the Bridge to Old Town Front
Street; 2nd Street; 3rd Street; 4th Street, 5th Street, 6th Street, and Mercedes
Street between Moreno Road and 2nd Street for the "Star Spangled 4~h of July
Parade" and Delegate Authority to Issue Special Events/Street Closures
Permit to Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
PREPARED BY:
Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works
Aldo M. Licitra, Associate Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURE OF
OLD TOWN FRONT STREET BETWEEN MORENO ROAD AND
2ND STREET; MAIN STREET FROM THE BRIDGE TO OLD TOWN
FRONT STREET; 2"D STREET; 3"D STREET; 4TM STREET; 5TM
STREET; 6TM STREET; AND MERCEDES STREET BETWEEN
MORENO ROAD AND 2ND STREET FOR THE "STAR SPANGLED
4TM OF JULY PARADE" AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER TO ISSUE SPECIAL EVENTS
PERMIT INCLUDING STREET CLOSURES
BACKGROUND: The Annual City-sponsored "Star Spangled 4th of July Parade"
necessitates temporary street closures to protect the participants and facilitate this event. The
subject special event requires the closure of entire, and portions of, streets in the Old Town area on
July 4, 2003 from approximately 5:00 AM until 11:00 AM. The parade hours are from 10:00 AM to
approximately 11:00 AM. However, staging for the parade will begin at 5:00 AM on Mercedes
Street. The approximate hours of street closures are from 5:00 AM until 11:00 noon on Mercedes
Street and 8:00 AM until 11:00 AM on all remaining streets. The police department will determine
the exact hours of street closures. Also, no parking will be allowed on these subject streets from
5:00 AM until 12:00 noon.
Under Vehicular Code Section 21101, "Regulation of Highways", local authorities, for those
highways under their jurisdiction, may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution for,
among other instances, "temporary closing a portion of any street for celebrations, parades, local
1
r:~Agenda Repods~2003\052703~2003 4~ of July Parade.Street Closures
special events, and other purposes, when, in the opinion of local authorities having jurisdiction, the
closing is necessary for the safety and protection of persons who are to use that portion of the street
during the temporary closing".
The City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-96 on September 10, 1991, which provided standards
and procedures for special events on public streets, highways, sidewalks, or public rights-of-way.
This resolution set forth processes for staff reviewing applications, denying approval or approving
subject to conditions including events requiring changes in normal traffic patterns, and an appeal
process to the City Manager. However the resolution did not delegate authority to temporarily close
streets for these special events.
The subject resolution delegates the authority to approve temporary street closures for the specific
event, the Temecula Community Services Department sponsored "Star Spangled 4thof July Parade"
to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. All other special events requiring temporary street
closures, construction-related closures, etc, shall remain subject to the approval of the City Council
subject to rules and regulations established by the City Council. These rules and regulations shall
also be adopted by resolution in accordance with California Vehicular Code Section 21101.
Some partial closures, such as limiting lane widths for construction purposes or partial closures for
block parties on cul-de-sac streets only do not require full street closures. These and similar partial
street closures or restrictions are not submitted for similar resolutions in order to reduce or eliminate
the administrative impact on City Council and staff time.
FISCAL IMPACT: The costs of police services, and for provision, placement, and retrieval of
necessary warning and advisory devices by the Temecula Community Services Department and the
City Maintenance Division are included in budgetary items.
ATDACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 2003-
2. Permit Application
3. Location Map
2
r:~Agenda Reports~003\052703~2003 4~ of July Parade. Street Closures
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURE OF
OLD TOWN FRONT STREET BETWEEN MORENO ROAD AND
2ND STREET; MAIN STREET FROM THE BRIDGE TO OLD TOWN
FRONT STREET; 2ND STREET; 3RD STREET; 4TM STREET; 5TM
STREET; 6TM STREET; and MERCEDES STREET FROM MORENO
ROAD TO 2ND STREET FOR THE "STAR SPANGLED 4TM OF JULY
PARADE" AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
WORKS/CITY ENGINEER TO ISSUE SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT
INCLUDING STREET CLOSURES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER
AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, The California State Vehicular Code provides for the promulgation of rules and
regulations for the temporary closure of public streets by local authorities by Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish rules and regulations for the temporary
closure of public streets in the interest of promoting safety and protection; and
WHEREAS, The City of Temecula sponsors the annual "Star Spangled 4th of July Parade",
for which such temporary street closures promote the safety and protection of persons using or
proposing to use that street or streets for the special event; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to facilitate the issuance of permission to temporarily
close public streets for this annual "Star Spangled 4th of July Parade; and,
NOW, WHEREAS, the City Council desires to authorize the Director of Public Works/City
Engineer to approve temporary street closures for the annual "Star Spangled 4th of July Parade",
and to establish the general rule that all other proposed temporary street closures shall be reviewed
and approved subject to conditions, or disapproved, by the City Council; and
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Temecula, hereby
authorizes the Director of Public Works/City Engineer to permit temporary street closures for the
annual Star Spangled 4 of July Parade on July 4, 2003, and affirms the general rule that all other
temporary public street closures shall be approved or denied approval by the City Council.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a
regular meeting held on the 27th day of May, 2003.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
3
r:~Agenda Reports~2003\052703~2003 4th of July Parade. Street Closures
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
i, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 27th day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
4
r:~Agenda Reports~003\052703~2003 4"' of July Parade. Street Closures
CITY OF TEMECULA
SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION
(TO BE HELD ON PUBLIC STREET~, HIGItF~A YS,
SIDEWALKS OR PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WA YS)
1. Applicant's Name & Address:
City of Temecula, Conunanity Services Department
2. Number of Anticipated Participants:
3. Purpose of Event:
~000 Parade Participants
4th of July Parade
4. Date, Hours & Precise Location of Event:
Parade kick off 10:00 a.m.
5. Fees to be Charged by Permitee:
6. Type & Nature of Vehicles, Equipment, Etc.
$20.00 entry fee/S50.00 Business Fee
Fire trucks, floats, cars, marchers, equestrian
7. Sound System - Number & Amplification Range:
Old Town Sound System
8. Type of Goods/Services to be Sold/Provided:
Strolling Vendors selling a variety of items
9. Vendor's Name & Business Address:
Unknown at this time
10. Security Plan for Event:
Temecula Police Departmem will provide security
The applicant hereby states that the above information is accurate under penalty or perjury. The Applicant agrees to fully compensate the
City of Temecula for any damage to public property, as well as to clean and otherwise restore the event site to the condition in which it
existed prior to the co~uct of the event.
~obin Gilliland, Sr Recreation Coordinato /~/~n'~ /~d~ i Ft.,^ ( 4/8/2003
Print Applicant / Agent Name ' ' ~Ap~licant~/~gen~ignature Date
FOR Cl'l'Y STAFF USE ONLY:
1. Application Fee Amount: $
2. Special Event
3. Major Special Event
4. Meet/Confer with Transportation Division
5. Insurance Certificate Required
Update.- ~1 Plan/Traffic Study Required
Paid:
Receipt0:
R:~LANDDEV~FOILM S~Sl~ndal Event Application
Street Closure:Mercedez - 5:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.
Old Town Front Street 9:15 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.
Permit Number: LD03-006SE
PUBLIC WORKS SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT
Job Address:
Location:
OLD TOWN FRONT STREET
Applied:
Issued:
Expired:
05/05/2003
Status: PENDING
Permit Fee: $0.00
NOTE: PERMIT FEE DOES NOT INCLUDE OTHER
FEES AUTHORIZED BY CITY ORDINANCE
Applicant:
CITY OF TEMECULA
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
TEMECULA CA 92589
909 694 6411
Description: STAR SPANGLED 4TH OF JULY PARADE.
THIS EVENT WILL REQUIRE THE TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF OLD TOWN FRONT
STREET BETWEEN MORENO ROAD AND 2ND STREET; MAiN STREET FROM THE
BRIDGE TO OLD TOWN FRONT STREET; 2ND STREET; 3RD STREET; 4TH STREET;
5TH STREET; 6TH STREET; AND MERCEDES STREET BETWEEN MORENO ROAD AND
2ND STREET. STREET CLOSURE HOURS ARE 5:00 A.M. TO 12:00 NOON ON
MERCEDES STREET TO ALLOW FOR STAGING AND SET-UP ACTIVITIES, AND 8:00
AM TO 11:00 AM ON ALL REMAiNING STREETS. PARADE HOURS ARE
APPROXIMATELY 10:00 A.M. TO 11:00 A.M. PARKING IS NOT PERMITTED ON
THESE STREETS FROM 5:00 A.M. TO 12:00 NOON. SECURITY WILL BE PROVIDED
BY POLICE, FIRE, PUBLIC WORKS, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT.
THIS PERMIT IS ISSUED AND ACCEPTED SUBJECT TO THE ATTACHED PROVISIONS
BEFORE YOU DIG - CALL (TOLL FREE) 800-422-4133
:Permissio
n is hereby requested to encroach into public right of way to perform work as set forth above. It is understood that this permit is limited to
the work described herein and that all work is to be done in compliance with the provisions attached to this pemfit and with all other
applicable rules, responsibility for said compliance, tbr acceptability of the work, and for repair or replacement thereof if defective, and for
repair or replacement of any existing improvement damaged by the doing of the work.
I hereby certify and agree that all Ordinances of the City of Temecula and the State of California will be complied with whether herein
stated or not.
Permittee's Signature:
City Engineer or Authorized Representative Date
HI9
IS
ITEM 12
APPROVAL ~-~j..~'~
CITYATTORNEY ~ II
D I RECTO R O F FI NAN~E./_,~ Il
CITY MANAGER ~,~/{ II
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
j~A City ManagedCity Council
William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
May 27, 2003
SUBJECT:
Professional Services Agreement for Engineering and Landscape
Architectural Services for State Route 79 South Medians between I-15 and
Butterfield Stage Road, Project No. PW02-14
PREPARED BY:
Amer Attar, Principal Engineer
Eric Weck, Assistant Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
Authorize an advance in the amount of $198,096.80 from the General Fund Reserves, which
will be reimbursed from AD159 "C" and "D" Series Bonds to fund the Design of the State
Route 79 South Medians between 1-15 and Butterfield Stage Road.
Approve an agreement with Project Design Consultants in an amount not to exceed
$180,088.00 to provide professional engineering and landscape amhitectural services for
the State Route 79 South Medians between 1-15 and Butterfield Stage Road, Project No.
PW02-14, and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement.
Authorize the City Manager to approve Change Orders not to exceed the contingency
amount of $18,008.80, which is equal to 10% of the agreement amount.
BACKGROUND: The State Route 79 South Medians Project is identified in the City's
Capital Improvement Program Budget for FY2003-2007. In this project, raised medians will be
constructed on State Route 79 South between 1-15 and Butterfield Stage Road. Improvements in
this 4-mile reach will include construction of the medians, landscaping and irrigation of the medians,
modifications to existing traffic signals, pavement striping and markings, and adjustments to existing
utilities valves and pull boxes.
Request for Proposal No. 113 to provide professional engineering and landscape architectural
services was sent to 8 firms. Staff received 3 proposals from the following firms:
Project Design Consultants
Community Works Design Group'
Korve Engineering Incorporated
Temecula
Riverside
San Bernardino
The firms were ranked as shown. Staff has determined that Project Design Consultants was the
highest ranked consultant based on their submitted proposal. Project Design Consultants has
successfully performed similar projects in the past, including engineering projects for the City of
Temecula. In addition, the firm maintains an office in Temecula. Staff has negotiated a scope of
work and an equitable fee with Project Design Consultants for the professional services.
1
R:~AGENDA REPORTS~2003~052703'tPW02-14PDCag r.doc
This project will enhance traffic safety by separating opposing traffic using raised medians as
barriers. In addition, the landscaped medians on State Route 79 will enhance and beautify this
entrance to the City.
FISCAL IMPACT: The State Route 79 South Medians Project is identified in the City's Capital
Improvement Program Budget for FY2003-2007. An adequate appropriation will be available in the
Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Capital Improvement Project Accounts# 210-165-625-5802. However,
because the revenue sources for this appropriation are not available at this time, an advance from
the General Fund Reserves will be necessary to fund the design contract for the engineering and
landscape architectural services until the AD159 "C" and "D' Series Bond proceeds are available.
The base amount of the contract is $180,088.00 plus the contingency amount of $18,008.00 for a
total design cost of $198,096.80.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Professional Services Agreement with Project Design Consultants.
2. Project Location
3. Project Description
2
R:~,GENDA REPORTS~2003\052703~W02-14PDCagr.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
STATE ROUTE 79 SOUTH MEDIANS
BETWEEN
1-15 AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD
PROJECT NO. PW02-14
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of May 27, 2003, between the City of
Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Project Design Consultants ("Consultant"). In
consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on May 27, 2003, and shall remain
and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than
December 31, 2004, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.
2. SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the services and tasks described and
set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant
shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit
A.
3. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to
the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant
shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons
engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its
obligations under this Agreement.
4. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the
Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of
per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft,
classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contractor 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. Consultant shall provide a copy of prevailing
wage rates to any staff or sub-contractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a
minimum. Consultant shall comply with the previsions of Sections 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5,
1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the previsions of 1775 of the Labor Code,
Consultant shall forfeit to the City, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion
thereof, 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.
5. PAYMENT.
a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates
and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon
actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B other than the payment rates and
schedule of payment are null and void. This amount shall not exceed One Hundred Eighty
Thousand Eighty-Eight Dollars and No Cents ($180,088.00) for the total term of the Agreement
unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement.
]
r:~ClP~rojects~PWO2-14'~Proiect Design Contract
b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection
with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such
additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager. Consultant shall
be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City
Manager and Consultant at the time City's written authorization is given to Consultant for the
performance of said services.
The City Manager may approve additional work up to ten percent (10%) of the amount of the
Agreement or $25,000.00, but in no event shall the total sum of the agreement (basic agreement
amount and contingency amount) exceed twenty -five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). Any additional
work in excess of this amount shall be approved by the City Council.
c. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed.
Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth business day of each month, for services
provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each
invoice as to all nondisputed fees, If the City disputes any of consultant's fees it shall give written
notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the
invoice.
6, SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE.
a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or
terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10)
days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all
work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates
a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the
remainder of this Agreement.
b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City
shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination,
provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement
pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 4.
7. DEFAULT OFCONSULTANT.
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 adses out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of
the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default.
b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default
in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant
with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (10) days after service upon it of said
notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the
Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right,
notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further
notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under
this Agreement.
2
r:~ClP~rojects~PW02*l 4'~Project Design Contract
8. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS.
a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to
sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the
performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of
services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be
maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be cleady identi-
fied and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or ils
designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and
audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts there from as necessary, and
shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this
Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained fora pedod of
three (3) years after receipt of final payment.
b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this
Agreement, all odginal documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data
generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing
the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City
and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the
Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall
make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer
software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer
files.
c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not
be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location
other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant.
9. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect
and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any
and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert
witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may
sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to
property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any
way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability adsing
out of the negligence of the City.
10. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for
the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property
which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the
Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees.
a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
(1)
Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form
No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88.
(2)
Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA O0 01
06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the
Consultant owns no automobiles, a non-owned auto endorsement to
the General Liability policy described above is acceptable.
r:\CIP~projects',PW02-14~roject Design Contract
(3)
Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of
California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no
employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's
compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute
a declaration that it has no employees.
(4)
Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form
providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession.
b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:
General Liability: One Million Dollars $1,000,000 per occurrence for
bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial
General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate
limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately
to this projectJlocation or the general aggregate limit shall be twice
the required occurrence limit.
(2)
Automobile Liability: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident
for bodily injury and property damage.
(3)
Worker's Compensation as required by the State of Califomia;
Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for
bodily injury or disease.
(4)
Professional Liability coverage: Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) per
claim and in aggregate.
c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured
retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City
Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as
respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a
bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense
expenses.
d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability
policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following previsions:
The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be
covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities
performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed
operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by
the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by
the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on
the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials,
employees or volunteers.
(2)
For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance
coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers,
officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured
maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers
shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute
with it.
4
r:\CIP~projects\PW02-14~roject Design Contract
(3)
Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies
including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to
the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
(4)
The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to
the limits of the insurer's liability.
(5)
Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to
state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by
either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30)
days' pdor written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested,
has been given to the City.
e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a
current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self
insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements.
f. Verification of Covera.qe. Consultant shall furnish the City with odginal
endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed bya
person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on
forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before
work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide
complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the
coverage required by these specifications.
11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent
contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant
shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its
officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any
of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant
shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are
in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the
power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner.
b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the
performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the
Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing
services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to
Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
t2. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all
local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those
employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The
Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations.
The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure
of the Consultant to comply with this section.
5
r:~ClF~projects~W02-14~roject Design Contract
13. RELEASE OF INFORMATION.
a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall
be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's pdor written
authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without wdtten
authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide
declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other
information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or
property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered
"voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers,
employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of
deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery
request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed
there under or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the dght,
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 dght to review
any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewdte said
response.
'14. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other
party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (I) personal service, (ii)
delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that
provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail,
certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as
set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be
effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following
deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above.
To City:
City of Temecula
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, Califomia 92590
Attention: City Manager
To Consultant:
Project Design Consultants
43460 Ridge Park Drive, Suite 170
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: Scott A. Hurst, Asst. Vice President
t5. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this
Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without pdor wdtten consent of the
City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for
actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise
agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant.
6
r:\OlPkorojects~WO2-14~roject Design ContTact
16. LICENSES. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall
have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services
described in this Agreement.
17. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Consultant understand and agree that the
laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties
to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning
this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic
jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the
other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's
judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted.
18. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No officer, or employee of the City of Temecula
shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the
Contractor, or Contractor's sub-contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year
thereafter. The Contractor hereby warrants and represents to the City that no officer or employee of
the City of Temecula has any interest, whether contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise,
in this transaction, or in the business of the Contractor or Contractor's sub-contractors on this
project. Contractor further agrees to notiflj the City in the event any such interest is discovered
whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement.
19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding
between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All pdor 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 entedng into this
Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own
independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material.
20. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons
executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the
authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind
Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
7
r:\CIP'torojects\PW02-14\Project Design ConEact
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the
day and year first above written.
CITY OF TEMECULA
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Attest:
Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk
Approved As to Form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
CONSULTANT
Project Design Consultants
43460 Ridge Park Dr., Suite 170
Temecula, CA 92590
(909) 695-5596
Scoff A. Hurst, Asst. Vice President
Arnold L. White, Sr. Vice President
(Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations)
r:~CIP'torolects~PW02-14~miect Design Contract
EXHIBIT A
TASKS TO BE PERFORMED
9
r:\CiP~rojects~PW02-14~Project Design Contract
File: F03-384
May 15, 2003
Page 1 of 9
EXHIBIT "A" - SCOPE OF SERVICES
DESIGN SERVICES FOR
STATE ROUTE 79, TEMECULA CALIFORNIA
ProjectDesign Consultants (PDC) shall provide the following instruments of service based on the
proposal submitted to the City of Temecula on November 27 and the most current median layout
as provided by the City of Temecula dated April 17, 2003 to ProjectDesign Consultants:
I. PHASE 1: KICK-OFFMEETINGANDDATACOIJ~F. CTION
The purpose of this phase is to bring the PDC Team and the City of Temecula into a
full and complete understanding of project goals, opportunities and constraints, and
City of Temecula concerns and expectations.
A. Attend a 'Kick-Off' meeting for introduction and to establish a point of contact
with the City of Temecula.
B. Attend one (1) site meeting with the City of Temecula and consultants to review
the locations of the medians in relationship to existing conditions.
C. Review 'as built' plans as supplied by the City of Temecula and collect any
outstanding 'as built' information relating to median improvements from the City
of Temecula and or state agency.
D. Attend and or hold one (1) meeting with the City of Temecula to discuss proposed
median and construction plan requirements.
E. Attend and or hold one (1) meeting with state agency to discuss proposed median
and construction plan requirements.
F. Review and analyze collected data collected.
G. Attend one (1) visioning workshop meeting with the City of Temecula.
H. Establish construction budget specifically relating to median paving, plant
material and irrigation items.
II. PHASE TWO: ANALYSIS AND OBSERVATION
The purpose of this phase is to verify collected as-built date, familiarization of site and
generation of design ideas and development of base sheets.
PDC Survey will establish and provide survey control along the project limits for
future use in construction staking. This will include the setting of temporary
benchmarks. Precise elevations will be collected in the field at a minimum of 100-
File: F03-384
May 15, 2003
Page 2 ol 9
foot intervals along the centerline of existing road conditions.
B. PDC Survey proposes to utilize existing aerial photography, previously flown for
the City of Temecula, to generate 1-foot contours topographic map from curb to
curb for the length of the project. Field-collected elevations will also be
incorporated to increase the accuracy of the aerial mapping. Curb, aboveground
utilities and striping will also be collected utilizing the aerial mapping process and
verified in the field for completeness. Facilities not appearing on the topographic
survey and not shown on as-built plans will be field located and added to the base
file. The survey will be based on survey control provided by Cal-Trans and
related to street centerline information as shown on Cal-Trans maps. No right-of-
way information is proposed to be addressed.
C. PDC Survey will also address hydraulic issues during the survey process utilizing
the existing aerial photography and 'as built' conditions. This information will be
provided to PDC Public Works.
D. PDC Public Works will develop base information based on PDC Survey site
survey. 'As builts' as provided by the City of Temecula and any additional
information gathered through state and local agencies. Base information will be
generated in AutoCAD 2000 format reproducible to metric scale as desired. Base
information will illustrate topography and any underground utilities.
E. PDC Public Works will coordinate with PDC Landscape Architecture and City of
Temecula to establish design criteria for median horizontal and vertical control
and will identify traffic control issues relating to signage and signal, traffic
control, paving design and striping.
F. PDC Public Works will coordinate with PDC Survey regarding compilation of
survey and hydraulic issues as they relate to median design.
G. PDC Landscape Architecture will coordinate with PDC Survey and Public Works
and irrigation sub-consultant with regard to information illustrated and required
on base sheets.
H. PDC Landscape Architecture will coordinate with PDC Survey for review of
survey and hydraulic issues relating to proposed medians.
I. PDC Landscape Architecture will coordinate with PDC Public Works to conduct
necessary earthwork calculations relating to the proposed medians.
J. PDC Landscape Amhitecture will coordinate with City of Temecula regarding
contract to conduct a soil analysis of existing soil currently under asphalt and or
concrete paving.
File: F03-384
May 15, 2003
Page 3 ot 9
III. PHASE THREE: CONCEPT PLANS
The purpose of this phase is to present a landscape image based on data collected, and
the City of Temecula needs, requirements and wants.
A. PDC Public Works will coordinate with PDC Landscape Architecture proposed
drainage features such as storm drain inlets, proposed and existing traffic/signal
conduit locations and equipment.
B. PDC Public Works will prepare conceptual plans for traffic control, traffic signals
and striping.
C. PDC Public Works will attend one meeting with City of Temecula to review
concept plans.
D. PDC Public Works will prepare an opinion of probable cost associated with
proposed traffic/signal improvements and any and all permits required for
proposed median traffic and signaling improvements.
E. PDC Public Work will research and identify required permits.
F. PDC Landscape Architecture will conduct a design charrette to develop a
landscape theme for the proposed medians. Design issues such as paving pattem,
material and color will be developed. Also, developed will be planting design
schemes, which include planting type, texture, color and form. Developed
landscape design ideas will be based on Client discussion and any governing
agency landscape requirements. The City of Temecula will have an opportunity to
attend the design charrette if desired.
G. PDC Landscape Architecture will meet with the City of Temecula to review
preliminary concept plan as developed during design charrette for approval prior
to development of Landscape Concept Plan. PDC Landscape Architecture will
comply with City of Temecula Landscape Ordinances and required calculations,
if any.
H. PDC Landscape Architecture will develop a Landscape Concept plan based on
design charrette and preliminary approval of concept plan per the City of
Temecula. Up to two (2) section sketches will be included if required. This/these
plan(s) will be a graphic presentation in plan view, specifically locating landscape
areas, planting masses and other hardscape related landscape features including
the layout of paving and other hardscape features covered by this agreement. The
plan will be a form suitable for submittal to the City of Temecula. One (1) final
Landscape Concept Plan will be colored.
I. PDC Landscape Architecture and PDC Public Works upon completion of
Landscape Concept Plan will attend and prepare a presentation of the proposed
medians to the City of Temecula.
File: F03-384
May 15, 2003
Page 4 of 9
IV. PHASE FOUR: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
The purpose of the Design Development phase is to establish design criteria and
gui&lines based on concept plans described above.
A. PDC Public Works will coordinate with PDC Landscape Architecture regarding
design criteria of proposed medians specifically relating to median paving,
signage and other proposed design features.
B. PDC Public Works will develop and submit a 35% PS&E. The 35% PS&E will
include plan and profile of median curb, minor drainage details, preliminary
traffic signal modifications (if necessary), conduit relocations, and pavement
sections and preparation of standard provisions. Plans will be submitted on City
of Temecula title block in metric scale.
C. PDC Public Works will establish survey monumentation location(s) in
coordination with PDC Survey.
D. PDC Landscape Architecture will establish planting area configuration and
planting palate for proposed medians.
E. PDC Landscape Architecture will coordinate with irrigation sub-consultant
regarding approved irrigation equipment and location of the following: meter,
backflow and points of connection for proposed medians.
F. PDC Landscape Architecture will coordinate with the City of Temecula any and
all design elements regarding the median paving, plant material and irrigation
equipment.
G. PDC Landscape Architecture will coordinate with the City of Temecula regarding
the landscape component specification format requirements.
On approval by the City of Temecula of the Landscape Concept Plan and Design
Development efforts, PDC will proceed to Phase V Construction Documents.
V. PHASE FIVE: CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
The purpose of the Construction Document phase is to formalize the Concept plan and
Design Development phase into a set of Construction Documents.
A. PUBLIC WORKS:
Base Sheet RefinemenffRevision: Provide limited refinement of base sheets
per 'as built' conditions and City of Temecula input. Coordinate with PDC
Survey for additional survey information if required.
Road Way Construction Plans: Prepare 70% and 90% PS&E plans for
submittal to City of Temecula. Plans shall include final median construction
plans and construction details, revised traffic signal and conduit plan, traffic
Pile: F03-384
May 15, 2003
Page 5 ol 9
control plans and required storm drain plans. Plans shall be prepared on
City of Temecula title blocks in metric scale.
3. Specifications~Special Provisions: Prepare specifications for median
construction plans as required by the City of Temecula. 'Green Book'
specifications or CSI format will be utilized in book form or on construction
'D' sheets.
4. Opinion of Probable Cost: Prepare an opinion of probable construction cost
based on improvements as illustrated on construction documents.
5. Coordination with 'Caltrans': Coordinate construction drawings with state
agency for compliance to codes, permits and submittal requirements.
6. Revisions: Coordinate with City of Temecula regarding revisions based on
'redlines' and general comments.
B. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE:
1. Landscape Median Construction/Layout Plan: Prepare Landscape
Construction/Layout Plan to indicate, and horizontally locate, median
paving, including materials call-outs and finishes. Plans shall be in metric
scale.
2. Landscape Construction Details: Prepare necessary notes, legends, and
details needed for construction of proposed hardscape features. Details shall
be in metric scale.
3. Landscape Construction Specifications: Prepare Construction Specifications
in CSI format or in 'Green Book' format as required by the City of
Temecula.
4. Fine Grading/Grading Plan Coordination: Coordinate fine grading in
proposed median planting areas with Public Works.
5. Median Drainage: Coordinate with PDC Public Works location of area
drains, drain lines and connections to existing storm drains for proposed
drainage. Spot elevations shall be only supplemental to Civil Engineer's
grading plans. Plans shall be in metric scale.
6. Irrigation Plan: Irrigation plan will diagrammatically layout landscape
irrigation components. Irrigation equipment such as piping, valves,
sprinkler heads, controllers, and other related irrigation equipment would be
located on the plans. Plans shall be in metric scale.
7. Irrigation Water-Use Calculations: Prepare landscape water use !
conservation calculations as required by the governing Water District.
8. Irrigation Details: Prepare necessary notes, legends, and details for
installation of landscape irrigation items. Details shall be in metric scale.
File: F03-384
May 15, 2003
Page 6 of 9
9. Irrigation Specifications: Prepare specifications as required by the City of
Temecula in 'Green Book' specifications or CSI format will be utilized in
book form or on construction 'D' sheets.
10. Planting Plan: Planting plan will graphically locate and identify plant
materials and their specific locations. The planting plan will also indicate
other landscape elements including root barriers where required, turf areas,
and mulched areas. A planting legend will be included indicating size,
varieties, and spacing of proposed plant materials. Details shall be in metric
scale.
11. Planting Details: Prepare necessary notes, legends, and details for
installation of landscape planting.
12. Planting Specifications: Prepare specifications as required by the City of
Temecula in 'Green Book' specifications or CSI format will be utilized in
book form or on construction 'D' sheets.
13. Revisions: Coordinate with City of Temecula for revisions based on City of
Temecula 'redlines' and general comments.
14. Opinion Of Probable Cost For Landscape Construction: Prepare opinion of
probable costs of landscape construction items based upon final landscape
plans for project.
Landscape Plans will be submitted for City of Temecula for review at 35%, 70% and
90% of completion.
File: F03-384
May 15, 2003
Page 7 of 9
CLIENT SUPPLIED ITEMS
1. Recently prepared or updated project topographic survey, and soils underground testing /
survey maps in AutoCAD Release 2000 DWG format.
2. Utility information and plans in AutoCAD Release 2000 DWG format if available.
3. Engineering Project Site Plans and others in AutoCAD Release 2000 DWG format if
available.
Any existing and available plans, and data pertaining to the site, and adjacent lands to
assist with the design and development of the project, such as architectural plans, utility
as-built plans, land-use and land classification plans, etc. These plans shall be supplied in
AutoCAD Release 2000 DWG format if available.
5. Median location base map in AutoCAD Release 2000 DWG format if available.
CONSULTING AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES
2.
3.
4.
Prepare project site plan design and layout for buildings, parking, driveways, city
sidewalks, HOA responsibility areas and other non-landscape features.
Consult with regard to off-site areas associated with project and/or perform site survey of
existing site features.
Digitize or convert site or other design information required for effective design not
provided in AutoCAD R2000 digital format files.
Make revisions to progress or completed documents necessitated by site and/or base map
changes, additions, deletions, or substitutions instigated by Client or project design team
consultants (architects, civil engineers, electrical engineers, lighting engineers, etc.).
Consult with regard to opinion of probable cost supplemental to scope of services above
and/or prepare designs for special provisions related to landscape construction.
Make revisions to documents previously prepared by PDC where such revisions are
inconsistent with prior Client's approval or due to substantial changes in Client's
instructions.
Make revisions to documents previously prepared by PDC necessitated by site conditions
that were neither foreseen nor reasonably foreseeable by PDC at the time of the
preparation of documents to be revised.
Prepare new documents for additional phases of development.
File: F03-384
May 15, 2003
Page 8 of 9
EXCLUDED SERVICES
1. Will not provide any soils engineering services whatsoever, nor otherwise have any
liability or responsibility for the project's soils and/or subsurface conditions.
2. Will not have control or charge of, and will not be responsible for, construction means,
methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in
connection with the project, or for the acts or omissions of the project's contractors, or any
other person performing any of the work on the project, or for the failure of any of them to
perform work on the project in accordance with the project's plans and specifications.
3. Will not be responsible for the accuracy of data and/or design work provided to PDC.
4. Will not guarantee cost, quantity or other estimates.
5. Will not provide structural engineering.
6. Will not provide electrical and or lighting plans for median improvements.
7. Weekly construction status meetings at site or other locations.
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE
tO
r:\CIP~oroiects",PWO2-14~Pmiect Desi~3n Contract
File: F03-384
May 15, 2003
Page 9 ol 9
EXHIBIT "B"
LABOR RATE SCHEDULE
Effective October 1, 2002
Senior Principal
Principal
Project Manager
Planning, Environmental & Landscape Architecture
Senior Project Planner, Senior Landscape Architect
GIS Specialist
Project Planner, Graphics Coordinator
Landscape Architect, Urban Designer
Electronic Visualization Specialist
Planning Assistant, GIS Technician
Landscape Designer, Graphics Artist
Landscape Drafter, Asst. Landscape Designer
Clerical
Planning Intern
Engineering
Senior Project Engineer
Design Manager
Project Engineer, Design Supervisor, Water Quality Engineer
Senior Civil Designer
Design Engineer
Civil Engineer, CADD Manager
Assistant Civil Engineer, Civil Designer
Design Drafter
Drafter
Clerical
Junior Technician
Surveying, Photogrammetry
Site Manager, Crew Manager, Senior Surveyor
Mapping Manager
Photogrammetric Mapping Manager
Surveyor
Crew/Mapping Coordinator
SurveyfMap Tech II, Photogrammetrist
Survey/Map Tech I
Photogrammetric Map Editor
Clerical
2-Man Survey Crew (Conventional)
3-Man Survey Crew (Conventional)
1-Man Crew (GPS; 1 Receiver)
2-Man Crew (GPS; 2 Receivers)
3-Man Crew (GPS; 3 Receivers)
$200
$165
$135
$100
$90
$85
$80
$80
$75
$69
$58
$55
$37
$120
$110
$105
$95
$90
$80
$75
$70
$60
$55
$50
$110
$110
$95
$95
$90
$80
$70
$60
$55
$180
$200
$120
$195
$250
Reimbursable charges for blueprinting, photographic mylar reproduction, photocopying, travel and mileage, delivery
services, long-distance telephone charges, computerized plotting, special graphic supplies, facsimiles, and other
direct project charges incurred on behalf of Client will be billed to Client at cost plus 10%.
Rates subject to change without notice after June 30, 2003
ITEM 13
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITYATTORNEY ~ II
DIRECTOROFFINANCE_.~J~Z~'
CITY MANAGER
CITY OFTEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
,'~iliiam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
May 27, 2003
Reimbursement Agreement between Rancho California Water District and
the City of Temecula for Rancho California Road Bridge Widening Over
Murrieta Creek - Project No. PW99-18
PREPARED BY:
Greg Butler, Principal Engineer- Capital Projects
Steve Charette, Assistant Engineer - Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Reimbursement Agreement
between Rancho California Water District (RCWD) and the City of Temecula for the Rancho
California Road Bddge Widening Over Murrieta Creek - Project No. PW99-18.
BACKGROUND: On April 22, 2003 the City Council awarded the Rancho California Road
Bridge Widening Over Murrieta Creek - Project No. PW99-18 to MCM Construction, Inc. The
reimbursement agreement states that RCWD will reimburse the City for the following water
relocation and installation bid items:
Bid item 52
Bid item 53
Bid item 57
Relocate Air Vac
Relocate Fire Hydrant
Relocate Existing Water Meter
$ 2,400.00
$10,400.00
$ 1,400.00
Total: $14,200.00
FISCAL IMPACT: All costs associated with the Reimbursement Agreement will be paid for by
RCWD at no fiscal impact to the City.
ATrACHMENTS: Reimbursement Agreement with RCWD
1
R:~AGENDA REPORTS~003\052703\PW99-18 RCWD AGREEMENT,DOC
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
CITY OF TEMECULA
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD BRIDGE VODENING OVER MURRIETA CREEK
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
PROJECT NO. PW99-18
AND
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of May 27, 2003, between the CITY OF
TEMECULA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and Rancho California Water
District, a California Water District and existing and operating under Division 13 of the California Water
Code, hereinafter referred to as "RCWD". In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained
herein, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
Section I. PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENT. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish
reimbursement to CITY by RCWD for the cost of the relocation and installation of certain water improvements
made necessary by the construction of the Rancho California Road Bridge Widening Over Murrieta Creek
Improvements, Project No. PW99-18, hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT'.
Section II. RCWD shall reimburse CITY for one hundred percent (100%) of the costs
(hereinafter referred to as "REIMBURSEMENT'), for the relocation and installation of certain water
improvements within the PROJECT area that are affected by the PROJECT. The costs for the
REIMBURSEMENT to CITY by RCWD shall include the following items as shown within the attached Bid
Result Spreadsheet:
A. Water Items
Extended Bid Amounts
Bid Item 52 - Relocate Air Vac
Bid Item 53 - Relocate Fire Hydrant
Bid Item 57 - Relocate Water Meter
$ 2,400.00
$10,400.00
$ 1,400.00
$14,200.00 Total
Section III. Costs are based on construction bids received for the PROJECT under "Rancho California Water
District Items" shown within the attached Bid Result Spreadsheet. CITY has evaluated and analyzed all bids
received and selected the lowest responsible bidder for the PROJECT as Riverside Construction (herinafter
referred to as "CONTRACTOR"). RCWD has reviewed the bids and approved CITY's selection of CITY's
CONTRACTOR prior to the commencement of the work on the PROJECT.
RCWD shall maintain as a contingency an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the total estimated costs of
constructing the water facilities to account for unforeseen changes to the work. The CITY shall obtain approval
from RCWD prior to the approval of any change orders associated with the relocation and installation of these
facilities, and authorizing the contractor to proceed unless failure to act immediately may affect public safety.
The cost of any delay in the work due to the delayed action of RCWD in approving change orders associated
with waterline construction shall be borne by RCWD. RCWD shall respond to water facility change orders
within three business days.
CITY shall make payment to CONTRACTOR for work performed. Actual costs shall be identified and billed
c~cip\projects~pw99\pwg9-16~rc~d reimburseagrmt
1
to RCWD for payment on the following basis:
A. The C1TY shall invoice RCWD on a monthly basis for all RCWD facilities completed by the
CONTRACTOR. RCWD shall remit payment to the City within twenty-five days of receipt of
invoice.
Section IV. It is acknowledged that RCWD has reviewed and approved all CITY plans and
specifications for the relocation and installation of the water facility improvements and has approved the bid
amount as reasonable. Management and administration of the terms expressed herein shall be performed by
CITY for the PROJECT. CITY agrees to designate Mr. Steve Charette, Assistant Engineer, Capital Projects,
as the contact for CITY in regards to this agreement. RC~ agrees to designate Mr. Steve Brannon,
Development Engineering Manager, as a point of contact for RCWD to facilitate the reimbursements identified
herein.
Section V. INSPECTION RCWD shall provide and pay for inspection of all new and relocated
facilities specifically, Bid Items 52, 53, and 57.
Section VI. NOTICES All notices under this Agreement shall be sent as follows:
RCWD:
Rancho California Water District
42135 Winchester Road
Temecula, CA 92590
Attn: Steve Brannon, Development Engineering Manager
CITY:
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Attn: Steve Charette, Assistant Engineer, Capital Projects
Either party may change its address for notices by notifying the other party. All notices given at the most
recent address specified shall be deemed to have been properly given.
~cip\projects',pw99\pw99-18\rcwd reimbu~seagrmt
2
This Agreement is dated as of the date set forth above.
District:
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
By:
City:
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
Jeff Stone, Mayor
By:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
r:~cip\projectsyw99\pw99-18~rcwd reimburseagrmt
3
ITEM 14
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
ClTY OFTEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City ManagedCity Council
APPROVAl
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANC E_~,~
CITY MANAGER ~,~'
//~/J~William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
May 27, 2003
Completion and Acceptance of the Asphalt Crackfill Project - Various
Streets, FY2002-2003 - Project No. PW02-24
PREPARED BY: /~l~reg Butler, Principal Engineer -~' Eric Weck, Assistant Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
1. Accept the "Asphalt Crackfill Project for FY2002-2003, PW02-24" as complete; and
File a Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one (1) year
Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract; and
Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing the Notice of
Completion, if no liens have been filed.
BACKGROUND: On January 28, 2003 the City Council awarded the Asphalt Crackfill
contract to Global Road Sealing, Inc. for $77,600.00, and authorized a contingency amount of
$7,760.00.
This Asphalt Crackfill Project is part of the Annual Street Maintenance Program. The project
involved removing debris from cracks in the road surface and filling the cracks with an asphalt
crackfiller material. This will inhibit the infiltration of water into the road structural section and
prolong the service life of the pavement.
The roads included in this project were:
· Rancho California Road · Via Puesta del Sol
· Ynez Road · Paseo Brillante
· Rancho Vista Road · Paseo Rayo del Sol
· Meadows Parkway · Via Beso del Sol
· Margarita Road · Via Cuesta al Sol
· SolanaWay · Paseo Sonrisa del Sol
,, Winchester Road · Avenida Cimadel Sol
· Business Park Drive · Single Oak Drive
· Pauba Road* · North General Kearney Road*
* added via Change Order #1
1
R:\CIP\PROJ ECTS\PW02~PW02-24 Crackfill~PW02-24 CRACK completion. DOC
The contractor has completed the work within the allotted contract time, and in accordance with the
approved plans, specifications and contract change orders, and to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
The construction retention for this project will be released on or about 35 days after Notice of
Completion has been recorded.
FISCAL IMPACT: The final project cost is $83,959.00, which includes the original contract
amount, $77,600.00, and Contract Change Order Number 1, $6,359.00, which added an additional
portion of Pauba Road and North General Kearney Road to the list of streets to be crackfilled. The
Asphalt Crackfill Project is funded by the Public Works Department, Maintenance Division, Routine
Street Maintenance Account No. 001-164-601-5402.
A'I-rACH MENTS:
1. Notice of Completion
2. Maintenance Bond
3. Contractor's Affidavit
2
R:\CIP~PROJ ECTS~PW02\PW02*24 Crackfill~PW02*24 CRACK completion. DOC
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND RETURN TO:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF TEMECULA
P.O. Box 9033
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
1. The City of Temecula is the owner of the property hereinafter described. Nature of Interest
Vendee Under Contract.
92590.
The full address of the City of Temecula is 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California
3. A Contract was awarded by the City of Temecula to Global Road Sealing, Inc., 6341
Klamath Dr., Westminster, CA 92683 to perform the following work of improvement:
ASPHALT CRACKFILL PROJECT - VARIOUS CITY STREETS FY02-03
Project No. PW02-24
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 May 27, 2003. That upon said
contract the American Contractors Indemnity Company, was surety for the bond given by the said company
as required by law.
5. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of Temecula,
County of Riverside, State of California, and is described as follows:
Asphalt Crackfill Project - Various City Streets FY02-03
Project No. PW02-24
6. The location of said property is: Various City Streets, Temecula, California
Dated at Temecula, California, this 27th day of May, 2003
City of Temecula
Susan W. Jones CMC, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones CMC, 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, a
California, this 27 day of May, 2003.
City of Temecula
Susan W. Jones CMC, City Clerk
R:~cip~project s~ow02-24\CO M PLETION NOTE
Bond No. 177676
CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MAINTENANCE BOND
PROJECT NO. PW02.24
ASPHALT CRACKFILL PROJECT- VARIOUS STREETS
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENT THAT:
GlObal Road Sealing, Inc., 6341 Klamath Dy, ~Jestminster. Ca
' - .... ~IAM-E AND 'AD~SS ~ONTRA~
92683 _.
Corporation
., here(halter called Pdnc(pal. and
A~nerican Contractors Indemnity Company, 10231 Slater, #202, Fountain Valley, CA 92708
' ' ' - NAME AND ADORE'~S OF SURETY
horeinah, er celled SURETY, are hold and firmly bound unto CiTY 01= T!:::~,~¢.C[~)I~, .
hereinafter celled OWNER, in the penal sum of e±~hr, r-housand ~ hundred
DOLLARS and ._.r- - ' no CENTS
($ _._~4~0q.00 ___._) in iawtul money of the United States, said sum'being not less than ten
(10%) ct the Contract value payable by the said City of Temecula under the terms of the
Contract, for the payment of which, we bind ourselves, successors, and assigns, Jointly and
severally, firmly by these presents.
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that whereas, th,~ Principal entered into a
certain Contract with the OWNER, dated the 2~Ttt~ day of Feb?.~_.T&La_r¥ ,2003 a Copy
of which is hereto attached and mede a pert here0~ for the construction of PROJECT t,IO. PW02-
24, ASPHALT CRACKFILL PROJECT - VARIOUS STREETS.
WHEREAS, said Contract provides that the Principal will furnish a bond conditioned to guarantee
for [he period of c¢n~ (1) year after approval of the final estimate on said job, by the OWNER,
against all defects In workmanship and materials which may become apparent during said period;
and
WHEREAS. the eaid Contract has been completed, and wag the flnaLestlmate approved on
A~...i ~. 2 L,_2..0 0 3 ,
NrdW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OI~LIGATION IS SUCH, that if within one year
from the date of approval of the fin[ti estimate on said job pursuant to the Contract, the work done
under the terms of said Contract shall disclose poor workmanship in the execution of said work,
end the carrying out of the terms of said Contract, or it shall appear that defective materials were
furnished thereunder, then this obligation shall remain in full force and virtus, otherwise this
instrument shall be void.
As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified, costs and
reasonable expenses and fees shall be included, including reasonable attorney's fees incurred by
the City of Temecula In successfully enforcing this obligation, all to be taxed as costs and
included in any judgment rendered.
M/,J~ENKNCE BONO
m
The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time. alteration, or addilion
to the terms of the Contract, or to the work to be performed thereunder, or to the specifications
accompanying the same, shall in any way affect Its obligations on this bond. and it does hereby
waive notice of any such change, extension of time, atteration, or addition to the terms of tne
Contract, or to t~e work, or to the Specifications.
Signed and sealed this 13t'h day of
(Seal)
Paul S. Dito
(Name)
Attorney-tn-Fact
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter M. Thorsen, City Attorney
PRINCIPAL
By:
(Name)
(TIt~e)
By: _
(Name)
(Title)
M-2 R ;~C I p,p ROJ~CT S~WO2'~:~V~2.24 Cmcld'di~ec~4 $~c~
~UNT~ENAh~[
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California
County of Orange
On l~ay 13, 2003
Date
personally appeared Paul S, Dito
, before me, Edith ~aribay, Notary Public
personally known to me
~ proved to me on the basis of satisfacto~
· ~ evid~ncb
to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed
the same in his/her/their authorized
capacity(les), and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or
the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)
acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS~~_ and~al.
OPTIONAL
Though the information below is not required by/aw, it may prove valuable to persons retying on the document
and could prevent fraudulent removal and reatlachment of this form to another document.
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document: Bond t, lo. 177676
Document Date:
Number of Pages:
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:
Capacity(les) Claimed by Signer
Signer's Name:
[J Individual
F_] Corporate Officer -- Title(s):
Fq Partner--[] Limited [] General
r~ Attorney in Fact
L-/ Trustee
[] Guardian or Conservator
[] Other:
Signer Is Representing: American Contz-actors ]:ndemnit:~' Coml)a~y
Top ol thumb here
A American Contractors Indemnity Company
9841 Airport Blvd., 9th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90045
POWER OF ATTORNEY
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
07-7511
That American Contractors Indemnity Company of the State of California, a California corporation does hereby appoint,
Erik Johansson, Paul S. Dito, Edith Garibay, Klm E. Ilcredia, Sherle L. Bell, Kimberly Burch, or Pauline La Salle
Its true and lawful Attomey(s)-in-Fact, with full authority to execute on its behalf bonds, undertakings, recognizances and other contracts
of indemnity and writings oblieatorv in the nature thereof, issued in the course of its business and to bind the Company thereby, in an
*** Dollars*** ·
Amount nottoexceed $ 1,500,000.00 . This Power of Attorney shall expire without further action on
September 27, 2005.
This Power of Attorney is granted and is signed and sealed by facsimile under and by the authority of the following Resolution adopted
by the Board of Directors of AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY at a meeting duly called and held on the 6th day
of December, 1990.
"RESOLVED that the Chief Executive Officer, President or any [qce President, Executive t~ce President, Secretary or Assistant Secretary, shall have
the power and authority
L To appoint Attorney(s)-in-Fact and to authorize them to execute on behalf of the Company, and attach the seal of the Company thereto,
bonds and undertakings, contracts of indemnity and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof and,
2. To remove, at any time, any such Attorney-in-fact and revoke the authority given.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the signatures of such officers and the seal of the Company may be affixed to any such Power of Attorney or certificate
relating thereto by facsimile, and any such Power of Attorney or certificate bearing such facsimile signatures or facsimile seal shall be valid and
binding upon the Company and any such power so executed and certified by facsimile signatures and facsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon the
Company in the future with respect to any bond or undertaking to which it is attached."
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, American Contractors Indemnity Company has caused its seal to be affixed hereto and executed by its
President on the I st day of September, 2000.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY
Andy T. Faust, Jr., Corporate President
On this 1st day of September, 2000 before me, Norma J. Virgilio, a notary public, personally appeared Andy T. Faust, Jr., Corporate
President of American Contractors Indemnity Company, to me personally known to be the individual and officer described herein, and
acknowledged that he executed the foregoing instrument and affixed the seal of said corporation thereto by authority of his office.
WITNESS my hand and official seal
~qorma J. Virgi~io, I~otar~
I, JAMES H. FERGUSON, Corporate Secretary of American Contractors Indemnity Company, do hereby certify that the Power of
Artomey and the resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of said Company as set forth above, are tree and correct transcripts thereof
and that neither the said Power of Attorney nor the resolution have been revoked and they are now in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13thday of iqay ,200 3
Bond No. 177676
Agency No. g9007
JAYMES H. F~l~G~US~Secretary
rev. POA04/20/01
CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT / ~,~"'~
PROJECT NO. PW02-24 ~/~e? Ob . ' L~
ASPHALT CRACKFILL PROJECT- VARIOUS STREETS
.
This is to certify that ~. ~.. ~. _~ , (hereinafter the "CONTRACTOR") declare~
to the City of Temecula, under oath, that he/she/it has paid in full for all 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, ,w, ith regard to the building, erection,
construction, or repair of that certain work of improvement known as PROJECT NO. PW02-24,
ASPHALT CRACKFILL PROJECT - VARIOUS STREETS, situated in the City of Temecula,
State of California, more particularly described as follows:
INSERT ADDRESS OR DESCRIBE LOCATION OF WORK
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 Contract Code {}7100, 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
arid alt claims, debts, demands; or cause of action which exist o[ might exist in favor of the
CONTRACTOR by reason of payment by the City of Temecula of any contract amount which the
CONTRACTOR has not disputed above.
Dated: -~'~
RELEASE
CONTRACTOR
By: ,
Signature
Print Name and Title
R-1
R:\C[p~p ROJ ECTS~OW02~oW02-24 Crackflll~spe cs~0224spe cs.d oc
ITEM 15
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OFTEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
APPROVAL /-~~
CITY ATTORNEY ~
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
'~ William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
May 27, 2003
Agreement for Construction, Inspection and Acceptance of Wolf Valley
Drainage Improvements
PREPARED BY: Beryl Yasinosky, Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
Approve an Agreement with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District, the County of Riverside, Centex Homes and Redhawk Communities, Inc. for the
Construction, Inspection and Acceptance of Wolf Valley Drainage Improvements.
2. Authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement.
BACKGROUND: Redhawk Communities, Inc. and Centex Homes desire to develop
property in the unincorporated area of Riverside County known as Redhawk. As a result, both
developers are required to construct certain storm drain improvements that include portions of
Deer Hollow Road and Pechanga Parkway located the City of Temecula.
it has been requested by the County of Riverside that the City enter into a cooperative
agreement to facilitate the construction of these improvements in terms of issuing the necessary
encroachment permits, providing City inspections, and agreeing to accept the future storm drain
improvements as City maintained facilities. A copy of the proposed agreement is attached for
your review.
FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed agreement provides a financial benefit to the City of
Temecula in that the construction will facilitate future storm drain improvements within Deer
Hollow Road and Pechanga Parkway through the utilization of AD 159 Bond proceeds.
ATTACHMENTS: Agreement
R:\agd rpt\03\0527\WolfVaileyDrainage. Agrmt
1
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
80965.2
AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION, INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE
OF WOLF VALLEY DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
(Tract Nos. 23065-2, -4, -F)
The RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT, hereinafter called "DISTRICT", the COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,
hereinafter called "COUNTY", the CITY OF TEMECULA, hereinafter called "CITY",
CENTEX HOMES, a Nevada general parmership, hereinafter called "CENTEX," and
REDHAWK COMMUNITIES, INC., a California corporation, hereinafter called "REDHAWK,"
hereby agree as follows:
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, CENTEX has submitted for approval Tract Nos. 23065-4 and
23065~F in western Riverside County, and as a condition of approval thereof, CENTEX must
construct certain flood control facilities in order to provide flood protection and drainage for
CENTEX'S proposed development; and
B. WHEREAS, CENTEX has previously entered into a Cooperative
Agreement, dated November 6, 2001, with DISTRICT and COUNTY providing for the
construction, inspection and acceptance of said flood control facilities, hereinafter called the
"CENTEX FACILITIES". The CENTEX FACILITIES are shown in green on Exhibit "A,"
which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Said Cooperative Agreement,
hereinafter called "CENTEX AGREEMENT", is recorded as Document No. 2001-571386 of the
Official Records of the County of Riverside; and
C. WHEREAS, REDHAWK has submitted for approval Tract No. 23065-2 in
western Riverside County and, as a condition of approval thereof, REDHAWK must construct
certain flood control facilities in order to provide flood protection and drainage for
REDHAWK'S proposed development; and
-1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
80965.2
D. WHEREAS, REDHAWK has previously entered into a Cooperative
Agreement, dated October 30, 2001, with DISTRICT and COUNTY providing for the
construction, inspection and acceptance of said flood control facilities, hereinafter called the
"REDHAWK FACILITIES". The REDHAWK FACILITIES are shown in blue on Exhibit "A."
Said Cooperative Agreement, hereinafter called "REDHAWK AGREEMENT", is recorded as
Document No. 2001-571384 of the Official Records of the County of Riverside; and
E. WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of an agreement entitled "Purchase
Agreement and Escrow Instructions," dated July 13, 2001 (the "Purchase Agreement"), by and
between CENTEX and REDHAWK, CENTEX, for consideration acknowledged and received,
agreed to construct the REDHAWK FACILTIES for a discount in the sales price to be paid for
certain property and said discount was commensurate with the estimated costs for designing,
engineering and constructing the REDHAWK FACILITIES; and
F. WHEREAS, construction of REDHAWK FACILITIES is necessary to
ensure the proper functioning of the CENTEX FACILITIES; and
G. WHEREAS, construction of certain off-site drainage improvements, more
specifically the construction of the ultimate Wolf Valley Creek Channel improvements between
Temecula Creek and Deer Hollow Way, hereinafter the "CHANNEL IMPROVMENTS," as
shown on Exhibit "A," is necessary to properly mitigate off-site drainage impacts of the
combined REDHAWK FACILITIES and CENTEX FACILTIES; and
H. WHEREAS, the County has formed Assessment District No. 159 (Rancho
Villages) of the County Of Riverside and Assessment District No. 159 Supplemental (Rancho
¥illages) of the County of Riverside (collectively, "Assessment District No. 159") to finance, in
part, the cost of construction the CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS and the Public Financing
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
80965.2
Authority of the CITY has received a petition to form a community facilities district that would,
in part, finance the construction of the CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS; and
I. WHEREAS, construction of the CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS is
presently estimated to be completed in late 2004; and
J. WHEREAS, CENTEX, REDHAWK, DISTRICT and COUNTY, on behalf
of itself and Assessment District No. 159, CITY, Temecula Valley Unified School District, and
S-P Murdy, LLC have entered into a separate agreement entitled "Agreement for Installation and
Funding of Drainage Improvements and Roads," dated January 14, 2003, hereinafter called
"AGREEMENT", setting forth their mutual understandings and promises pertaining to the
construction of various public improvements located both within the jurisdictional boundaries of
COUNTY and CITY, including CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS and interim improvements
required until completion of the CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, as needed to ensure the proper
functioning of REDHAWK FACILITIES and CENTEX FACILITIES. Said AGREEMENT is
hereby incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof; and
K. WHEREAS, CENTEX and REDHAWK, have entered into agreements
entitled "Settlement Agreement," dated May 17, 2002 and "Amendment to Settlement
Agreement," dated January 9, 2003 (collectively, the "Settlement Agreement") that provide for
CENTEX to construct certain of the interim drainage facilities, as identified in the
AGREEEMENT, including certain storm drain segments and a detention basin, hereinafter
called "INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM," as shown in blue and in orange on Exhibit "A" and
made a part hereof: and
L. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of CENTEX AGREEMENT,
CENTEX has fulfilled certain of its obligations to DISTRICT, including payment of an
-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
80965.2
inspection deposit and Zone 7 Maintenance Trust Fund deposit, and DISTRICT has authorized
CENTEX to proceed with the construction of CENTEX FACILITIES; and
K. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of REDHAWK AGREEMENT,
REDHAWK has fulfilled certain of its obligations to DISTRICT, including payment of an
inspection deposit and Zone 7 Maintenance Trust Fund deposit, necessary for DISTRICT to
authorize REDHAWK to proceed with the cons~uction of REDHAWK FACILITIES; however,
DISTRICT has heretofore withheld its approval to commence construction of REDHAWK
FACILITIES because REDHAWK was heretofore unable to secure and furnish, as required by
REDHAWK AGREEMENT, a certain declaration of dedication, termed the "Spring Pacific
Declaration" in the AGREEMENT, necessary to construct the outlet portion of REDHAWK
FACILITIES; and
L. WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the AGREEMENT, the "Spring
Pacific Declaration" was provided to DISTRICT on January 10, 2003; and
M. WHEREAS, INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM includes substantial
segments of REDLIAWK FACILITIES as shown highlighted in blue on Exhibit "A". The
interim detention basin, hereinafter called "INTERIM BASIN", and interim storm drain
segments, hereinafter called "INTERIM SEGMENTS" are shown highlighted in orange on
Exhibit "A", INTERIM BASIN and INTERIM SEGMENTS are hereinafter altogether called
"INTERIM FACILITIES"; and
N. WHEREAS, INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM will provide proper flood
control and drainage for the subject tracts until such time as the construction of CHANNEL
IMPROVEMENTS, as contemplated in AGREEMENT, eliminates the need for INTERIM
DRAYNAGE SYSTEM, thereby allowing CENTEX to complete conslxuction of REDHAWK
FACILITiES as set forth herein; and
-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
80965.2
O. WHEREAS~ pursuant to the AGREEMENT, REDHAWK has provided
DISTRICT a temporary declaration of dedication allowing for the construction, operation and
maintenance of INTERIM BASIN located on Tract No. 23065-3; and
P. WHEREAS, as requested by DISTRICT, CENTEX has fiarnished a
maintenance deposit, hereinafter called "MAINTENANCE DEPOSIT", to DISTRICT in the
amount of $20,000 (twenty thousand dollars) to be used by DISTRICT in the event DISTRICT
deems it necessary to perform maintenance of INTERIM BASIN in the interest of pubic health
and safety; and
Q. WHEREAS, pursuant to REDHAWK AGREEMENT and CENTEX
AGREEMENT and as set forth herein, COUNTY is willing to (i) review and approve
CENTEX'S improvement plans of REDHAWK FACILITIES and CENTEX FACILITIES
located within COUNTY rights of way, (ii) grant DISTRICT the right to operate and maintain
KEDHAW-K FACILITIES and CENTEX FACILITIES within COUNTY rights of way and (iii)
accept for operation and maintenance those certain catch basins, connector pipes and laterals
located within COUNTY rights of way, hereinafter called "COUNTY APPURTENANCES," as
shown in red on Exhibit "A," associated with REDHAWK FACILITIES and CENTEX
FACILITIES; and
R. WHEREAS, CITY is willing to (i) review and approve CENTEX'S
improvement plans for those portions of REDHAWK FACILITIES located within CITY rights
of way, (ii) grant DISTRICT the right to operate and maintain those portions of REDHAWK
FACILITIES located within CITY rights of way (iii) accept for operation and maintenance those
certain catch basins, connector pipes and laterals located within CITY rights of way, hereinafter
called "CITY APPURTENANCES", associated with REDHAWK FACILITIES and (iv)
-5-
80965.2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
construct or cause to be constructed CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS as contemplated in
AGREEMENT.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
SECTION I
CENTEX shall:
1. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of CENTEX AGREEMENT, construct
or cause to be constructed CENTEX FACILITIES.
2. Prepare or cause to be prepared plans and specifications for iNTERIM
DRAINAGE SYSTEM and REDHAWK FACILITIES, hereinafter called "IMPROVEMENT
PLANS", in accordance with DISTRICT and COUNTY standards, and submit
IMPROVEMENT PLANS to DISTRICT and COUNTY for review and approval.
3. Continue to pay DISTRICT, within thirty (30) days after receipt of periodic
billings from DISTRICT, any and all such mounts as are deemed reasonably necessary by
DISTRICT to cover DISTRICT'S costs associated with the review and approval of
IMPROVEMENT PLANS, the review and approval of right of way and conveyance documents
and the processing and administration of this Agreement.
4. Pay DISTRICT any additional cost of providing construction inspection for
INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, in an mount as determined and approved by DISTRICT in
accordance with Ordinance Nos. 671 and 749 of the County of Riverside.
5. Secure, at its sole cost and expense, all necessary licenses, agreements,
permits and rights of entry as may be needed for the construction, inspection, operation and
maintenance of iNTERIM DRAiNAGE SYSTEM.
6. Furnish DISTRICT with draft copies of all permits, approvals or agreements
required by any Federal or State resource and/or regulatory agency for the construction,
-6-
80965.2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
operation and maintenance of iNTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM. Such documents include but
are not limited to those issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Regional Water
Quality Control Board,. California State Department of Fish and Game, and State Water
Resources Control Board.
7. Provide COUNTY, at the time of providing written notice to DISTRICT of
the start of construction as set forth in Section 1.8. herein, with faitlfful performance and payment
bonds, each in the amount of 100% of the estimated cost for construction of REDHAWK
FACILITIES as determined by DISTRICT. The surety, amount and form of the bonds shall be
subject to the approval of DISTRICT and COUNTY. The bonds shall remain in full force and
effect until REDHAWK FACILITIES are accepted by DISTRICT as complete; at which time the
bond amount may be reduced to 10% of the initial bonding amount for a period of one year to
guarantee against any defective work, labor or materials. Not withstanding the prior sentence,
upon DISTRICT'S acceptance of iNTERIM DRAiNAGE SYSTEM as complete, the bond
amount for the REDHAWK FACILITIES may be reduced by an amount equivalent to 90% of
the estimated cost of the completed portions of REDHAWK FACILITIES, as determined by
DISTRICT.
8. Notify DISTRICT in writing (Attention: Mark H. Wills), at least twenty (20)
days prior to starting construction of INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM or cormnencing
completion of REDHAWK FACILITIES. Construction shall not begin on any element of
INTERIM DRAiNAGE SYSTEM or the completion of REDHAWK FACILITIES, for any
reason whatsoever, until after DISTRICT has issued to CENTEX a written Notice to Proceed
authorizing CENTEX to initiate cons~a'uction.
9. By execution of this Agreement, grant DISTRICT and COUNTY the right
to enter upon CENTEX'S property where necessary and convenient for the purpose of gaining
-7-
80965.2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
access to, and performing inspection service for, the construction of INTERIM DRAINAGE
SYSTEM as set forth herein.
10. Furnish DISTRICT, at the time of providing written notice to DISTRICT of
the start of construction as set forth in Section 1.8., a complete list of all contractors and
subcontractors that will be performing work on INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, including the
corresponding license number and license classification of each. At such time, CENTEX shall
further identify in writing its designated superintendent for construction of the subject facilities.
11. Furnish DISTRICT, at the time of providing written notice to DISTRICT of
the start of construction as set forth in Section 1.8., a construction schedule which shall show the
order and dates in which the CENTEX or CENTEX'S contractor proposes to carry on the various
parts of work, including estimated start and completion dates. As the construction progresses,
upon request, CENTEX shall update said construction schedule.
12. Comply with all Cai/OSHA safety regulations including regulations
concerning confined space and shall maintain a safe working environment for CENTEX and
DISTRICT employees on the site.
13. Furnish District, at time of providing written notice to DISTRICT of the
start of construction as set forth in Section 1.8. herein, a confined space procedure specific to the
construction of the subject facilities. The procedure shall comply with requirements contained in
California Code of Regulations, Title 8 Section 5158, Other Confined Space Operations, Section
5157, Permit Required Confined Space and DISTRICT Confined Space Procedures, SOM-18.
The procedure shall be reviewed and approved by the DISTRICT prior to the issuance of a
Notice to Proceed.
-8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
80965.2
14. Furnish DISTRICT with the final mylar IMPROVEMENT PLANS and
assign their ownership to DISTRICT prior to the start of construction on any element of
INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM.
15. Not permit any change to or modification of IMPROVEMENT PLANS
without the prior written permission and consent of DISTRICT.
16. During the construction period of INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM,
provide Workers' Compensation Insurance in an amount required by law. A certi£~cate of said
insurance policy shall be provided to DISTRICT and COUNTY at the time of providing written
notice pursuant to Section 1.8.
17. Commencing on the date notice is given pursuant to Section 1.8. and
continuing until construction of the subject facilities is complete:
(a) Provide and main~n or cause its contractor(s) to provide and maintain
comprehensive liability insurance coverage which, shall protect
CENTEX from claim from damages for personal injury, including
accidental and wrongful death, as well as from claims for property
damage which may arise from CENTEX'S construction of the subject
facilities or the performance of its obligations hereunder, whether such
construction or performance be by CENTEX, by any of its contractors,
~ubcontractors, or by anyone employed directly or indirectly by any of
them. Such insurance shall name DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY as
additional insureds with respect to this Agreement and the obligations
of CENTEX hereunder. Such insurance shall provide for limits of not
less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence.
-9-
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
80965.2
(b) Cause its insurance carrier(s) or its contractor's insurance carrier(s),
who shall be authorized by the California Department of Insurance to
t~ansact business of insurance in the S~ate of California, to famish
DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY at the time of providing written
notice to DISTRICT of the start of conslxuction as set forth in Section
[8. with certificate(s) of insttrance and applicable policy endorsements
showing that such insurance is in full force and effect and that
DISTRICT and COUNTY a~e named as additional insureds with
respect to this Agreement and the obligations of CENTEX hereunder.
Further, said certificate(s) shall state that the issuing company shall
give DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY sixty (60) days written notice in
the event of any cancellation, termination, non-renewal or reduction in
coverage of the policies evidenced by the certificate(s). In the event of
any such cancellation, termination, non-renewal or reduction in
coverage, CENTEX shall, forthwith, secttre replacement insurance
meeting the provision of this p~ragraph.
Failure to maintain the insurance required by this paragraph shall be deemed
a material breach of this Agreement and shall authorize and constitute authority £or DISTRICT,
at its sole discretion, to proceed to perform the remaining work p~suant to Section VI.3.
18. Construct, or cause to be constructed, INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM at
. CENTEX'S sole cost and expense in accordance With IMPROVEMENT PLANS approved by
DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY.
19. Accept ownership and sole responsibility for the operation and maintenance
of INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM until such time as DISTRICT accepts ownership and
-10-
80965.2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
responsibility for operation and maintenance of INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM as set forth in
Section II1.9.
20. Accept sole responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the
INTERIM FACILITIES until such time as REDHAWK FACILITIES are completed, as
determined by DISTRICT.
21. Pay, if suit is brought upon this Agreement or any bond guaranteeing the
completion of REDHAWK FACILITIES, all costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, and acknowledge that, upon entry of judgment, all such costs,
expenses and fees shall be computed as costs and included in any judgment rendered.
22. Upon completion of INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, CENTEX'S civil
engineer of record or construction civil engineer of record, duly registered in the State of
California, shall provide to DISTRICT a redlined "as-built" copy of IMPROVEMENT PLANS.
After DISTRICT approval of the redlined "as-built" drawings, CENTEX'S engineer shall
schedule with DISTRICT a time to transfer the redlined changes onto DISTRICT'S original
IMPROVEMENT PLANS at DISTRICT'S office, after which CENTEX'S engineer shall review,
stamp and sign IMPROVEMENT PLANS "AS-BUILT".
23. Upon completion of REDHAWK FACILITIES, CENTEX'S civil engineer
of record or construction civil engineer of record, duly registered in the State of California, shall
provide to DISTRICT a redlined "as-built" copy of iMPROVEMENT PLANS. After
DISTRICT approval of the redlined "as-built" drawings, CENTEX'S engineer shall schedule
with DISTRICT a time to transfer the redlined changes onto DISTRICT'S original
IMPROVEMENT PLANS at DISTRICT'S office, after which CENTEX'S engineer shall review,
stamp and sign IMPROVEMENT PLANS "AS-BUILT".
-11-
80965.2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REDHAWK shall:
1. Pursuant to
SECTION II
REDHAWK AGREEMENT, construct or cause to be
constructed REDHAWK FACILITIES.
2. By execution of this Agreemem, grant DISTRICT and COUNTY the right
to enter upon REDHAWK'S property where necessary and convenient for the purpose of gaining
access to, and performing inspection service for, the construction of INTERIM DRAINAGE
SYSTEM and completion of REDHAWK FACILITIES as set forth herein.
SECTION III
DISTRICT shall:
1. Accept the assignment by REDHAWK to CENTEX its responsibilities to
design, engineer and construct REDHAWK FACILTIES as set forth in the REDHAWK
AGREEMENT.
2.
Review and approve IMPROVEMENT PLANS prepared by CENTEX prior
to the start of construction of INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM.
3. Provide COUNTY and CITY an opportunity to review and approve
IMPROVEMENT PLANS prior to DISTRICT'S final approval.
4. Upon execution of this Agreement, record or cause to be recorded, a copy of
this Agreement in the Official Records of the Riverside County Recorder.
5. Inspect the construction of INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM.
6. Keep an accurate accounting of all DISTRICT costs associated with the
review and approval of IMPROVEMENT PLANS, the review and approval of fight of way and
conveyance documents and in the processing and administration of this Agreement.
-12-
80965.2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7. Keep an accurate accounting of all DISTRICT construction inspection costs,
and within forty-five (45) days after DISTRICT acceptance of REDHAWK FACILITIES as
being complete, submit a final cost statement to CENTEX. If the total of the inspection deposits
previously furnished by REDHAWK and CENTEX pursuant to their respective agreements
exceeds such costs, DISTRICT shall reimburse CENTEX for the excess amount within sixty (60)
days after DISTRICT acceptance of iNTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM as being complete. If at
any time the costs exceed the deposit or are anticipated by DISTRICT to exceed the deposit,
CENTEX shall pay such additional amount(s) as deemed reasonably necessary by DISTRICT to
complete REDHAWK FACILITIES, in accordance with Section 1.4.,within thirty (30) days after
receipt of billing from DISTRICT.
8. Keep an accurate accounting of any expenditures made by DISTRICT from
the MAINTENANCE DEPOSIT, and within forty-five (45) days after DISTRICT'S acceptance
of REDHAWK FACILITIES as being complete, submit a final statement as to any expenditures
made to CENTEX. If the total expenditures made by DISTRICT for maintenance of the
INTERIM FACILITIES are less than the amount of the MAINTENANCE DEPOSIT,
DISTRICT shall refund to CENTEX the unused portion of the MAiNTENANCE DEPOSIT
within sixty (60) days after DISTRICT'S acceptance of REDHAWK FACILTIES as being
complete.
9.
Accept ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of
INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM but specifically excepting therefrom all INTERIM
FACILITIES upon (i) DISTRICT acceptance of INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM construction
as being complete and (ii) acceptance by COUNTY and CITY of all necessary street rights of
way as deemed necessary by DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY for the operation and
maintenance of INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM. Upon CITY'S completion of CHANNEL
- 13-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
80965.2
IMPROVEMENTS construction as contemplated in AGREEMENT, DISTRICT shall accept
ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of REDHAWK FACILITIES in
accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in REDHAWK AGREEMENT.
10. Provide CITY and COUNTY with a reproducible duplicate copy o£the "as-
built" IMPROVEMENT PLANS, upon DISTRICT acceptance of REDHAWK FACILITIES as
being complete.
11. Upon completion of REDHAWK FACILITIES construction, quitclaim its
interest in INTERIM BASIN to REDHAWK.
SECTION IV
COUNTY shall:
1. Accept the assignment by REDHAWK to CENTEX its responsibilities to
design, engineer and construct REDHAWK FACILTIES as set forth in the REDLIAWK
AGREEMENT.
2.
Review and approve IMPROVEMENT PLANS prepared by CENTEX prior
to the start of construction of INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM.
3. Accept COUNTY and DISTRICT approved faithful performance and
payment bonds submitted by CENTEX as set forth in Section 1.8. and hold said bonds as
provided herein.
4. Consent, by execution of this Agreement, to the recording of any
Irrevocable Offer(s) of Dedication furnished by either CENTEX or REDHAWK pursuant to this
Agreement.
5. As requested by DISTRICT, accept any outstanding offers of dedication
necessary for the construction, inspection, operation and maintenance of INTERIM DRAiNAGE
-14-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
80965.2
SYSTEM and convey sufficient rights of way to DISTRICT to allow DISTRICT to construct,
inspect, operate and maimain INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM.
6. Grant DISTRICT, by execution of this Agreement, the right to consh-uct,
inspect, operate and maintain INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM within COUNTY rights of way
as set forth herein.
7. Upon DISTRICT acceptance of INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM for
ownership, operation and maintenance in accordance with Section III.9., accept ownership and
sole responsibility for the operation and maintenance of COUNTY APPURTENANCES.
8. Not grant any occupancy permits for any units within any portion of Tract
Nos. 23065-2, 23065-4 or 23065-F until construction of INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM is
complete, except as otherwise approved in writing by DISTRICT.
SECTION V
CITY shall:
1. Review and approve plans and specifications for that certain portion of
REDHAWK FACILITIES to be constructed within CITY rights of way prior to the start of construction
of INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM.
2. Grant DISTRICT, by execution of this Agreement, the right to construct, inspect,
operate and maintain that certain portion of REDHAWK FACILITIES to be constructed within CITY
rights of way prior as set forth herein.
3. Upon DISTRICT acceptance of INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM for
ownership, operation and maintenance in accordance with Section III.9., accept ownership and
sole responsibility for the operation and maintenance of CITY APPURTENANCES.
4. As set forth in AGREEMENT, use its best efforts to complete construction
of CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS in a timely fashion.
-15-
80965.2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION VI
It is further mutually agreed:
1. All work involved with INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM shall be
inspected by DISTRICT and shall not be deemed complete until approved in writing as complete
by DISTRICT.
2. COUNTY, CITY and CENTEX personnel may observe and inspect all work
being done on INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, but shall provide any comments to DISTRICT
personnel who shall be solely responsible for all quality control communications with the
CENTEX'S contractor(s) during the construction of INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM.
3. CENTEX shall (i) complete construction of INTERIM DRAINAGE
SYSTEM within six (6) consecutive months after execution of this Agreement and within one
hundred twenty (120) consecutive calendar days after commencing work on INTERIM
DRAINAGE SYSTEM.
It is expressly understood that since time is of the essence in this
Agreement, failure of CENTEX to perform the work within the agreed upon times shall
constitute authority for DISTRICT to perform the remaining work and require CENTEX'S surety
to pay to COUNTY the penal sum of any and all bonds. In which case, COUNTY shall
subsequently reimburse DISTRICT for DISTRICT costs incurred.
4. CENTEX'S obligation to operate and maintain INTERIM FACILITIES
shall terminate upon satisfactory completion of REDHAWK FACILITIES construction as solely
determined by DISTRICT. Upon completion of CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS construction
and provided INTERIM DRAINAGE FACILITIES have been satisfactorily maintained by
CENTEX, DISTRICT shall refund or release CENTEX'S MAINTENANCE DEPOSIT.
However, if at any time CENTEX fails to maintain INTERIM DRAINAGE FACILITIES in a
80965.2
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
24
25
26
27
2S
satisfactory manner, as solely determined by DISTRICT, DISTRICT shall perform all work
necessary to ensure the public's health and safety. In the event DISTRICT deems it necessary to
perform any maintenance of INTERIM DRAINAGE FACILITIES, CENTEX will receive a
refund for the unused portion of the MAINTENANCE DEPOSIT.
5. All construction work on INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM and completion
of REDHAWK FACILITIES shall be on a five (5) day, forty (40) hour work week with no work
on Saturdays, Sundays or DISTRICT designated legal holidays, unless otherwise approved in
writing by DISTRICT. If CENTEX feels it is necessary to work more than the normal forty (40)
hour workweek or on holidays, CENTEX shall make a written request for permission from
DISTRICT to work the additional hours. The request shall be submitted to DISTRICT at least
72 hours prior to the requested additional work hours and state the reasons for the overtime and
the specific time frames required. The decision of granting permission for overtime work shall
be made by DISTRICT at its sole discretion and shall be final. If permission is granted by
DISTRICT, CENTEX will be charged the cost incurred at the overtime rates for additional
inspection time required in connection with the overtime work in accordance with Ordinance
Nos. 671 and 749, including any amendments thereto, of the County of Riverside.
6. In the event that any claim or legal action is brought against DISTRICT,
COUNTY or CITY in connection with this Agreement because of the actual or alleged acts or
omissions by CENTEX AND REDHAWK, CENTEX AND REDHAWK shall defend,
indemnify and hold DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY harmless therefrom, without cost to
DISTRICT, COUNTY or CITY. Upon DEVELOPERS' failure to do so, DISTRICT, COUNTY
and CITY shall be entitled to recover from DEVELOPERS all of their cost and expenses,
including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees.
-17-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
80965.2
7. CENTEX and REDHAWK shall defend, indemnify and hold DISTRICT,
COUNTY and CITY, their respective officers, agents, employees and independent contractors
free and harmless from any claim or legal action whatsoever, based or asserted,' pursuant to
Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, or any other law or ordinance which seeks to impose any other liability or damage
whatsoever, for the design, construction or failure of INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM or from
the diversion of the waters from the natural drainage patterns, save and except claims and
litigation arising through the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of DISTRICT,
COUNTY or CITY. CENTEX and REDHAWK shall defend DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY
without cost to DISTRICT, COUNTY or CITY, and upon CENTEX AND REDHAWK'S failure
to do so, DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY shall be entitled to recover from CENTEX and
REDHAWK all of their costs and expenditures, including, but not limited to, reasonable
attorneys' fees.
8. CENTEX and REDHAWK for themselves, their successors and assigns
hereby releases DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY, their respective officers, agents, and
employees from any and ail claims, demands, actions, or suits of any kind arising out of any
liability, known or unknown, present or future, including, but not limited to any claim or
liability, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, the
Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or any other law or ordinance which seeks to
impose any other liability or damage, whatsoever, for the design, construction or failure of
INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, or the discharge of drainage within or from INTERIM
DRAINAGE SYSTEM. Nothing conta'med herein shail constitute a release by CENTEX and
REDHAWK of DISTRICT, COUNTY or CITY, their officers, agents and employees from any
and all claims, demands, actions or suits of any kind arising out of any liability, known or
-18-
80965.2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
unknown, present or future, for the negligent maintenance of INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM,
REDHAWK FACILTIES and APPURTENANCES, after the acceptance of INTERIM
DRAINAGE SYSTEM, REDHAWK FACILTIES and .APPURTENANCES by DISTRICT,
COUNTY and CITY, respectively.
9. Any waiver by DISTRICT, COUNTY or CITY of any breach of any one or
more of the terms of this Agreement shall not be construed to be a waiver of any subsequent or
other breach of the same or of any other term hereof. Failure on the part of DISTRICT,
COUNTY or CITY to require exact, full and complete compliance with any terms of this
Agreement shall not be construed as in any manner changing the terms hereof, or estopping
DISTRICT, COUNTY or CITY from enforcement hereof.
10. This Agreement is to be construed in accordance with the laws of the State
of California.
11. Any and all notices sent or required to be sent to the parties of this
Agreement will be mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the following addresses:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1995 Market Street
Riverside, CA 92501
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Post Office Box 1090
Riverside, CA 92502-1090
REDHAWK COMMUNITIES, INC.
43529 Ridge Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CITY OF TEMECULA
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CENTEX HOMES
2280 Warldow Circle
Corona, CA 92880-2896
12. Any action at law or in equity brought by any of the parties hereto for the
purpose of enforcing a right or rights provided for by this Agreement, shall be tried in a court of
competent jurisdiction in the County of Riverside, 'State of California, and the parties hereto
-19-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
'21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
80965.2
waive all provisions of law providing for a change of venue in such proceedings to any other
county.
13. This Agreement is the result of negotiations between the parties hereto, and
the advice and assistance of their respective counsel. The fact that this Agreement was prepared
as a matter of convenience by DISTRICT shall have no import or significance. Any uncertainty
or ambiguity in this Agreement shall not be construed against DISTRICT because DISTRICT
prepared this Agreement in its final form.
14. The rights and obligations of CENTEX AND REDHAWK shall inure to and
be binding upon all heirs, successors and assignees.
15. CENTEX and REDHAWK shall not assign or otherwise transfer any of
their rights, duties or obligations hereunder to any person or entity without the written consent of
the other parties hereto being first obtained. In the event of any such transfer or assignment,
CENTEX and REDHAWK expressly understand and agree that they shall remain liable with
respect to any and all of the obligations and duties contained in this Agreement.
16. The individuals executing this Agreement on behalf of CENTEX and
REDHAWK hereby certify that they have the authority within their respective companies to
enter into and execute this Agreement, and have been authorized to do so by any and all boards
of directors, legal counsel, and or any other board, committee or other entity within their
respective companies which have the authority to authorize or deny entering into this Agreement.
17. This Agreement is intended by the parties hereto as a final expression of
their understanding with respect to the INTERIM DRAINAGE SYSTEM and as a complete and
exclusive statement of the terms and conditions thereof. This Agreement may be changed or
modified only upon the written consent of the parties hereto.
//
- 20 -
80965.2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on
(to be filled in by Clerk to the Board)
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
By
WARREN D. WILLIAMS
General Manager-Chief Engineer
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
By
JAMES A. VENABLE, Chairman
Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
NANCY ROMERO
Clerk to the Board
By
Deputy
(SEA~)
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
By
GEORGE A. JOHNSON
Director of Transportation
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
WILLIAM C. KATZENSTEIN
County Counsel
By
TIMOTHY J. DAVIS
Deputy County Counsel
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
By
JOHN F. TAVAGLIONE, Chairman
County of Riverside Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
NANCY ROMERO
Clerk to the Board
By
Deputy
(SEAL)
-21 -
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
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
By
WILLIAM G. HUGHES
Director of Public Works
MHW:bjp
05/08/03
CITY OF TEMECULA
By.
JEFF STONE, Mayor
ATTEST:
SUSAN W. JONES, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
By_
(SEAL)
REDHAWK COMMUNITIES, INC.
a California corporation
By
PAUL GARRETT
President
(NOTARY)
CENTEX HOM~S
a Nevada general partnership
By: CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORPORATION
a Nevada corporation, its managing partner
By
DAVID L. HAHN
Division President
(NOTARY)
- 22 -
80965.2
SPRING PACIFIC-MURDY L+L~C+
23065-2
FIEDHAWK
Oeclaratlonol
Dedication
Wolf Valley Slormwater Drainage Improvement
Drainage Facility Stud!
EXHIBIT "A"
ITEM 16
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE ~"'1
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
/~,g/~William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
May 27, 2003
Request for Appropriation - Multi-Purpose Maintenance Truck
PREPARED BY: Beryl Yasinosky, Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
Approve an appropriation of $154,000 in the Vehicle Internal Service Fund for the
purchase of a large capacity, multi-purpose maintenance truck for use by the Public
Works and TCSD Maintenance Divisions.
Approve an operating transfer in the amount of $79,000 from the General Fund to the
Vehicle Internal Service Fund.
BACKGROUND: The Public Works and TCSD Maintenance Divisions currently support
their operational needs for heavy-duty vehicles such as dump trucks, water trucks, etc. through
the use of rental equipment. However, because of increased development in the area, these
types of vehicles are in high demand and are often unavailable and/or unreliable to meet the
City's immediate and ongoing needs.
In order to increase the efficiency and responsiveness of the City's Public Works and TCSD
field maintenance operations, it is recommended that the City Council consider an appropriation
in the amount of $154,000 for the purchase of a large capacity, mutti-purpose maintenance
truck. This vehicle has the versatility of functioning as a fiat bed, water tank, and dump truck
and will assist maintenance staff in expediting street repairs, emergency response cleanups,
special event activities and ongoing maintenance throughout the community.
Through the purchase of this vehicle, the City will realize the following economic and timesaving
benefits: an annual savings of $24,000 per year in water truck rental costs; an approximate
50% reduction in trips to the landfill by utilizing the flatbed capabilities; and a reduction in staff
time to repair and replace asphalt in road projects by at least one-third. For example, when
damaged asphalt is removed, staff currently assumes the arduous and time-consuming task of
taking the asphalt to the land fill with our existing dump truck, waiting until the truck is emptied,
then filling the truck with new asphalt, and finally returning to complete the road project. With
the new multi-purpose vehicle, staff will be able to install the new asphalt at the same time the
damaged asphalt is removed and taken to the landfill with the existing dump truck. This will also
help to provide a substantial reduction in the amount of time roads or traffic lanes are closed for
asphalt repair work. In addition, with the savings in water truck rental costs, this vehicle will pay
for itself in approximately six years.
R:\agdrpt\03\0527\DumpTruck.appropriation
1
Upon approval of this appropriation, staff will begin researching the proposed acquisition of the
vehicle. Such research will include the pre-advertised purchase prices that have been provided
by other government agencies. It is expected that the actual purchase of this vehicle will be
brought before the City Council for approval on June 10, 2003.
FISCAL IMPACT: Based upon our initial budget projections for year-end on June 30, 2003,
the City will realize a budget savings in the FY 2002-03 operating budget for the purchase of the
multi-purpose maintenance vehicle. An appropriation in the amount of $154,000 includes
funding through the Vehicle Internal Service Fund of $75,000 and an operating transfer from the
City's general fund of $79,000.
R:\agd rpt\03\0527\Dum pTru ck.appropriation
2
ITEM 17
ORDINANCE NO. 03-04
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE TEMECULA
MUNICIPAL CODE TO CLARIFY THE PROCEDURES FOR
MODIFYING APPROVED PERMITS, TO MAKE OTHER MINOR
CHANGES AND PROVIDE FOR THE READOPTION OF
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY NOS. 5 AND 6
(PLANNING APPLICATION 03-0109)
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 plans as may be in effect in any such city;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 19,
2003, and recommended that the City Council approve the attached amendments to the City
Municipal Code;
WHEREAS, this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law
and local ordinances;
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula
Library, Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on May 13, 2003 to
consider the proposed amendments to the Temecula Municipal Code.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby adds Section 17.05.030 to
the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows:
"17.05.030 Modifications to an Approved Development Plan
Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this section is to establish the requirements and
procedures to allow the administrative modification of an unexpired development plan or
conditional use permit. For the purposes of this Section, the following changes are not
eligible for consideration as an administrative modification: a change in the type of
building (commercial, office, industrial), a substantial intensification of the project or type
of use, or substantial changes to the project layout or access. Proposed project
changes that ara not eligible for a modification under this Section will require resubmittal
of a new application.
Types of Modifications. Modifications to approved development plans ara divided into
two categories, major and minor. If a proposed modification includes both major and
minor modifications, the application shall be considered a major modification. The final
decision as to whether a modification is major or minor shall be at the sole discretion of
the director of planning.
R:/Ords 2003/Ords 03-04 1
1. Major Modifications to approved development plans include the following types of
project changes:
a. Increasing the height of the building by more than 10 feet or one-stow.
b. An increase of more than 10% of the building footprint.
A substantial change in the architecture of the building or substantial
changes to the exterior elevations, including but not limited to the
locations of windows or doors.
d. A modification in the approved access to the project site.
The shift of building location that effects the layout and location of the
required parking, site access, or substantially changes the conceptual
landscape plan.
f. A change in the number of primary structures.
Changes to a conditional use permit that require the physical modification
of the site.
Minor Modifications to approved development plans include the following types of
project changes:
a. An increase of less than 10% of the building footprint.
b. A change in the layout of the parking or loading area.
c. The relocation of windows or doors on one or two wall surfaces.
An adjustment in the location of buildings provided the general location of
each building is similar to the approved development plan.
Changes to a conditional use permit that do not require the physical
modification of the site.
3. Modifications to approved development plans that are subject to the
administrative development plan process include the following:
a. Changes to the approved landscaping plant palette.
b. Changes in exterior colors or materials.
Application Requirements. Applications for modifying development plans shall be
completed in accordance with Section 17.03.030 of this development code.
Procedure for Approval. Minor modifications may be approved administratively and
never require a specific notice or consideration at a public hearing. The approval of
major modifications requires consideration by the original approval body. Major
R:/Ords 2003/Ords 03-04 2
modifications which were approved at a director hearing may be approved
administratively by the director of planning providing the revised project could have been
approved initially by the director of planning. The director of planning may refer any
modifications or changes in building design to the planning commission for
consideration.
Findings. Approving modifications to an approved development plan shall require the
same findings as were made on the original approval.
Revocations. Approval of a modification to a development plan may be revoked or
modified by the director of planning in accordance with Section 17.03.060."
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends portions of Section
17.04.010.
A. Subsection C is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Authority. Conditional use permits shall require a public hearing as follows:
When a conditional use permit involves an existing building, the director of
planning shall have the authority to approve, conditionally approve or deny an
application for a conditional use permit. Decisions of the director of planning may
be appealed to the planning commission, pursuant to Section 17.030.090.
When a conditional use permit accompanies an application for a development
plan for a new building that is less than 10,000 square feet, the director of
planning shall have the authority to approve, conditionally approve, or deny an
application for conditional use permit. Decisions of the director of planning may
be appealed to the planning commission, pursuant to Chapter 17.03.090.
When a conditional use permit accompanies an application for a development
plan for a new building that is 10,000 square feet or greater, or whenever the
director of planning has determined that the matter should be forwarded to the
planning commission. The planning commission shall have the authority to
approve, conditionally approve, or deny an application for a conditional use
permit. Decisions of the planning commission may be appealed to the city
council, pursuant to Section 17.03.090."
B. Subsection J is hereby added to this Section to read as follows:
"Modifications of a Conditional Use Permit. Requests to modify a conditional use permit shall
be made in conformance with the provisions of Section 17.05.030."
Section 3. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby adopts Section 17.22.070 to
read as follows:
"17.22.070 APPROVED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAYS.
The following planned development overlays, cannot be effectively incorporated into the
municipal code, have been approved by the city and are designated on the official zoning map
of the city:
R:/Ords 2003lOrds 03-04 3
PDO-5 Temecula Village
PDO-6 Rancho Pueblo
Future planned development overlays shall be numbered consecutively, whether incorporated
into the municipal code or adopted as uncodified ordinances, and shown on the official zoning
map of the city with the prefix "PDO"."
Section 4. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby repeals Sections 17.22.140
through 17.22.156 of the municipal code, adopted by Ordinance 02-05, and readopts the
Temecula Creek Village Planned Development Overlay as uncodified PDO-5 pursuant to the
provisions of 17.22.070.
Section 5. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby repeals Sections 17.22.160
through 17.22.178 of the municipal code, adopted by Ordinance 02-04, and readopts the
Rancho Pueblo Planned Development Overlay as uncodified PDO-6 pursuant to the provisions
of 17.22.070.
Section 6. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends the following
portions of Chapter 17.28 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
A. Amend Subsection 17.28.700.B to read as follows: "The maximum
display time shall not exceed a total of fifteen (15) calendar days within any ninety (90) calendar
day period. Except that during the month of the annual Balloon and Wine Festival and during
the month of December, a thirty (30) calendar day permit may be issued by the Director."
B. Amend Subsection 17.28.700.1 to read as follows: "Ambient air balloons
shall only be in the shape of a traditional "hot air balloon". Ambient air balloons in the shape of
blimps or cartoon characters are not permitted. Exception: During the month of December
ambient air balloons in the shape of traditional Christmas characters or symbols are allowed."
Section 7. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends Subsection
17.03.040.B.2 to read as follows:
"The notice shall be mailed first class and postage pre-paid to the applicant and
representative; to the property owner or the owner's agent; to all persons whose
names and addresses appear on the latest available assessment roll of the
county of Riverside as owners of property within a distance of six hundred (600)
feet from the exterior boundaries of the site for which the application is filed (a
minimum of thirty property owners); to anyone filing a written request for
notification; and to such other persons whose property might, in the planning
commission's judgment, be affected by the establishment of the use or zone
requested."
R:/Ords 2003lOrds 03-04 4
Section 8. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends Table 17.03.010 of
the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows:
Table 17.03.010
Planning and Zoning Application Approval Authority
Admin. Planning Planning City
Application Approval Director Commission Council
General plan amendment Recommen- X~
dation~
Zoning amendment: Text changes Recommen- X~
dation~
Zoning amendment: Map changes Recommen- X~
dation~
Zoning amendment: Specific plan, Recommen- X~
includes specific plan amendments dation~
Conditional use permit-existing X~,2
building
Conditional use permit with a X~,2,3 xl,3
development plan
Development plan (10,000 square X~
feet or greater)
Development plan (less than X~
10,000 square feet)
Major modifications X2'4 XTM
Minor modifications X2
Administrative development plan X2
Home occupation permit X2
Large family day care home facility X1
Minor exceptions X~
Sign permits X2
Sign programs, including sign X2
program modifications
Temporary use permits X2
Variance X~
R:/Ords 2003/Ords 03-04 5
Table 17,03.010
Planning and Zoning Application Approval Authority
Admin. Planning Planning City
Application Approval Director Commission Council
Footnotes:
1. Requires consideration at a noticed public hearing.
2 For matters that are considered to have special significance or impact, the director of
planning may refer such items to the planning commission for consideration.
3. Conditional use permits without development plans are approvable by the director of
planning. Conditional use permits with development plans are approvable by hearing
body required for the development plan.
4. Major modifications of projects which were approved by the planning commission or
city council shall be considered by the original approval body. Increases in building
square footage that results in a building larger than 10,000 square feet shall be
considered by the planning commission.
Section 9. 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 10. Environmental Compliance. The City Council hereby finds that this
amendment to the Temecula Municipal Code represents a series of minor changes mostly
regulating the implementation of the zoning procedures and requirements that have no potential
individually or cumulatively to impact the environment. As a result, the adoption of this
ordinance is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
Section 11. 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 12. 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 13. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
passage; and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, together with the names of the City
Council members voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated
in said City.
R:/Ords 2003lOrds 03-04 6
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of May, 2003.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 03-04 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the 13th day of May, 2003 and that thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 27th
day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNClLMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNClLMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
R:/Ords 2003lOrds 03-04 7
TEMECULA COMMUNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT
ITEM 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
MAY '13, 2003
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 7:53
P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. President
Comerchero presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
5 DIRECTORS: Naggar, Councilman Pratt, Roberts, Stone,
Comerchero
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
Also present were General Manager Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of April 22, 2003.
2 Subcommittee for Veteran's War Memorial
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Appoint Mayor Stone and Temecula Community Services District President
Comerchero to serve on a subcommittee for the development of a Veterans War
Memorial.
(Pulled for separate discussion; see page 2.)
MOTION: Director Stone moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and 2 (Item No. 2
was pulled for separate discussion; see below). The motion was seconded by Director
Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. The motion was seconded by Director
Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
Minutes.csd\051303 1
Consent Calendar Item considered under separate discussion
2 Subcommittee for Veteran's War Memorial
RECOMMENDATION:
2.2 Appoint Mayor Stone and Temecula Community Services District President
Comerchero to serve on a subcommittee for the development of a Veteran's War
Memorial.
Mr. Pat Vesey, 28192 Tierra Vista, representing the Veterans of Foreign Wars, extended
appreciation to the District for being given the opportunity to assist with the creation of a War
Memorial; advised that the Temecula VFW has lost its lease and will have to relocate within 60
days; therefore, as a long lasting tribute to the past, current, and future veterans, suggested the
possibility of a Veterans' Center along with a War Memorial and requested the District's support.
MOTION: Director Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No 2. The motion was
seconded by Director Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
No comment.
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
No comment.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS
No comments.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:55 P.M., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to
Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, California.
ATTEST:
Jeff Comerchero, President
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/District Secretary
[SEAL]
Minutes.csd\051303 2
ITEM 2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITYATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OFFINANCE_~
GENERAL MANAGER
CITY OFTEMECULA
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
AGENDA REPORT
General ManageflBoard of Directors
Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services
William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
May 27, 2003
Children's Museum Project No. PW02-01CSD
PREPARED BY:
Amer Attar, Principal Engineer
Brian Guillot, Assistant Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors:
1. Appropriate $269,780.00 to the Children's Museum Project fund from Redevelopment Agency
(RDA) Bond proceeds.
Amend the contract with Sparks Exhibits and Environments to increase the contract amount to
include the cost of materials and installation of new flooring in the amount of $ 60,000.00 plus a
10% contingency of $6,000.00.
3. Authorize the General Manager to approve the Amendment change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of $6,000.00 which is equal to 10 % contingency amount.
Amend the contract with 2H Construction, Inc. to increase the contract amount to include the cost
to complete additional structural repairs in the amount of $171,224.25 for a new contract total of
$308,647.25 plus a 15% contingency for the new contract contingency total in the amount of
$46,297.00.
5. Authorize the General Manager to approve contract change orders not to exceed the contingency
amount of $46,297.00 which is equal to the 15% contingency amount.
BACKGROUND: On September 17, 2002 the Board of Directors awarded a construction contract to
complete the building shell improvements for the Children's Museum facility to R.E. Fleming
Construction, Inc. The improvements included roof replacement, rebuilding areas of the porch
surrounding the facility, construction of the gazebo, air conditioning improvements, restroom
improvements and re-construction of the driveway approach. This work was necessary to prepare the
existing building for use as a public building and for the installation of the museum exhibits by Sparks
Exhibits and Environments.
As construction commenced, it was discovered that the bottom portion of the east wall of the facility was
damaged by dry rot. This condition required emergency repairs to the building structure. On January28,
2003, the Board approved an emergency repair contract with 2H Construction, a contractor that
specializes in this type of work, in the amount $137,423.00. Upon demolishing the part of the building
floor adjacent to the east wall, it was discovered that the damage to the building structure was far more
substantial than originally known. The damage was concealed and could not be ascertained until the
building was partially demolished. The east side of the building was immediately shored up to avoid
settlement of the structure, and additional investigation was performed by consultants and staff.
Grayner Engineering, the City's structural engineering consultant, prepared a plan dated March 31,2003,
that further describes the necessary repairs. The work includes repairing the foundation for the east wall;
removing and replacing one-half the floor joists on the east side of the building, and adding additional
support for the floor joists for the whole building; replacing all the floor planking with structural grade
plywood; and, constructing a sheer wall on the interior of the building as a repair for the existing sheer
wall facing the adjacent property to the east. The replacement of the existing floor planking requires that
Sparks Exhibits and Environments install new floor coverings after the improvements to the intedor of the
museum are completed.
Since the cost of the additional repairs is substantial, this item is submitted to the Board for approval.
Listed below is a recapitulation of the costs recommended to date.
Item 2-Sparks Exhibits and Environments:
Original Contract Amount $1,500,000.00
New flooring cost $ 60,000.00
New contract total $1,560,000.00
Odginal Contingency $ 150,000.00
Contingency for flooring $ 6,000.00
New Contingency Total $ 156,000.00
Item 3-2H Construction:
Original Contract Amount $137,423.00
Change order toodginal contract $ 7,387.00
Demo/Emergencyshoring cost $ 44,033.25
Additional structural repair per plan $257,227.00
dated March 31,2003
New contract total $ 308,647.25
Difference $171,224.25
New recommended contingency $ 46,297.00
(15% of new total contract)
FISCAL IMPACT: The additional appropriation of $269,780.00 requested from RDA Bond proceeds
will cover the cost of the increase to the contract with Sparks Exhibits and Environments for $60,000.00,
plus the contingency amount of $6,000.00.
The additional appropriation of from RDA Bond proceeds will also cover the cost of the increase to the
contract with 2H Construction for $171,224.25, for a total contract of $308,647.00 plus the contingency
amount of $46,297.00.
This additional appropriation is included in the proposed Capital Improvement Program (ClP)for fiscal
year 2003-04.
A'I-rACHMENTS:
Amended Contract 2H Construction
Amended Contract Sparks Exhibits and Environments
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETVVEEN
THE CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND
SPARKS EXHBITS AND ENVIRONMENTS, LTD.
Children's Museum Improvement Project
MAY 27, 2003
The Agreement dated December 12, 2000 between the Temecula Community Services District and Sparks
Exhibits and Environments, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement") is hereby amended as follows:
Section 1
Scope of Work is hereby amended to include services as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
Compensation for these additional services is a not to exceed $60,000 plus a 10% contingency of $6,000 to
be paid in accordance with the Agreement. Total agreement compensation, including this amendment, not to
exceed $1,560,000 plus a 10% contingency of $156,000 as approved in accordance with the agreement.
Section 2
Section 1 Term of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
TERM. This Agreement shall commence on December 12, 2000, and shall remain and continue in effect
until tasks described in Exhibit A of the original Agreement and all subsequent Amendments are completed,
but in no event later than June 30, 2004, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this
Agreement.
Section 3
All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain the same.
The parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the date and year above written.
CONSULANT CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
Jeff Comerchero, President
Name:
Title: Attest:
By:.
Name:
Title:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
Approved As to Form:
(Signatures of t~vo corporate officers
required for Corporations)
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
R:\RUSEP\CONTRACT~children's museum - amd 4- sparks.doc
Kx. [BIT A
sparks exhibits corporation
Additional Scope of Services
CUSTOM
INTERNATIONAL
DIVISION
BRENTALS [~]PORTABLES
FIELD SERVICE L_JPRODUCTIONS
DATE: 05/21/03 ROUTING
laccountlng ~production rngr
JOe #: 70-005073 =ceou.t exec ~proJect mgr
design purchasing
CLIENT: City of Temecula drafting sales support
estimating traffic mgr
EVENT: Children's Museum ~.dr.,n warehouse
graphics mgr
SHIP DATE: Saturday, January 00, 1900 other
other
Additions requested by: Cathy McCarthy
Description of Additions: Estimated sell price
Design and Install additional flooring not covered in original scope.
To cover 3,830 square feet of exhibit space with compass rose in retail
area and inlayed boarder in one room. Material to be planked vinyl glued to
existing new plywood sub-floor. Prep work on existing floor is estimated
as minimum work assuming that new sub-floor is ready to receive flooring.
If additional prep work is required there will be additional cost's.
Design $ 8,100.00
Material & Installation $ 50,900,00
Management $ 1,000.00
$ 60,000.00
Additional Scope of Services
Approved by:
Date:
FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT
BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
AND
2 H CONSTRUCTION INC.
CHILDREN'S MUSEUM
PROJECT NO. PW02-01CSD
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of May 27, 2003 by and between
the City of Temecula Community Services District, a municipal corporation ("District") and 2 H
Construction, Inc. ("Contractor~'). In consideration ofthe mutual covenants and conditions set forth
herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. This Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes:
A. On January 28, 2003 the District and Contractor entered into that certain
Contract in the amount of One Hundred Thirty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Three
Dollars and No Cents ($137,423.00) entitled "City of Temecula Community Services District
Contract for Construction" ("Contract").
B. The parties now desire to amend the Contract as set forth in this Amendment.
2. Section 4 of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:
CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHEDULE. The DISTRICT agrees to pay, and
CONTRACTOR agrees to accept, in full payment for the work agreed to in this
Amendment No. 1 for an amount not to exceed Three Hundred Eight Thousand
Six Hundred Forty Seven Dollars and Twenty Five Cents ($308,647.25) for the
work agreed to be done, for a total contract amount of:
CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed a total of
Thirty Five (35) working days, commencing with delivery of fully executed
Amendment No. 1 and a Notice to Proceed by DISTRICT.
3. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of
the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
1
R:~C[PLPROJECTS~PWO2~P~V02~ I CHILD MUSEUM~2 H AMENDMENT 2003, D0C
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed the
day and year first above written.
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
BY:
Jeff Comerchero, President
ATTEST:
BY:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
Approved As to Form:
BY:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
CONTRACTOR
2H Construction, Inc.
4101 Long Beach Blvd.
Long Beach, CA 90807
(562) 424-5567
Sean R. Hitchcock, President
By:
PRINT NAME/TITLE
(Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations)
2
R:ICIPIPROJECTSIP}VO21PgV02-OI CHILD MUSEUMI2 H AMENDMENT 2003.DOC
2H Construction, Inc. Proposal 2 Children's Museum
PW02-01CSD
item Amount
Supervision $ 19,450.00
Site Protection $ 1,500.00
Shoring $ 14,500.00
Clean up $ 2,325.00
Demolition $ 31,160.00
Structural concrete $ 13,700.00
Rough carpentry $ 114,830.00
Insulation $ 10,470.00
Lathe and plaster $ 3,400.00
Overhead and profit $ 16,906.80
Insurance 1.5% $ 3,423.00
Sub Total $ 231,664.80
2 Hour Fire Wall $ 6,136.00
Mold remediation $ 19,426.00
Total for plan dated April 9, 2003 $ 257,226.80
Work completed to date from Proposal 1 $ 44,033.25
Change order to original contract $ 7,387.00
Grand Total for new contract $ 308,647.05
Contin~]enc}, 15% $ 46,297.06
2H CONSTRUCTION
~) (olmllut'floN,
DIVISION 2 - SiTE
IJ~3S~)N 4 - M~ONFty
DFVI~ON S - METALS
C3~y O~T~m~uk~
$10.470.~
~.00
~0,00
FI{~A{. CLEAN TO~.~ s/,12s.00
;DEMO Ir FLO0~ Jolts A? EAST Sff~ 0~' 9Li:~
: ]~{VlO DRYWAt J.. AT {~..B~ih'Yl{lt WA Ll. ll
DG~O ~ 13,~i i~.~ORATINO WOOD STUDS ,s. FRAL~40
:l~O T~ ~LO A'f P~ F, AST & 80. WAI.t.9 FOR
FOP. SHTmAIt AND 1~ A(X:~ (Drs.,~A,$. { )
MVJSION 2- m']~
~.q me, T
'~RV~I'URAL ~ DIVISION 3 *
I~ISlON m
[[J]'v~s~to~ s ~OTAL
i I,~.'r H ,,,. l*t.~k.qTER -
~Pt. ASTI~, PATCH AT NORTH WALL ~8~IOR SIDE
, PA.~ ~ORTH P,~ WALL AT PL,~ PATCH
too ~'
DIVISION 12. gUI~ISmNGS ·
IPI~SlON ~,rOrXL
DIV~ION 13 - ~PF.C'IAL CONS'I~UC'TION
I~I~"~[ON D TOTAL
JC FRAMING INC.
· ~ ~lp and ~ ot dj OOMlflli:ltOII ddl~b ~o ~ soPPlied Ix~'~*!m
27'~0 J]~,l~ I~S(:~I &YE, ~"%'l{. ~,~C.A ~{90 $' T~.~ t'~ .~6-1464 *~dJg OW~ ~0~'~
4101 Long Beach 81w
work wh£ch has been
listed below.
~ob Name: Children's ~
A,cldre,~Sr 420B~ N&ln 8t
· emoval o£ exie~l
grounS,to bottom c
Price ~nclude9 eric
Term;: Nec 20 days
Addit Luna1 amount
Pa~a~unt Scaffold, Inc.
16631 ~. Avalon Blvd
Carson, CA 9074~
424-5576
Phons (310) 324-33aa
Fax (3~0) 32%-3577
Ph.: (5621
~uc: (562J
Attn:Patrick Sheline
, S~bmits the ~ollowing Chan~e Orde~ Request for
!o~ed or ~y be perfo~d ae ~he job site
Change Order ~equest Number:
~eum I~rovemente
a2~89 . C,O.~
?ROVED AND R~.~IV~D PRIOR TO WORK BEIN~ P~R~0RM~D
shoring, reehortng of entire wall from
~ruae £or 150 linear feat of ceiling.
aeerir~j and ~.S. $~amp £or new condition.
.¥ a; per bid 120902-005
Prevail£n~ Wage~ Yes
,1 chis entire sig~ed document back co u~.
:hortzed to band 2 H Conocruocion
Order to be performed, and Z so order it to he
(plus addiCioal~ldaye rent at $26.00/day - 81560 )
To accep~ this Change ~rd~, sign below a~ ~cial aC the boccom o~
each pa~e. FA~ and m~
! certify th&2 I a~ a~
to pay for this Change
done,
Accepted by:
Request 120902-00~/00~
Initialed,
4/9f03 2:38 PM To: 2H Const~ffi~ +1.562-424.5578 From: Steve McLair~ Tel~om Fax Page I of 1
G. D...HEIL, INC
(/14) ~8'/..9100 Fax (714) 687.9108 E-m~'l ipll~L~om
April 8, 2003
Mr. Pat Sheline
211Cont~ion
4101 Lo~ Bcaoh Blvd.
Lon8 Bcaoh, CA 90S07
Re: Child~n's Mu~m Slem Wall, T~m~ul& CA.
DoaF Pat,,
Wo prop~e to f~mish matm~al, labor and cquipmcflt nceenLt~ to pcffonu all work u outlined
below:
_ITJ~MIZRD PRICE BREAKOUT 1. Demoliti~. $2.9,960.00
2, Ceacr~- $13,?00.00
Inclusions: Wod~ dm~ st s~ai~t time, All drills hauled off'site snd legally ~i~cd, ~loon
lc~ Jfl a brim clean eondit~m. W 'od:em Faid at Pmva~8 Wage RAIe~,
Exclusions: Pmmits; Layom; Prot~i~cad~cin~, Floor pr~adh~i~
Disconnoct/eappinfflayout of utilitieS; DamaSe to utility ~ not specifically
Elcetricg/me~anical demo; Cutting/ore. demo fro' new MPE lines; Shotlng/brae.~
Englneci~, Testln~'*mspcctlon~, .~.elmr bolts or e~bods tmlc~ specifically noted; Rough
tlatawat~; Ilazardom waste; Unfem~en condifimm; l~ice held t'mn far 30 day~.
St~.'~ McLaln
¢~)
r
~A¢6IMIL~ "~RA. NGMIT'rAL 6HBla-T
UKGENT FOR RI~/IE~' I't.F..A~E COMMBNT X PLEASE REPLY p~ ~A ~a~. RF..~YCL£
B,;-,, - Pet you~ zequcst, the f,,~,;-ng is om cost ~ to co:intact the new 2 hot=
reed panifiou at -,he alx~ve project.
1. F~-h hhot only to inst~l ($501/0 of 9' h~gh 2,horn. tz~ed shaft wa~, at the e~st ~ ~
the building. Labor quo~ is based on ~ 7, sheet A6.2 of o~]. bid
A. I~,bot: htyout, fi,~mlng ~nd shafiw~l ]~xe~ (41 ,,d~) $ 1,845.00
B. ~.bor./ns~ll (2.) hye~ ~A" ~e tared dp/wall (36 mb) 1,620.00
c. ~Ix~ ~,,~h taping (24,-b) t,080.00
D. Labor: clean up and supe_,'Hslon (16 mb) 720.00
Sub Total
OH & Pm~ 15% 780.00
~ / Ins 1.5% 9'1.0.0
Proposal Tot~l. $ 6,136.00
Rxd,~ions: P,.,~ts, all ma,~,~,~ Z~lUi~'ed to bugd new w~ e.~mcal, plumbLug /
sp~;~l-.~ relocations, painting, off hours / ove~rne worJc
Pl~*e couUtct me i~you Ixzve a~y que.~ions ot t~-quke aclai~zal
T~nl% Pat
4101 LONG BEACH BLVD.
LONG BEACH, CA 90807
PHONE: 562-424-5567 FAX: 562-424-5578
RECEIVED
MAY 0 6 ZOO3
CiTY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
May 14 2003
City Of Temecuis
Attn: Mr. Brian Gu~tot
43200 Business Park Drive
Tame~ula, Ca.
Re: Cost T~I (Revised) - Mold Abatemaflt
Childmn*e Museum
4208~1 Main Street
Teme~ula, Ca.
Dear Mr. Guillat,
2H ConStrustion Fe3pooos to fumlsh labor and materials ~/to complete the
specified mold abatement at the above referenced location. Our pmpasal is based ee the mok:l
ab~temant guidelines contained in the moMs/fungi im~esfigetio~ report furnished by J & M Conb'acting
of Laguna Niguel, Ca.
Our proposal breakdown Is as follows:
1. Janus Corporation (mold abatement contractor- see attached scope end quote)
2. Base bid credit for d~vall and insulation demo at east, north and south walls. Janus
~ w'll derno (~r~l af~l h~sulation as part of the abatement scope of
wor~ credit: G. D. Hell, In¢, (see attached quote)
3. 2H Construction:
B. Project Manag~ (8 MH)
C. S~ trailer and toilet motel (2 vme~s )
D. Shoring rental (2 w~eks)
$ §,225.00
S
3,600,00
480.00
140.00
196.00
Sub To~l $11,291.00
G.C. Fee 10% $ 1,129.50
Bol~d I Ins. 1.5% $ t86.00
Proposal Total $12,606.00
Completion: 2-3 weeks
Note: Due to the existing shoring at 8' out from the east wall. mold abatement of the existing floor
joists to 12' out from the east wall is nat possible. Our quote is based on abating mold et the existing
floor joists to 8' out from b~e east wall. If abatement of the tioor joists to 12' out from the east Waft
is required, add the folbwing:
1. Additional trip charge to demo wood flooring 4' wast of existing shoring (150 I/t), $ 500.00
2. Abate mold at floor joIsts 4' west of existing shoring (150 t//) $ 3,000.00
3. ~upen~m~on, prolect management, re~i5 & aumpetar (1 weeK) $ 2,608.00
SUb Total $ 6,i06.(30
G.C. Fee 10'/, $ 611.00
Bond I ins. t.5% $ 101.00
Total Ach:l:
Exclusions: CH permit fees I InepecOon fees, electhcat ! mechanical work, exclusions listed in
Janus proposal dated May O, 2003
/'-~le~se.oontaot me if you have any questions or require additional information.
Y
$ 6,820.00
4101 Long Beech Blvd. · Long Beach, CA 90607 · phone 662.424.55§7 · fax 552-424-$570 · infoOzHoonetraoTton.com
ITEM 3
APPROV~,.~Z./
CiTY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINAI~CE
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
Board of Directors
Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services
May 27, 2003
Harveston Specific Plan - Service Level B, Service Level C and
Service Level D Rates and Charges
PREPARED BY:
Barbara Smith, Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. CSD 2003 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ACKNOWLEDGING THE FILING OF A
REPORT WiTH RESPECT TO SERVICE LEVEL B, SERVICE LEVEL C, AND
SERVICE LEVEL D RATES AND CHARGES FOR HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN
BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 AND SE'I-rING A TIME AND PLACE FOR
A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
BACKGROUND: The Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) operates under
the authority of Community Services District Law and provides residential street lighting, perimeter
landscaping and slope landscaping maintenance and refuse/recycling collection services to
numerous residential subdivisions within the City of Temecula through Service Level "B", Service
Level "C" and Service Level "D" respectively. The boundaries of the TCSD are coterminous with the
City, and the City Council also serves as the Board of Directors of the TCSD.
Harveston Specific Plan has been approved with open space, a commercial area, elementary
school and approximately 1921 residential units (300 of which are multi-family and 1621 single-
family units). The above rates and charges will only be levied on single-family residential parcels.
The development currently consists of approximately 537.5 gross acres of vacant property and 12
acres developed with the elementary school property located fo the west of Margarita Road, south of
Date Street, east of Interstate 15 and north of Winchester Road. The property owner has requested
that the TCSD establish the future parcel charges necessary to provide ongoing revenue for
residential street lighting, perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance, and refuse/recycling
collection services within this development.
R:~mithb~Elections\Harveston\Staff-Notice of Heating Harveston.doc 05/19/2003
Beginning Fiscal Year 2004-2005, the following TCSD rates and charges are proposed for
residential street lighting, perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance, and refuse/recycling
collection services within Harveston Specific Plan:
Service Level B
$ 25.68 per residential parcel
Service Level C
$100.00 per residential parcel
Service Level D (2003-2004 Rate) $176.28 per occupied pamel
Pursuant to the provisions of Proposition 218, the TCSD is required to hold a public hearing and
obtain voter or property owner approval in order to establish certain new rates and charges. In
addition, a report must be prepared and filed with the Secretary/City Clerk which identifies all of the
affected parcels and the amount of the proposed rates and charges. A notice is mailed to the
property owner identifying the proposed rates and charges and date of the Public Hearing. The
Public Hearing is held at least 45 days after the mailing of the notices. If the proposed rates and
charges are not rejected pursuant to a written protest, then the TCSD will conduct a mailed ballot
proceeding not less than 45 days after the public hearing. The proposed rates and charges for
Service Level B and Service Level C cannot be imposed unless the property owner approve the new
charges. In accordance with Proposition 218, property owners shall receive notice of the proposed
charges for Service Level D, however, mailed ballot proceedings are not required to impose rates
and charges for refuse/recycling collection services.
Staff recommends that the Board of Directors adopt the resolution to accept the filing of the report
on the proposed residential street lighting, perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance and
trash/recycling collection services rates and charges for Harveston Specific Plan beginning in Fiscal
Year 2004-2005 and schedule a public hearing concerning this issue for July 22, 2003. Staff will
then proceed with noticing the owner of Harveston Specific Plan regarding the proposed rates and
charges and the public hearing date. If there is no majority protest against the rates and charges on
July 22, 2003 staff will then proceed with the mailed ballot process for Service Level B and Service
Level C.
FISCAL IMPACT: If voter approved, upon buildout of the development, the proposed
rates and charges of $25.68 and $100.00 per parcel will generate an annual levy of $41,627, for the
Service Level B and $162,100 for Service Level C. The proposed Service Level D charge of
$176.28 per parcel will generate an annual levy of $285,750. (Pursuant to Proposition 218, this
amount may be increased by the TCSD for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 after conducting an additional
public hearing. However, mailed ballot proceedings are not required to increase Service Level D
rates and charges.) Actual costs for providing long-term residential street lighting and perimeter
landscaping and slope maintenance services within Harveston Specific Plan will be absorbed into
Service Level B and Service Level C upon installation of said improvements. The owner of
Harveston Specific Plan has paid the administrative and mailing costs associated with the public
notices and ballot information required per Proposition 218.
A'I-I'ACH M ENTS:
Vicinity Map
TCSD Landscape Maintenance Area (2 Exhibits)
Resolution of Intention
R:Xsmithb\Elections~Harveston\Staff-Notice of Heating Harveston.doc 05/19/2003
i3ATE 8TF~ET
MAINTENANCE EXHIBIT
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (TCSD) --40!.623 8J=. GROSS AREA
(STREET AND SLOPE MNNTENANCE) 88,112 S.F. SIDEWALK AREA
(HARVESTON COMMUNITY LMD - LEVEL C) 313,511 8.F. NET LANDSCAPE AREA
Lennar Communltlee
MAINTENANCE EXHIBIT
19.50 AO,
CiTY OF TEMECULA
HARVESTON
RESOLUTION NO. CSD 03-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ACKNOWLEDGING THE FILING OF A
REPORT WITH RESPECT TO SERVICE LEVEL B, SERVICE LEVEL C, AND
SERVICE LEVEL D RATES AND CHARGES FOR HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN
NUMBER 13 BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 AND SETTING A TIME AND
PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICE
DISTRICT HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES, DECLARES, DETERMINES AND ORDERS AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Upon incorporation of the City of Temecula, effective December 1,1989, voters
approved the formation of the Temecula Community Services District ("TCSD"), to provide specified
services to properties within its jurisdiction.
Section 2. The TCSD provides long-term residential street lighting, perimeter landscaping
and slope landscape maintenance, and refuse/recycling collection services in numerous residential
developments within the City of Temecula. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 61621 and
61621.2, the TCSD has prescribed, revised and collected rates and charges for residential street
lighting (Service Level B), perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance (Service Level C), and
refuse/recycling collection (Service Level D) services furnished by it, and has elected to have these
rates and charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the
same time as, together with and not separately from, its general taxes in the manner prescribed by
Government Code Sections 61765.2 to 61765.6, inclusive.
Section 3. The TCSD hereby initiates proceedings to provide residential street lighting,
perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance, and refuse/recycling collection services within
Harveston Specific Plan Number 13 beginning Fiscal Year 2004-2005. Pursuant to Government
Code Section 61621.2, the TCSD has caused a written report ("Report") to be prepared and filed
with the Secretary of the TCSD, (Exhibit A) which Report contains a description of the real property
and the proposed amount of the Service Level B, Service Level C, and Service Level D rates and
charges required for residential street lighting, perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance, and
refuse/recycling collection services provided to each single family residential parcel within Harveston
Specific Plan Number 13 beginning Fiscal Year 2004-2005. The TCSD proposes to collect the rates
and charges at the same time, in the same manner, by the same persons and together with and not
separately from, the property taxes collected within the TCSD. These rates and charges shall be
delinquent at the same time and thereafter be subject to the same delinquency penalties as such
property taxes. All laws applicable to the levy, collection, and enforcement of property taxes,
including, but not limited to, those pertaining to the matters of delinquency, correction, cancellation,
refund and redemption, shall be applicable to these rates and charges, except for California
Revenue and Taxation Code Section 4831. However, if for the first year the charges are levied, the
real property to which the charge relates has been transferred or conveyed to a bona fide purchaser
for value, or if a lien of a bona fide encumbrance for value has been created and attaches thereon,
prior to the date on which the first installment of such taxes appear on the roll, then the charge shall
not result in a lien against the property, but instead shall be transferred to the unsecured roll for
collection.
Section 4. The Board of Directors hereby acknowledges the filing of the Report, and appoints the
day of July 22, 2003 at the hour of 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as feasible, in the City Council
Chambers at City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, 92590, as the time and
place for the public hearing on the Report and the proposed Service Level B, Service Level C, and
Service Level D rates and charges. At the public hearing, the Board of Directors will hear and
consider all objections or protests, if any, to the Report. The Board may continue the hearing from
time to time.
Section 5. The Secretary of the TCSD is hereby directed to give notice of the filing of the
Report and of the time and place of hearing on the Report pursuant to the requirements of
Government Code Section 61765.2 and Section 6 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution.
Section 6. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community
Services District this 27th day of May, 2003.
Jeff Comerchero, President
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk/District Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk/District Secretary for the Temecula Community Services District, do
hereby certify that Resolution No. CSD 03-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the board of
Directors of the Temecula Community Services District at a regular meeting thereof held on May 27,
2003
AYES:
BOARD MEMBERS
NOES:
BOARD MEMBERS
ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS
Exhibit A
CITY OF TEMECULA
HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN #13
INITIAL LEVY REPORT
Service Levels B, C and D
Temecula Community Services District (TCSD)
Commencing Fiscal Year 2004-2005
INTENT MEETING:
PUBLIC HEARING:
May 27, 2003
July 22, 2003
INTRODUCTION:
A. The TCSD
Since December 1, 1989, the Temecula Community Services District ("TCSD") has provided
residential street lighting, perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance, refuse and recycling
services and dirt road maintenance to properties within its jurisdiction. The boundary of the
TCSD is coterminous with the boundary of the City of Temecula ("City"). To fund its services
and maintain improvements within its boundaries, the TCSD collects rates and charges
("Charges"). The TCSD was formed, and Charges are set and established, pursuant to the
Community Services District Law, Title 6, Division 3 of the California Government Code.
Pursuant to Government Code Sections 61621 and 61621.2, the TCSD has prescribed, revised
and collected rates and charges for residential street lighting (Service Level B), perimeter
landscaping and slope maintenance (Service Level C), refuse/recycling collection (Service
Level D), and road improvement and maintenance (Service Level R) services furnished by the
TCSD, and has elected to have these rates and charges collected on the tax roll in the same
manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with and not separately lrom,
its general taxes in the manner prescribed by Government Code Sections 61765.2 to 61765.6,
inclusive. As required by these sections of the Government Code, the TCSD Board approves
an Annual Levy Report each year describing the proposed rates and charges for that year.
B. This Report
This Initial Levy Report ("Report") is prepared and presented to the Board pursuant to Section
61621.2 of the Government Code to prescribe Rates and Charges beginning in FY 2004-2005
for the parcels and territory identified as Harveston Specific Plan Number 13. (Harveston)
The territory identified and described in this Report includes all parcels within Harveston, a
future residential subdivision that consists of 537.5 gross acres of vacant property and 12 acres
of developed property (elementary school) located on the west side of Margarita Road, south
of Date Street, east of Interstate 15 and north of Winchester Road. The Harveston Specific
Plan has been approved with a total of 1921 residential units. Of the total residential units 300
are multi-family apartment units and the balance of 1621 are planned as single-family
residential units. The owner of record, Harveston, LLC has requested that the TCSD establish
the parcel charges necessary to provide ongoing revenue for residential street lighting,
perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance, and refuse/recycling collection services within
this future residential subdivision.
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
A. Period Covered By Report
This Report describes rates and charges to be imposed for Fiscal Year 2004-2005. The
expectation of the TCSD is that these rates and charges will continue to be imposed on an
annual basis thereafter in connection with the TCSD's annual rate and charge levv
proceedings.
B. Parcels Affected By This Report
The rates and charges set forth in this Report shall affect all residential parcels included in the
Harveston Specific Plan and within the Grant Deed as recorded with the Office of the
Riverside County Recorder, Document Number 2002-311176 recorded on June 7, 2002.
C. Description of Service Levels
The proposed services to be provided to parcels within Harveston Specific Plan include:
residential street lighting; perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance; and refuse/recycling
collection.
Service Level B, Residential Street Lighting - includes all developed and undeveloped single-
family residential parcels for which the TCSD provides on-going servicing, operation, and
maintenance of local street lighting improvements. The cost of providing Service Level B
services is $25.68 per residential parcel per year, meaning that the cost of providing Service
Level B services for the 1621 parcels within Harveston Specific Plan will be $41,627 per year.
Service Level C, Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance - includes ail developed
single family residential parcels and residential vacant parcels for which the TCSD provides
on-going servicing, operation, and maintenance of perimeter landscaped areas and slopes
within the public right-of-ways and dedicated easements adjacent to and associated with each
development. The landscaped areas associated with this particular development include, but
are not limited to, perimeter slope and landscaping, as follows:
Along Margarita, Ynez, Lakeview Roads and Date Street adjacent to Harveston's single-family
residential and habitat open space areas. This does not include perimeter landscaping adjacent
to multi-family, park site or commercial areas. Along both sides of Harveston Drive, the west
side of Lake House Road and the entries roadways into the single-family developments where
the roadway has a sixty-six (66) foot right of way. This area does not include the perimeter
landscape areas adjacent to commercial, school, private and public recreational facilities.
The cost of providing these services for these areas of slopes and landscaping is estimated to
be $100 per year per residential parcel, meaning that the cost of providing Service Level C
services for the 1621 parcels within Harveston Specific Plan will be $162,100.
Service Level D, Refuse and Recycling Services - provides for the operation and
administration of the refuse/recycling collection program including street sweeping services for
all single-family residential homes within the TCSD. The current cost of providing these
services to a single family residential home is $176.28 per year. Thus, the cost of providing
this service to the 1621 parcels that have been identified as developed with a residential home
within Harveston Specific Plan will be $285,750 per year.
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
The cost to provide services within Harveston Specific Plan will be fairly distributed among
each assessable property by the same methods and formulas applied to all parcels within the
various Service Levels of the TCSD.
The following is the formula used to calculate each property's TCSD charges and is applied to
Service Level B (Residential Street Lighting); Service Level C (Perimeter Landscaping and
Slope Maintenance); and Service Level D (Refuse/Recycling Collection):
Total Balance to Levy/Total Parcels (in Service Level) = Parcel Charge
The following table reflects the levy calculation for each Service Level.
TABLE I
Proposed Service Level Charges
For Harveston Specific Plan
Estimated Budget and Charges for Fiscal Year 2004-2005
SERVICE LEVEL Total Levy Planned Charge Per
Budget Levy Units Levy Unit
Service Level B:
Residential Street Lighting $41,627 1621 $25.68
Service Level C:
Local Landscaping and
Slopes $162,100 1621 $100.0
Rate Level #8 (C-8)
Service Level D: $285,750 1621 $176.28
Refuse/Recycling Collection
The following tables (Table II through IV) show the methodology used to compute the levy for
each parcel affected by this Report.
TABLE H
Parcel Charge Calculation for
Service Level B
Parcel
Property Type Charge Multiplier
Single family residential $25.68 Per Parcel
Single family vacant $25.68 Per Parcel
A charge is imposed on all residential parcels developed or undeveloped. Parks, open space
areas, easements and non-buildable parcels are not charged.
TABLE I]I
Parcel Charge Calculation for
Service Level C
Parcel
Property Type Charge Multiplier
Single family residential $100 Per Parcel
Single family vacant $100 Per Parcel
A charge is imposed on all residential parcels developed or undeveloped. Parks, open space
areas, easements and non-buildable parcels are not charged.
TABLE 1V
Parcel Charge Calculation for
Service Level D
Parcel
Property Type Charge Multiplier
Single family residential $176.28 Per Parcel
This charge is imposed only on developed single-family residential parcels (with a residential
home).
APPENDIX A - PARCEL LISTING (FY 2004-2005)
The actual parcels subject to rates and charges for Service Level B, Service Level C and
Service Level D beginning Fiscal Year 2004-2005 shall be those parcels within Harveston
Specific Plan identified on the Riverside County Secured Roll at the time all TCSD rates and
charges am submitted to the County Auditor/Controller for inclusion on the tax roll for that
fiscal year.
The rates and method of apportionment outlined in this Report are consistent with the rates and
methods previously approved by the TCSD Board of Directors for each applicable Service
Level contained heroin. However, all rates and methods described in this Report are subject to
revision and modification within the proscribed parameters of the law. The actual rates and
charges applied on the tax roil each fiscal year shall be apportioned and submitted according to
the rates and method described in the final TCSD Annual Levy Report presented and approved
by the Board of Directors at an annual Public Heating.
The following pages encompass a complete listing of all parcels within Harveston Specific
Plan subject to the TCSD Service Level B, Service Level C and Service Level D rates and
charges beginning Fiscal Year 2004-2005. This listing shows the rate and charge that will be
charged to each parcel based on development with a single-family residential unit. The rates
and charges applied to each newly subdivided residential parcel will reflect the services
provided and the development of each respective parcel at the time the rates and charges are
applied.
Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Rates and Charges
;ubdivided Parcels
Service Service Service Total
Tract 29928 Level B Level C Level D** Assessment
Lot Number (C-9)
1 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
2 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
3 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
4 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
5 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
6 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
7 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
8 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
9 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
10 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
11 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
12 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
13 $25.68 $I00.00 $176.28 $301.96
14 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
15 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
16 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
17 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
18 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
19 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
20 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
21 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
22 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
23 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
24 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
25 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
26 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
27 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
28 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
29 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
30 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
31 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
32 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
33 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
34 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
35 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
36 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
37 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
Pg Totals $950.16 $3,700.00 $6,522.36 $11,172.52
Service Service Service Total
Tract 29928-1 Level B Level C Level D** Assessment
Lot Number (C-9)
I $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
2 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
3 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
4 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
5 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
6 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
7 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
8 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
9 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
10 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
11 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
12 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
13 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
14 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
15 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
16 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
17 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
18 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
19 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
20 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
21 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
22 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
23 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
24 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
25 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
26 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
27 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
28 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
29 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
30 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
31 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
32 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
33 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
Pg Totals $847.44 $3,300.00 $5,817124 $9,964.68
Service Service Service Total
Tract 29928-2 Level B Level C Level D** Assessment
Lot Number (C-9)
1 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
2 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
3 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
4 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
5 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
6 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
7 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
8 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
9 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
10 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
11 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
12 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
13 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
14 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
15 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
16 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
17 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
18 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
19 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
20 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
21 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
22 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
23 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
24 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
25 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
26 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
27 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
28 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
29 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
30 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
31 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
32 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
33 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
34 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
35 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
36 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
37 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
38 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
39 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
Pg Totals $1,001.52 $3,900.00 $6,874.92 $11,776.44
Service Service Service Total
Tract 29928-3 Level B Level C Level D** Assessment
Lot Number (C-9)
I $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
2 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
3 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
4 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
5 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
6 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
7 $25.68 $i00.00 $176.28 $301.96
8 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
9 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
10 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
11 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
12 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
13 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
14 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
15 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
16 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
17 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
18 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
19 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
20 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
21 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
22 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
23 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
24 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
25 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
26 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
27 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
28 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
29 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
30 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
31 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
Pg Totals $796.08 $3,100.00 $5,464.68 $9,360.76
Service Service Service Total
Tract 29929 Level B Level C Level D** Assessment
Lot Number (C-9)
1 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
2 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
3 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
4 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
5 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
6 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
7 $25168 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
8 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
9 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
10 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
11 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
12 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
13 $25.68 $100}00 $176.28 $301.96
14 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
15 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
16 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
17 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
18 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
19 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
20 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
21 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
22 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
23 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
24 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
25 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
26 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
27 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
28 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
29 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
30 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
31 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
32 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
33 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
34 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
35 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
36 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
37 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
38 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
39 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
40 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
41 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
42 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
43 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
44 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
45 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
46 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
47 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
Pg Totals $1,206.96 $4,700.00 $8,285.16 $14,192.12
Service Service Service Total
Tract 29929-1 Level B Level C Level D** Assessment
Lot Number (C-9)
1 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
2 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
3 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
4 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
5 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
6 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
7 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
8 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
9 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
10 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
11 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
12 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
13 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
14 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
15 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
16 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
17 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
18 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
19 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
20 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
21 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
22 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
23 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
24 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
25 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
26 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
27 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
28 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
29 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
30 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
31 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
32 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
33 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
34 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
35 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
36 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
37 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
38 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
39 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
40 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
41 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
42 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
43 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
44 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
45 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
46 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
47 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
48 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
49 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
50 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
51 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
52 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
53 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
54 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
55 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
56 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
57 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
58 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
59 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
60 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
61 $25.68 $I00.00 $176.28 $301.96
62 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
63 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
64 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
65 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
66 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
67 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
68 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
69 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
70 . $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
71 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
72 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
Pg Totals $1,848.96 $7,200.00 $12,692.16 $21,741.12
Tract30088 Service Service Service Total
Lot Number LevelB Level C (C-9) LevelD** !Assessment
1 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
2 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
3 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
4 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
5 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
6 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
7 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
8 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
9 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
10 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
11 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
12 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
13 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
14 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
15 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
16 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
17 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
18 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
19 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
20 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
21 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
22 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
23 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
24 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
25 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
26 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
27 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
28 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
29 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
30 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
31 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
32 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
33 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
34 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
35 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
36 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
37 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
38 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
39 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
40 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
41 $25.68 $100.00 $176.28 $301.96
Pg Totals $1,052.88 $4,100.00 $7,227.48 $12,380.36
Total Rates and Charges
for 300 Subdivided Parcels: $7,704.00 $30,000.00 $52,884.00 $90,588.00
ITEM 4
APPROVAL
CITY ~
FINANCE DI RECTOR~__
CITY MANAGER
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
General ManagedBoard of Directors
Genie Roberts, Director of Finance
May 27, 2003
Financial Statements for the Nine Months Ended March 31,2003
PREPARED BY:
Karen Jester, Assistant Finance Director
Pascale Brown, Senior Accountant
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors receive and file the Financial
Statements for the Nine Months Ended March 31,2003.
DISCUSSION: The attached financial statements reflect the unaudited activity of the
Community Services District for the nine months ended March 31,2003. Please see the attached
financial statements for an analytical review of financial activity.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
ATrACHMENTS:
Combining Balance Sheet as of March 31,2003
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for
The Nine Months Ended March 31,2003
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
Combining Balance Sheet as of
March 31,2003
And the
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes
in Fund Balance
For The Nine Months Ended
March 31, 2003
(Unaudited)
Prepared by the Finance Department
Temecula Community Services District
Combining Balance Sheet
As of March 31, 2003
Parks & Service Service
Recreation Level B Level C
Assets:
Cash and investments $ 341,655 145,554 $ 259,697
Receivables 13,418 $ 665 1,565
Due from other funds 208,524
Total assets $ 563,597 $ 146,219 $ 261,262
Liabilities and fund balances:
Liabilities:
Other current liabilities
Fund balances:
Reserved
Designated
$ 141,891 $ 144,147 $ 110,799
141,891 144,147 110,799
$ 421,706 $ 2,072 $ 150,463
Total fund balances 421,706 2,072 150,463
Total liabilities
and fund balances $ 563,597 $ 146,219 $ 261,262
Please note that these balances are unaudited
Temecula Community Services District
Combining Balance Sheet
As of March 31, 2003
Service Service Debt
Level D Level R Service Total
Assets:
Cash and investments $ 130,182 $ 23,541 $ 143,500 $ 1,044,129
Receivables 940 120 16,708
Due from other funds 208,524
Total assets $ 131,122 $ 23,661 $ 143,500 $ 1,269,36t
Liabilities and fund balances:
Liabilities:
Other cmrent liabilities
Fund balances:
Reserved
Designated
Total fund balances
Total liabilities
and fund balances
$ 346
$ 397,183
346 397,183
$ 130,776 $ 23,661 $ 143,500 $ 872,178
130,776 23,661 143,500 872,178
$ 131,122 $ 23,661$ 143,500 $. 1,269,361.
Please note that these balances are unaudited
Temecula Community Services District
Citywide Operations
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2003
Annual
Amended YTD
Budget Activity
Total Percent
Encumbr. Activity of Budget
Special tax $ 2,689,330 $ 1,387,610
TCSD admin fee creditP'REST" 2,478,210 1,858,658
Recreation programs 585,600 422,631
Investment interest 40,000 12,640
Miscellaneous 192,500 108,830
Operating transfer in
Total Revenues 5,985,640 3,790,369
1,387,610
1,858,658
422,631
12,640
108,830
3,790,369
Expenditures:
Parks, medians and arterial street lighting 3,924,022 2,680,266
Seniors 143,700 104,041
Community Recreation Center (CRC) 414,380 269,425
Recreation programs 475,068 347,600
Temecula Community Center (TCC) 144,860 91,596
Museum 182,114 139,119
Aquatics 373,380 224,541
Sports 171,640 99,145
Children's Museum 147,850 26,619
Operating transfers out 564,500 564,500
52% (1)
75%
72%
32% (2)
57%
Total Expenditures
Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures
Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2002
Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2003
63%
$ 622,315 $ 421,706
(555,874) (756,483)
1,178,189 1,178,189
(1) Special Tax revenue is scheduled to received by the end of May of this fiscal year.
(2) Investment interest market rate is lower than expected for this quarter.
(3) Activities for the Children's Museum is not schedule to start until next fiscal year.
6,541,514 4,546,852 407,761 4,954,613 76%
$ 325,468 3,005,734 77%
8,292 112,333 78%
19,805 289,230 70%
12,863 360,463 76%
3,870 95,466 66%
7,242 146,361 80%
13,145 237,686 64%
14,576 113,721 66%
2,500 29,119 20%(3)
564,500 100%
Temecula Community Services District
Service Level B
Residential Street Lights
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2003
Amended YTD Total
Bud[3et Activity Encumbr. Activity
Assessments $ 433,220 $ 227,499
Investment interest 2,000 71 I
Street lighting fees 13,600 53,628
Miscellaneous 47,400 9,481
Total Revenues 496,220 291,319
Expenditures:
Salaries & Wages 4,080 2,674
Street lighting 511,300 351,342
Miscellaneous 23,500 2,736
Total Expenditures
Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures
Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2002
Ending Fund Balance, March 3 I, 2003
227,499
711
53,628
9,481
291,319
2,674
351,342
2,736
538,880 356,752 356,752
(42,660) (65,433)
67,505 67,505
24,845 .$ 2,072
of Budget
53%(I)
36%(2)
394%(3)
20%(4)
59%
66%
69%
12%
66%
Notes:
(1) The second Assessments portion are scheduled to be received by the end of May during this fiscal year.
(2) Investment interest market rate is lower than expected for this quarter.
(3) Street lighting fees is due to several new developments that were required to pay the advance energy fees due to timing on tax roll.
(4) The variance in Miscellaneous revenue is due to a decrease in collection during this quarter.
Temecula Community Services District
Service Level C
Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2003
Annual
Amended YTD Total
Budget Activit7 Encumbr. Activity
Assessments $ 985,000 $ 504,131 $ 504,131
Investment interest 20,000 3,786 3,786
Plan check and inspections 40,000 17,830 17,830
Miscellaneous 3,000 200 200
Total Revenues 1,048,000 525,947 525,947
Expenditures:
Salaries and wages 211,590 134,295 134,295
Landscape maintenance 605,852 401,615 $ 203,314 604,929
Utilities 262,000 159,584 159,584
Other expenditures 105,500. 31,046 45,447 76,493
Total Expenditures 1,184,942 726,540 248,761 975,301
Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures (136,942) (200,593)
Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2002 351,056 351,056
Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2003 $ 214,114 $ 150,463
of Budget
51% (i)
19% (2)
45%
7%
50%
63%
100% (3)
61%
73%
82%
Notes:
(1) The second Assessments portion are scheduled to be received by the end of May during this fiscal year.
(2) Investment interest market rate is lower than expected for this quarter.
(3) The variance is primarily due to encumbrances that are recorded for landscape maintenance services for the entire year.
Temecula Community Services District
Service Level D
Refuse Collection, Recycling and Street Sweeping
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2003
Annual
Amended YTD Total
Budget Activity Encumbr. Activity
Assessments $ 3,187,000 $ 1,642,064
Grants 17,220 17,619
Investment interest 40,000 3,277
Recycling Program 5,000 5,000
Total Revenues 3,249,220 1,667,960
Expenditures:
Salaries and wages 32,100 22,096
Refuse hauling 3,187,530 1,593,937
Other expenditures 34,890 24,751
Total Expenditures
Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures (5,300) 27,176
Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2002 103,600 103,600
Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2003 $ 98,300 $ 130,776
$ 1,642,064
17,619
3,277
5,000
1,667,960
22,096
1,593,937
24,751
3,254,520 1,640,784 1,640,784
Percent
of Budget
52%(1)
102%
8%(2)
100%
51%
69%
50%(3)
71%
50%
Notes:
(1) The second Assessments portion are scheduled to be received by the end of May during this fiscal year.
(2) Investment interest rate is lower than expected this year.
(3) The second half of refuse/recycling hauling payments are scheduled to be paid by the end of this fiscal year.
Temecula Community Services District
Service Level R
Streets and Roads
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2003
Annual
Amended YTD
Budl~et Activity
Encumbr.
Total
Activity
Assessments $ 12,800 $ 7,539 $ 7,539
Investment interest 200 200 200
Total Revenues 13,000 7,739 7,739
Expenditures:
Emergency street maintenance 17,080 9,460 2,540 12,000
Other expenditums 80 51 51
Total Expenditures 17,160 9,511 2,540 12,051
Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures (4,160) (1,772)
Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2002 25,433 25,433
Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2003 $ 21,273 $ 23,662
of Budget
59% (i)
100%
60%
7O%
64%
7O%
Notes:
(I) The second Assessments portion are scheduled to be received by the end of May during this fiscal year.
Temecula Community Services District
Debt Service Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2003
Operating transfers in $
investment interest
Total Revenues
Expenditures:
Debt service - principal
Debt service - interest
Other expenditures
Total Expenditures
Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures
Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2002
Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2003 $
Annual
Amended YTD
Budget Activity
Encumbr.
Total
Activity
562,500 $ 562,500
35,000 (20,332)
597,500 542,168
280,000 280,000
276,200 140,200
6,300 5,500
562,500 425,700
35,000 116,468
27,032 27,032
Percent
of Budget
62,032 . $ 143,500
562,500 100%
(20,332) 10.58} (I)
542,168 91%
280,000 100% (2)
140,200 51% (3)
3,200 8,700 138%
3,200 428,900 76%
Notes:
(1) The variance is due to a LAIF interest adjustment per the Auditor for Fiscal Year 01-02.
(2) The variance is due to Debt Service Principal payment due and payable in October of this Fiscal Year.
(3) Debt service interest payments are scheduled to be paid in April of this Fiscal Year.
TCSD
DEPARTMENTAL
REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
Board of Directors
Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Service~
May 27, 2003
Departmental Report
PREPARED BY: Gall L. Zigler, Administrative Secretary
RHA Landscape Architects is preparing the construction documents for the improvements to Vail
Ranch Park Site "C" adjacent to Pauba Elementary School. This project is identified in this year's
CIP. The new amenities will include a tot lot, picnic shelter, tables, benches and walkways. The
Community Services Commission reviewed and approved the conceptual master plan at their
February 11, 2002 Commission meeting. This project is currently in for second plan check.
The conceptual Master Plan for the Wolf Creek Sports Complex, a 43 acre park with parking,
restroom/concession buildings, maintenance building, four lighted basketball courts, four lighted
soccer and four lighted softball/baseball fields, tot play equipment, picnic areas and walkways, was
reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors at the January 14, 2003 meeting. The architect is
currently drafting the construction documents.
The Development Services Division continues to participate in the development review for projects
within the City including Wolf Creek, Roripaugh, Villages of Old Town and Harveston, as well as
overseeing the development of parks and recreation facilities, and the contract for refuse and
recycling, cable television services and assessment administration.
The Maintenance Division continues to oversee the maintenance of all City parks and facilities, and
assist in all aspects of Citywide special events.
The Recreation Division staff is currently planning its summer special events the Annual 4th of July
Parade and Fireworks Extravaganza, the Summer Concert series, the new Movies in the Park
series, and the summer SMA.R.T., day camp and aquatics programs.
REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
ITEM 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MAY t3, 2003
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 7:55
P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
ROLLCALL
PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone,
and Roberts
ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBER: None
Also present were Executive Director Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No input.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of April 22, 2003.
MOTION: Agency Member Mayor Stone moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. The
motion was seconded by Agency Member Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
No comment.
AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS
No comments.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:56 P.M., the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to
Tuesday, May 27, 2003, in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California.
Ron Roberts, Chairman
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/Agency Secretary
[SEAL]
R:~vlinutes.rda\051303
APPROVAL
CITY~ /~'~
FINANCE DIRECT~~
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA REPORT
Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Members
Genie Roberts, Director of Finance
May 27, 2003
Financial Statements for the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2003
PREPARED BY:
Karen Jester, Assistant Finance Director
Pascale Brown, Senior Accountant
RECOMMENDATION:
1.
2.
4.
5.
6.
That the Agency Members:
Receive and file the Financial Statements for the Nine Months Ended Mamh 31,2003.
Approve an appropriation of $32,800 for Admin Fees in the Low/Moderate income Housing
Fund.
Approve an appropriation of $131,200 for Admin Fees in the Debt Service Fund.
Approve a decrease of $164,000 for Admin Fees in the Redevelopment CIP Fund.
Approve a decrease of $160,000 for Investment Interest in the Debt Service Fund.
Approve an increase of $225,000 for Investment Interest in the Redevelopment CIP Fund.
DISCUSSION: The attached financial statements reflect the unaudited activity of the
Redevelopment Agency for the nine months ended March 31, 2003. Please see the attached
financial statements for an analytical review of financial activity.
The requested budget adjustments are the result of the County administration fees being recorded
in the proper funds. Bond proceeds from the Tax Allocation Bond refinance in May 2002 were
originally recorded in the Debt Service Fund. Those funds were transferred to the Redevelopment
CIP Fund at year-end, therefore interest earnings between those funds must be adjusted.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
ATTACHMENTS:
Combining Balance Sheet as of March 31,2003
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for
the nine Months Ended March 31,2003
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Combining Balance Sheet as of March 31,2003
And the
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund
Balance For The Nine Months Ended
March 31,2003
(Unaudited)
Prepared by the Finance Deparlment
Temecula Redevelopment Agency
Combining Balance Sheet
As of March 31, 2003
Low/Mod CIP Debt
Fund Fund Service Total
Assets:
Cash and investments $ 7,855,567 $ 10,398,589 $ 1,977,730 $ 20,231,886
Receivables 1,255,841 320,890 8,424 1,585,155
Land held for resale 2,103,053 2,103,053
Totalassets $ 9,111,408 $ 12,822,532 $
1,986,154 $ 23,920,094
Liabilities and fund balances:
Liabilities:
Other current liabilities $ 1,277 $ 41,612 $ 42,889
Deferred revenue 824,082 157,059 981,141
Total liabilities 825,359 198,671 1,024,030
Fund balances:
Reserved 8,286,049 12,623,861 20,909,910
Designated $ 1,986,154 1,986,154
Undesignated
Total fund balances 8,286,049 12,623,861 1,986,154 22,896,064
Total liabilities
and fund balances $ 9,111,408 $ 12,822,532 $ 1,986,154 $ 23,920,094
Please note that these balances are unaudited
City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
Redevelopment Agency Low/Moderate Income Housing
For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2003
Annual
Amended YTD Total
Budget Activity Encumbr. Activity
Property tax increment $ 2,159,098 $ 1,084,556
Investment interest 232,000 159,408
Rental income 40,000 30,000
Miscellaneous 161,000 237,287
Total Revenues 2,592,098 1,511,251
$ 1,084,556
159,408
30,000
237,287
1,511,251
of Budget
50% (l)
69%
75%
147% (2)
58%
Expenditures: Salaries and wages
Operating and administrative expenditures
Homebuyer programs
Residential rehabilitation programs
Housing development & acquisition
Affordable housing / future obligation
230,500 152,806 152,806
333,021 216,969 $ 33,073 250,042
300,000
1,095,756 147,289 43,150 190,439
4,347,608 14,498 10,252 24,750
305,000 305,000 305,000
66%
75%
(3)
17%
1% (3)
100%
Total Expenditures 6,611,885 836,562 86,475 923,037 14%
Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures
Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2002
(4,019,787) 674,689
7,611,360 7,611,360
3,591,573 $ 8,286,049
Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2003 $
Notes:
(1) The second portion of property tax increment is scheduled to receive by the end of May.
(2) Residential loan program repayments received were much higher than anticipated due to many homebuyers refinancing
their existing loans which then requires the repayment of the loan.
(3) The variance is due to CIP RDA Housing projects which have not yet started.
City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and ActuaI
Redevelopment Agency-CIP
For the Nine Months Ended March 3l, 2003
Annual
Amended YTD
Revenues: Budget Activity
investment interest $ 35,000 $ 211,489
Rental income 180,000 135~000
Loan interest 16,000 9,176
Grants 50,000
Micellaneous 12,593
Operating transfers in 850,000 465,000
Total Revenues 1,131,000 833,258
Encumbr.
Total Percent
Activity of Budget
$ 211,489 604% (1)
i35,000 75%
9,176 57%
12,593
465,000 55%
833,258 74%
Capital Projects:
First Street bridge 280-807 69,617 363 69,617 69,980 101%
Old Town Parking 280-825 171,400
Gateway Landscape OT 280-833 175,182 7,744 6,190 13,934 8%
Operating Expenditures:
Salaries and wages
Operating and administrative expenditures
Owner participation agreements
Old Town plan i~nplementation
Old Town building facades
Banner program
Operating transfers out
Total Expenditures
Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures
Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2002
Ending Fund Balance, Mamh 31, 2003
92,780 63,424 63,424 68%
756,708 193,980 14,877 208,857 28%
3O0,0O0 (2)
136,140 66,949 26,388 93,337 69%
94.301 75,896 14,828 90,724 96% (3)
4,100 32 32 1%
10,805,800 1,368,100 1,368,I00 13% (4)
12,606,028 1,776,488 131,900 1,908,388 i5%
(11,475,028) (943,230)
13,567,091 13,567,091
$ 2,092,06~3 $ 12,623,86.._~_1
Notes:
( l ) The variance is due to moving the Bond proceeds money from Fiscal Year 01-02 Debt Service (380) to Redevelopment CIP(280) which
affects investment earnings between those funds.
(2) The Costco Owner Participation Agreement is not paid until April of each fiscal year.
(3) The variance is due to several fa~/ade improvement projects in Old Town that were approved during this quarter.
(4) The variance is due to CIP projects funded through RDA bond proceeds that have not been started yet.
City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
Redevelopmem Agency - Debt Service
For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2003
Annual
Amended YTD Percent
Budget Activity of Budget
Property tax increment $ 8,636,393 $ 4,338,223 50% (1)
Investment interest 189,000 (64,757) -34% (2)
Advances from other funds 65,000 48,361 74%
Total Revenues 8,890,393 4,321,827 49%
Expenditures:
Passthrough agreements
Debt service - principal
Debt service - interest
Trustees admin fees
Operating transfers out
Total Expenditures
Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures
Beginning Fund BaIance, July 1, 2002
Euding Fund Balance, March 31, 2003
5,978,381 2,675,072
1,013,440 1,061,799
7,500 127,041
2,262,300 465,000
9,261,62l 4,328,912
(371,228) (7,085)
1,993,239 1,993,239
$ 1,622,011 $ 1,986,154
45% (3)
(4)
105% (4)
21% (5)
47%
Notes:
(I) The second portion of property tax increment is scheduled to be received by the end of May.
(2) The variance is due Ibr a LAIF interest adjustment per Auditor for Fiscal Year 01-02.
( I ) The second portion of passthrough agreements is scheduled to be paid by the end of May.
(4) Debt Service Interest payments are paid in August and February of each fiscal year.
(5) Operating transfer out are lower due to CIP projects not started yet.
ITEM 3
APPROVAL ~'"~h ~....~-~
CITY ATTORNEY
DIR,OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
ClTY OFTEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City ManagedCity Council
Executive DirectodRedevelopment Agency
John Meyer, Director of Housing and Redevelopment~V~
May 27, 2003
Joint Public Hearing Of Redevelopment Agency And City Council Concerning
Agency Payment For Installation And Construction Of The Temecula Children's
Museum, The Old Town Community Theater, And Widening Of Rancho California
Bridge
RECOMMENDATION:
following Resolutions:
That the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency adopt the
RESOLUTION 03-._
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULAAPPROVING PAYMENT BY THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR ALL OR A PART OF
THE COST OF INSTALLING AND CONSTRUCTING THE
TEMECULA CHILDREN'S MUSEUM, THE OLD TOWN
COMMUNITY THEATER AND THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
BRIDGE WIDENING PROJECT OVER MURRIETA CREEK
RESOLUTION RDA 03-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING PAYMENT BY THE AGENCY FOR ALL OR A PART
OF THE COST OF INSTALLING AND CONSTRUCTING THE
TEMECULA CHILDREN'S MUSEUM, THE OLD TOWN
COMMUNITY THEATER AND THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
BRIDGE WIDENING PROJECT OVER MURRIETA CREEK
R:/Agenda Reports/Childrens Museum Comm 1
Theater Rancho Ca Bridge 5 27
BACKGROUND: The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula (the "Agency") proposes to
pay for all or a part of the cost of the installation and construction of the Temecula Children's
Museum, the Old Town Community Theater and the Rancho California Bddge Widening Project
("Improvements").
The total estimated amount of taxes allocated to the Agency pursuant to Health and Safety Code
Section 33670(b) proposed to be used to pay for the installation and construction of the Temecula
Children's Museum, including interest payments, is $2,600,000.00. The total estimated amount of
taxes allocated to the Agency pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33670(b) proposed to be
used to pay for the installation and construction of the Old Town Community Theater, including
interest payments, is $6,700,000.00. The total estimated amount of taxes allocated to the Agency
pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33670(b) proposed to be used to pay for the installation
and construction of the Rancho California Road Bridge Widening, including interest payments, is
$5,000,000.00.
The Agency has on hand proceeds of tax allocation bonds issued by the Agency which may be used
to finance the Improvements.
The Improvements are located in the Agency's Redevelopment Project No. 1 1988 Project Area (the
"Project Area"). The Project Area is an area in which the combination of conditions of blight is so
prevalent and so substantial that it causes a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the area to
such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical, social and economic burden on the community
which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or
governmental action, or both, without redevelopment. The Project Area is characterized by a lack of
adequate public improvements, including community facilities, which cannot be remedied by pdvate
or governmental action without redevelopment. The lack of adequate public improvements hinders
economic development opportunities and contributes to the existence of depreciated and stagnant
property values and impaired investments in the Project Area. Conditions of blight in the Project
Area include the existence of undeveloped and underdeveloped properties and properties which
suffer from economic dislocation, deterioration or disuse, including depreciated or stagnant property
values and impaired investments.
The Improvements will provide new, modern and efficient public service facilities to serve the
residents and taxpayers of the City, including, in particular, the residents and taxpayers of the
Project Area. The installation and construction of the Temecula Children's Museum and the Old
Town Community Theater will provide needed recreational opportunities to serve the residents and
taxpayers of the Project Area and the City and will help correct the lack of adequate recreational
facilities to serve the Project Area and the City. This will promote the sound development and
redevelopment of the Project Area, will promote the expansion of the Project Areas commercial
base, promote the preservation and enhancement of the Old Town Area and its western theme,
promote the economic viability of Project Area businesses, attract new businesses, assist in
retaining existing businesses, encourage business expansion, reduce crime and juvenile
delinquency, promote tourism, encourage private sector investment in the Project Area and create
job opportunities for the residents of the Project Area and the City, all for the benefit of the health,
safety and welfare of the residents and taxpayers of the City and the Project Area. Thus, the
Temecula Children's Museum and the Old Town Community Theater will assist in the elimination of
blight in the Project Area which is caused by inadequate public improvements. This in turn will
assist in eliminating a factor which prevents or substantially hinders the economically viable use or
capacity of buildings or lots and will encourage pdvate sector investment in the Project Area, thereby
facilitating the redevelopment of the Project Area. The Rancho California Road Bridge Widening
R:/Agenda Reports/Childrens Museum Comm 2
Theater Rancho Ca Bddge 5 27
Project will provide much needed traffic improvements contemplated in the Plan and necessary for
the economic development of Old Town and the Project Area.
The Improvements will serve a basic purpose of redevelopment; redevelopment includes the
provision of structures as may be appropriate or necessary in the interest of the general welfare,
including recreational and other facilities. In addition, a fundamental purpose of redevelopment is to
provide an environment for the social, economic and psychological growth and well-being of all
citizens. The Temecula Children's Museum and the Old Town Community Theater will serve the
human need for psychological release, contributing to the well-being of the community.
The budget constraints of the City prevent the City from paying for the cost of the installation and
construction of the Improvements by any means. The City does not have an existing pool of bond
proceeds from which to fund the Improvements. The City's available development impact fee funds
and reserve funds are otherwise allocated to high priority traffic and public improvement projects.
The properties affected by the Improvements could not support special taxes or assessments
sufficient to fund the Improvements. Section 355 of the Plan specifically provides for the funding of
improvements with tax increment revenues. Traditional methods of financing such as the issuance
of general obligation bonds are unavailable as a practical matter because of the extraordinary
majority voter approval requirements of two-thirds of the electorate. Assessment financing is subject
to a majority protest and special tax financing requires a two-thirds vote of the electorate. Further,
assessment financing or special tax financing would overburden properties with special taxes or
assessments.
The installation and construction of the Improvements are consistent with the Agency's
Implementation Plan prepared pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33490.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Agency payments for the improvements will be made from the proceeds of
the Agency's Tax Allocation Bond Issue.
ATTACHMENTS:
City Council Resolution
Redevelopment Resolution
Summary
R:/Agenda Reports/Childrens Museum Corem 3
Theater Rancho Ca Bddge 5 27
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PAYMENT BY THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
FOR ALL OR A PART OF THE COST OF INSTALLING AND
CONSTRUCTING THE TEMECULA CHILDREN'S MUSEUM,
THE OLD TOWN COMMUNITY THEATER AND THE RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD BRIDGE WIDENING PROJECT OVER
MURRIETA CREEK
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA HEREBY RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
declare that:
The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and
a. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula (the "Agency") is
authorized by the Section 33445 of the Community Redevelopment Law (Health &
Safety Code Section 33000, et seq.) and Section 355 of the Redevelopment Plan (the
"Plan") for Redevelopment Project No. 1 1988 (the "Project Area") to install and
construct public improvements of benefit to the Project Area.
The Agency proposes to pay for all or a part of the cost of installing and constructing the
Temecula Children's Museum, the Old Town Community Theater and the widening of
the Rancho California Bridge over Murrieta Creek to accommodate six lanes of traffic, all
in the Old Town Area of the Project Area as specified in the following documents on file
in the Office of the Director of Redevelopment ("Improvements"):
b. The Agency will use a portion of the proceeds of its tax increment bond
issue, for which debt service is funded by tax increment revenues, to install and
construct the Improvements.
c. The installation and construction of the Improvements will benefit the
Project Area.
d. The payment of funds for the cost of the Improvements will assist in the
elimination of one or more blighting conditions inside the Project Area, as identified in
the proceedings establishing the Project Area in that the Improvements would: (1)
Provide for public service facilities, specifically, as identified in the proceedings and the
Plan; (2) Improve access to the Project Area; (3) promote the preservation and
enhancement of the Old Town Area and its western theme in accordance with the goals
and objectives of the Plan and the Old Town Specific Plan; (4) promote the expansion of
the Project Area's commercial base and local employment opportunities within the Old
Town Area; and (5) assist in the continued development of the Old Town Area as a
tourist destination and enhancement of the tourist industry as a major force within the
community.
e. No other reasonable means of financing the Improvements are available
to the City. The City does not have an existing pool of bond proceeds from which to
fund the Improvements. The City's available development impact fee funds and reserve
R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ 1
funds are allocated to other high priority traffic and public improvement projects.
Traditional methods of financing such as the issuance of general obligation bonds are
unavailable as a practical matter because of the extraordinary majority voter approval
requirements of two-thirds of the electorate. The properties affected by the
Improvements could not support special taxes or assessments sufficient to fund the
Improvements and special tax financing requires a two-thirds vote of the electorate and
assessment financing is subject to majority protest. Section 355 of the Plan specifically
provides for the funding of the Improvements with tax increment revenues.
f. The payment of funds for the cost of the Improvements is consistent with
the Agency's Implementation Plan adopted pursuant to Section 33490 of the Community
Redevelopment Law.
g. This Agreement pertains to and affects the ability of the City 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.
h. The method of funding the Improvements was considered at a duly notice
public hearing held on May 27, 2003 jointly before the City Council of the City of
Temecula and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula in accordance with
the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 33679. Additionally, the summary
required by Section 33679 was prepared in accordance with said section and was
available to the public at the time of first publication of the notice of hearing. At said
hearing the Agency and Council carefully considered all of the evidence presented and
the testimony of interested persons on the Improvements.
i. The Improvements are being undertaken pursuant to the Plan for which a
full and complete Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified prior to
adoption of the Plan. Additionally the Improvements were proposed as a part of the Old
Town Specific Plan for which an environment review was completed and certified in
1994. The approval of the Improvements is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections
15180, 15282(I), 15301, and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter 3 of the
California Administrative Code) and Public Resources Code Section 21090. None of the
findings set forth in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter
3 of the California Administrative Code) requiring a subsequent or supplement
environmental impact report can be made and, therefore, further environment review is
not required pursuant to the authority of Section 15180 of the CEQA Guidelines and
other applicable law.
Section 2. The City Council hereby approves payment by the Agency for the all or a
part of the cost of the installation and construction of the Improvements.
Section 3. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and
severally, to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents which they
may deem necessary or advisable in order to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution and any
such actions previously taken by such officers are hereby ratified and confirmed.
Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Resolution.
R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-__ 2
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this
27th day of May, 2003.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 03-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a meeting thereof on the 27th day of May, 2003, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone
NOES: 0 COUNClLMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNClLMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNClLMEMBERS: None
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-_ 3
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 03-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING PAYMENT BY THE AGENCY FOR ALL OR A
PART OF THE COST OF INSTALLING AND CONSTRUCTING
THE TEMECULA CHILDREN'S MUSEUM, THE OLD'TOWN
COMMUNITY THEATER AND THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA
ROAD BRIDGE WIDENING PROJECT OVER MURRIETA
CREEK
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that:
a. The Agency is authorized by the Section 33445 of the Community
Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code Section 33000, et seq.) and Section 355 of
the Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan") for Redevelopment Project No. 1 1988 (the
"Project Area") to install and construct public improvements of benefit to the Project
Area.
The Agency proposes to pay for all or a part of the cost of installing and constructing the
Temecula Children's Museum, the Old Town Community Theater and the widening of
the Rancho California Bridge over Murrieta Creek to accommodate six lanes of traffic, all
in the Old Town Area of the Project Area as specified in the following documents on file
in the Office of the Director of Redevelopment ("Improvements"):.
b. The Agency will use a portion of the proceeds of its tax increment bond
issue, for which debt service is funded by tax increment revenues, to install and
construct the Improvements.
c. The installation and construction of the Improvements will benefit the
Project Area.
d. The payment of funds for the cost of the Improvements will assist in the
elimination of one or more blighting conditions inside the Project Area, as identified in
the proceedings establishing the Project Area in that the Improvements would: (1)
Provide for public service facilities, specifically, as identified in the proceedings and the
Plan; (2) Improve access to the Project Area; (3) promote the preservation and
enhancement of the Old Town Area and its western theme in accordance with the goals
and objectives of the Plan and the Old Town Specific Plan; (4) promote the expansion of
the Project Area's commercial base and local employment opportunities within the Old
Town Area; and (5) assist in the continued development of the Old Town Area as a
tourist destination and enhancement of the tourist industry as a major force within the
community.
e. No other reasonable means of financing the Improvements are available
to the City. The City does not have an existing pool of bond proceeds from which to
fund the Improvements. The City's available development impact fee funds and reserve
R:/RDA Resos 2003/RDA 03-~ 1
funds are allocated to other high priority traffic and public improvement projects.
Traditional methods of financing such as the issuance of general obligation bonds are
unavailable as a practical matter because of the extraordinary majority voter approval
requirements of two-thirds of the electorate. The properties affected by the
Improvements could not support special taxes or assessments sufficient to fund the
Improvements and special tax financing requires a two-thirds vote of the electorate and
assessment financing is subject to majority protest. Section 355 of the Plan specifically
provides for the funding of the Improvements with tax increment revenues.
f. The payment of funds for the cost of the Improvements is consistent with
the Agency's Implementation Plan adopted pursuant to Section 33490 of the Community
Redevelopment Law.
g. 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 Section 53511.
h. The method of funding the Improvements was considered at a duly notice
public hearing held on May 27, 2003 jointly before the City Council of the City of
Temecula and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula in accordance with
the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 33679. Additionally, the summary
required by Section 33679 was prepared in accordance with said section and was
available to the public at the time of first publication of the notice of hearing. At said
hearing the Agency and Council carefully considered all of the evidence presented and
the testimony of interested persons on the Improvements.
i. The Improvements are being undertaken pursuant to the Plan for which a
full and complete Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified prior to
adoption of the Plan. Additionally the Improvements were proposed as a part of the Old
Town Specific Plan for which an environment review was completed and certified in
1994. The approval of the Improvements is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections
15180, 15282(I), 15301, and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter 3 of the
California Administrative Code) and Public Resources Code Section 21090. None of the
findings set forth in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter
3 of the California Administrative Code)'requiring a subsequent or supplement
environmental impact report can be made and, therefore, further environment review is
not required pursuant to the authority of Section 15180 of the CEQA Guidelines and
other applicable law.
Section 2. The Board of Directors of the Agency hereby approves payment by the
Agency for the all or a part of the cost of the installation and construction of the Improvements.
Section 3. The officers of the Agency are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and
severally, to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents which they
may deem necessary or advisable in order to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution and any
such actions previously taken by such officers are hereby ratified and confirmed.
Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
Section 5. The Secretary shall certify to the passage of this Resolution.
R:/RDA Resos 2003/RDA 03-~ 2
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula this 27th day of May, 2003.
ATTEST:
Ron Roberts, Chairperson
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/Agency Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, Secretary of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. RDA 03-__ was duly adopted
by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency at a regular meeting thereof
held on the 27th day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES:
0 AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts
NOES: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/Agency Secretary
R:/RDA Resos 2003/RDA 03-__ 3
SUMMARY OF PAYMENT BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA OF ALL OR A PART OF THE
COST OF THE INSTALLATION AND INSTRUCTION OF A THE
TEMECULA CHILDREN'S MUSEUM AND THE OLD TOWN
COMMUNITY THEATER
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula (the "Agency") proposes to pay for
ail or a part of the cost of the installation and construction of the Temecula Children's Museum
and the Old Town Community Theater.
The Temecula Children's Museum is located in Old Town Temecula , in the former
Temecula Trading Post building, located at 42081 Main Street. The Old Town Community
Theater is located at 42049 Main Street.
The total estimated amount of taxes allocated to the Agency pursuant to Health and
Safety Code Section 33670(b) proposed to be used to pay for the installation and construction
of the Temecula Children's Museum, including interest payments, is $2,600,000.00. The total
estimated amount of taxes allocated to the Agency pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section
33670(b) proposed to be used to pay for the installation and construction of the Old Town
Community Theater, including interest payments, is $6,700,000.00.
The Agency has on hand proceeds of tax allocation bonds issued by the Agency which
may be used to finance the Temecula Children's Museum and the Old Town Community
Theater.
The Temecula Children's Museum and the Old Town Community Theater are located in
the Agency's Redevelopment Project No. 1 1988 Project Area (the "Project Area"). The Project
Area is an area in which the combination of conditions of blight is so prevalent and so
substantial that it causes a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the area to such an
extent that it constitutes a serious physical, social and economic burden on the community
which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or
governmental action, or both, without redevelopment. The Project Area is characterized by a
lack of adequate public improvements, including community facilities, which cannot be remedied
by private or governmental action without redevelopment. The lack of adequate public
improvements hinders economic development opportunities and contributes to the existence of
depreciated and stagnant property values and impaired investments in the Project Area.
Conditions of blight in the Project Area include the existence of undeveloped and
underdeveloped properties and properties which suffer from economic dislocation, deterioration
or disuse, including depreciated or stagnant property values and impaired investments.
The Temecula Children's Museum and the Old Town Community Theater will provide
new, modern and efficient public service facilities to serve the residents and taxpayers of the
City, including, in particular, the residents and taxpayers of the Project Area. The installation
and construction of the Temecula Children's Museum and the Old Town Community Theater will
provide needed recreational opportunities to serve the residents and taxpayers of the Project
Area and the City and will help correct the lack of adequate recreational facilities to serve the
Project Area and the City. This will promote the sound development and redevelopment of the
Project Area, will promote the expansion of the Project Areas commercial base, promote the
preservation and enhancement of the Old Town Area and its western theme, promote the
economic viability of Project Area businesses, attract new businesses, assist in retaining
R:/RDA Resos/Summary 5 27 1
existing businesses, encourage business expansion, reduce crime and juvenile delinquency,
promote tourism, encourage private sector investment in the Project Area and create job
opportunities for the residents of the Project Area and the City, all for the benefit of the health,
safety and welfare of the residents and taxpayers of the City and the Project Area. Thus, the
Temecula Children's Museum and the Old Town Community Theater will assist in the
elimination of blight in the Project Area which is caused by inadequate public improvements.
This in turn will assist in eliminating a factor which prevents or substantially hinders the
economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots and will encourage private sector
investment in the Project Area, thereby facilitating the redevelopment of the Project Area.
The Temecula Children's Museum and the Old Town Community Theater will serve a
basic purpose of redevelopment; redevelopment includes the provision of structures as may be
appropriate or necessary in the interest of the general welfare, including recreational and other
facilities. In addition, a fundamental purpose of redevelopment is to provide an environment for
the social, economic and psychological growth and well-being of all citizens. The Temecula
Children's Museum and the Old Town Community Theater will serve the human need for
psychological release, contributing to the well-being of the community.
The budget constraints of the City prevent the City from paying for the cost of the
installation and construction of the Temecula Children's Museum and the Old Town Community
Theater by any means. The City does not have an existing pool of bond proceeds from which to
fund the Temecula Children's Museum and the Old Town Community Theater. The City's
available development impact fee funds and reserve funds are otherwise allocated to high
priority traffic and public improvement projects. The properties affected by the Temecula
Children's Museum and the Old Town Community Theater could not support special taxes or
assessments sufficient to fund the Improvements. Section 355 of the Plan specifically provides
for the funding of improvements with tax increment revenues. Traditional methods of financing
such as the issuance of general obligation bonds are unavailable as a practical matter because
of the extraordinary majority voter approval requirements of two-thirds of the electorate.
Assessment financing is subject to a majority protest and special tax financing requires a two-
thirds vote of the electorate. Further, assessment financing or special tax financing would
overburden properties with special taxes or assessments.
The installation and construction of the Temecula Children's Museum and the Old Town
Community Theater are consistent with the Agency's Implementation Plan prepared pursuant to
Health and Safety Code Section 33490.
R:/RDA Resos/Summary 5 27 2
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 03-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECT{)RS OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY Or~ TEMECULA
APPROVING PAYMENT BY THE AGENCY FOI ALL OR A
PART OF THE COST OF INSTALLING AND COI~ISTRUCTING
THE TEMECULA CHILDREN'S MUSEUM AND THE OLD TOWN
COMMUNITY THEATER
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Board of D~rectors of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
a. The Agency is authorized by the Section 33445 of the Community
Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code Section 330001 et seq.) and Section 355 of
the Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan") for Redevelopment Project No. 1 1988 (the
"Project Area") to install and construct public ~mprovements of benefit to the Project
Area.
The Agency proposes to pay for all or a part of the cost of i~stalling and constructing the
Temecula Children's Museum and the Old Town Community Theater, both of which are
in the Old Town Area of the Project Area as specified m the following documents on file
in the Office of the Director of Redevelopment ("Improvements"):.
b. The Agency will use a portion of the proceeds of its tax increment bond
issue, for which debt service is funded by tax increment~ revenues, to install and
construct the Improvements.
c. The installation and construction of the In ~rovements will benefit the
Project Area.
d. The payment of funds for the cost of the Irt ~rovements will assist in the
elimination of one or more blighting conditions inside the Project Area, as identified in
the proceedings establishing the Project Area in that th(~ Improvements would: (1)
Provide for public service facilities, specifically, as identified in the proceedings and the
Plan; (2) Improve access to the Project Area; (3) promote the preservation and
enhancement of the Old Town Area and its western theme in accordance with the goals
and objectives of the Plan and the Old Town Specific Plan; t4) promote the expansion of
the Project Area's commercial base and local employmentl opportunities within the Old
Town Area; and (5) assist in the continued development Ilof the Old Town Area
as
a
tourist destination and enhancement of the tourist industr~ as a major force within the
community.
e. No other reasonable means of financing theI Improvements are available
to the City. The City does not have an existing pool of bond proceeds from which to
fund the Improvements. The C~ty s avadable development ~mpact fee funds and reserve
funds are allocated to other h~gh pnonty traffic and pubhc improvement projects.
Traditional methods of financing such as the issuance of general obligation bonds are
R:/RDA Resos 2003/RDA 03-08 1
unavailable as a practical matter because of the extraordinary majodfy voter approval
requirements of two-thirds of the electorate. The properties affected by the
Improvements could not support special taxes or assessments sufficient to fund the
Improvements and special tax financing requires a two-thirds vote of the electorate and
assessment financing is subject to majority protest. Section 355 of the Plan specifically
provides for the funding of the Improvements with tax increment revenues.
f. The payment of funds for the cost of the Improvements is consistent with
the Agency's Implementation Plan adopted pursuant to Section 33490 of the Community
Redevelopment Law.
g. 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 Section 53511.
h. The method of funding the Improvements was considered at a duly notice
public hearing held on May 27, 2003 jointly before the City Council of the City of
Temecula and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula in accordance with
the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 33679. Additionally, the summary
required by Section 33679 was prepared in accordance with said section and was
available to the public at the time of first publication of the notice of hearing. At said
hearing the Agency and Council carefully considered all of the evidence presented and
the testimony of interested persons on the Improvements.
i. The Improvements are being undertaken pursuant to the Plan for which a
full and complete Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified prior to
adoption of the Plan. Additionally the Improvements were proposed as a part of the Old
Town Specific Plan for which an environment review was completed and certified in
1994. The approval of the Improvements is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections
15180, 15282(I), 15301, and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter 3 of the
California Administrative Code) and Public Resources Code Section 21090. None of the
findings set forth in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter
3 of the California Administrative Code) requiring a subsequent or supplement
environmental impact report can be made and, therefore, further environment review is
not required pursuant to the authority of Section 15180 of the CEQA Guidelines and
other applicable law.
Section 2. The Board of Directors of the Agency hereby approves payment by the
Agency for the all or a part of the cost of the installation and construction of the Improvements.
Section 3. The officers of the Agency are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and
severally, to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents which they
may deem necessary or advisable in order to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution and any
such actions previously taken by such officers are hereby ratified and confirmed.
Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
Section 5. The Secretary shall certify to the passage of this Resolution.
R:/RDA Resos 2003/RDA 03-08 2
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula this 27th day of May, 2003.
ATTEST:
Ron Roberts, Chairperson
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/Agency Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, Secretary of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. RDA 03-08 was duly adopted
by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency at a regular meeting thereof
held on the 27th day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES:
5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Comemhero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts
NOES: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/Agency Secretary
R:/RDA Resos 2003/RDA 03-08 3
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 03-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING PAYMENT BY THE AGENCY FOR ALL OR A
PART OF THE COST OF INSTALLING AND CONSTRUCTING
THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD BRIDGE WIDENING
PROJECT OVER MURRIETA CREEK
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
a. The Agency is authorized by the Section 33445 of the Community
Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code Section 33000, et seq.) and Section 355 of
the Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan") for Redevelopment Project No. 1 1988 (the
"Project Area") to install and construct public improvements of benefit to the Project
Area.
The Agency proposes to pay for all or a part of the cost of installing and constructing the
widening of the Rancho California Bridge over Murrieta Creek to accommodate six lanes
of traffic, which is located in the Old Town Area of the Project Area as specified in the
following documents on file in the Office of the Director of Redevelopment
("Improvements"):.
b. The Agency will use a portion of the proceeds of its tax increment bond
issue, for which debt service is funded by tax increment revenues, to install and
construct the Improvements.
c. The installation and construction of the Improvements will benefit the
Project Area.
d. The payment of funds for the cost of the Improvements will assist in the
elimination of one or more blighting conditions inside the Project Area, as identified in
the proceedings establishing the Project Area in that the Improvements would: (1)
Provide for public service facilities, specifically, as identified in the proceedings and the
Plan; (2) Improve access to the Project Area; (3) promote the preservation and
enhancement of the Old Town Area and its western theme in accordance with the goals
and objectives of the Plan and the Old Town Specific Plan; (4) promote the expansion of
the Project Area's commercial base and local employment opportunities within the Old
Town Area; and (5) assist in the continued development of the Old Town Area as a
tourist destination and enhancement of the tourist industry as a major force within the
community.
e. No other reasonable means of financing the improvements are available
to the City. The City does not have an existing pool of bond proceeds from which to
fund the Improvements. The City's available development impact fee funds and reserve
funds are allocated to other high priority traffic and public improvement projects.
R:/RDA Resos 2003/RDA 03-09 I
Traditional methods of financing such as the issuance of general obligation bonds are
unavailable as a practical matter because of the extraordinary majority voter approval
requirements of two-thirds of the electorate. The properties affected by the
Improvements could not support special taxes or assessments sufficient to fund the
Improvements and special tax financing requires a two-thirds vote of the electorate and
assessment financing is subject to majority protest. Section 355 of the Plan specifically
provides for the funding of the Improvements with tax increment revenues.
f. The payment of funds for the cost of the Improvements is consistent with
the Agency's Implementation Plan adopted pursuant to Section 33490 of the Community
Redevelopment Law.
g. 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 Section 53511.
h. The method of funding the Improvements was considered at a duly notice
public hearing held on May 27, 2003 jointly before the City Council of the City of
Temecula and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula in accordance with
the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 33679. Additionally, the summary
required by Section 33679 was prepared in accordance with said section and was
available to the public at the time of first publication of the notice of hearing. At said
hearing the Agency and Council carefully considered all of the evidence presented and
the testimony of interested persons on the Improvements.
i. The Improvements are being undertaken pursuant to the Plan for which a
full and complete Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified prior to
adoption of the Plan. Additionally the Improvements were proposed as a part of the Old
Town Specific Plan for which an environment review was completed and certified in
1994. The approval of the Improvements is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections
15180, 15282(I), 15301, and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter 3 of the
California Administrative Code) and Public Resources Code Section 21090. None of the
findings set forth in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter
3 of the California Administrative Code) requiring a subsequent or supplement
environmental impact report can be made and, therefore, further environment review is
not required pursuant to the authority of Section 15180 of the CEQA Guidelines and
other applicable law.
Section 2. The Board of Directors of the Agency hereby approves payment by the
Agency for the all or a part of the cost of the installation and construction of the Improvements.
Section 3. The officers of the Agency are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and
severally, to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents which they
may deem necessary or advisable in order to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution and any
such actions previously taken by such officers are hereby ratified and confirmed.
Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
Section 5. The Secretary shall certify to the passage of this Resolution.
R:/RDA Resos 2003/RDA 03-09 2
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula this 27th day of May, 2003.
ATTEST:
Ron Roberts, Chairperson
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/Agency Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, Secretary of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. RDA 03-09 was duly adopted
by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency at a regular meeting thereof
held on the 27th day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES:
4 AGENCY MEMBERS: Comemhero, Naggar, Stone, Roberts
NOES: 1 AGENCY MEMBERS: Pratt
ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/Agency Secretary
R:/RDA Resos 2003/RDA 03-09 3
RESOLUTION NO. 03-60
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PAYMENT BY THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
FOR ALL OR A PART OF THE COST OF INSTALLING AND
CONSTRUCTING THE TEMECULA CHILDREN'S MUSEUM
AND THE OLD TOWN COMMUNITY THEATER
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA HEREBY RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1.The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and
declare that:
a. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula (the "Agency") is
authorized by the Section 33445 of the Community Redevelopment Law (Health &
Safety Code Section 33000, et seq.) and Section 355 of the Redevelopment Plan (the
"Plan") for Redevelopment Project No. 1 1988 (the "Project Area") to install and
construct public improvements of benefit to the Project Area.
The Agency proposes to pay for all or a part of the cost of installing and constructing the
Temecula Children's Museum and the Old Town Community Theater, both of which are
located in the Old Town Area of the Project Area as specified in the following documents
on file in the Office of the Director of Redevelopment ("Improvements"):
b. The Agency will use a portion of the proceeds of its tax increment bond
issue, for which debt service is funded by tax increment revenues, to install and
construct the Improvements.
c. The installation and construction of the Improvements will benefit the
Project Area.
d. The payment of funds for the cost of the Improvements will assist in the
elimination of one or more blighting conditions inside the Project Area, as identified in
the proceedings establishing the Project Area in that the Improvements would: (1)
Provide for public service facilities, specifically, as identified in the proceedings and the
Plan; (2) Improve access to the Project Area; (3) promote the preservation and
enhancement of the Old Town Area and its western theme in accordance with the goals
and objectives of the Plan and the Old Town Specific Plan; (4) promote the expansion of
the Project Area's commercial base and local employment opportunities within the Old
Town Area; and (5) assist in the continued development of the Old Town Area as a
tourist destination and enhancement of the tourist industry as a major force within the
community.
e. No other reasonable means of financing the Improvements are available
to the City. The City does not have an existing pool of bond proceeds from which to
fund the Improvements. The City's available development impact fee funds and reserve
funds are allocated to other high priority traffic and public improvement projects.
Traditional methods of financing such as the issuance of general obligation bonds are
R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-60 I
unavailable as a practical matter because of the extraordinary majority voter approval
requirements of two-thirds of the electorate. The properties affected by the
Improvements could not support special taxes or assessments sufficient to fund the
Improvements and special tax financing requires a two-thirds vote of the electorate and
assessment financing is subject to majority protest. Section 355 of the Plan specifically
provides for the funding of the Improvements with tax increment revenues.
f. The payment of funds for the cost of the Improvements is consistent with
the Agency's Implementation Plan adopted pursuant to Section 33490 of the Community
Redevelopment Law.
g. This Agreement pertains to and affects the ability of the City 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.
h. The method of funding the Improvements was considered at a duly notice
public hearing held on May 27, 2003 jointly before the City Council of the City of
Temecula and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula in accordance with
the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 33679. Additionally, the summary
required by Section 33679 was prepared in accordance with said section and was
available to the public at the time of first publication of the notice of hearing. At said
hearing the Agency and Council carefully considered all of the evidence presented and
the testimony of interested persons on the Improvements.
i. The Improvements are being undertaken pursuant to the Plan for which a
full and complete Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified prior to
adoption of the Plan. Additionally the Improvements were proposed as a part of the Old
Town Specific Plan for which an environment review was completed and certified in
1994. The approval of the Improvements is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections
15180, 15282(I), 15301, and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter 3 of the
California Administrative Code) and Public Resources Code Section 21090. None of the
findings set forth in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter
3 of the California Administrative Code) requiring a subsequent or supplement
environmental impact report can be made and, therefore, further environment review is
not required pursuant to the authority of Section 15180 of the CEQA Guidelines and
other applicable law.
Section 2. The City Council hereby approves payment by the Agency for the all or a
part of the cost of the installation and construction of the Improvements.
Section 3. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and
severally, to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents which they
may deem necessary or advisable in order to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution and any
such actions previously taken by such officers are hereby ratified and confirmed.
Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Resolution.
R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-60 2
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this
27th day of May, 2003.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 03-60 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a meeting thereof on the 27th day of May, 2003, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNClLMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-60 3
RESOLUTION NO. 03-61
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PAYMENT BY THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
FOR ALL OR A PART OF THE COST OF INSTALLING AND
CONSTRUCTING THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD BRIDGE
WIDENING PROJECT OVER MURRIETA CREEK
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA HEREBY RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1.The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and
declare that:
a. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula (the "Agency") is
authorized by the Section 33445 of the Community Redevelopment Law (Health &
Safety Code Section 33000, et seq.) and Section 355 of the Redevelopment Plan (the
"Plan") for Redevelopment Project No. 1 1988 (the "Project Area") to install and
construct public improvements of benefit to the Project Area.
The Agency proposes to pay for all or a part of the cost of installing and constructing the
widening of the Rancho California Bridge over Murrieta Creek to accommodate six lanes
of traffic which is located in the Old Town Area of the Project Area as specified in the
following documents on file in the Office of the Director of Redevelopment
("Improvements"):
b. The Agency will use a portion of the proceeds of its tax increment bond
issue, for which debt service is funded by tax increment revenues, to install and
construct the Improvements.
c. The installation and construction of the Improvements will benefit the
Project Area.
d. The payment of funds for the cost of the Improvements will assist in the
elimination of one or more blighting conditions inside the Project Area, as identified in
the proceedings establishing the Project Area in that the Improvements would: (1)
Provide for public service facilities, specifically, as identified in the proceedings and the
Plan; (2) Improve access to the Project Area; (3) promote the preservation and
enhancement of the Old Town Area and its western theme in accordance with the goals
and objectives of the Plan and the Old Town Specific Plan; (4) promote the expansion of
the Project Area's commercial base and local employment opportunities within the Old
Town Area; and (5) assist in the continued development of the Old Town Area as a
tourist destination and enhancement of the tourist industry as a major force within the
community.
e. No other reasonable means of financing the Improvements are available
to the City. The City does not have an existing pool of bond proceeds from which to
fund the Improvements. The City's available development impact fee funds and reserve
funds are allocated to other high priority traffic and public improvement projects.
R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-61 I
Traditional methods of financing such as the issuance of general obligation bonds ara
unavailable as a practical matter because of the extraordinary majority voter approval
requirements of two-thirds of the electorate. The properties affected by the
Improvements could not support special taxes or assessments sufficient to fund the
Improvements and special tax financing requires a two-thirds vote of the electorate and
assessment financing is subject to majority protest. Section 355 of the Plan specifically
provides for the funding of the Improvements with tax increment revenues.
f. The payment of funds for the cost of the Improvements is consistent with
the Agency's Implementation Plan adopted pursuant to Section 33490 of the Community
Redevelopment Law.
g. This Agreement pertains to and affects the ability of the City 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.
h. The method of funding the Improvements was considered at a duly notice
public hearing held on May 27, 2003 jointly before the City Council of the City of
Temecula and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula in accordance with
the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 33679. Additionally, the summary
required by Section 33679 was prepared in accordance with said section and was
available to the public at the time of first publication of the notice of hearing. At said
hearing the Agency and Council carefully considered all of the evidence presented and
the testimony of interested persons on the Improvements.
i. The Improvements are being undertaken pursuant to the Plan for which a
full and complete Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified prior to
adoption of the Plan. Additionally the Improvements were proposed as a part of the Old
Town Specific Plan for which an environment review was completed and certified in
1994. The approval of the Improvements is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections
15180, 15282(I), 15301, and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter 3 of the
California Administrative Code) and Public Resources Code Section 21090. None of the
findings set forth in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter
3 of the California Administrative Code) requiring a subsequent or supplement
environmental impact report can be made and, therefore, further environment review is
not required pursuant to the authority of Section 15180 of the CEQA Guidelines and
other applicable law.
Section 2. The City Council hereby approves payment by the Agency for the all or a
part of the cost of the installation and construction of the Improvements.
Section 3. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and
severally, to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents which they
may deem necessary or advisable in order to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution and any
such actions previously taken by such officers are hereby ratified and confirmed.
Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Resolution.
R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-61 2
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this
27th day of May, 2003.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 03-61 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a meeting thereof on the 27th day of May, 2003, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Roberts, Stone
NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Pratt
ABSENT: 0 COUNClLMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNClLMEMBERS: None
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-61 3
RDA
DEPARTMENTAL
REPORT
APPROVAL ~//~...__
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE DIRECTOR /
CITY MANAGER
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Members
John Meyer, Redevelopment Director ~
May 27, 2003
Monthly Departmental Report
Attached for your information is the monthly report as of May 27, 2003 for the Redevelopment
Department.
First Time Homebuyers Program
Funding in the amount of $200,000 is available for FY 02 -03.
Residential Improvement Pro,qrams
The program budget for FY 02/03 is $250,000, with $171,100 funded on 40 units.
Affordable Housinq
The Cottages of Old Town project consists of 14 new single-family detached homes and 3
rehabilitated single-family homes located on Sixth Street. The Groundbreaking ceremony was
held on February 18, 2003. Construction has begun and the project will be completed by the
end of the year.
Habitat for Humanity
Council entered in to a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with Habitat for
Humanity on February 11,2003 to develop a home-ownership project within the Pujol
Neighborhood. The project located on the northwest corner of Pujol and First Streets, will
consist of 6 new single-family detached homes. The total project site is approximately 37,000
square feet with approximate lot sizes of 5,000. The houses are arranged along Pujol Street
and a private lane.
R:\SYERSK'~IONTHLLY~Iay2003.doc 1
Rancho Meadows Condominiums
The Council approved a housing rehabilitation loan for the Rancho Meadows Housing Project
on February 11,2003. Rancho Meadows is a 146-unit condominium project composed of two,
three and four bedroom units. The proposed rehabilitation work includes roofing, siding,
painting, fencing, paving, garage doors and related items.
Senior Housin.q
Council entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) on January 14, 2003
with Community for Better Housing (CBH) for a 66 unit affordable senior housing project on
Pujol Street. The project will be two-story garden-style apartments and project amenities, which
will include a community room, and swimming pool. Construction has begun and will be
completed by early 2004.
Old Town Community Theater
The Architect has submitted the construction drawings to the City for the second plan check.
The Mercantile Buildin.q Retrofit
The earthquake retrofit has been completed. The replacement of the exterior brick mortar and
the foundation work has been completed and the steel braces have been installed. The final
phase will be completed during the construction of the Old Town Community Theater.
Facade Improvement/Non-Conformin,q Si,qn Proqram
The following facade improvement/sign projects are in process or have recently been
completed:
· Hitching Post
Sign Program
· Penfold Building
Sign Program - Completed
· Homes Magazine
Sign Program
· Butterfield Inn - Now Rodeway Inn
Sign Program - Completed
Old Town Promotions/Marketinq
· Western Days
Western Days was held on May 17 & 28 in Old Town Temecula. The weekend featured
Fields of Thunder Artillery Exhibit and Cannon demonstration, a living history of the U.S.
Artillery from the later 1800s. Native American dancers performed as part of the
R:~SYE RSK~NIONTH LLY~May2OO3.doc 2
Children's Art in the Park program produced by Arts Council of the Temecula Valley.
Old time cowboys, performed by the Old Town Temecula Gunfighters, competed in the
Gunfighter competition both Saturday and Sunday. In addition, the Old Town
Gunfighters treated the crowds to a loosely interpreted re-enactment of the famous
1930s bank robbery where the bank's cashier chased and captured the robber. The
original shootout was merely the cashier firing four shots at the robber as he drove away
in his ModeI-A.
Throughout the weekend, cowboys and gunfighters filled the streets dressed in period
costume. Other activities included craft exhibits, wood carving demonstrations, and gold
panning. Old Tyme Folk and Older than Dirt performed Old West Music on both
Saturday and Sunday. Stagecoach rides and pony rides were provided for a small fee.
Kids panned for gold at the Gold Prospector's booth in the Wild Cactus parking lot.
The Agency will be sponsoring the 3rd Annual Street Painting Festival on June 21 and 22
in Old Town Temecula. The weekend will feature over 100 artists painting murals
ranging in size from 4 foot by 6 foot to a 10 foot by 12 foot blocks on the asphalt. Street
painting originated in Italy with the artist gaining the title "Madonnari' after their historical
practice of creating chalk paintings of the Madonna. Now the name Madonnari implies
Italian Street Painting that expands beyond the scope of its original religious nature. In
addition, Calypso Compromise and Los Angeles Incas will be performing both Saturday
and Sunday from 12 - 3 p.m. The event will also include craft vendors and food
vendors. The Street Painting Festival is free to the public and the artists.
Over the next several months, the Agency will also be hosting several special events in
Old Town Temecula. These events would include the First Friday - Hot Summer Nights
beginning July 5 and continuing through October 3 in Old Town Temecula.
R:\SYERSK~MONTHLLY~May2003.doc 3
Eaturday Eunday
Tth &
Old Town Temecula
(I-15 to Old Town Front Street Offramp in Temecula)
SATURDAY & SUNDAY
eWoodcarving Exhibitse
eFields of Thunder Museume
Gaffing Gun & Hotchkiss Cannon
Demonstrations
eGold Panning & Exhibite
eCivil War Camp &
· .. Re-enactmente
"' .,, eWestern Skits & Gunfighter Competitione
· .j,'3 hosted by the Old Town Temecula Ounfighte~
'..~?' beginning with High Noon Shoot Out & Bank Robbery
aExhibitsa
SATURDAY
~.!:i* [' eFrontier Days Rodeo Queense
", demonstrate horsemanship and care
.... sOld Tyme Folk Bande
12- 3 p.m. Country Porch 3rd and Front
(Be sure to visit Children's Art in
Park- Native Ame#can Demonstration Noon)
SUNDAY
·Older than Dirt Bande
12-3 p.m, Country Porch 3rd and Front
and more...
Plenty of Fun for the Entire Family
Sponsored by
For more information call
(909) 694-6412
THE PP,.ESS-ENTERPRISE
lUaWay FIJI'
Presented by
~RTIST APPLICATION AND INFORMATION!
an experien~ n~ we psin~ the streets of Old Tow. Teme~l'~u.~, ~. GY92,9
tach ~nd o 48-piece set of p~stels ~en pre-~gi?e~d.
Plea~ See Othe~ SI
~a~ch the asphalt c~nvases become works of arc as dozens of a~s~ crea~e murals on
Old Town Front Street * I 0 a,m, to 5 p,m.
The event is Free to ~e Public Plenty of oreas for families and young a~s~ to ~eote ~eir own wor~ ofo~
PLUS ... Pan Flute sounds of Apurimac Saturdoy and Steel Drum inspired Congo lines of Ca~pso Compromise Sundoy.
call for more information (909) 694-64 I 2
or visit ~.temeculacalifornia.com
Old Town Temecula
FESTIVAL DATES:
APPLICATION DEADLINE:
WORKSHOP
APPLICATION REVIEW:
Please type or print the following information:
Name
Address
Te ephone (home).
E-mail address
June 21 and 22, 2003
June 13, 2003
Saturday, May 31, 9 a.m.
Saturday, May 3, 9 a.m.
Old Town Temecula Farmers Market
6th and Front Street
Saturday, June 14, 10 a.m. Community National Bank Parking Lot
27541 Ynez Road, Temecula, Ca 92591
The Review Committee will begin its process May 31, 2003
Applicants will be notified regarding their acceptance by June 14, 2003.
Artists who provide their own sponsor will be automatically included as
Street Painters. However, it is not necessary for artist to find their own
Sponsors. We will do it for you.
.City
(work)
Webstie address
Please list names, addresses & phone #'s of any assistant artists:
.Age (please circle) (6-11) (12-14) (15-18) (19-25) (over 25)
Zip_
(fax).
Please provide two or three color slides or prints, identified with your name that is representative of your work. Your photos and slides will not
be retumed.
1. A sketch of and/or description of your proposed street painting is requested. If you are doing a reproduction (your own work or the
work of another artist), please submit a copy of the original image along with your sketch. You may use the reverse side of this form
for the sketch and description.
2. Chalk will be provided, however, if you are using a predominant color in your design you may want to purchase that color before the
festival.
3. ARTWORK FOR THE FESTIVAL MUST BE APPROPRIATE FOR FAMILY PUBLIC VIEWING. No nudes or political statements
will be accepted.
Indicate your Ist, 2"d, and 3r~ choices for square size. Paintings will be on asphalt streets. We will do our best to give you your first
choice.
4'x6' Square (Vedical) __10'x10' Square
6'x6' Square __10'x12' (vertical)
6'X10' (Vertical) (indicate size) MUST HAVE HORIZONTAL FORMAT
There will also be a FREE FORM and MASTERS section for all artists. Masters must remain within the frame/lines of their desired square.
Free form artists will be allowed to paint outside the lines. Masters Free Form
We have a few horizontal formats available if a vertical format creates a problem with your design. Please indicate your need in your concept
description as well as above. This is critical to placement of the sponsor's name on your square.
The undersigned artist (guardian if under 18) grants a non-exclusive license to the CITY OF TEMECULA to reproduce, in any medium, his/her
art. The undersigned further licenses the CITY OF TEMECULA to re-use, publish and republish photography of the artist (including minors) in
any medium. The undersigned artist further grants the CITY OF TEMECULA use of the adist's name (including minors), biographical
description and likeness in any media.
Signature Date
Mail application, slides, sketch and description of proposed street painting image to the OLD TOWN TEMECULA STREET PAINTING FESTIVAL,
21705 COMO STREET, Wildomar, CA 92595 For Information call (909) 678-1456 or check out www.temeculacalifornia.com.
ITEM 18
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CiTY MANAGER /'~'~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
May 27, 2003
Planned Residential Development Code Amendment
RECOMMENDATION: Continue off-calendar.
BACKGROUND: This item was initially presented to the City Council at the May 13, 2003
meeting. However, two Councilmembers had questions about the proposal and wanted to meet
with staff so these provisions were continued to the May 27, 2003 meeting. However, because
of schedule conflicts, the concerned Councilmembers will not be able to meet with staff in time
to resolve the issues and bring them back for Council consideration on May 27th. As a result,
staff is recommending that this item be continued off-calendar. At such time as staff is ready to
bring this matter forward, the proposed amendments will be re-noticed.
R:\DEVOODE\03-0109 Amendment\Staff Report CC2 Continuation.doc 1
ITEM 19
APPROVAL
CiTY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINA~CI~.E ,~. __,
CITY MANAGER ~/,
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/Cit/y~o/~il
Debbie Ubnosk~Director of Planning
May 27, 2003
SUBJECT: PA02-0567 - The Edge Nightclub
PREPARED BY:
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File
BACKGROUND: PA02-0567, an application for a nightclub including the sale of alcohol
was denied by the Planning Commission on January 29th, 2003. A Finding of Public
Convenience or Necessity to allow the applicant to sell alcohol was also denied. At the Council
hearing, information concerning the processing of this application was presented by the
applicant. The City Attorney has reviewed this information and has determined that the prior
conditional use permit PA97-0279 is still valid. This conditional use permit has been assumed
by the applicant, which removes the need for any action on PA02-0567.
C:\Documents and Settings~nelsons\Local Settings\Temp\cc rpt,edge nightclub 5-27-03.doc
1
ITEM 20
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE._~__~
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/Cit/~o~il
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
May 27, 2003
Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny PA03-017, a request for a
Temporary Use Permit to establish a fresh fruit stand located on the northeast
corner of Nicolas Road and Winchester Road, known as Assessor's Pamel No.
920-100-013.
PREPARED BY:
Sid Pena, Planning Technician
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council;
1. Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA03-017 A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT TO
ESTABLISH A FRESH FRUIT STAND LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF NICOLAS ROAD AND
WINCHESTER ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO,
920-100-013.
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. PA03-017, a Temporary Use Permit to operate a fresh fruit stand from
February to July 31,2003 was submitted to the Planning Department on January 9, 2003. The
Director of Planning denied the proposed project on February 5, 2003 due to inadequate vehicle
access to the site. Although Mr. Craig was advised by staff that his strawberry stand could have
access off of Nicolas Road, the applicant preferred access off of Winchester which is unsafe
and inconsistent with the Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) between the City and
Caltrans.
The applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Director's decision to the Planning Commission on
February 19, 2003. On March 19, 2003 the Planning Commission upheld the decision of the
R:\T U P~2003\03-017 Strawberry Stan~CC Staff Report.doc
Director and denied the appeal. The applicant was not present for this meeting and after the
meeting informed staff he had not received written notice of the hearing. Written notice was sent
to the applicant.
On April 2, 2003 the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny
the appeal.
DISCUSSION
Planning Commission Hearing
At the March 19, 2003, Planning Commission hearing, staff provided an overview of the
rationale behind the Director of Planning's decision to deny Planning Application No. PA03-017.
Staff expressed concerns with the requested point of ingress and egress to the site from
Winchester. The Public Works department determined that public access off of Winchester
Road would create a safety hazard and the applicant did not have approval from Caltrans. The
existing curb cut, which the applicant is requesting to use, does not meet City or Caltrans design
standards. Therefore, staff expressed that all of the necessary findings to approve a Temporary
Use Permit could not be met. Staff requested that the Planning Commission uphold the Director
of Planning's decision to deny Planning Application No. 03-017. The Commission voted 5-0 to
deny the appeal.
APPEAL
The application for the Appeal (Attachment 3) lists the following as the basis for the appeal:
Mr. Craig believes that he did not get the chance to state his case before the Planning
Commission, that there was some sort of mix up in the Postal service and he did not
receive his mail on time. He also believes that the Planning Staff did not properly notify
him.
Mr. Craig believes that since other businesses located on Winchester Road have access
points from that street, his fruit stand should have access as well.
Mr. Craig would like the City Council to give him access off of Winchester Road for his
fresh fruit stand.
FINDINGS
In denying the application, staff was able to make the first two mandatory findings, but was
unable to make the third finding.
Temporary Use Permit (Section 17.04.020.D)
The proposed temporary use is compatible with the nature, character and use of the
surrounding area.
The Project is consistent with nature, character and the use of surrounding area. The
proposed fruit stand is a retail use, which is consistent with Roripaugh Estates Specific
Plan.
R:\T U P~003\03-017 Strawberry Stand,CC Staff Report.doc
2
2. The temporary use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
The temporary use permit has been routed to all applicable agency and departments.
The project will be conditioned and inspected by Riverside County Health Department,
Building and Safety and Fire for compliance with local codes and ordinance.
The nature of the proposed use is detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the
community.
The Project is not consistent with Goal 3 of the Public Safety Element of the General
Plan which states that the City, "Protect the health, safety of the public from
encroachment by commercial uses'; The applicant has not complied with requirements
that there shall not be any curb cuts allowed and access through Winchester Road all
access should be made through Nicolas Road. Under no condition shall there be access
through Winchester Road.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning
Commision's decision to deny PA03-017. If the City Council wishes to approve the appeal, staff
recommends that the project be continued to the next City Council meeting in order to prepare
the appropriate findings, resolutions and conditions of approval. However, Please note that
Winchester is a Caltrans Highway and Caltrans has already decided to support the City of
Temecula in denying PA03-017.
R:\T U P~003\03-017 Strawberry Stand,CC Staff Report.doc
3
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft CC Resolution denying an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny a
Finding of the Temporary Use Permit - Blue Page 5
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-013 - Blue Page 6
3. Draft Planning Commission Minutes (Mamh 19, 2003) - Blue Page 7
4. Planning Commission Staff Report and Exhibits (March 19, 2003) - Blue Page 8
5. Public Works Memorandum (February 27, 2003) - Blue Page 9
6. Appeal Application (April 2, 2003) - Blue Page 10
7. Caltrans letter (April 14, 2003) - Blue Page 11
R:\T U P~2003\03-017 Strawberry Stand\CC Staff Report.doc
4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
DRAFT CC RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DECISION TO DENY A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT
R:\T U P~2003\03-017 Strawberry Stand,CC Staff Report.dcc
5
CC RESOLUTION NO. 03-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA03-017 A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT TO
ESTABLISH A FRESH FRUIT STAND LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF NICOLAS ROAD AND
WINCHESTER ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
920-100-013.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
declare that:
The City Council of the City of Temecuia does hereby find, determine and
A. Gary M. Craig, dba: Bob & Gary's Berries, filed an Appeal of Planning
Commission's decision to deny Planning Application No. PA03-017, a temporary use permit to
establish a fresh fruit stand located on the northeast corner of Nicolas Road and Winchester
Road, known as Assessor's Parcel No. 920-100-013.
B. The application for the Project was processed and an environmental review was
conducted as required by the California Environmental Quality Act.
C. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public
hearing on March 19, 2003, to consider the application for the Project.
D. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public
hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 2003-013, denying Planning Application No. PA03-017, a temporary use permit
to establish a fresh fruit stand located on the northeast corner of Nicolas Road and Winchester
Road, known as Assessor's Parcel No. 920-100-013.
E. On May 27, 2003, the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed
public hearing on the Project at which time all persons interested in the Project had the
opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters.
Section 2.
findings:
The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following
1. The proposed temporary use is compatible with the nature, character and use of the
surrounding area.
The Project is consistent with nature, character and the use of surrounding area. The
proposed fruit stand is a retail use, which is consistent with Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan.
2. The temporary use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
The temporary use permit has been routed to all applicable agency and departments.
The project will be conditioned and inspected by Riverside County Health department, Building
and Safety and Fire for compliance with local codes and ordinance.
R:\T U P~003\03-017 StrawbemJ Stand,CC Reso TUP.doc
1
3. The nature of the proposed use is detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the
community.
The Project is not consistent with Goal 3 of the Public Safety Element of the General
Plan, which states that the City, "Protect the health and safety of the public from encroachment
by commercial uses". Should this commercial use be approved with access off of Winchester
Road, Public Works has determined a public health and safety risk would be created.
Section 3. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby denies the Appeal of the
Planning Commission's decision to deny Planning Application No. PA03-017 a request to
establish a temporary strawberry stand located on the northeast corner of Nicolas Road and
Winchester Road, known as Assessor's Parcel No. 920-100-013.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of May, 2003
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 2003-013 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
R:\T U P~003\03-017 Strawberry Stand,CC Reso TUP.doc
2
ATFACHMENT NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2003-013
R:\T U P~003\03-017 Strawberry Stand,CC Staff Report.doc
6
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-013
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA03-017, A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A
TEMPORARY FRESH FRUIT STAND LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF NICOLAS ROAD AND WINCHESTER
ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 92-100-013.
WHEREAS, Bob & Gary's Field Fresh Berries, filed Planning Application No. PA03-017, in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; and
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA03-017 was processed including, but not limited to
public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; and
WHEREAS, the application is exempt from environmental review in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Administrative review of the application the Planning
Director denied Planning Application No. PA 03-017 on February 5, 2003; and
WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny Planning Application
PA03-017 was properly filed by Mr. Gary Craig on January 9, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the appeal, staff report, and the complete
public record at a duly noticed public hearing on March 19, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the Planning Director's findings were
consistent with the requirements of the City's General Plan, Development Code, and all other
applicable state and local laws; and
WHEREAS, the appeal application failed to adequately present a ~fair argument" and lacked
sufficient evidence to overturn the Planning Director's decision;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findln,qs. The Planning Commission, in denying the appeal of the Planning
Director's decision to deny Planning Application No. PA03-017 hereby makes the following findings
as required by Section 17.04.020.D of the Temecula Municipal Code:
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT (Section 17.04.020.D)
1. The proposed temporary use is compatible with the nature, character and use of the
surrounding area.
R:\T U P~2003~Strawberry Stand,Staff Report~Staff Report AND COAs.doc .
5
The project is consistent with nature, character and the use of surrounding area. The
proposed fruit stand is a retail use, which is consistent with Rodpaugh Estates Specific Plan.
2. The temporary use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
The temporary use permit has been routed to all applicable agency and departments. The
project will be conditioned and inspected by Riverside County Health department, Building
and Safety and Fire for compliance with local codes and ordinance.
3. The nature of the proposed use is detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the
community.
The Project is not consistent with the goals and policies within the Goal 3, of the General
Plan, which requires that, the City, "Protect the health, safety of the public from
encroachmentbycommercialuses". Theapplicanthasnotcompliedwiththerequirements
that there shall not be any curb cuts allowed and access through Winchester Road all
access should be made through Nicolas Road. Under no condition shall there be access.
Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planni. ng
~--De'nnis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
· {SEAL}
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 2003-013 was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of March 2003, by the following
vote:
AYES:
5 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: · 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
noske, Secretary
R:\T U P~2003~Strawbemj Stand,Staff Reporl~Staff Reporl AND COAs.doc
6
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (March 19, 2003)
R:\T U P~003\03-017 Strawberry Stand\CC Staff Report.doc
7
ATFACHMENT NO. 3
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (March 19, 2003)
R:\T U P~003\03-017 Strawberry Stand\CC Staff Report.doc
7
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 19, 2003
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:01 P.M.,
on Wednesday, Mamh 19, 2003, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Chairman Chiniaeff.
Chairman Chiniaeff welcomed Minute Clerk Norma Child~ and Planning Technician Sid
Pena.
.ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Guerfiero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio,
and Chairman Chiniaeff.
None.
PUBLIC
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
I Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of Mamh 2003
It was noted by Chairman
in association with a future retail
southeast and southwest comers of
South) would
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of January 29, 2003;
2.2 Approve the minutes of February 5, 2003;
2.3 Approve the minutes of February 19, 2003.
No .5 (Comprehensive Land Use Plan
shopping center located on the
Parkway and State Highway 79
Planning Commission Meeting.
R: PlanCemm/mtn utes/031903 1
3 Director's Headn.q Case Uodate
RECOMMENDATIX~N:
Approve the Dire~or's Hearing Case Update for February, 2003.
3.1
MOTION: Commissioner Ma'thewson moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-
3. The motion wal ' Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
4 Use Permit Re¢
Dave Hcoan. Principal Planner
for Businesses Sellin.q Alcoholic Bevereaes -
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 File and receive.
Principal Planner Hogan reviewed the staff
current Development Code req~
(of record), highlighting the City's
In response to the Commissioners, Principal
Hogan noted the following:
That staff would concur with Commissiom
create local factors/impacts/problems in
Use Permit (CUP);
suggestions for staff to
the need for a Conditional
· That a Specialty/Discount Store would be as a Wodd
Market/Trader Joe's;
· That the Discount Store category (Costco) would
Development Code but that the Specialty
currently defined in the
~ is not.
Commissioner Mathewson noted that the wine
restricted to ensure that sales are solely limited to wine tasting.
category should be
Commissioner Mathewson relayed his concurrence with
requesting that additional justification be provided with regard to
longer require a CUP.
recommendation
would no
With regard to the Convenience Store/Mini Mart and Uquor categories,
Commissioner Telesio expressed his preference to regulate on an basis
with proper justification versus on a general regulation basis.
In response to Commissioner Mathewsen's comment, Principal Planner
that from staff's perspective the need for a CUP would be easier regulated
use versus the success/quality of the business but that staff could analyze
such as percentage of total sales and determining which percentage is alcohol
advised
the
R: PlanComm/minutea/031903 2
Because checks and balances are in place through the CUP process, Chairman
Chiniaeff voiced .his opinion for no change and concurred with Commissioner Telesio's
comment relative'te regulation.
Speaking in support~f, staff's recommendation as it relates to differentiation among the
various categories, Co'r'~missioner Olhasso referenced existing checks and balances
through the CUP. ~
Commissioner Guerdero 'questioned the number of Convenience Stores/Mini
Marts/Liquor Stores and gas stations necessa~/in the City that sell alcohol.
Considering the existing procadu~s in place, Commissioner Telesio spoke in support of
no change. ~
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ~
5 Plannin.q Application No. PA02-0340\To establish a Comprehensive Land Use Plan
in association with a future retail c~0mmemial shoooinc3 center located on the
southeast and southwest and State 79 South
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a Determination of
PA02-O340 (Development Plan)
Environmental Quality Act;
for Planning Application No.
to Section 15162 of the California
5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING OF THE
crrY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
NO. 02-0340, A COMPREHENSIVE LAND PLAN TO
ESTABLISH GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT OF A RETAIL/COMMERCIAL lOPPING
COMPLEX ON A 14.3 ACRE SITE. THE SITE
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST AND
CORNERS OF STATE HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND
PARKWAY ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL
961-010-001,004 &005.
Planning Director Ubnoske advised public hearing
be continued to the meeting of April 9, 2003. Having met with the a staff,
Commissioner Telesio noted that the project is progressing ~ for the
Commission's review by April 9, 2003.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to continue the
April 9, 2003.
R: Plan Cornm/min utes/03 lg03 3
6
Planninq Application No. PA03-017 An application for a seasonal strawberry stand
located at 40240 Winchester Road,
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled
PC RESOI,UTION NO. 2003-013
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
03-017, A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A
TEMPORARY FRESH FRUIT STAND LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF NICOLAS ROAD AND WINCHESTER
ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 920-100013
Planning Technician Pena referenced the staff report (as per agenda material), noting
that the applicant was not in attendance; that the proposed site would solely be for
selling and not for growing purposes; that the applicant was desirous of attaining access
off Winchester Road to ensure marketability of his business; and that the existing
driveway has not been properly designed for public use and does not meet Caltrans
design standards.
There being no public input, the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Chiniaeff voiced no objection to permitting access off Nicolas Road.
MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve staff recommendation. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval.
7 Plann for a
Avenue
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Continue this item for
Associate Planner Harris staff report (of record), highlighting the sign
standards as per the ~ and noting that the applicant will be deviating
from these standards. Mr. Harris I staff's recommendation to revise the sign
program whereby all the in regulations are modified to comply with all
existing applicable sign standards within Development Code; to limit Wall Mounted
Signage to the east and west sides of the on Madison Avenue and freeway
side; to prohibit signage on the north and ends o! the two buildings, noting there
would be sufficient visibility on the .east and and to continue the item for
further review.
R: PlanComm/minutes/031903 4
Staff clarified that it would be
Sign Standards
in the Planning Commission's purview to amend the
d enhance the development.
Having worked with the Plannin
Etebar, applicant, 540 Westminster
program, noting the following:
rtment with regard to the sign program, Mr. Afshin
Westminster, described the proposed sign
Freestandin~l Multi-Tenant Ida
That the intent of the proposed
side of the building and that
considered;
>rogram would be to enhance the freeway
a variation of the sign standards be
· That commemial users/office users
building facing the freeway as well as
floor) would prefer signage on the
· That, in his opinion, the ordinance does
mixed-use buildings;
guidelines with regard to
That with regard to the Signs
project as a shopping
of street frontage per shopping center
lineal feet of street frontage);
he would not view his
of one sign per 300 lineal feet
I two signs per 458
· That because of the project location within the
be no flexibility as to sign location because of
)lanned area, there would
· That he would be willing to work with staff with
the Freestanding Multi-Tenant Identification
elements of
· That address standards for the Freestanding Signs could
Wall Mounted Siena
· That five primary signs are being proposed versus four as
staff report;
the
· That there will be two primary tenants (1~t & 2~ floor.);
tenant for the third tloor of the first building;
there is no
· That the second building currently has one tenant for the first floor;
· That at maximum occupancy, he would propose to locate three
freeway side and three signs on the Madison Avenue side;
on the
That some tenants may request doubled-lined signs; that the
proposed buildings has limited signage area; therefore, some
requested,
the
be
R: PlsnComm/rninutes/031903 5
Tenant SI
That the color soheme of the secondary signs will be matching the primary signs;
his opinion, the proposed sign program would meet the requirements of
17.28.240.
in
the Commissioners, Mr. Eteban noted the following:
That
building would accommodate four tenants on the first floor, four
~ second floor, and two tenants on the third floor.
For the Planning
case law, there are
prohibit Iogos; that
coq3orate logo.
ssioners, Assistant City Attorney Cudey, clarified that, as per
regard to corporate Iogos, noting that the City may
size of them; but that it may not change/alter a
Mr. James P. Bras, 1749 E.
Methods, Inc., concurred
Iogos.
Commissioner Guerrlero commended
voiced a willingness to be flexible.
Street Signal Hill, representing the applicant, Sign
Attorney Curtey's comment regarding corporate
Commending the applicant on the
Mathewson relayed his desire for less signage
these elements; expressed concern with
signs of each building; and noted no concern
~t on the proposed sign program and
ments of the project, Commissioner
limit the possibility of detracting from
~ize of the letters and number of
(single or double);
Commending the applicant as well on the design of
clarified his understanding of the sign request (one
[freeway side] and one sign per building on the east side
tenant). In closing, Mr. Telesio relayed
To eliminate staff/applicant confusion as it relates to
Olhasso suggested that staff and the applicant work
flexibility to ensure quality tenants; and voiced no concern
es there be adherence to the color scheme.
ect, Commissioner Telesio
building on the west side
Avenue] per major
corporate Iogos.
10gos, Commissioner
recommended staff
the font as long
Cha rman Chiniaeff expressed concern with the proposed number of sig'~h~; stated that in
h s opinion, signage would not be necessary on the ends of the buildin~l~ on the east
and west sides for the major tenants .considering there will be signage fl~ the major
tenants on the freeway side (west side), and voiced no objection to the monur~nt sign.
Additional Commission discussion and clarification ensued as to Iogos and ~aximum
number of signs per building per primary, secondary, and ground tenants {~,~h the
following comments: ~
R: PlanComm/min utes,;031903 6
· Commissioner
identified
emphasized his desire to permit one primary tenant
with one sign per elevation (two signs maximum);
Commissioner G~
north and south
sign on the east
no objection to placing a secondary sign on the
expressed concern with the placement of a secondary
By way of an the
voicing
clarified its recommendation with the applicant
One primary sign per
Madison Avenue sides);
on the east and west elevations (freeway and
One secondary sign
north or south ends of the
floor, no signage would be
major tenant on the second floor on either the
If there were four tenants on the second
~ north and south ends;
· Two monument signs
· Provide a revised site plan to
recommendation;
the Planning Commission sign
· That no Iogos be granted.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to
Commission Meeting of April 9, 2003. The
Mathewson and voice vote reflected unanimous
this matter to the Planning
was seconded by Commissioner
8
Plannin,q Application No. PA02-0689 An Extension
No. PA00-0276 a Development Plan to design and
office buildinq on a .64-acre lot located at the
North (the emotv buildinq pad north of 41582
Associate Planner
Time for Plannin,q Aoolication
North~. Rick Rush.
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application Nc
to Section 15332 of the California
pursuant
8.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-014
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI~'Y
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO
0689 (THE FIRST ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME) FOR~
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 000276 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A 15,883 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE
BUILDING (KEEI'ON BUILDING), ON A .64 ACRE LOT LOCATED
AT THE SOUTHWEST KNUCKLE OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE
NORTH, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-282-013
R: PlanComm/minutes/031903 7
Associate Planner Rush
applicant's rep
conditions of approval
nos. 4d, 11, 70, 71,72,
the staff report (of record), advising that the
. in attendance and voicing no opposition to the six added
as one amended condition of approval (added condition
~ amended condition no. 18).
At this time, the Chairman
Mr. Larry R. Markham, 41635
reiterated concurrence with the
condition.
Cimle North, representing the applicant,
I conditions of approval, including the amended
At this time the public hearing
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero
added six conditions of approval,
Commissioner Olhasso seconded the
approval.
9
approve staff's recommendation with the
one amended conditions (see page 7).
and voice vote reflected unanimous
Plannin,q Application No. PA03-0109 To
what a and
clarify the aoolication o._roc_.e~ for
conditional use permit, authorize the
Development create
Residential confusion
proqrams as well as the allowable'
updale the acoroval authority table in
chances, Dave Hogan, Principal Planner
~ment Code to do the
to a develocment Dian is,
a 31an and
complicated Planned
for Planned
of
sed for ambient balloons,
to conform to the other
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-015
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN 0
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE TEMECULA
CODE TO CLARIFY THE PROCEDURES FOR MOl;
APPROVED PERMITS, TO CREATE PROVISIONS TO ALLOW
FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, TO MAKE
OTHER MINOR CHANGES AND PROVIDE FOR THE
READOPTION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY NOS. 5
AND 6" (PLANNING APPMCATION 03-0109)
Principal Planner Hogan clarified the staff report (as per agenda material),
the following:
R: P~a nComm/minutes/031903 8
· CUP noticing req~
increased from 300' to 600';
Creation of minor and
new fee schedule will be
modification;
modifications for Development Plans and CUPs;
reviewing the various elements of eaoh
· That minor and major
were substantial changes
be administratively approved unless there
require Planning Commission's approval;
· Creation of a Planned
standards on sites;
Element - varying zone
· Planned Development Overlays (PDO)
reference;
With regard to the provided information,
recommendation to change the verbiage
Modification as follows: an Increase of
footprint; and to request that all Major
Planning Commission for review.
was the Planning Commission's
the first bullet under Minor
than 10% of the building
be forwarded to the
With regard to Section 2 A.2 (CUP for a Develo[
10,000 square feet), Chairman Chiniaeff relayed his o
to relate to the Liquor Store category with Principal
would not be a change of the current procedure and with
noting that the Planning Commission would review the
convenience.
new building less than
with this section if it were
Hogan advising that this
Director Ubnoske
necessity or
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve
amended:
iation as
· Minor Modifications - an increase of less than 10% of I footprint;
· Major Modifications - to be forwarded for Planning Commission
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice
unanimous approval.
reflected
(~0MMISSIONERS' REPORTS
A. For Commissioner Olhssso, Director of Planning Ubnoske
Enforcement is addressing the storage of sofas in the parking lot on
Code
B. Assistant Attorney Curley provided clarification with regard to Conflict of I ~rest
as it relates to the Commissioners' voting abilities,
C. Referencing the Commissioners' Handbook, Commissioner Telesio
on ExParte communications.
R: Pla nCemm/minut es/031903 9
D. For Commissioner Telesio
with regard to the Building and
requirements.
City Attomey Curley provided clarification
Code pertaining to all-weather (asphalt) road
E. Commissioner Mathewson
Road at James L. Day Middle School.
concern with a PVC and vinyl sign
Building Advantage Rent-a-Car.
a flooding issue at General Koarney
~mmissioner Mathewson also expressed
as a monument sign at La Masters
F. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Planning Director
on resolving the car lot issue on Ynez Road
advised that staff is working
property).
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
A. Because of the lack of quorum for the regularly
2003, it was the consensus of the members to
Commission meeting to April 9, 2003 and April 23, 2003.
IEK:Iuled meeting for April 2,
the April Planning
B. Planning Department reminded the Commissioners of
deadline.
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:00 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting
reRular meetin¢t to be held on Wednesda¥~ April 9, 2003 at
Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temacula.
next ad ourned
'.M., in the City
X~D~nnis W. Chiniaeff, ~ Debbie Ubnoske,
Chairman Director of Planning
R: planCornm/mln utes/031903 10
A'I-I'ACHMENT NO. 4
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AND EXHIBITS (March 19, 2003)
R:\T U P~003\03-017 Strawberry Stand,CC Staff Report.doc
8
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
March 19, 2003
Planning Application PA03-017 (Temporary Use Permit)
Prepared by: Sid Pena, Planning Tech
RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-013
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
03-017, A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A
TEMPORARY FRESH FRUIT STAND LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF NICOLAS ROAD AND WINCHESTER
ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 920-100-013.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Gary M. Craig
Bob & Gary's Field Fresh Berries
39610 Medina Ct.
Murrieta, Ca 92562
PROPOSAL: An application for a seasonal strawberry stand
LOCATION: Located at 40240 Winchester Road in Temecula, CA
SURROUNDING ZONING: North: Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
South: Very Low Density (VL)
East: Low Medium (LM)
West: PDO 3, Public Institutional (PI)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
Neighborhood Commemial (NC)
Planning Area 9, Commercial "B" (Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan)
Vacant
R:\T U P~003\03-017 Strawberry Stand\Staff Report AND COAs.doc
SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
North: Vacant
South: Single-Family Residential
East: Low Medium (LM)
West: The Fountains Senior Apartments & Chapparal High School
BACKGROUND:
Temporary Use Permit Application PA03-017 was submitted to the Planning Department on January
9, 2003. The project was denied on February 5, 2003, because all of the findings for approval could
not be made and the applicant did not want to modify his plan. On February 19, 2003, the applicant
filed an appeal of the Director's decision.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The application is an appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny Planning Application No.
PA03-017, a Temporary Use Permit (TU P) for a seasonal fruit stand located on southeast corner of
Nicolas Road and Winchester Road. The fruit stand was planned to be open from February 1st to
July 31 st 2003. The hours of business would be from 9:00 am to dusk, 7 days a week. The applicant
is proposing to locate a 16' x 13' mobile fruit stand on 1.12 acres of undeveloped property. Ten (10)
parking spaces will be provided on site, with (1) handicap space.
ANALYSIS
The project does not meet the intent of the Development Code in that the applicant is proposing
egress and ingress off of Winchester Road. In their memorandum dated February 27, 2003
(Attachment 5), Public Works indicated that public access off of Winchester Road would create a
safety hazard, in addition, the existing dirt driveway to the site is not properly designed for public
use and fails to meet Caltrans design standards. Access could be granted from Nicolas Road, but
the applicant does not want to revise the plan.
Staff was unable to make the required findings for approval and denied the application on February
5, 2003. On February 19, 2003, the applicant filed an appeal and requests that the Planning
Commission overturn that decision.
APPEAL
The application for Appeal (Attachment 3) lists the following issues, which the appellant alleges was
wrongly determined by staff:
1. Mr. Craig would like to have access off of Winchester Road for his fresh fruit stand.
Mr. Craig believes that since other businesses located on Winchester Road have access
points from that street, his fruit stand should have access as well.
FINDINGS
In denying the application, staff was able to make the first two mandatory findings, but was unable to
make the third finding.
R:\T U P~003\03-017 Strawberry StandVStaff Report AND COAs.doc
2
Temporary Use Permit (Section 17.04.020.D)
The proposed temporary use is compatible with the nature, character and use of the
surrounding area.
The Project is consistent with nature, character and the use of surrounding area. The
proposed fruit stand is a retail use, which is consistent with Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan.
2. The temporary use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
The temporary use permit has been routed to all applicable agency and departments. The
project will be conditioned and inspected by Riverside County Health department, Building
and Safety and Fire for compliance with local codes and ordinance.
The nature of the proposed use is detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the
community.
The Project is not consistent with the goals and policies within the Goal 3, section the
General Plan, which requires that, the City, "Protect the health, safety of the public from
encroachment by commercial uses". The applicant has not complied with the requirements
that there shall not be any curb cuts allowed and access through Winchester Road all
access should be made through Nicolas Road. Under no condition shall there be access
through Winchester Road.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Planning
Director's decision to deny PA03-017. If the Planning Commission wishes to approve the appeal,
staff recommends that the project be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting in order to
prepare the appropriate findings, resolutions and conditions of approval. However, please note that
Winchester is a Caltrans highway and the Planning Commission can only recommend where a
driveway should be located. The ultimate decision will lie with Caltrans to decide whether to approve
or deny.
A'I-rACHMENTS
1. PC Resolution - Blue Page 4
Exhibits - Blue Page 7
A. Vicinity Map
B. Site Plan
3. Appeal Application - Blue Page 10
4. Approved Parcel Map - Blue Page 11
5. Public Works - memorandum dated, February 26,2003 - Blue Page 12
R:\T U P~2003~03-017 StrawbemJ Stand,Staff Report AND COAs.doc
3
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-013
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA03-017, A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A
TEMPORARY FRESH FRUIT STAND LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF NICOLAS ROAD AND WINCHESTER
ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 92-100-013.
WHEREAS, Bob & Gary's Field Fresh Berries, filed Planning Application No. PA03-017, in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; and
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA03-017 was processed including, but not limited to
public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; and
WHEREAS, the application is exempt from environmental review in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Administrative review of the application the Planning
Director denied Planning Application No. PA 03-017 on February 5, 2003; and
WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny Planning Application
PA03-017 was properly filed by Mr. Gary Craig on January 9, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the appeal, staff report, and the complete
public record at a duly noticed public hearing on March 19, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the Planning Director's findings were
consistent with the requirements of the City's General Plan, Development Code, and all other
applicable state and local laws; and
WHEREAS, the appeal application failed to adequately present a '~'air argument" and lacked
sufficient evidence to overturn the Planning Director's decision;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findin.qs. The Planning Commission, in denying the appeal of the Planning
Director's decision to deny Planning Application No. PA03-017 hereby makes the following findings
as required by Section 17.04.020.D of the Temecula Municipal Code:
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT (Section 17.04.020.D)
1. The proposed temporary use is compatible with the nature, character and use of the
surrounding area.
R:\T U P~2003\03-017 Strawberry Stan~Staff Report AND COAs.doc
5
The project is consistent with nature, character and the use of surrounding area. The
proposed fruit stand is a retail use, which is consistent with Rofipaugh Estates Specific Plan.
2. The temporary use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
The temporary use permit has been routed to all applicable agency and departments. The
project will be conditioned and inspected by Riverside County Health department, Building
and Safety and Fire for compliance with local codes and ordinance.
3. The nature of the proposed use is detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the
community.
The Project is not consistent with the goals and policies within the Goal 3, of the Genera/
Plan, which requires that, the City, "Protect the health, safety of the public from
encroachment by commercial uses". The applicant has not complied with the requirements
that there shall not be any curb cuts a/lowed and access through Winchester Road all
access should be made through Nicolas Road. Under no condition shall there be access.
Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 19th day of March 2003.
ATTEST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
{SEAL}
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certifythat
PC Resolution No. 2003-013 was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of March 2003, by the following
vote;
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\T U P~003\03-017 Strawberry Stand\Staff Report AND COAs,doc
6
ATFACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:\T U P~003~03-017 Strawberry Stand\Staff Report AND COAs.doc
11
CITY OF TEMECULA
Project Site
./~xASE NO. - PA03-017 (Temporary Use Permit)
HIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 19, 2003
VICINITY MAP
R:\T U 1:~2003~trawberry Stand,Staff Report\Staff Report AND COAs.doc
8
ClTY OFTEMECULA
~h
CASE NO. - PA03-017 (Temporary Use Permit)
EXHIBIT- B
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 19, 2003
SITE PLAN '
R:\T U P~OO3\Strawberry StandVStaff Report~Staff Report AND COAs.doc
9
ATFACHMENT NO. 5
PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM (February 27, 2003)
R:\T U P~003\03-017 Strawberry Stand\CC Staff Report. doc
9
The driveway located on Winchester Road is unsafe for the following masons:
1. The driveway located on Winchester Road serves as a maintenance access road to
Santa Gertmdis Creek. Driveways intended for maintenance vehicles are usually
cordoned off and are not designed for public access.
2. Per the Caltrans Highway Design Manual Topic 205 - Road Connections and
Driveways, driveways intended for public use from a state highway should be
designed with curve radii (see attached). The curve radii are designed to allow
vehicles to make a safer mm into a driveway. Currently, there is 47,489 ADT on
Winchester Road between Margarita Road and Munieta Hot Springs Road. This
is a substantial amount of traffic. The speed limit is at least 55 MPH. With such
a high traffic volume and speed limit, a driveway approach with curve radii would
be required for any type of development fronting a major thoroughfare.
3. The dirt driveway located on the property is unsafe because vehicles must make a u-
turn upon entering the driveway making it difficult for vehicles to enter and exit
simultaneously. The u-mm is necessary because there is about a 3-foot drop in
elevation, which prevents vehicles from entering straight through.
R:XJ1MENEZCO3~aMemos\Winche~t er Rd ndveway. TUP.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
APPEAL APPLICATION (April 2, 2003)
R:\T U P~003\03-017 Strawberry Stand,CC Staff ReporLdoc
10
Cit of Temec .
Comm~nl~y Development Department
43200 Business Park Drive · Temecula · CA · 92~90
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula · CA · 92~89-9033
(909) 694-6400 · FAX (909) 694-6477
Appeal
The purpose of the appeal procedure is to provide a method of recourse for persons aggrieved by or
dissatisfied with an action tal~n by an adminishative agency of the City in the administration or
enforcement of any provisions of the Development Code.
1. Development Application.
2. Appeal Form.
3. Filing Fee.
C. NOTICE ON APPEAL - TIME LIMIT
A no~ice of an appeal by any individual who is aggrieved by or dissatisfied with a decision made by
him or in his behalf, or with any action, order, requirement, decision or determination shall not be
acted upon unless filed within fifteen (lb') calendar days after service of written notice of the decision.
D. NOTICE OF APPEAL - CONTENTS
Appealing the decision of:
S~ exactly what is ~g ~:
Reason or juslification to support the appeal. Appellant must submit with this appeal each issue which
the appellant alleges was wrongly determined together with eve~ agreement and a copy of every item
of evidence. (A_._n_ch separate sheet of paper if necessary).
action to be
IIn the event any Notice of Appeal applicant fails to answer any information set forth above, then
the request will be returned to the appellant, with a statement of the deficiencies. The appellant
shall be allowed five (5) calendar days in which to refile the notice of appeal.
ATrACHMENT NO. 7
CALTRANS LETTER (April 14, 2003)
R:\T U P~2003\03-017 Strawberry Stan~CC Staff Report.dcc
11
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8
OPERATIONS {MS-716)
464 WEST FOURTH STREET, 6TM FLOOR
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401-1400
PHONE (909) 383-4226
FAX (909) 383-6445
TTY (909) 383-6300
APR 1 5 ZOO3
GRAY DAVIS. Governor
Flex your power!
Be energy efficient!
April 14, 2003
08-Riv-79
Mr. Sid Pena
Planning Department
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
P. O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Dear Mr. Pena:
This is in response to the City's denial for access to a strawberry stand off State
Route 79 near Nicholas Road in the City of Temecula. The reasons for denial as
stated are:
· The driveway was intended for use of maintenance vehicles only to an
access road to Santa Gertudis Creek.
· The driveway is not intended for public uae. The curve radii are below
standard, based on speeds and volumes.
At the location of the driveway, vehicles entering must make a "U-turn"
due to a 3-foot drop in elevation making it difficult for motorists to
proceed "straight."
Based on the above, the Department concurs and supports your denial of
access off State Route 79.
'Caltrans improves mobility across California'
Mr. Sid Pena
April 14, 2003
Page 2
We appreciate you bringing this issue to our attention. If you need additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (909) 383-4226.
Very tru .y yours,
dOHN P, IANO
Office Chief Traffic Operations
Surveillance Region A
c: Ali Moghadam, City of Temecula
'Caltrans improves mobility across California~
ITEM 21
A P P ROV~.~/./~<~.~ _
CITY ATTORNEY /' "~'
DIRECTOR OF FIN~E ~
CITY MANAGER ,/~,~ ~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council
Shawn Nelson, City Manager
Genie Roberts, Director of Finance
May 27, 2003
Update to Development Impact Fee Schedule
PREPARED BY:
Polly von Richter, Revenue Manager
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AND IMPOSING NEW DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEES AND INCREASING CURRENT DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEES EFFECTIVE JULY 26, 2003 PURSUANT TO CHAPTER
15.06 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE AND RESOLUTION
NOS. 97-94 AND 98-30.
BACKGROUND: In May 1997, the City Council adopted a schedule for residential and non-
residential development impact fees (DIF). Based on a study by David M. Griffith and
Associates (DMG), residential development fees were adopted at 100% of the maximum
allowable fees. Non-residential development fees were adopted at 36%, but were to be
increased in phases to 60% of the maximum allowable fee. Presently, non-residential fees are
at 48% of the maximum allowable fee. Both the residential and non-residential fees have also
been adjusted each year by the Engineering News-Record Building Cost Index (BCI) for the Los
Angeles Metropolitan Area.
Development impact fees are typically analyzed every three to five years to monetarily quantify
the impacts of development on certain capital facilities. For this reason, in August 2002, the
City contracted with the firm Maximus (formerly DMG) to:
· Collect updated information on existing and future development and facility plans, facility
needs and level service data.
· Recalculate development impact fees by applying the updated information to the general
methodology and assumptions used in the DIF study completed by DMG in 1997.
· Prepare an updated DIF nexus report.
City staff worked closely with Maximus to gather updated information relating to facilities that
are impacted by development. The City currently collects impact fees for these facility types:
· Parks and Recreation Facilities
· Street Improvements
· Traffic Signals
· Libraries
· Corporate Facilities
· Fire Protection Facilities
Two other facility types that are impacted by development, but are not presently included in our
impact fee schedule, were identified in the study:
· Open Space and Trails
· Police Facilities
Each type of facility was analyzed individually with impact fees being calculated for one unit of
development and by facility type and development type. Converted to a per square foot basis,
the maximum development impact fees identified in the study are listed in Attachment A. For
comparison, the current fees are listed as well as current non-residential fees if they had been
adopted at 100%.
Because the updated calculations resulted in a potential increase to the City's development
impact fees, the Assistant City Manager Jim O'Grady hosted a meeting with prefessionals from
the development community to provide brokers and dealers with an opportunity to discuss the
study recommendations and other development-related activities. This meeting was held on
Wednesday, April 23, 2003 and was attended by approximately 20 brokers, developers,
bankers and others from the development community. A summary of the study basis and a
detailed explanation of the results was presented by Maximus and attendees had an opportunity
to ask questions and express concerns. A copy of the study was made available to those who
requested it, as was the Maximus presentation.
Staff is recommending that residential development impact fees be adopted as recommended in
the study. However, because of the potential economic impacts to developers, especially on
the heels of implementation of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program and
the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), the Council may consider phasing in
non-residential fees over a three-year period. In this scenario, the non-residential fees would
not be increased (except for the annual BCI adjustment) until July 1, 2004 and would phase in
to 100% of the recommended fees beginning July 1,2006. This phase-in schedule is detailed in
Attachment B. Annual BCI adjustments to all fees would continue uninterrupted and would be
applied to the phased-in non-residential fees each year.
Many projects have existing development agreements or vesting tract maps that exempt them
from some or all of these development impact fees. Additionally, the City Council has the ability
to adjust development impact fees on a case-by-case basis.
FISCAL IMPACT: Based on 2,907 projected residential development units (not covered by
Development Agreement or vesting tract map), if the study recommendations were adopted at
the maximum allowable fee, the City could expect over $16.5 million in residential impact fee
revenues. With roughly 17,429,720 projected non-residential developable square feet, if the
study recommendations were adopted at the maximum allowable fee, the City could expect over
$60.7 million in non-residential impact fee revenues. This amount includes fee projections for
office, commercial retail, commercial service, and business park/industrial. This impact fee
revenue would be utilized to finance public facilities improvements required because of the
development.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution No. 03-
Attachment A
Attachment B
Impact Fee Study Report (Final Draft)
R ¢,von Richter~Staff Repods\Staff Repod - New DIF .doc
RESOLUTION NO. 03-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AND IMPOSING NEW DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEES AND INCREASING CURRENT DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEES EFFECTIVE JULY 26, 2003 PURSUANT TO CHAPTER
15.06 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE AND RESOLUTION
NOS. 97-94 AND 98-30.
WHEREAS, on May 27, 1997, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 97-09 establishing
Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code, Public Facilities Development Impact Fee
("DIF"), which was modified by Ordinance No. 97-14 on August 16, 1997, and was further
modified by Ordinance No. 98-05 on April 14, 1998; and
WHEREAS, on May 27, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 97-45 which established
the Development Impact Fees. This Resolution was restated and modified by Resolution No.
98-30 on April 14, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted residential DIF as recommended in a Development
Impact Fee Study conducted by David M. Griffith and Associates ("DMG"), and adopted non~
residential DIF at 36% of the amount recommended by DMG; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 98-30 provides for an automatic annual adjustment of both residential
and non-residential DIF based on the pementage increase or decrease, if any, of the
Engineering News Record Building Cost Index ("BCI") for the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area
BCI for the twelve month period prior to May 1 of the year in which the change will be effective;
and
WHEREAS, Exhibit B to Resolution 98-30 contains projected fees for seven (7) years with no
escalation applied to residential DIF and an escalation of 10% per year applied to non-
residential DIF until fees reach 60% of the recommended fee; and
WHEREAS, Development Impact Fees are typically analyzed every three to five years to
monetarily quantify the impacts of development on certain capital facilities; and
WHEREAS, in August 2002, the City contracted with the firm of Maximus (formerly DMG) to
prepare a report providing recalculated development impact fees based on updated information
on existing and future development and facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Temecula as follows:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare
as follows:
A. As detailed in Exhibit~ A, residential Development Impact Fees shall be adopted as
recommended in the Impact Fee Study Report completed by Maximus dated March 10, 2003.
B. As detailed in Exhibit B, non-residential Development Impact Fees shall be phased in
over a three-year period. The non-residential fees would not be increased (except for the
annual BCI adjustment) until July 1, 2004 and would phase in to 100% of the recommended
fees beginning July 1,2006.
R:\von Richter~Ctesos and Ordinances'~Reso - New DIF .doc
C. According to Resolution 98-30, both residential and non-residential development
impact fees will be subject to an automatic annual adjustment based on the percentage
increase or decrease, if any, of the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index ("BCI") for the
Los Angeles Metropolitan Area BCi for the twelve month period prior to May I of the year in
which the change will be effective. These annual BCI adjustments would continue during the
phase-in of non-residential fees.
Section 2. These development impact fees will be effective July 26, 2003.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular
meeting held on the 27th day of May, 2003
ATTEST:
Jeff Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 03- __ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 27th day of May 2003, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
R:\von Richter~Resos and Ordinances~Reso - New DIF .doc
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
COMPARISON: CURRENT FEES VS. STUDY MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FEES
MAX FEE CURRENT
CURRENT ALLOWABLE % FEES %
COMPONENT TYPE OF LAND USE FEES BY STUDY INCREASE IF @ 100% INCREASE
Street System Residenaal Attached $.556.46 $958.92 72.3~ $556.46 72.3%
Improvements * ResidenUal Detached 793.85 1,369.8.c 72.6~ 793.85 72.6%
Retail Commercial 0.00
P:'~Finarme\vonrichpLSt afl Report - New DIF Attachment A.xls 2:39 PM 05/21/2(303
ATrACHMENT B
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
3-YEAR PHASE IN SCHEDULE
(WITHOUT ANNUAL BCl ADJUSTMENTS)
JULY 1, JULY 1, JULY 1, JULY 1,
CURRENT 2003 2004 2005 2006
COMPONENT TYPE OF LAND USE FEES FEES *" FEES *** FEES *** FEES ***
Street System ResiderS[al Attached $ 556.4~ $ 958.92 $ 958.92 $ 958.92 $ 958.92
Improvements ' Residential Detached 793.85 1,369.89 1,369.89 1,369.89 1,369.89
Office 0.97 0.97 1.69 2.41 3.14
Retail Commercial 3.01 3,01 3.75 4.49 5.24
Service Commercial 1.50 1.50 2.22 2,94 3.67
Business Parldlndustdal 0.71 0.71 1,10 1.49 1.88
Traffic Signals ahe ResidentialAttached $ 83.85 $ 135.74 $ 135.74 $ 135.74 $ 135.74
Traffic Control Residential Detached 118.69 193.91 193.91 193.91 193.91
Systems ' Office 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.35 0.45
Retail Commercial 0.46 0.46 0.55 0.64 0.74
Sendce Commercial 0.23 0.23 0.32 0.42 0.52
Business Park/Industrial 0.11 0. t I 0.16 0.21 0,27
Corporate Facilities ResidentialAttached $ 128.49 $ 199.28 $ 199.28 $ 199.28 $ 199.28
Residential Detached 241.75 371.66 ~ 371.66 371.66 371.66
Office 0.05 0.05; 0.08 0.11 0.15
Retail Commercial 0.13 0.13 0.20 0.28 0.36
I
Service Commercial 0,07 0.07 0.11 0.16 0.21
Business Park/Industrial 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.10 0.13
PoliceFaci[itics ResidentialAttached $ $ 350.25 $ 350.25 $ 350.25 $ 350.25
Residential Detached 197.97 197.97 197.97 197.97
Office 0.02 0,04 0,06
Relail Co~nmercial 0.07 0.13 0.20
Service Commercial 0.03 0.06 0.10
Business Park/Industrial 0.02 0.04 0.05
FireProtecticn ResidenSalAttached $ 45.74 $ 218,18 $ 218.18 $218.18 $ 2t8.18
Facilities Residential Detached 59.89 470.17 470.17 470.17 470.17
Office 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.09
Retail Commercial 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.13
Service CommerCial 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.13
Retail Commerc~l
CiO/of Temecula
Impact Fee
Study Report
March 10, 2003
Final Draft
MAXlMUS, Inc.
Cost Services Division
4320 Auburn Boulevard, Suite 2000
Sacramento, CA 95841
916.485.8102
916.485.0111 (Fax)
www.maximus.com
Clq/ o£ Temecula - Impact Fee Study
Table o£ Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Organization of the Report
Development Data
Impact Fee Analysis
Implementation
Summary of Impact Fees
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Legal Framework
Impact Fee Calculation Methodology
Facilities Addressed in This Study
Chapter 2 - Development Data
Background a0d Setting
Study Area and Time Frame
Development Types
Units of Development and Conversion Factors
Demand Variables and Impact Factors
Development Data
Chapter 3- PaRs and Recreation Fadlities
Service Area
Methodology
Demand Variable
Level of Service
Per-Capita Cost
Impact Fee Calculation
Projected Revenue
S-1
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
1-1
1-5
1-7
2-1
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-3
2-6
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-3
3-5
3-5
Chapter 4 - Open Space and Trail Development
Service Area 4-1
Methodology 4-1
Demand Variable 4-1
Level of Service 4-2
Per-Capita Cost 4-3
Impact Fee Calculation 4-5
Projected Revenue 4-$
Affarc_~ 10, 200o= tl4AXIA4US P~ge I
O(y of Temecula - Impact ?ee Study Table of Conten~
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter 5- Streets and Tra(iic Control
Service Area
Methodology
Demand Variable
Level of Service
Facility Needs
Average Cost per Peak Hour Trip
Impact Fee Calculation
Projected Revenue
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-2
5-2
5-4
5-4
5-6
Chapter 6- Libraries
Service Area
Methodology
Demand Variable
Level of Service
Per Capita Cost
Impact Fee Calculation
Projected Revenue
6-1
6-1
6-1
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-3
Chapter 7-Corporate Facilities
Service Area
Methodology
Demand Variable
Level of Service
Impact Fee Calculation
Projected Revenue
7-1
7-1
7-1
7-2
7-4
7-6
Chapter 8- Fire Fadllties and Equipment
Service Area
Methodology
Demand Variable
Level of Service
Facility and Equipment Needs
Cost per Acre
Impact Fee Calculation
Projected Revenue
8-1
8-2
8-2
8-2
8-2
8-4
8-5
8-6
A4arch 10, 2003 MAXIA4US Pa~e 11
City o£ Ternecula - Impact Fee Study Table o£ Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter 9- Police Fadlities and Vehicles
Service Area
Methodology
Demand Variable
Level of Service
Cost per Call for Service
Police Vehicles
Impact Fee Calculation
Projected Revenue
9-1
9-1
9-1
9-1
9-2
9-2
9-3
9-4
Chapter 10 - Implementation
Adoption
Administration
Training and Public Information
Recovery of Study Cost
10-1
10-2
10-7
10-7
Appendix A - Street Improvement Matrix
Mam~ 10, 2003 MAXIMUS Page I11
0~/ of Temecula - Impact Fee Study F_xecutlve Summary
EXECUTIVE SUA4A4AR Y
The City of Temecula has retained MAXIMUS to prepare this study to analyze the
impacts of development on certain capital facilities, and to calculate development
impact fees based on that analysis. This report documents the data, methodology,
and results of that impact fee study. The methods used to calculate impact fees in
this study are intended to satisfy all legal requirements governing such fees, includ-
ing provisions of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution, and the Cali-
fornia Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.)
ORC NIZA TION OF THE REPORT
Chapter 1 of this report provides an overview of impact fees. It discusses legal re-
quirements for establishing and imposing such fees, as well as methods used in this
study to calculate the fees. Chapter 2 contains information on existing and
planned development in Temecula, and organizes that data in a form that can be
used in the impact fee analysis. Only the area within the existing City boundaries
was considered in this study. Chapters 3 through 9 analyze the impacts of devel-
opment on specific types of facilities as follows:
Ch. 3. Parks and Recreation Facilities Ch. 7. Corporate Facilities
Ch. 4. Open Space and Trails Ch. 8. Fire Protection Facilities
Ch. 5. Street Improvements/Traffic Signals Ch. 9. Police Facilities
Ch. 6. Libraries
Each of the chapters listed above identifies facilities eligible for impact fee funding
and calculates the maximum impact fee that can be justified for each type of facility
based on the information used in the study. Chapter 10 discusses implementation
of the impact fee program, including procedures and legal requirements for imple-
menting an impact fee program under California law.
DE VEL OPAdENT DA TA
Forecasts of future development used in this study are intended to represent all ad-
ditional development within the existing City limits from January 2003 to buildout
of the that area under the current General Plan. It is not necessary for purposes of
this study to forecast the timing of development or when buildout will occur. In-
formation on existing and potential development used in this study was provided
by the Community Development Department and is based on the General Plan.
Data on population and demographics were taken from the 2000 Census and Cali-
fornia Department of Finance Population estimates.
March 10, 2003 ItdAXIMUS Page .q- I
City of Temecula - Impact Fee Study ~e~utlve Summary
As shown in Chapter 2 of this report, land planned for development in the study
area would ultimately support a 53% increase in population to about 116,000, and
a 60% increase in total developed acreage. Other measures of growth, such as traf-
fic volumes and police calls generally are projected to increase between 55% and
65% through buildout. This report addresses facilities needed to meet the service
needs of that future development.
IIPlPA GT FEE ANAL Y$I$
Each type of facility addressed in this report is analyzed individually. In each case,
the relationship between development and the need for additional facilities is quan-
tified in a way that allows impact fees to be calculated for various categories of de-
velopment. For each type of facility, a specific, measurable attribute of develop-
ment is used to represent the demand for additional capital facilities. For example,
in the case of street improvements and traffic signals, the number of additional
peak hour vehicle trips generated by new development is used to measure the im-
pact of that development.
Recommended impact fees for all types of facilities are summarized at the end of
this Executive Summary. The impact fees calculated in this report are based on
capital costs only. The following paragraphs briefly discuss factors considered in
the analysis of each type of facility
Parks and Recreation Facilities. Chapter 3 of this report calculates impact fees for
park improvements and recreation facilities. The City also requires park land dedi-
cation or payment of in-lieu fees, but those fees are not addressed in this study.
The impact fees for park improvements are based on the cost of improvements
needed to maintain the City's existing ratio of improved park acreage to popula-
tion. The impact fees for recreation facilities are based on the existing ratio of fa-
cility replacement cost to population. Because these fees are population-driven,
they apply only to residential development.
Open Space and Trails. Chapter 4 of this report calculates impact fees for open
space land acquisition and trail development. The impact f~es for open space land
are based on the cost of land needed to maintain the City's existing ratio of open
space acreage to population. The impact fees for trail development are based on
the existing ratio of miles of developed trails to population. Because these fees are
population-driven, they apply only to residential development.
Street and Traffic Control Impact Fees. Chapter 5 of this report calculates impact
fees for street improvements and traffic signals based on a list of projects needed to
serve future development. The Public Works Department has identified the share
of project that is attributable to future development. The fees for both street im-
provements and traffic signals are based on the total cost of such improvements and
tVla~ch I0, 2003 AdAXllVlUS PageS-2
City o£ Tenaecula - Impact £ee Study Executive Suramary
number of peak hour vehicle trips generated by future development. None of the
costs used as the basis for impact fees in this study duplicate costs covered by the
regional TUMF program.
Libraries. Chapter 6 of this report calculates impact fees for libraries. The impact
fees for library facilities and materials are based on the ratio of existing facilities
and materials to population. Existing facilities in this study include future facilities
for which funding has been committed. Because these fees are population-driven,
they apply only to residential development.
Corporate Facilities. Chapter 7 of this report addresses impact fees for City
administrative and maintenance facilities. The analysis assumes that the existing
City Hall and maintenance facility are at capacity. The need for future City Hall
space is assumed to increase in proportion to a weighted acreage index used to rep-
resent the demand for services housed in City Hall. The need for maintenance fa-
cilities is assumed to increase in proportion to increases in traffic (street mainte-
nance) and population (park maintenance).
Fire Facilities and Equipment. Chapter 8 of this report addresses impact fees for
fire protection facilities and apparatus. The method used to calculate these fees is
different from the methods used for other types of fees in this study. Because most
fire stations serve both existing and future development, and because all develop-
ment in the City is served by the entire system of fire protection facilities, this study
uses a "buy-in" approach to calculate fire impact fees. To calculate the buy-in fees,
costs for all existing and planned facilities and apparatus are allocated to all exist-
ing and planned development based on developed acreage. The result is an average
cost per developed acre. The impact fees assessed to future development depend
on the number of developed acres in a project.
Police Facilities and Equipment. Chapter 9 addresses impact fees for police facili-
ties and equipment. This study assumes that Police Department space needed to
serve future development in Temecula will be provided by constructing a new sub-
station in the City. The estimated cost of that facility is allocated to future devel-
opment based on the number of calls for service per year generated by various
types of development. Projections of future equipment (vehicle) needs is based on
the current relationship between calls for service and the replacement cost of exist-
ing vehicles.
IAdPL EA4ENTA TION
Implementation of an impact fee program raises both practical and policy issues.
Chapter 10 of this report points out many practical and procedural issues related to
the implementation of the City's impact fee program, and outlines administrative
procedures mandated by the Government Code with respect to impact fees. Topics
~ 10, 2003 A4AXIA,IU$ Page$-$
Cdt~ o£ Temecula - Impact Fee Study F~ecutlve Summary
covered in that chapter include adoption and collection of fees, accountability for
fee revenues, expenditure time limits, reporting and refunding requirements, updat-
ing of fees, and staff training.
From the point of view of the City Council, important policy choices must be made
regarding the impact fees. The development impact fees calculated in this report
are intended to represent the maximum impact fee amount justified by this analy-
sis. Of course, the City Council may choose to adopt fees lower than those calcu-
lated in the study. In that event, it is important that the Council identify which fa-
cilities are to be funded by the reduced impact fees, and the share of total cost to be
recovered through the fees.
It should also be emphasized that all costs used in this report are in current dollars.
To the extent that construction costs for capital improvements escalate over time,
the impact fees should be adjusted to keep pace with that inflation. We recom-
mend annual adjustments based on changes in the Engineering News Record Build-
ing Cost Index. If the fees are not escalated, the City could experience a significant
shortfall in anticipated funding over several years.
SUMMARY OF IA4PA CT FEES
Table S.1 summarizes the impact fees calculated in later chapters of this report.
Fees shown in Table $.1 are for one unit of development, by facility type and de-
velopment type, and are rounded to the nearest dollar. Fees for non-residential
development are shown on a per-acre basis. Table $.2, on the next page, also
shows the impact fees calculated in this report, with non-residential fees converted
to a square foot basis.
Table S. 1
Summary of Impact Fees Calculated in this Report (Non-Residential Fees Shown on a per-Acre Basis}
Development Der Parks/Rec Open Sp/ Streets/ Corp Fire Police
Type Units1 Facilities Trails ~;i.~.al~ Libraries Facilities Fadlitl.~ Facilities Total
Residential, Detached DU S 2,261 S 659 $ 1,564 $ 602 $ 372 $ 470 $ 198 $ 6,126
Residential, Attached DU $ 1,620 $ 472 $ 1,095 $ 431 $ 199 $ 218 $ 350 $ 4,386
Professional Office Acre $ 62,552 $ 2,690 $ 1,652 $ 1,066 $67,960
Business Park/Light Ind Acre $ 37,531 $ 2,202 $ 1,652 $ 838 $42,223
Commercial, Retail Acre $ 78,190 $ 4,717 $ 1,652 $ 2,589 $87,148
Commercial, Highway Acre $ 75,190 $ 4,717 $ 1,652 $ 2,589 $87,148
Commercial, Service Acre $54,733 $ 2,752 $ 1,652 $ 1,294 $60,431
Public/Institutional Acre $15163g $ 655 $ 1~652 $ 11523 $191467
Development Units-*DU = dwelling unit
A4ca'c..h 10, 2003 tlfAXIAfLI$ P,~ge S-4
CRy of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Executive Summary
Table S.2
Summary of Impact Fees Calculated in this Report (Non-Residential Fees Converted to Square Foot Basis)
Development Der Parks/Rec Open Sp/ Streets/ Corp Fire Police
Type Units~ Facilities Trails Signals Libraries Facilities Facilities Facilities Total
P~esidenfal, Detached DU $ 2,261 $ 659 $ 1,564 $ 602 $ 372' $ 470 $ 198 $ 6,126
Residential, Attached DU $ 1,620 $ 472 $ 1,095 $ 431 $ 199 $ 218 $ 350 $ 4,386
Professional Office Sq. Ft. $ 3.59 $ 0.15 $ 0.09 $ 0.06 $ 3.90
[~usinessParldLightlnd Sq. Ft. $ 2.15 $ 0.13 $ 0.09 $ 0.05 $ 2.42
Commercial, Retail Sq. Ft. $ 5.98 $ 0.36 $ 0.13 $ 0.20 $ 6.67
Commercial, Highway , Sq. Ft. $ 5.98 $ 0.36 $ 0.13 $ 0.20 $ 6.67
Commercial, Service : Sq. Ft. $ 4.19 $ 0.21 $ 0.13 $ 0.10 $ 4.62
?ublic/lnstltutional Sq. Ft. $ 1.44 $ 0.06 $ 0.15 $ 0.14 $ 1.79
Development Units-DO = dwelling unit
A4arc. h 10, 2005 /1,IAXIA4US
City of Temecula - Impact £ee Study Introduction
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The City of Temecula has retained MAXIMUS to prepare this study to analyze the
impacts of development on certain of the City's capital facilities and to calculate
development impact fees based on that analysis. This report documents the data,
methodology, and results of the impact fee study. The methods used to calculate
impact fees in this study are intended to satisfy all legal requirements governing
such fees, including provisions of the U. $. Constitution, the California Constitu-
tion, and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et
seq.). Impact fees calculated in this report are intended to replace the City's exist-
ing impact fees.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
U. S. Constitution. Like all land use regulations, development exactions, including
impact fees, are subject to the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking of private
property for public use without just compensation. Both state and federal courts
have recognized the imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form
of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against
regulatory takings. To comply with the Fifth Amendment, development regulations
must be shown to substantially advance a legitimate governmental interest. In the
case of impact fees, that interest is in the protection of public health, safety, and
welfare by ensuring that development is not detrimental to the quality of essential
public services.
The U. S. Supreme Court has found that a government agency imposing exactions
on development must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between the exaction and
the interest being protected (See Nollan v. Cali[ornia Coastal Commission, 1987).
In a more recent case (Dolan v. City o[Tigard, 1994), the Court made clear that an
agency also must show that an exaction is "roughly proportional" to the burden cre-
ated by development. Dolan is less significant for impact fees than for some other
types of exactions (e.g. mandatory dedication of land) because proportionality is
inherent in the proper calculation of impact fees. In addition, the Dolan decision
appeared to set a higher standard of review for mandatory dedications of land than
for monetary exactions.
California Constitution. The California Constitution grants broad police power to
local governments, including the authority to regulate land use and development.
That police power is the source of authority for imposing impact fees on develop-
ment to pay for infrastructure and capital facilities. Some impact fees have been
/Vi~rch 10, 2003 IViA~AqUS Pa$e I-I
Cit')' of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Introduction
challenged on grounds that they are special taxes imposed without voter approval
in violation of Article XIIIA. That objection would be valid only if fees exceeded
the cost of providing capital facilities needed to serve new development. If that
were the case, then the fees would also run afoul of the U. S. Constitution and the
Mitigation Fee Act. Articles XIIIC and XIIID, added by Proposition 218 in 1996,
require voter approval for some "property-related fees," but exempt "the imposi-
tion of fees or charges as a condition of property development." .
The Mitigation Fee Act. California's impact fee statute originated in Assembly Bill
1600 during the 1987 session of the Legislature, and took effect in January, 1989.
AB 1600 added several sections to the Government Code, beginning with Section
66000. Since that time the impact fee statute has been amended from time to
time, and in 1997 was officially titled the "Mitigation Fee Act." Unless otherwise
noted, code sections referenced in this report are from the Government Code.
The Act does not limit the types of capital improvements for which impact fees may
be charged. It defines public facilities very broadly to include "public improve-
ments, public services and community amenities." Although the issue is not specifi-
cally addressed in the Mitigation Fee Act, other provisions of the Government
Code (see Section 65913.8) prohibit the use of impact fees for maintenance or op-
erating costs. Consequently, the fees calculated in this report are based on capital
costs only.
The Mitigation Fee Act does not use the term "mitigation fee" except in its recently
added official tide. Nor does it use the more common term "impact fee." The Act
simply uses the word "fee," which is defined as "a monetary exaction, other than a
tax or special assessment, ... that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in
connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all
or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project .... "
To avoid confusion with other types of fees, this report uses the widely-accepted
term "impact fee," which should be understood to mean "fee" as defined in the
Mitigation Fee Act.
The Mitigation Fee Act contains requirements for establishing, increasing and im-
posing impact fees. They are summarized below. It also contains provisions that
govern the collection and expenditure of fees, and require annual reports and peri-
odic re-evaluation of impact fee programs. Those administrative requirements are
discussed in the Implementation Chapter of this report. Certain fees or charges re-
lated to development are exempted from the requirements of the Mitigation Fee
Act. Among them are fees in lieu of park land dedication as authorized by the
Quimby Act (Section 66477), fees collected pursuant to a reimbursement agreement
or developer agreement, and fees for processing development applications.
Adarch 10, 2003 A4A~TA4U$ Pa~e 1-2
Ci~, of Temecula - Impact fee Study Introduction
Required Findings. Section 66001 requires that an agency establishing, increasing
or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee;
2. Identify the use of the fee; and,
3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the
fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the devel-
opment project. (Applies only upon imposition of fees.)
Each of those requirements is discussed in more detail below.
Identifying tbe Purpose oftbe Fees. The broad purpose of impact fees is to protect
the public health, safety and general welfare by providing for adequate public facili-
ties. The specific purpose of the fees calculated in this study is to fund the construc-
tion of certain capital improvements identified in this report. Those improvements
are needed to mitigate the impacts of expected development in the City, and
thereby prevent deterioration in public services that would result from additional
development if impact fee revenues were not available to fund such improvements.
Findings with respect to the purpose of a fee should state the purpose of the fees as
financing development-related public facilities in a broad category, such as street
improvements or water supply system improvements.
Identifying the Use of the Fees. According to Section 66001, if a fee is used to fi-
nance public facilities, those facilities must be identified. A capital improvement
plan may be used for that purpose, but is not mandatory if the facilities are identi-
fied in the General Plan, a Specific Plan, or in other public documents. If a capital
improvement plan is used to identify the use of the fees, it must be updated annu-
ally by resolution of the governing body at a noticed public hearing. Impact fees
calculated in this study are based on specific capital facilities identified elsewhere in
this report, which is intended to serve as the public document identifying the use of
the fees.
Reasonable Relationship Requirement. As discussed above, Section 66001 requires
that, for fees subject to its provisions, a "reasonable relationship" must be demon-
strated between:
1. the use of the fee and the type of development on which it is imposed;
A~arch 10, 2003 AdA~A4US Page 1-3
CiO/of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Introduction
2. the need for a public facility and the type of development on which a
fee is imposed; and,
3. the amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the develop-
ment on which the fee is imposed.
These three reasonable relationship requirements as defined in the statute parallel
"nexus" requirements enunciated by various courts. Although the term "dual ra-
tional nexus" is often used to characterize the standard used by courts in evaluating
exactions and impact fees under the U. S. Constitution, we prefer a formulation
that recognizes three elements: "impact or need" "benefit," and "proportionality."
The dual rational nexus test explicitly addresses only the first two, although pro-
portionality is reasonably implied, and was specifically addressed by the U.S. Su-
preme Court in the Dolan case.
The reasonable relationship language of the statute is considered less strict than the
rational nexus standard used by the courts. Of course, the higher standard con-
trols. We will use the nexus terminology in this report for two reasons: because it
is more concise and descriptive, and also to signify that the methods used to calcu-
late impact fees in this study are intended to satisfy the more demanding constitu-
tional standard. Individual elements of the nexus standard are discussed further in
the following paragraphs.
Demonstrating an Impact. All new development in a community creates additional
demands on some, or all, public facilities provided by local government. If the
supply of facilities is not increased to satisfy that additional demand, the quality or
availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate. Impact fees
may be used to recover the cost of development-related facilities, but only to the
extent that the need for facilities is a consequence of development that is subject to
the fees. The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions
may be used only to mitigate conditions created by the developments upon which
they are imPosed. That principle clearly applies to impact fees. In this study, the
impact of development on improvement needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable
relationships between various types of development and the demand for specific
facilities, based on applicable level-of-service standards. This report contains all
information needed to demonstrate this element of the nexus.
Demonstrating a Benefit. A sufficient benefit relationship requires that impact fee
revenues be segregated from other funds and expended only on the facilities for
which the fees were charged. Fees must be expended in a timely manner and the
facilities funded by the fees must serve the development paying the fees. Nothing
in the U.S. Constitution or California law requires that facilities paid for with im-
pact fee revenues be available exclusively to developments paying the fees.
A4arch 10, 2003 AdA)EAdU$ Page 1-4
CiO~ of rernecula - Impact Fee Study Introduction
Procedures for earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are mandated by the
Mitigation Fees Act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are expended expedi-
tiously or refunded. All of those requirements are intended to ensure that devel-
opments benefit from the impact fees they are required to pay. Thus, an adequate
showing of benefit must address procedural as well as substantive issues.
Demonstrating Proportionality. The requirement that exactions be proportional to
the impacts of development was clearly stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the
Dolan case and is logically necessary to establish a proper nexus. Proportionality is
established through the procedures used to identify development-related facility
costs, and in the methods used to calculate impact fees for various types of facilities
and categories of development. In this study, the demand for facilities is measured
in terms of relevant and measurable attributes of development. For example, the
need for police facilities is measured by the number of police calls for service gen-
erated by a particular type and quantity of development.
In calculating impact fees, costs for development-related facilities are allocated in
proportion to the service needs created by different types and quantities of devel-
opment. The following section describes methods used to allocate facility costs and
calculate impact fees in ways that meet the proportionality standard.
Impact Fees for Existing Facilities. It is important to note that impact fees may be
used to pay for existing facilities, provided that those facilities are needed to serve
additional development and have the capacity to do so, given relevant level-of-
service standards. In other words, it must be possible to show that the fees meet
the need and benefit elements of the nexus.
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate impact fees. The
choice of a particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics and
planning requirements for the facility type being addressed. Each method has ad-
vantages and disadvantages in a particular situation, and to some extent they are
interchangeable, because they all allocate facility costs in proportion to the needs
created by development.
Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating impact fees involves only
two steps: determining the cost of development-related capital improvements, and
allocating those costs equitably to various types of development. In practice,
though, the calculation of impact fees can become quite complicated because of the
many variables involved in defining the relationship between development and the
need for facilities. The following paragraphs discuss three methods for calculating
impact fees and how those methods can be applied.
Afewch I0, 2003 MA)aMUS Page I-.~
City o£ Temecula - Impact lee Study Introduction
Plan-based Impact Fee Calculation. The plan-based method allocates costs for a
specified set of improvements to a specified set of developments. The improve-
ments are identified by a facility plan and the development is identified by a land
use plan. Facility costs are allocated to various categories of development in pro-
portion to the amount of development and the relative intensity of demand for
each category. Demand is represented by an appropriate, quantifiable indicator.
For example, demand for street improvements is typically measured by the number
of vehicle trips generated by development.
In this method, the total cost of relevant facilities is divided by total demand to cal-
culate a cost per unit of demand. Then, the cost per unit of demand is multiplied
by the amount of demand per unit of development (e.g. dwelling units or square
feet of building area) in each category to arrive at a cost per unit of development.
This method implicitly assumes that the entire service capacity of the specified fa-
cilities will be absorbed by the planned development, or that any excess capacity is
unavoidably related to serving that development. For example, it may be necessary
to widen a street from two lanes to four lanes to serve planned development, but
that development may not use all of the added capacity. Assuming the improve-
ments in question are needed only to serve the new development paying the fees, it
is legitimate to recover the full cost of the improvements through impact fees.
The plan-based method is often the most workable approach where actual service
usage is difficult to measure (as is the case with administrative facilities), or does
not directly drive the need for added facilities (as is the case with fire stations). It is
also useful for facilities, such as streets, where capacity cannot always be matched
closely to demand. This method is relatively inflexible in the sense that it is based
on the relationship between a particular facility plan and a particular land use plan.
If either plan changes significantly, the fees may have to be recalculated.
Capacity-based Impact Fee Calculation. This method can be used only where the
capacity of a facility or system is known, and the amount of capacity used by a par-
ticular type and quantity of development can be measured or estimated. This
method calculates a rate, or cost per unit of capacity based on the relationship be-
tween total cost and total capacity. It can be applied to any type or amount of de-
velopment, provided the capacity demand created by that development can be es-
timated and the facility has adequate capacity available to serve the development.
Since the fee calculation does not depend on the type or quantity of development
to be served, this method is flexible with respect to changing development plans.
Under this method, the cost of unused capacity is not allocated to development, so
unused capacity would not be covered by impact fees if it is not absorbed by devel-
opment. Capacity-based fees are most commonly used for water and wastewater
systems.
A4arch I0, 2003 AdAXIAdUS Page 1-6
City o£ Temecula - Impact Fee Study Introduction
To calculate a capacity-based impact fee rate, facility cost is divided by facility ca-
pacity to arrive at a cost per unit of service. To determine the fee for a particular
development project, the cost per unit of capacity is multiplied by the amount of
capacity needed by that project. To produce a schedule of impact fees based on
standardized units o£ development (e.g. dwelling units or square feet of building
area), the rate is multiplied by the amount of service needed, on average, by those
units of development.
Standard-based Impact Fee Calculation. The standard-based method is related to
the capacity-based approach in the sense that it is based on a rate, or cost per unit
of service. The difference is that with this method, costs are defined from the out-
set on a generic unit-cost basis and then applied to development according to a
standard that sets the amount of service or capacity to be provided for each unit of
development. The standard-based method is useful where facility needs are defined
directly by a service standard, and where unit costs can be determined without ref-
erence to the total size or capacity of a facility or system. Parks fit that description.
It is common for cities or counties to establish a service standard for parks in terms
of acres per thousand residents. In addition, the cost per acre for, say, neighbor-
hood parks can usually be estimated without knowing the size of a particular park
or the total acreage of parks in the system.
This approach is also useful for facilities such as libraries, where it is possible to es-
timate a generic cost per square foot before a building is actually designed. One
advantage of the standard-based method is that a fee can be established without
committing to a particular size of facility, and facility size can be adjusted based on
the amount of development that actually occurs.
FACILITIES ADDRESSED IN THIS STUDY
Impact fees for the following types of facilities and improvements will be addressed
in this report:
· Parks and Recreation
· Open Space and Trails
· Street Improvements/Traffic Signals
· Libraries
· Corporate Facilities
· Fire Protection Facilities
· Police Facilities
The impact fee analysis for each facility type is presented in a separate chapter of
this report.
Adarch 10, 2003 A4AXIAdU$ Pase 1-7
City of Temecula - Impact lee Study Development and Demand Data
CHAPTER 2
DEVELOPAdEAIT AND DEMAND DATA
Both existing and planned development must be addressed as part of the nexus
analysis required to support the establishment of impact fees. This chapter of the
report organizes and correlates information on existing and planned development
to provide a framework for the impact fee analysis contained in subsequent chap-
ters of the report. The information in this chapter forms a basis for establishing
levels of service, analyzing facility needs, and allocating the cost of capital facilities
between existing and future development and among various types of new devel-
opment.
Data on land use and development employed in this study are based on the Temec-
ula General Plan and on additional information provided by the Temecula Com-
munity Development Department, Planning Division. Demographic data are from
the U.S. Census Bureau and from California Department of Finance Demographic
Research Unit population estimates. Data on existing and planned development
used in this study represent the best available estimate of existing and planned de-
velopment as of January 1, 2003.
BACKGROUND AND SETTING
The City of Temecula was incorporated in 1989. It is located in the fast-
developing Southwestern corner of Riverside County along the 1-15 Freeway, mid-
way between Riverside and San Diego. Nearby communities are Murrieta and Lake
Elsinore. The City's boundaries encompass the historical town of Temecula, and
much of the 87,000-acre planned community of Rancho California, which began
development in the late 1960s.
The chart in Figure 2-A
depicts the City's esti-
mated January I popula-
tion year-by-year from
1992 through 2002. The
City's January 1 2002,
population is estimated by
the California Department
of Finance at 72,700. As
the chart shows, Temec-
ula's population has grown
very rapidly in recent
75,000
60,000
45,000
30,000
15,000
0
Figure 2A
City of Temecula Population (1992 - 2002)
A.larch 10, 2003 MAXIMUS P~ge 2-1
CIO~ of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Development and Demand Data
years, averaging 8.9% per year between 1992 and 2002, and almost 11% per year
since 1997. On a percentage basis, Temecula was the second fastest growing City
in California in 2001. At the same time, the City has experienced a great deal of
non-residential development, including a regional mall, and extensive business park
construction. Based on the current General Plan, residential development antici-
pated within the current City limits is projected to support a total population of
more than 110,000.
STUDY AREA AND TIME FRAME
Except as noted in subsequent sections of this report, the impact fee analysis does
not address Temecula's sphere of influence. Development data shown in this sec-
tion represents only the area within the City's current boundaries. To the extent
that land within Temecula's sphere of influence is annexed in the future, the cost of
capital facilities needed to serve those areas is expected to be covered by develop-
ment agreements.
The timeframe for this study extends from the present to buildout of all land desig-
nated for development within the current City limits. The term "buildout" is used
to describe a hypothetical condition in which all currently undeveloped land in the
study area has been developed as indicated in the Land Use Element of the General
Plan. The time required for buildout depends on the rate at which development
occurs. This study does not project a target date for buildout, because the rate and
timing of development do not affect the impact fee analysis.
DEVELOPMENT TYPES
Because it is not possible to know in detail the types of development that will occur
in the future, this study uses a set of fairly broad land use categories in the impact
fee analysis. Those categories are shown in the development data tables presented
later in this chapter. Some land use designations defined in the General Plan are
grouped into broader categories here. However, except as noted, the impact fees
are calculated in a manner that allows fees to be adjusted to the specific impacts of
a particular development project, if necessary. That need can arise when a particu-
lar project does not fit neatly within one of the categories defined in this study.
Such adjustments are most commonly needed for specialized commercial projects,
and for uses, such as churches, hospitals, and facilities for non-profit agencies.
UNITS OF DE VEL OPMENT AND CONVERSION FA CTORS
In this study, quantities of existing and planned development are measured in terms
of certain units of development. Those units are discussed below.
Afarc. h 10, 2003 AC4XbldUS Page 2-2
cIOt of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Development and Demand Data
Acreage. Land area is a fundamental attribute of all types of development. Net
acreage, representing the useable acreage of a development site after street right-of-
way are dedicated, is used in this study as the standard unit of development for all
non-residential land use categories.
Dwelling Units. The dwelling unit (DU) is the most commonly used measure of
residential development, and is the standard unit for residential development in this
study.
Building Area. For non-residential development, building area in square feet or
thousands of square feet may be used to represent development in some situations.
When building area is used in this study the units of development are thousands of
square feet (KSF).
In some cases, it is necessary or convenient to convert one type of development unit
to another. Some types of factors used in those conversions are discussed below.
Residential Density. The relationship between dwelling units and acreage is re-
ferred to as "density," and is defined by the average number of dwelling units per
acre for a particular type of residential development. The inverse of density is acres
per dwelling unit. For example, single family residential development might have a
density of 4.0 dwelling units per acre, which equates to 0.25 acres per dwelling
unit.
Floor Area Ratio. Floor area ratio (FAR) is a factor that represents the relationship
between building area and site area for non-residential development. For example,
a FAR of 0.25:1 (or more commonly just 0.25) indicates that building area is 25O/o
of site area. Translated into square feet, each acre (43,560 square feet) of site area
would convert to 10,890 (43,560 x 0.25) square feet or 10.89 KSF of building
area.
DEMAND VARIABLES AND IMPACT FACTORS
In calculating impact fees, the relationship between facility needs and urban devel-
opment must be quantified in cost allocation formulas. Certain measurable attrib-
utes of development (e.g., population, vehicle trip generation) are used in those
formulas as "demand variables" to reflect the impact of different types and amounts
of development on the demand for specific public services and the facilities that
support those services. Demand variables are selected either because they directly
measure service demand created by various types of development, or because they
are reasonably correlated with that demand.
For example, the service standard for parks in a community is typically defined as a
ratio of park acreage to population. As population grows, more parks are needed
A4arch 10, 2003 AdAXIA4 US Pa~e 2-3
City of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Development and Demand Data
to maintain the desired standard. Logically, then, population is an appropriate
yardstick for measuring the impacts of development on the need for additional
parks. Similarly, the need for capacity in a street system depends on the volume of
traffic the system must handle. Thus the vehicle trip generation rate (the number of
vehicle trips per day generated by one unit of development) is an appropriate de-
mand variable to represent the impact of development on the street system.
Each demand variable has a specific value per unit of development for each land
use category. Those values may be referred to as demand [actors or impact [actors.
For example, on average, one single-family detached dwelling unit generates about
one vehicle trip during the p.m. peak hour. Consequently, the peak-hour traffic
impact factor for single-family residential development is 1.0 trips per dwelling
unit. Other land use categories would have different impact factors. Some of the
impact factors used in this study are based on widely-accepted standards (e.g., the
trip generation rates), while others are based on local conditions (e.g., population,
police calls).
The specific demand variables used in this study are discussed below and the actual
values of demand factors for each land use category are shown in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1
Demand Factors
Development Der NetAcres FloorArea KSFper Population WtdAcresi PkHrTrips Police Calls
Type Units ~ per Unit z Ratio ~ Acre 4 per DU ~ per Acre 6 per Unit ? per Unit
Residential, Detached DU 0.28 N/A N/A 3.35 1.00 1.0 0.52
Residential, Attached DU 0.13 N/A N/A 2.40 1.12 0.7 0.92
Professional Office Acre 1.00 0.40 17.42 0.00 2.06 40.0 2.80
Business Park/Light Ind Acre 1.00 0.40 17.42 0.00 1.73 24.0 2.20
Commercial, Retail Acre 1.00 0.30 13.07 0.00 3.72 $0.0 6.80
Commercial, Highway Acre 1.00 0.30 13.07 0.00 3.72 50.0 6.80
Commercial, Service Acre 1.00 0.30 13.07 0.00 2.14 35.0 3.40
PubhcJlnstitutional Acre 1.00 0.25 10.89 0.00 0.50 10.0 4.00
Basic units of development used in this study; DIJ = dwelling unit
Average net acres per unit based on existing development
Typical floor area ratio (building area/net site area} for the development type
Estimated non-residential building area per acre in thousands of square feet (KSI~ based on the Floor Area Ratio
Population per DU based on data from the 2000 Census and the California Dept of Finance
Factors used to represent relative demand per acre for city hall-based functions (see text)
Peak hour vefude raps per umt based on Tra//k Generator~, San Diego Association of Governments
Police calls per unit per year based on analysis of 2001 Temecula PD data by MAXIMUS (see text)
Population per Unit of Development. Population per unit of development is used
as a demand variable to calculate impact fees for certain types of facilities in this
study. Because population is tied to residential development, the value of this vari-
able for all non-residential land uses is zero.
A4arch 10, 2003 A4AXIMU$ Page 2-4
CIO' of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Development and Demand Data
It is important to emphasize that, rather than using actual population estimates or
census numbers, resident population figures used in this study are adjusted to a
"full-occupancy" level. That device is intended to account for the fact that actual
population fluctuates with vacancy rates, but once a residence is constructed, the
City has a responsibility to serve its occupants. Full-occupancy population esti-
mates are established by applying an average persons-per-dwelling factor to the ac-
tual number of existing dwelling units, or the projected future dwelling units, in
each residential land use category. Persons-per-dwelling factors are based on an
analysis of the most recently available Census data.
For certain public facilities, such as parks and libraries, population is a useful meas-
ure of service demand, and can be used in setting service levels and allocating facil-
ity costs. However, for most public facilities, resident population accounts for only
a portion of demand, and does not, alone, represent the impact of all development
on those facilities.
WeigbtedAcre Factors. This set of factors represents the relative impact of acres of
different development types on functions housed in City Hall. The factors were
developed using detailed analysis from the 1996 development impact fee study by
David M. Griffith & Associates (now part of MAXIMUS). The impact factors
from that study were converted into per-acre terms, and then scaled to single-
family residential development. In other words, single-family residential develop-
ment was assigned a weight of 1.0, and the impacts of other development types are
set relative to that base. Factors for non-residential development are proportion-
ately larger. For example, the weighted acre factor for retail commercial develop-
ment is 3.72, indicating that one acre of such development has 3.72 times as much
impact on City Hall-based functions as one acre of single-family residential devel-
opment.
Peak-Hour Trips per Unit of Development. Traffic generation in terms of peak
hour trips is used here to measure the impact of development on the City's street
system. Peak hour traffic is used rather than average daily traffic, because peak
volumes determine the need for street capacity. The trip generation rates used in
this study are based on Traffic Generators, published by the San Diego Association
of Governments (SANDAG). Those rates are consistent with the Institute of Trans-
portation Engineers publication Trip Generation.
Police Calls for Service per Unit olC Development. Demand for Police Department
services is represented in this study by the average number of calls for service per
unit of development per year in each land use category. The factors are based on
an analysis by MAXIMUS of actual calls for service by reporting district for calen-
dar year 2001.
A4am_h 10, 2003 AfAXL44US Page 2-5
¢10~ of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Development and Demand Data
Calls-for-service factors used in this study are based primarily on an analysis of dis-
tricts containing only, or mostly a single type of development. There are three po-
lice reporting districts in the City containing almost exclusively single-family resi-
dential development, and another with 900/o single-family units and 10% multi-
family units. Among those districts, the number of calls for service per unit ranged
from 0.41 to 0.65. The median value was 0.52, which is used in this study. Only
one reporting district in the City is composed almost entirely of multi-family resi-
dential development. The factor for that area is 1.2 calls per dwelling unit. How-
ever, a number of districts contain a mix of single-family and multi-family devel-
opment. By using the selected single-family residential factor to cancel out the ef-
fect of single-family development in those districts, we estimated multi-family fac-
tors ranging from 0.92 to 1.13. We selected the lowest of those factors for use in
the impact fee analysis. Both of the selected residential factors are in the low end
of the range found in other similar MAXIMUS studies.
Only one reporting district in Temecula is devoted to a single non-residential land
use type. That district, located just south and east of the Winchester Road/Ynez
Road intersection, is the site of a regional mall. Calls for service were reported in
that district' at a rate of 6.8 per acre for 2001 and that factor is used in this study
for both the retail and highway commercial categories. No specific factors could be
calculated for service commercial development, so the factor for that category was
set at 500/o of the retail rate, based on experience with other studies. Good data on
calls for one district containing mostly business park/light industrial development
allowed us to establish a rate of 2.2 calls per acre for that category. The factor for
the office category was set at 2.8, 25% above the business park category--again
based on experience with other studies.
The districts analyzed to establish these calls-for-service factors contain develop-
ment similar to that expected in Temecula in the future. A few areas of older de-
velopment with relatively high rates are not represented in these figures. Conse-
quently, when the factors shown in Table 2.1 are applied to existing development
in Temecula, the resulting number of calls for service, as shown in Table 2.2
(23,723), is about 6O/o lower than the actual number of calls for service recorded in
calendar year 2001 (25,319).
DE VEL OPMENT DA TA
Tables 2.2 through 2.4 present data on existing and planned development in the
City, based on estimates by the Temecula Planning Division. Table 2.2, on the next
page, shows data for existing development as of January 1, 2003.
Adarch 10, 2003 A4AXbl4US Page 2-6
City of Ternecula - Impact Fee Study Development and Demand Data
Table 2.2
Existing Development in the City (January 1, 2003)
Development Dev Dwelling Bldg Area Popula- Weighted Peak Hr Police
Type Acres t Units 2 (KSF) 3 tion 4 Acres s Trips 6 Calls 7
?,esidential, Detached 5,542 19,470 N/A 65,225 5,542 19,470 10,124
Residential, At~ached 589 4,459 N/A 10,702 657 3,122 4,103
Professional Office 130 0 2,270 0 269 5,212 365
Business Park/Light Ind 765 0 13,321 0 1,326 18,348 1,682
Commercial, Retail 598 0 7,809 0 2,225 29,880 4,064
Commercial, Highway 95 0 1,236 0 352 4,730 643
Commercial, Service 194 0 2,539 0 416 6,801 661
Public/Institutional 520 0 5,667 0 260 5,204 2,082
Totals 8,433 23,930 32,843 75,927 11,047 92,766 23,723
Developed net acres. Dam provided by the Temecuia Planning Division
Dwelling units based on 2000 data from California Department of Finance
Estimated non-residential building area = Acres x KSF per Acre from Table 2.1
Estimated population at 0% vacancy rate = DUs x average population per unit from Table 2.1
Acres weighted to reflect demand for city hall services = acres x weighted acre factor from Table 2.1
Peak hour trips = development units x peak hour trips per unit from Table 2.1
Police calls per year = dwelling units or non- res acres x police calls per unit per year from Table 2.1
Table 2.3 presents a forecast of future development in the City, based on the City's
current General Plan.
Table 2.3
Planned Future Development in the City (to Buildout of the General Plan)
Development Dev Dwelling Bldg Area Popula- Weighted Peak Hr Police
Type Acres ~ Units z (KSF) ~ tion 4 Acres s Trips 6 Calls ?
Residential, Detached 3,282 10,081 N/A 33,771 3,282 10,081 5,242
Residential, Attached 207 2,657 N/A 6,377 231 1,860 2,444
Professional Office 229 0 3,990 0 472 9,160 641
Business Park/Light lnd 555 0 9,670 0 963 13,320 1,221
Commercial, Retail 211 0 2,757 0 786 10,550 1,435
Commercial, Highway 67 0 876 0 249 3,350 456
Commercial, Service 263 0 3,437 0 563 9,205 894
Public/Institutional 211 0 2,298 0 106 2,110 844
Totals 5,025 12,738 23,028 40,148 6,651 59,636 13,177
See Table 2.2 for footnotes
Adatch I0, 2003 AdAXIAdUS Pa~e 2-7
Cl~y of Temecula - Impact £ee Study Development and Demand Data
Table 2.4 on the next page sums the data from the previous two tables, and repre-
sents a forecast of total development within the current City boundaries at
buildout.
Table 2.4
Total Development in the City (at Buildout)
Development Der Dwelling Bldg Area Popula- Weighted Peak Hr Police
Type Acres ~ Units z (KSF} 3 tion 4 Acres s Trips 6 Calls 7
Residential, Detached 8,824 29,551 N/A 98,996 8,824 29,551 15,367
Residential, Attached 796 7,116 N/A 17,079 888 4,981 6,547
Professional Office · 359 0 6,260 0 741 14,372 1,006
Business Park/Light Ind 1,320 0 22,991 0 2,289 31,668 2,903
Commercial, Retail 809 0 10,567 0 3,011 40,430 5,498
Commercial, Highway 162 0 2,112 0 602 8,080 1,099
Commercial, Service 457 0 5,976 0 979 16,006 1,555
Public/Institutional 731 0 7,965 0 366 7,314 2,926
13,458 36,668 55,871 116,076 17,698 152,402 36,900
See Table 2.2 for footnotes
The projected increase in most of the demand variables shown in these tables
(acres, dwelling units, population, peak hour trips and police calls) is very close to
50%, indicating that by those measures, the City is approximately 2/3 built out at
present.
A4~ch 10, 2003 A/iAXIA4US Pa~e 2-8
CIO' of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Parks and RecreaUon Facilities
CHAPTER 3
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
This chapter addresses the calculation of impact fees for park improvements and
recreation facilities needed to serve future development in Temecula. Information
on parks and recreation facilities used in this chapter is based on the 1993 Temec-
ula Parks and Recreation Master Plan and on additional information provided by
the Temecula Community Services Department.
SERVICE AREA
The service area for the parks and recreation impact fee analysis is the existing City,
which is the study area defined in Chapter 2 of this report. Because level-of-service
standards are set on a citywide basis, impact fees for parks and recreation facilities
will be calculated on a citywide basis and applied to new development in all parts of
the City. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan calls for parks to be located in
close proximity to all residential development projects in the City. This study as-
sumes that future parks will be sited in a manner consistent with the location stan-
dards set forth in the Master Plan, so that all future development subject to the
park impact fees has reasonable access to City parks. Geographic distribution of
recreation facilities is not an issue, because those facilities may serve large areas or
the entire City
METHODOLOGY
This chapter calculates impact fees using the standard-based method discussed in
Chapter 1. Standard-based fees are open-ended. They are based on a ratio of fa-
cilities to users and do not depend on assumptions about the ultimate limits of de-
velopment in the City. All fees in this report are calculated in current dollars and
should be adjusted annually to reflect changes in facility costs.
DEMAND VARIABLE
Virtually all local governments define the need for parks and recreation facilities as
a function of population, and that is the case in Temecula. Consequently, popula-
tion is used as the demand variable in calculating impact fees in this chapter. Be-
cause the fees are population-driven, they apply only to residential development.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Park Improvements. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan sets a standard of 5.0
acres of parks per thousand residents--3,5 acres in community parks and 1.5 acres
in neighborhood parks. However, to calculate impact fees for park improvements,
Mm'ch 10, 2003 MAXIMUS Page 3-1
City of Ternecula - Impact Fee Study Parl~ and Recreation Fad/Ides
this study uses the existing ratio of
City-owned developed park acreage to
population as the level-of-service stan-
dard. That approach eliminates any
existing deficiencies relative to the
specified standard, and ensures that
impact fees paid by future develop-
ment do not subsidize the provision of
park improvements for the existing
community.
Table 3.1 lists existing City-owned
parks and shows the developed acreage
of each park. The total developed
acreage of existing parks will be used
to calculate the ratio of existing devel-
oped park acreage to existing popula-
tion in Temecula. That ratio is shown
in Table 3.2 below.
Recreation Facilities. The City has not
adopted numerical standards for rec-
reation facilities. The calculation of
impact fees for these facilities is based
on the existing ratio of facilities to
population. In this case, because of the
variety of facility types involved, the
quantity of existing facilities is meas-
ured by their replacement value instead
of their size. That technique not only
provides a common basis for measur-
ing different types of facilities, but it
Table 3.1
Existing Developed City Parks
Park Developed
Name Park Acres
Community/Sports Parks
Margarita Community Park 12.16
Pala Community Park 10.00
Paloma Del Sol Park 9.50
Rancho California Sports Park 73.00
Temeku Hills Park 11.41
Subtotal Community /Sports Parks 116.07
Neigbborbood/Specialty Parks
Bahia Vista Park 0.46
Butterfield Stage Park 3.13
Calle Aragon Park 0.50
Crowne Hill Park 3.56
ohn McGee Park 1.00
Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park 9.11
Loma Linda Park 2.64
Long Canyon Creek Park 3.15
Meadows Park 5.18
Nakayama Park 0.28
Nicholas Road Park 2.93
Pablo Apis Park 2.29
Riverton Park 4.94
Rotary Park 1.09
Sam Hicks Monument Park 1.83
Stephen Linen Jr. Memorial Park 2.13
Temecula Duck Pond 7.51
Temecula Skate Park 1.00
Vail Ranch Park 16.43
Veteran's Park 3.50
Voorburg Park 0.75
Winchester Creek Park 4.49
Subtotal Nbrhd/Specialt~ Parks 77.90
Total Developed Park Acreage 193.97
Source: Temecula Community Services Department
also facilitates adjustments for outstanding debt on existing facilities. Full replace-
ment value, rather than a depreciated replacement value is used here, because the
Table 3.2
Existing Ratio of Developed Park Acreage to Population
Existing I Existing Acres Acres I '
Acres ~ Population 2 per Capita per 1,000
193.97 75,927 0.00255468 2.55468
See Table 3.1
Estimated existing. See Table 2.2
A/larch 10, 2003 A4AXIA4US Pa~e
Q{y of Temecula - Impact fee Study Parks and l~creatlon Fad#des
impact fees calculated in this chapter are for the purpose of constructing additional
facilities to serve new development. If the intent were for new development to buy
into existing facilities, depreciated replacement value would be used to calculate
"buy-in" fees.
The level of service standard used here is the ratio of existing facility replacement
cost to existing population, where replacement cost has been reduced by the
amount of outstanding debt on existing facilities. Basing the impact fees on the ex-
isting service level eliminates the need to address any existing deficiencies relative
to a specified standard, and ensures that impact fees paid by future development do
not subsidize the provision of community and recreation facilities for the existing
community. Table 3.3 lists existing City-owned community and recreation facilities
and shows their estimated replacement cost.
Table 3.3
Existing Community and Recreation Center Facilities
Building Bldg Repl Site Land Total
Facilit~ Sq Ft Cost 2 Acreage Value 3 Repl Cost
Community Recreation Center t 26,480 $ 6,583,000 3.80 $ 767,493 $ 7,350,493
remecula Community Center 5,900 $ 1,180,000 1.60 $ 327,089 $ 1,507,089
Mary Phillips Senior Center 9,248 $ 1,849,600 1.20 $ 242,461 $ 2,092,061
Chaparral Pool 4 N/A $ 1,500,000 N/A $ $ 1,500~000
Total 41,628 $11t112,600 6.60 $1t337~043 $12~449~643
Building cost shown is replacement cost less outstanding debt of $6,185,000
Estimated replacement cost includes design, construction, site development, FF&E, project
administration and other miscellaneous costs
Land value estimated by the Temecula Community Services Department
Replacement cost shown is only the City's cash contribution to pool improvements
PER-CAPITA COST
Park Improvements. In Table 3.4, on the next page, the existing ratio of developed
park acres to population from Table 3.2 is applied to the estimated average per-
acre cost for park improvements to calculate the per-capita cost for future park im-
provements at the existing level of service. The estimated improvement cost per
acre shown in Table 3.4 is a weighted average cost estimate for constructing com-
munity and neighborhood parks with facilities similar to those in existing parks.
A/retch 10, 2003 AdAXIA4US Page 3-3
City of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Park~ and Recreation £adlitie$
Table 3.4
Cost per Capita - Park Improvements
Acres Acres
per 1,000 1 per Capita
2.55468 0.00255468
Improvement I Cost
Cost per Acre 2 per Capita 3
$200,000 $510.94
See TabLe 3.2
Estimated average improvement cost provided by the Temecula
Community Services Department
Cost per capita = acres per capita x improvement cost per acre
Recreation Facilities. Table 3.5 shows the per-capita replacement cost of existing
facilities, based on the total replacement cost from Table 3.3 and current popula-
tion estimates, as shown in Chapter 2. That per-capita cost will be used to calculate
the impact fee for community and recreation centers.
Table 3.5
Cost per Capita - Existing Recreation Facilities
Total Facility I Existing Cost
Rep1 Cost 1 Population 2 per Capita
$12~449~643 75~927 $163.97
t See Table 3.3
2 See Table 2.2
Cost per capita = total facility cost / existing population
Combined Park Improvements and Recreation Facilities. Table 3.6 totals the per-
capita costs for park improvements and recreation facilities, from the previous two
Table 3.6
Combined Cost per Capita
Cost
Component per Capita
Park Improvements $$10.94
Recreation Facilities $163.97
Total $674.90
1 See Tables 3.4 and 3.5
~ lO, 2003 MAXIMU$ Pas'e $-4
City of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Pa~ks and Recreation Facilities
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
In Table 3.7, the total cost per capita from Table 3.6 is converted into impact fees
per unit of development, by development type. To calculate fees per unit of devel-
opment, the per-capita cost is multiplied by the average number of people per
dwelling unit for each type of residential development.
Table 3.7
Impact Fees per Unit of Development - Park Improvements/Recreation Facilities
Development Dev Population Cost Impact Fee
Type Units ~ per Unit 2 per Capita 3 per Unit 4
Residential, Detached DU 3.3,$ $674.90 $2,260.92
Residential, Attached DU 2.40 $674.90 $1,619.77
DU = dwelling unit
See Table 2.1
See Table 3.6
Impact fee per unit = population per unit x cost per capita
PROJECTED REVENUE
Finally, the impact fees from Table 3.7 can be applied to future development to
project the total revenue that would be generated by those fees through buildout of
the study area, assuming futur, e development occurs as projected in Chapter 2 of
this study. It is important to note that most future development in Temecula is
covered by existing development agreements or vesting tentative subdivision maps,
and would not be subject to the fees calculated in this study. Those developments
may have agreed to construct parks or recreation facilities, or will pay fees in effect
at an earlier time.
Table 3.8 on the next page shows the projected revenue that would be generated if
the fees calculated in this chapter are applied to future residential development not '
subject to existing development agreements or vesting tentative maps.
/14ard; I0, 2003 /t,IAXIA4U$ Pg~'e ..;-5
City o£ Tem~ula o Impact £~ Study ?atl~ and Re~atlon £adlltl~
Table 3.8
Projected Revenue - Impact Fees for Park Improvements/Recreation Facilities
Development Dev Future Total Fees Projected
Type Units ~ Units z per Unit 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Detached DU 2,163 $2,260.92 $ 4,890,379
Residential, Attached DU 744 $1,619.77 $ 1,205,106
Total Revenue $ 6,095,486
DU = dwelling unit
Future residential development potentially subject to these fees
See Table 3.7
Projected revenue = furore units x total fees per unit
All costs used in this report are given in current dollars. To keep pace with chang-
ing price levels, the fees calculated above should be adjusted annually for inflation.
See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
IVlarch I0, 2003 A4AXIII4US Page 3-6
CID of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Open Space and Trail Development
CHAPTER 4
OPEN SPACE LAND AND TRAIL DEVELOPMENT
This chapter addresses open space land acquisition and trail development needed to
serve future development in Temecula. A separate fee will be calculated for each of
those facility types.
Information on existing and planned open space and trails used in this study is
based on the 2002 City of Temecula Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan
and on additional information provided by the Temecula Community Services De-
partment.
SERVICE AREA
The service area for the open space and trails impact fee analysis is the existing
City, which is the study area defined in Chapter 2 of this report. Because these fa-
cilities benefit the entire community, impact fees for open space and trails are
calculated on a citywide basis and applied to new development citywide.
The Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan calls for trails and bikeways to be
developed throughout the City. This study assumes that future trails will be sited in
a manner consistent with the intent of the Master Plan, so that trails will be rea-
sonably accessible to all future development that is subject to the fees. Open space
will not necessarily be dispersed throughout the City, but will be acquired in loca-
tions that benefit the entire community by providing for trails and passive recrea-
tion, preserving views, and/or protecting environmentally sensitive areas.
METHODOLOGY
This chapter calculates impact fees using the standard-based method discussed in
Chapter 1. Standard-based fees are based on a ratio of assets to population. As a
result, they are open-ended and do not depend on assumptions about the ultimate
limits of development in the City.
DEIVIAND VARIABLE
Virtually all local governments define the need for parks and recreation facilities,
including trails and open space, as a function of population. That is the case in
Temecula. Consequently, population is used as the demand variable in calculating
impact fees in this chapter. Because the fees are population-driven, they apply only
to residential development.
A'larch 10, 2003 ~ViAXIAdUS Pao~e 4-1
CI0, of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Open Space and Trail Development
LEVEL OF SERVICE
The City has not adopted numerical standards for open space or trails, although the
Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan does propose a system of trails and
bikeways for the City. The calcula-
tion of impact fees for open space
and trails in this chapter is based
on the existing ratios of City-
owned open space acreage and
miles of existing trails to popula-
tion. That approach eliminates the
need to address any existing defi-
ciencies relative to a specified stan-
dard, and ensures that impact fees
paid by future development do not
subsidize the provision of open
space and trails for the existing
community.
Table 4.1
Existing Open Space
Open Space Existing Open
Location Space Acres ~
Pala Community Park 12.0
Rancho California Sports Park 48.0
Veterans Park 10.0
Long Canyon Creek 1.5
Margarita Park 3.0
Roripaugh Ranch 201.0
Totals 275.5
Excludes developed portions of parks. Data provided
by the City of Temecula Community Services Dept.
Open Space. Table 4.1 lists existing City-owned open space sites and their acreage.
Table 4.2 shows the ratio of existing open space acreage to population. That ratio
is based on current population estimates, as shown in Table 2.2. It will be used to
calculate the impact fee for open space land acquisition.
Table 4.2
Ratio of Existing Open Space Acreage to Population
IExisting Open I
Space Acres t
275.5
1 See Table 4.1
2 See Table 2.2
Existing I
Population 2
75~927
Acres per Acres per 1,000
Capita Residents
0.0036285 3.6285
Trails. Table 4.3, on the next page, lists existing improved public trails in Temecula
with their length in miles. Although not all of those trails are on City-owned land,
they have all been improved by the City or by developers for public use.
IViarch 10, 2003 AdAXIAdUS Page 4.-2
¢1~ of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Open Space and Trail Development
Table 4.3
Existing Improved Public Trails
Existing Length
Public Trails (Miles)
Woodside Chantemar Trail ~ 0.41
Rancho California Trail ~ 0.71
Tradewinds Trail (DePortola E. of Butterfield) 2 1.00
Highlands Trail (Ynez/Santiago) 2 0.19
Santa Gertrudis Trail 3 2.28
Total Miles 4.59
Owned and improved by the City of Temecula; development stan-
dard similar to type MI trail as illustrated in the Trails and Bike-
ways Master Plan
Privately-owned; improved as part of an approved development
plan;development standard similar to trail type MI as illustrated
in the Trails and Bikeways Master Plan
Located on Riverside Co Flood Control property. The City has
paid for paving and construction of a pedestrial underpass for this
trail
Table 4.4 calculates existing miles of trails per capita, using the total miles of exist-
ing trails from Table 4.3 and the estimate of existing population from Table 2.2.
Table 4.4
Miles Per Capita - Existing Trails
IExisting Miles of
Trails ~
4.59
Existing I Existing Miles
Population 2 per Capita 3
75~927 0.000060
See Table 4.3
See Table 2.2
Miles per capita = existing miles / existing population
PER-CAPITA COST
Open Space. The existing level of service for open space in Temecula, in terms of
acres per 1,000 residents, is shown in Table 4.2. Table 4.5, on the next page, uses
,¢farch 10, 2003 A4AXIAffUS Page 4-$
City o£ Temecula - Impact F~ Study Open Space ancl Trail Development
the existing population ratio and an estimated average per-acre cost for open space
land acquisition to calculate the per-capita cost to provide additional open space
acreage needed to maintain the existing ratio as the City grows.
Table 4.5
Per Capita Cost - Open Space
Acres per I Cost per
Capita ~ I Acre 2
0.0036285 $501000
See Table 4.2
Estimate by the City of Temecula
Cost per capita = acres per capita x cost per acre
Cost per
Capita 3
$181.42
Trails. Table 4.6 shows the estimated average cost per capita to provide future
trails, using the miles-per-capita ratio from Table 4.4. The cost per mile shown in
Table 4.6 is based on a development standard defined as trail type M1 in the Multi-
Purpose Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, and assumes a 10-foot wide right-of-way.
Land acquisition cost is included in the estimated cost of trail development, at the
same per-acre cost as open space land.
Table 4.6
Per Capita Cost - Trails
Existing Miles Cost per Cost per
per Capita t Mile 2 Capita s
0.000060 $2531000 $15.29
See Table 4.4
Cost per mile estimated at $192,000 using data for type MI
improvements (see Trails and Bikeways Master Plan) plus
1.22 acres of land per mile for 10-foot trail width} using the
land cost from Table 4.5
Cost per capita = miles per capita x cost per mile
Table 4.7 on the next page shows the combined cost per capita for open space and
trails from Tables 4.5 and 4.6. That combined cost will be used in calculating im-
pact fees per unit of development.
Adarch 10, 2003 AdAXIA4U$ Pa~e
Clly o£Temecula - Impact Fee StudJI Open Space and Trail Development
Table 4.7
Combined Cost per Capita
Cost Cost per
Component Capita ~
Open Space $ 181.42
Trails $ 15.29
Total $ 196.72
See Tables 4.5 and 4.6
I/VIPACT FEE CALCULATION
In Table 4.8, the combined per-capita cost from Table 4.7 is converted into impact
fees per unit of development, by development type, for open space land acquisition
and trail development. To calculate fees per unit of development, the combined
per-capita cost for open space and trails is multiplied by the average number of
people per dwelling unit for each type of residential development.
Table 4.8
Impact Fee per Dwelling Unit - Open Space and Trails
Development Persons Cost per Impact Fee
Type per DU ~ Capita 2 per DU
Residential, Detached 3.35 $196.72 $659.00
Residential~ Attached 2.40 $196.72 $472.12
See Table 2.1
See Table 4.7
Impact fee per DU = cost per capita x persons per DU
PROJECTED REVENUE
Finally, the impact fees from Table 4.8 can be applied to future development to
project the total revenue that would be generated by those fees through buildout of
the study area, assuming future development occurs as projected in Chapter 2 of
this study. It is important to note that most fl~ture development in Temecula is
covered by existing development agreements or vesting tentative subdivision maps,
and would not be subject to the fees calculated in this study. Those developments
may have agreed to dedicate land and/or construct facilities, or will pay fees in ef-
fect at an earlier time.
A,l,~ch 10, 2003 A4AXIA4US P,l~e 4.-5
City of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Open Space and Trail Development
Table 4.9 shows the projected revenue that would be generated if the fees calcu-
lated in this chapter are applied to future development not subject to existing de-
velopment agreements or vesting tentative maps.
Table 4.9
Projected Revenue - Fees for Open Space and Trails
Development Dev Future Total Fees Projected
Type Units ~ Units 2 per Unit s Revenue 4
Residential, Detached DU 2,163 $659.00 $ 1,425,426
Residential~ Attached DU 744 $472.12 $ 3511259
Total Revenue $ 11776~685
DU = dwelling unit
Future residential development potentially subject to these fees
See Table 4.6
Projected revenue = future units x total fees per unit
All costs used in this report are given in current dollars. To keep pace with chang-
ing price levels, the fees calculated above should be adjusted annually for inflation.
See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
~ 10, 2003 tViAXIA4US Pa, ge
CiO, of Temecula - Impact fee Study Streets and Traffic Contol
CHAPTER 5
STREETS AND TRAFFIC CONTROL
This chapter of the report addresses street improvements and traffic control systems
required to serve future development in Temecula. Development-related street im-
provements and signals used to calculate impact fees in this analysis were identified
by the City of Temecula Public Works Department.
The improvements addressed in this section do not duplicate improvements cov-
ered by the Western Riverside Council of Governments Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program, and the impact fees calculated in this chapter are
intended to complement the TUMF.
SERVICE AREA
The service area for this impact fee analysis is the existing City, which is the study
area defined in Chapter 2 of this report. The improvements to be funded with im-
pact fees are on arterial streets and will handle citywide traffic. If areas within the
City's sphere of influence are annexed in the future, the cost of providing street
improvements to serve development in those areas is expected to be addressed in
development agreements.
METHODOLOGY
This chapter calculates impact fees using the plan-based method discussed in Chap-
ter 1. Plan-based fees are calculated by allocating costs for a set of improvement
needs to a certain set of land uses to be served by the improvements. That method
results in a proportional allocation of costs, so that the share of street improvement
costs charged to a particular development project equals the share of new traffic
generated by that project. Thus, if a project that generates 1% of the traffic added
by new development, it will be allocated 1% of the total cost of improvements
needed to serve new development.
DEMAND VARIABLE
The demand variable used to allocate improvement costs for street improvements in
this study is peak-hour trips (PHT) per unit of development. Peak-hour trips are
used instead of average daily trips (ADT) because peak traffic is more critical in de-
termining the amount of system capacity required to maintain a certain level of ser-
vice.
Adarch I0, 200.; A4AXIAfUS
CiG' of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Street~ a~d Tragic Contol
Trip generation rates are used in this analysis to project traffic volumes for broad
categories of development, and are based on p.m. peak-hour rates from the San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) publication, Traffic Generators.
The resulting traffic volumes are used to establish an overall average improvement
cost per peak hour trip for all future development. For those categories of devel-
opment (e.g., commercial) that encompass a variety of uses with different trip gen-
eration characteristics, the trip generation rates used in this study are intended to
reflect average impacts for the category as a whole.
It should be emphasized that the trip generation rate assigned to any category of
development in this study may be different from the rate for a specific type of de-
velopment in that category. That is especially true of commercial development.
When imposing impact fees on a particular project, the City should use a rate that
reflects, as nearly as possible, the actual trip generation characteristics, which is to
say the actual impact, of that project.
When assessing the trip generation characteristics of particular development pro-
jects in order to determine an appropriate impact fee, the City may use ¢,ther
sources of trip generation data to define the specific impacts of the project, includ-
ing the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication, Trip Generation.
£EVEL OF SERVICE
The Circulation Element of Temecula's General Plan defines level of service (LOS)
D as the standard for Temecula's street system. Level of service designations used
by tranportation planners range from LOS A (free traffic flow, insignificant delays
at intersections) to LOS F (forced flow, stop and go traffic, excessive delays at in-
tersections). LOS D is described as reaching the upper limit of stable flow ce.ndi-
tions with traffic volumes reaching 90% of capacity. At that level of service, inter-
sections experience significant congestion and vehicles may have to wait through
more than one cycle at signalized intersections.
FA CIL ITY NEEDS
The Temecula Public Works Department has developed a list of street improve-
ments and traffic control systems needed to serve future development within the
existing City boundaries. Table 5.1 on the next page lists the street improvements
addressed in the impact fee analysis provides a cost estimate for each improvement.
Table 5.1 also shows the estimated percentage of each street improvement needed
to serve future development. More detailed information on the improvement pro-
jects is provided in Appendix A. In addition to the street improvements, the De-
partment has identified a need for 59 additional traffic signals at an estimated cost
of $8,850,000, plus 143,500 linear feet of signal interconnect cable and conduit at
A4am_h I0, 2005 A4AXIA4U$ Page 5-2
City o£ Temecula - Impact Fee Study $treet~ and TrafEc Contol
a cost of $2,700,000. The total estimated cost of signals and the interconnect sys-
tem amounts to $11,550,000.
Table 5.1
Development-Related Street Improvement Projects
Estimated New Dev New Der
Roadway Project Cost Share Cost Share
Business Park Drive $ 102,078 75% $ 76,559
Butterfield Stage Road $ 1,408,156 100% $ 1,408,156
Commerce Center Drive $ 110,850 75% $ 83,138
DePortola Road $ 1,863,061 100% $ 1,863,061
Del Rio $ 81,480 100% $ 81,480
Diaz Road $ 6,060,307 60% $ 3,636,184
Enterprise Circle West $ 65,034 100% $ 65,034
Front Street $ 408,973 100% $ 408,973
Highway 79 South $ 124,164 100% $ 124,164
Jedediah Smith Road $ 894,700 40% $ 357,880
Jefferson Avenue $ 3,054,577 50% $ 1,527,289
La Paz $ 2,500,000 100% $ 2,500,000
La Serena Way $ 83,063 100% $ 83,063
Margarita Road $ 1,072,219 80o,{'$ 857,776
Meadows Parkway $ 1,154,867 70°A $ 808,407
Moraga Road $ 5,625 100°~ $ 5,625
Nicolas Road $ 3,702,346 75% $ 2,776,759
Overland Drive $ 8,047,886 75% $ 6,035,915
Pauba Road $ 2,884,962 100°/ $ 2,884,962
Rainbow Canyon Road $ 8,286,500 65% $ 5,386,225
Rancho California Road $ 2,422,428 60% $ 1,453,457
Rancho Vista Road $ 468,158 100%0 $ 468,158
RanchoWay , $ 28,643,480 100% $ 28,643,480
Rider Way $ 3,000 0% $
Santiago Road $ 1,265,866 1000z $ 1,265,866
Solana Way $ 9,000 0% $
Via Montezuma $ -35,160 100%o $ 35,160
Vincent Moraga $ 288,342 100% $ 288,342
Via Rio Temecula $ 9,000,000 100°,4 $ 9,000,000
Winchester Road $ 2,773,484 80% $ 2,218,787
Ynez Road $ 7~364~592 100% $ 7~364~592
Total $ 94~184~358 87% $ 81~708~489
See Appendix A for more detail on improvements
A4arch 10, 2003 IPlAXIA4U$ P4ge
ClOa o£1'emecula - lml~act Fee Study Streets and Traffic Contol
AVERAGE C03-1'PER PEAK HOUR TRIP
In order to allocate the cost of development-related improvements to future de-
velopment projects in proportion to their impacts on the street system, the total
cost of those improvements is averaged over the projected total number of addi-
tional peak hour trips to be generated by new development in the study area. Ta-
ble 5.2 shows the calculation of an average cost per peak hour trip for street im-
provements and signal/interconnect projects.
Table 5.2
Average Cost per Peak Hour Trip
Cost of Improvements Estimated Added Peak Cost per Peak
Related to Future Dev Cost Hour Trips 3 Hour Trip 4
Street Improvements~ $ 81,708,489 59,636 $ 1,370.12
Sisnals/Interconnect 2 $ 11~550~000 59~636 $ 193.68
$ 93~258~489 $9~636 $ 1~563.80
Costs estimated by the Temecula Public Works Department; See Table $.1
Costs estimated by the Temecula Public Works Department
See Table 2.3
Average cost per peak hour trip = estimated cost / added peak hour trips
IA/1PACT FEE CAL¢I. JLATION
The average cost per peak-hour trip, from Table 5.2 is used to calculate the impact
fee per unit of development for each category of development. Table 5.3 on the
next page shows the resulting impact fees per unit of development for each cate-
gory, calculated as the number of peak-hour trips per unit of development multi-
plied by the average cost per peak hour trip.
A4arch 10, 2005 A4AXIA41.1$ P,,~,~e $.a~
~y of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Streets and Tra~tc Contol
Table 5.3
Street Impact Fees per Unit of Development
Development Dev Pk Hr Trips Cost per Pk Impact Fee KSF per Non-Res Fee
Type Units ~ per Unit 2 Hr Trip 3 per Unit 4 Acre s per KSF 6
Residential, Detached DU 1.00 $1,563.80 $ 1,563.80 N/A N/A
Residential, Attached DU 0.70 $1,563.80 $ 1,094.66 N/A N/A
Professional Office Acre 40.00 $1,563.80 $ 62,551.91 17.42 $3,589.99
Business Park/Light Ind Acre 24.00 $1,563.80 $ 37,531.15 17.42 $2,153.99
Commercial, Retail Acre 50.00 $1,563.80 $ 78,189.89 13.07 $5,983.31
Commercial, Highway Acre 50.00 $1,563.80 $ 78,189.89 ~ 13.07 $5,983.31
Commercial, Service Acre 35.00 $1,563.80 $ 54,732.92 13.07 $4,188.32
Public/Institutional Acre 10.00 $1~563.80 $15~637.98 10.89 $1~435.99
DU ~ dwelling unit
See Table 2.1
See Table 5.2
Impact fee per unit of development ~ peak hour trips per unit of development x cost per peak hour trip
See Table 2.1
Impact fee per KSF ~ impact fee per acre / KSF per acre
Also shown in Table 5.3 is the conversion of non-residential impact fees from a
per-acre basis to a building area basis. Per-acre fees for non-residential categories
are converted to fees per thousand square feet (KSF) of building area using conver-
sion factors from Table 2.1. If desired, fees for street improvements and signals can
separated. Impact fees for street improvements represent 87.6% of the fees shown
in Table 5.3. Impact fees for signals represent 12.4%
As previously noted, the peak hour trip generation rate assigned to a particular
category of development in this study is intended to represent the entire category,
based on the expected mix of development types in that category. For the residen-
tial categories, the fees shown in Table 5.3 should be appropriate for virtually all
projects in a category. But for non-residential categories, because they cover a wide
range of potential development types, the fees shown in Table 5.3 may not be ap-
propriate for a particular project.
When applying the fees to an actual project, the City should review the trip genera-
tion characteristics of that project. If necessary a project-specific impact fee can be
calculated for that project. The formula for calculating a project-specific impact fee
is as follows:
No. of Development Units in Project x Trips per Dev. Unit x Cost per Trip
Aqarch 10, 2003 i~OC~4~IS Pa~e 5-$
CIG' o£ Temecula - lml~ct Fee Study Street5 and Trat?tc Contol
See the Implementation Chapter for recommendations on adoption of fees to facili-
tate this approach.
PRO]ECl'ED REVENUE
Finally, the impact fees from Table 5.3 can be applied to future development to
project the total revenue that would be generated by those fees through buildout
of the study area, assuming future development occurs as projected in Chapter 2
of this study. It is important to note that most future development in Temecula
is covered by existing development agreements or vesting tentative subdivision
maps, and would not be subject to the fees calculated in this study. Those devel-
opments may have agreed to dedicate land and construct improvements, or will
pay. fees in effect at an earlier time. Table 5.4 shows projected revenue that
would be generated if fees calculated in this chapter are applied to future devel-
opment not subject to existing development agreements or vesting tentative maps.
Table 5.4
Projected Revenue - Street Impact Fees
Development Dev Future Impact Fee per Projected
Type Units ~ Units 2 Unit 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Detached DU 2,163 $ 1,563.80 $ 3,382,495
Residential, Attached DU 744 $ 1,094.66 $ 814,426
Professional Office Acre 229.0 $ 62,551.91 $ 14,324,388
Business Park/Light Ind Acre 554.5 $ 37,531.15 $ 20,809,520
Commercial, Retail Acre 160.2 $ 78,189.89 $ 12,525,238
Commercial, Highway Acre 67.0 $ 78,189.89 $ 5,238,723
Commercial, Service Acre 129.1 $ 54,732.92 $ 7,063,284
Public/Institutional Acre 84.0 $ 15~637.98 $ 1~313~903
Total $ 65~471~976
DU = dwelling unit
Furore development potentially subject to these fees
See Table 5.3
Proiected revenue = future units of development x impact fee per unit of development
The costs used in this report are given in current dollars. To keep pace with chang-
ing price levels, the fees calculated above should be indexed, or adjusted annually
for inflation. See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
In the event that developers construct any of the improvements used as the basis for
these impact fees, the cost of that right-of-way and/or construction should be cred-
ited against the traffic impact fees charged to that project.
114am_~ 10, 200..; ~bl4U$ Page 5..6
City of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Libraries
CHAPTER 6
LIBRARIES
This chapter addresses libraries needed to serve future development in Temecula.
Information on library facilities was obtained from the 2002 Temecula Public Li-
brary Needs Assessment and from the Temecula Community Services Department.
The existing Temecula branch library is owned and operated by the Riverside
County Library System. At present, Temecula is underserved in terms of the both
size of the existing branch library and its location at the north end of the City.
Temecula plans to build three more libraries in the future--a main Temecula li-
brary and two more branches. However, the impact fee analysis is based on the ex-
isting ratio of library facilities and materials to population.
SERVICE AREA
The service area for the impact fee analysis is the existing City, which is the study
area defined in Chapter 2 of this report. (The existing service area for the Temec-
ula branch library extends beyond the City, and that fact must be recognized in cal-
culating the existing level of service, below.) The facilities to be constructed with
impact fees will serve the entire community and library impact fees will be calcu-
lated on a citywide basis and applied to new development in all parts of the City.
METHODOLOGY
This chapter calculates impact fees using the standard-based method discussed in
Chapter 1. Standard-based fees are open-ended. Fees calculated in this chapter
are based on a ratio of facilities to users and do not depend on assumptions about
the ultimate limits of development in the City.
DE/VIAND VARIABLE
Virtually all local governments define the need for libraries as a function of popula-
tion, and that is the case in Temecula. Consequently, population is used as the de-
mand variable in calculating impact fees for these facilities. Because the fees are
population-driven, they apply only to residential development.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
The Temecula General Plan references a Riverside County Library System standard
of 0.5 square feet of library space and 1.2 volumes of library materials per capita as
the desired library standard for Temecula. However, the calculation of impact fees
for libraries in this chapter is based on the existing ratio of library facility space and
March 10, 2003 AdAXIMUS Pa~e 6-1
City o£ Temecula - Impact Fee Study Libraries
materials to population. Because the existing Temecula branch library serves some
population outside the City, that population must be included in calculating the ex-
isting level of service. Table 6.1 shows the calculation of service levels for existing
library building space and materials, relative to the estimated population of the. ser-
vice area, including population outside Temecula in the unincorporated portion of
Riverside County served by the Temecula branch library. (The City of Murrieta
has its own City library, so the population of Murrieta is not included in the service
area population.)
Table 6.1 also shows additional library space to be constructed by the City with
funds currently available from impact fees and money pledged by Riverside County
and Friends of the Library.
Table 6.1
Existing Ratio of Library Building Area and Materials to Population
Existing Service Area Units per
Cost Component Units Units ~ Population 2 Capita
Existing Temecula Library Space Square Feet 15,300 79,927 0.19
City-funded Additional Library Space Square Feet 18~663 75~927 0.25
Subtotal Library Space 0.44
Existing Collection [Volumes I 91~000 [ 79~927 1.14
"Funded Additional Library Space" is additional space that will be constructed with
available impact fee funds and pledged funds from Riverside County and Friends of the
Library. Available funds -- $5,972,000. Assumed cost of facilities -- $320.00 per square
foot including land.
For existing facilities, service area population = Cit~ population (see Table 2.2) plus estimated
4000 residents of the unincorporated service area. For City- funded additional facilities,
the service area population = the City population.
Units per capita -- existing units / service area population
PER-CAPITA COST
Table 6.2 shows the per-capita cost to provide library facilities and materials at the
current level of service to serve future development. Those per capita costs are
based on the per capita service levels from Table 6.1. The per-capita costs will be
used to calculate impact fees for library facilities and materials.
A4arcl; 10, 200_; tl4AX#VILI$ P~ge 6-2
City o£ Temecula - Impact F~ Study Lllararle$
Table 6.2
Cost per Capita - Library Facilities and Materials
Cost Existing Units Cost per Cost per
Component Units per Capita t Unit 2 Capita 3
Library Space Square Feet 0.44 $320.00 $139.91
Library Materials Volumes 1.14 $35.00 $39.85
Total Cost per Capita $179.76
See Table 6.1
Cost per square foot based on $2.25 for construction, $3.$ for land, $2.$ for
site development and $35 for furniture, fixtures and equipment. Cost per
volume of new materials includes purchase and processing.
Cost per capita = cost per unit x units per capita.
IA4PA CT FEE CAL CUL A TION
Below, the per-capita cost from Table 6.2 is converted into impact fees per unit of
development, by development type, for library facilities and materials. To calculate
fees per unit of development, the per-capita cost is multiplied by the average num-
ber of people per dwelling unit for each type of residential development. Table 6.3
shows the resulting impact fees per unit of development.
Table 6.3
Impact Fees per Unit of Development - Library Facilities and Materials
Development Dev Population Cost Impact Fee
Type Units t per Unit 2 per Capita 3 per Unit 4
Residential, Detached DU 3.35 $179.76 $602.19
Residential~ Attached DU 2.40 $179.76 $431.42
DU = dwelling unit
See Table 2.1
See Table 6.2
Impact fee per unit = population per unit x cost per capita
PROJECTED REVENUE
Finally, the impact fees from Table 6.3 can be applied to future development to
project the total revenue that would be generated by those fees through buildout of
the study area, assuming future development occurs as projected in Chapter 2 of
this study. It is important to note that most future development in Temecula is
covered by existing development agreements or vesting tentative subdivision maps,
A4arch 10, 2003 A4AXIA4US Page 6-3
~(y o£ Temecula - Impact Fee Study Libraries
and would not be subject to the fees calculated in this study. Those developments
will pay fees in effect at an earlier time.
Table 6.4 shows the projected revenue that would be generated if the fees calcu-
lated in this chapter are applied to future residential development not subject to ex-
isting development agreements or vesting tentative maps.
Table 6.4
Projected Revenue - Fees for Library Facilities and Materials
Development Dev Future Impact Fee Projected
Type Units Units 2 per Unit 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Detached DU 2,163 $602.19 $1,302,.537
Residenfial~ Attached DU 744 $431.42 $ 3201976
Total $11623~513
DU = dwelling unit
Furore residential development potentially subject to these fees
See Table 6.3
Projected revenue = future units x impact fee per unit
All costs used in this report are given in current dollars. To keep pace with chang-
ing price levels, the fees calculated above should be adjusted annually for inflation.
See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
Afarcb 10, 2003 A4AXIA4[.I$ Pa, ge
CRy of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Corporate Fadlltle~
CHAPTER 7
CORPORATE FA CILITIES
This chapter addresses corporate facilities (City Hall and maintenance facilities)
needed to serve future development in Temecula. Information on corporate facili-
ties was obtained from the Temecula Finance Department.
SERVICE AREA
The service area for the impact fee analysis is the existing City, which is the study
area defined in Chapter 2 of this report. Facilities needed to serve new develop-
ment in areas annexed in the future will be addressed in development agreements.
METHODOLOGY
This chapter calculates impact fees using the standard-based method discussed in
Chapter 1. Standard-based fees are open-ended. They are based on a ratio of fa-
cilities to users and do not depend on assumptions about the ultimate limits of de-
velopment in the City. All fees in this report are calculated in current dollars and
should be adjusted annually to reflect changes in facility costs.
DEA4AND VARIABLE
Because corporate facilities support a wide range of City functions, no single attrib-
ute of development is particularly useful in representing the impact of development
on the need for such facilities. This chapter uses one demand variable for City Hall
facilities and two separate demand variables for street and park maintenance facili-
ties, as discussed below.
City Hall Demand Variable. The 1996 development impact fee study prepared for
Temecula by David M. Griffith & Associates (now MAXIMUS) included a detailed
analysis of City Hall space assignments and the relationship of various line and
support functions to development. In the current study, the impact factors from
the 1996 study have been converted into acreage weighting factors that represent
the relative impacts of one-acre various types of development on the need for City
Hall space. See Chapter 2 for details.
Maintenance Facility Demand Variables. The City's maintenance facility is used
primarily to support two types of activities--street maintenance and park mainte-
nance. The analysis in this chapter considers separately the portions of the mainte-
nance facility used for those activities. Peak hour trip generation, the demand
variable for streets, is also used to represent the impact of development on the
street maintenance portion of the maintenance facility. Population, the demand
~ 10, 2003 ll4AXIA4US Pecge 7-1
City of Temecula - Impact Fee Study ~orporate Fadlltle~
variable used for parks, is also used to represent the impact of development on the
park maintenance portion of the maintenance facility.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
No numerical level-of-service standards have been adopted by the City for corpo-
rate facilities. This chapter establishes the existing level of service in terms of the
relationship between existing facilities and existing demand, and calculates impact
fees needed to maintain that level of service as future development occurs.
Tables 7.1 shows the City's existing corporate facilities and their estimated re-
placement cost. A major portion of the existing Maintenance Building is actually
being used as an annex to City Hall because space is not available to house all gen-
eral government functions in City Hall itself. For purposes of this analysis, space in
the Maintenance Facility being used as a City Hall Annex will be treated as City
Hall space. Table 7.1 also shows $1.2 million in cash from impact fee revenue that
is dedicated to future corporate facilities.
Table 7.1
Existing Corporate Facilities
Existing Est Bldg Repl Total Bldg Est Land
Facility Square Feet t i CosgSq Ft 2 Repl Cost Value s Total
EityHall 30,095 $300.00 $ 9,028,500 $ 900,000 $ 9,928,500
'Ma/ntenance BldgAdmin Space 12,798 $150.00 $ 1,919,700 $ 1,919,700
Cash on Hand for Future Facilities $ l~200t000
Subtotal City Hall Facilities 42fl93 $ 101948~200 $ 900~000 $137048~200
Street Maintenance Facilities 2,136 $200.00 $ 427,200 $ 165,802 $ 593,002
Park Maintenance Facilities 2?373 $200.00 $ 474~600 $ 184~198 $ 658~798
Subtotal MaintenanceFacilities 4~509 $ 901fl00 $ 350~000 $ 1~2517800
Totals 47t402 $ 11~850~000 $1~2507000 $14~300~000
Building area provided by the Temecula Finance Department
Estimated replacement cost per sq. ft. includes design, construction, FFE, and all project costs except land
Land value estimated by the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency
Table 7.2 on the next page shows the existing relationship between facilities and
demand for City Hall space. For convenience, that relationship is shown in terms
of the replacement cost of facilities. As discussed above, the demand variable used
in this analysis for City Hall is weighted acreage.
A4,wc.h I0, 2003 A4AXIA4US P~e 7-2
City o[ ~'emecu/a - Impact Fee Study Corporate lad#t/es
Table 7.2
Cost per Weighted Acre - Existing City Hall Facilities
Total Weighted Acres Cost per
Facility Cost ~ Existinl~ Dev 2 Weishted Acre
$1310481200 111047 $11181.19
1 See Table 7.1
2 See Table 2.2
3 Cost per weighted acre = total facility cost/weighted acres of
existing development
Table 7.3 shows the relationship between existing street maintenance facilities and
demand measured in terms of peak hour trips generated by existing development.
Table 7.3
Cost per Peak Hour Trip - Street Maintenance Facilities
Total ] Peak Hr Trips
Facility Cost ~ ] Existin$ Der 2
$593~002 92~766
Cost per
Pk Hr Trip
$6.39
See Table 7.1
See Table 2.2
Cost per peak hout trip = total facility cost/peak hour trips
generated by existing development
Table 7.4 shows the relationship between existing park maintenance facilities and
demand measured in terms of existing population.
Table 7.4
Cost per Capita - Park Maintenance Facilities
Total Existing
Facility COst 1 Population
$658~798 75~927
Cost per
Capita
$8.68
See Table 7.1
See Table 2.2
Cost per capita = total facility cost / existing population
~ 10, 2003 ,~IAXIA4US P~g'e 7-3
City o£ Tem~ula - Impact F~ Study Corporate Facilities
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
In the following three tables, the cost per unit of demand from each of the preced-
ing three tables is converted into a cost per unit of development for one component
of corporate facilities. Table 7.5 shows that conversion for city hall facilities.
Table 7.5
Impact Fees per Unit of Development - City Hall Facilities
Development Der Wtd Acres Cost per Fee per
Type Units ~ per Unit 2 Wtd Acre 3 Unit 4
Residential, Detached DU 0.28 $1,181.19 $ 336.20
Residential, Attached DU 0.15 $1,181.19 $ 173.98
Professional Office Acre 2.06 $1,181.19 $ 2,434.75
Business Park/Light Ind Acre 1.73 $1,181.19 $ 2,049.00
Commercial, Retail Acre 3.72 $1,181.19 $ 4,397.79
Commercial, Highway Acre 3.72 $1,181.19 $ 4,397.79
Commercial, Service Acre 2.14 $1,181.19 $ 2,528.25
Public/Institutional Acre 0.50 $17181.19 $ 590.59
~ DU = dwelling unit
2 Weighted acres per acre x units per acre. See Table 2.1
3 See Table 7.2
4 Fee per unit of development = weighted acres per acre x cost per weighted
acre / units per acre
Table 7.6 shows the fee per unit of development for the street maintenance portion
of the maintenance facility.
Table 7.6
Impact Fees per Unit of Development - Street Maintenance Facilities
Development Dev Peak Trips Cost per Fee per
Type Units ~ per Unit 2 Trip * Unit 4
Residential, Detached DU 1.00 $6.39 $ 6.39
Residential, Attached DU 0.70 $6.39 $ 4.47
Professional Office Acre 40.00 $6.39 $ 255.70
Business Park/Light Ind Acre 24.00 $6.39 $ 153.42
Commercial, Retail Acre 50.00 $6.39 $ 319.62
Commercial, Highway Acre 50.00 $6.39 $ 319.62
Commercial, Service Acre 35.00 $6.39 $ 223.74
Public/Institutional Acre 10.00 $6.39 $ 63.92!
DU = dwelling unit
See Table 2.1
See Table 7.3
Fee per unit of development = peak hour trips per unit x cost per peak hr trip
Adam_h 10, 2003 AffAXIAfUS Page
City of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Corporate £adlltles
Table 7.7 shows the fee per unit of development for the park maintenance portion
of the maintenance facility.
Table 7.7
Impact Fees per Unit of Development - Park Maintenance Facilities
Development Dev Population Cost per Fee per
Type Units ~ per Unit 2 Capita 3 Unit 4
Residential, Detached DU 3.35 $8.68 $ 29.07
Residential, Attached DU 2.40 $8.68 $ 20.82
Professional Office Acre 0.00 $8.68 $
Business Park/Light Ind Acre 0.00 $8.68 $
Commercial, Retail Acre 0.00 $8.68 $
Commercial, Highway Acre 0.00 $8.68 $
Commercial, Service Acre 0.00 $8.68 $
Public/Institutional Acre 0.00 $8.68 $
~ DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 2.1
3 See Table 7.4
4 Fee per unit of development = population per unit x cost per capita
Table 7.8 sums the fees per unit of development from the previous three tables to
arrive at the total fee per unit of development for all corporate facilities.
Table 7.8
Impact Fees per Unit of Development - Total
Development Dev Total Fee KSF Fee per
Type Units ~ per Unit 2 per Acre s KSF s
Residential, Detached DU $ 371.66 N/A N/A
Residential, Attached DU $ 199.28 N/A N/A
Professional Office Acre $ 2~690.45 17.42 $ 154.41
Business Park/Light Ind Acre $ 2,202.42 17.42 $ 126.40
Commercial, Retail Acre $ 4,717.42 13.07 $ 360.99
Commercial, Highway Acre $ 4,717.42 13.07 $ 360.99
Commercial, Service Acre $ 2,751.98 13.07 $ 210.59
Public/Institutional Acre $ 654.52 10.89 $ 60.10
DU = dwelling unit
Sum of fees per unit from Tables 7.5, 7.6, and 7.7
1,000 sq. ft. of building area (KSF) per acre for non-residential development
types. See Table 2.1
For comparison with existing fees, non-residential fees are converted from an
amount per acre into an amount per KSF
Il'larch 10, 2003 A4AXIMUS Page 7-$
CI(v of Temecula - Impact £ee Study Corporate Facilities
PROJECTED REVENUE
Finally, the impact fees from Table 7.8 can be applied to future development to
project the total revenue that would be generated by those fees through buildout of
the study area, assuming future development occurs as projected in Chapter 2 of
this study. It is important to note that most future development in Temecula is
covered by existing development agreements or vesting tentative subdivision maps,
and would not be subject to the fees calculated in this study. Those developments
will pay fees in effect at an earlier time. Table 7.9 shows projected revenue that
would be generated if fees calculated in this chapter are applied to future develop-
ment not subject to existing development agreements or vesting tentative maps.
Table 7.9
Projected Revenue - Fees for Corporate Facilities
Development Dev Future Impact Fee Projected
Type Units 1 Der Units 2 per Unit ~ Revenue 4
Residential, Detached DU 2,163 $ 371.66 $ 803,904
Residential, Attached DU 744 $ 199.28 $ 148,265
Professional Office Acre 229.0 $ 2,690.45 $ 616,113
Business Park/Light Ind Acre 554.5 $ 2,202.425 1,221,155
Commercial, Retail Acre 160.2 $ 4,717.42 $ 755,683
Commercial, Highway Acre 67.0 $ 4,717.42 $ 316,067
Commercial, Service Acre 129.1 $ 2,751.98 $ 355,143
Public/Institutional Acre 84.0 $ 654.52 $ 54~993
Total $ 4~271~322
DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 square feet of building area
Future residential development potentially subject to these fees
See Table 7.8
Projected revenue = future development units x impact fee per unit
All costs used in this report are given in current dollars. To keep pace with chang-
ing price levels, the fees calculated above should be adjusted annually for inflation.
See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
Adarch 10, 2003 A,'IAXIAdUS Page 7-6
City of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Fire Department Fad#ties and Equipment
CHAPTER 8
FIRE FA CIL1TIES AND EQUIPMENT
This chapter addresses impact fees for fire protection facilities and equipment
needed to serve future development in Temecula. The Riverside County Fire De-
partment (RCFD) provides fire protection and emergency medical first responder
services to the City through a cooperative agreement. RCFD also serves unincor-
porated portions of Riverside County surrounding Temecula.
RCFD currently staffs four fire stations in Temecula: Station 12 on Mercedes Street
in Old Town, Station 73 on Enterprise Circle West, Station 84 on Pauba Road, and
temporary Station 92 in the Wolf Valley area. Station 83 on Winchester Road
north of Temecula also serves a portion of the City at present.
Station 12 (which is owned by the State) houses one municipal engine staffed by
three firefighters to serve the City. (The Department also operates two state-
funded brush engines from this station to respond to wild land fires in the area.)
Station 73 houses an engine, a ladder truck, and a paramedic unit, with a total of
nine staff. Station 83 and temporary Station 92 each house an engine and three
staff. Station 84 houses one engine and a paramedic unit with five staff.
As is the case for most fire departments, the bulk of the calls received by RCFD in
Temecula are medical calls. Fire calls make up less than twenty percent of total re-
sponses.
SERVICE AREA
The study area addressed in this analysis is the existing City. The entire study area
will be treated as a single service area for purposes of calculating fire impact fees,
because fire protection and emergency medical services are provided to the entire
City by an integrated system of facilities, equipment, and personnel. Although in-
dividual fire stations are assigned first-due responsibility for designated areas, de-
velopment in any part of the City depends on the whole system for protection.
While each fire station houses at least one engine company, more specialized
equipment such as ladder trucks, are not available in every station. A standard first
alarm response to a fire call requires more than one company at current staffing
levels. Furthermore, when one company is called out, other companies may have
to move to provide coverage in case of additional calls. For all of those reasons,
impact fees for Fire Department facilities and equipment are calculated on a city-
wide basis.
~ 10, 2005 A4AXIA4U$ Page ~-1
Cl~y of Temecula - Impact fee Study kYre Depar~nent £adlltles and Equipment
Because of uncertainty regarding future annexations, the City's sphere of influence
is not included in this analysis. The City anticipates that the impact of such an-
nexations, if they occur, would be addressed in development agreements.
METHODOLOGY
This chapter calculates impact fees for Fire Department facilities and equipment
using the plan-based method discussed in Chapter 1. Plan-based fees are closed-
ended, meaning that they depend on assumptions about both future facilities and
future development in the study area. Unlike some other plan-based calculations in
this report, the fire impact fees are calculated on a "buy-in" basis. That is, the fees
represent future development's proportionate share of all existing and future facili-
ties and equipment needs. That approach is used here because fire protection is
supported by an entire system of facilities and equipment, and it is not possible to
identify certain facilities or equipment that serve future development as opposed to
existing development. Using that approach ensures that both existing and future
development share in capital costs for fire protection in proportion to the demand
they create. These impact fees are calculated in current dollars and should be ad-
justed annually to reflect changes in facility costs.
DEMAND VARIABLE
In this chapter, demand for Fire Department services is measured in terms of devel-
oped acreage. Because the first-response coverage provided from a fire station is
limited by the distance that can be traveled within response time standards, the
number of fire stations needed to serve the City is determined primarily by the size
of the area to be served. Logically, then, the attribute of development that is most
significant in determining facility needs is site area. Impact fees calculated in this
chapter are based on the net acreage of a development project.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Fire station locations are determined by the need to meet certain response time
standards. The City's response time standard for fire and medical emergency calls
is 5 minutes.
FACILITY AND EQUIPA4ENT NEEDS
In order to satisfy the desired response' time standard, Temecula will need to con-
struct several new fire stations as it grows. One existing fire station (Station 92) is
currently housed in temporary quarters at a temporary location. A permanent re-
placement station to be constructed by a developer under a development agreement
is in the works. In addition, RCFD expects that Station 12, an old state-owned fire
Adarch 10, 2003 AdAXIAdUS Page 8-2
City o£ Temecula - Impact Fee Study Fire Department Facllltle$ and Equipment
station currently used by RCFD in Old Town Temecula will be relocated out of the
City in the next few years. That station will have to be replaced.
Table 8.1 lists existing and future fire stations needed to serve existing and future
development within the City. All costs in Table 8.1 are in current dollars, so de-
preciated replacement cost is shown for existing stations and estimated construction
cost in current dollars is shown for future stations.
Table 8.1 shows four existing stations, including two that are fully funded but not
yet constructed. The replacement for Station 12 is shown as a future facility, as are
two other new fire stations and a training facility to be shared and jointly funded by
Temecula and the Riverside County Fire Department.
Table 8.1
Fire Department Facilities - Existing and Future
Existing or Funded Constr Bldg Repl Useful Bldg Depr Land Total
Facilities Date Cost t Life Ors) Repl Cost 2 Value 3 Re?l Value 4
Station 73 1988 $ 2,500,000 $0 $1,800,00C $360,000 $2,160,000
Station 84 1996 $ 2,500,000 $0 $2,200,00C $250,000 $2,450,000
Permanent Station 92 (Wolf Cr) s 2004 $ 2,800,000 50 $2,800,00~ $250,000 $3,050,000
RoripaughStation (City Share) ~ 2004 $1~600~000 50 $1~600~00~ $250~000 $1t850~000
Subtotals $9t400,000 $8~400t00C $1tll0~000 $9~510~000
Future Constr Est Bldg Est Land Est Total
Facilities Date Cost 7 Cost s Cost
Station 12 Replacement 2008 $ 2,800,000 $300,00C $3,100,000
East End Station (City Share) ~ 2006 $1,400,000 $150,00C $1,550,000
Promenade Station 2009 $ 2,800,000 $300,00~ $3,100,000
Trainin8 Center (City Share) lo 2009 $1~$00~000 $350~00~ $1~850~000
Subtotals $8~500~000 $1~100~00(~ $9~600~000
Totals $17,900~000 $2~210t00~ $19~110~000
Source: Temecala Fire Department
Replacement cost of existing buildings based on current cost of similar facilities
Existing building values &predated using straight line method.
Estimated current land value.
Total cost = sum of building cost and land cost.
Planned Station 92 is fully funded under a Development Agreement.
Planned Station at Roripaugh project is fully funded by a combination of City DIF funds, developer contribution and
Riverside County Fire Department Contribution. Amounts shown do not indude RCFD share.
Estimated building construction costs at current price levels.
Estimated land costs at current price levels.
The planned East End station is expected to be funded jointly by the City and the Riverside County Fire Dept.
~0 City share of future training center to be constructed jolnfly with Riverside County Fire Department. Includes
training props.
Mar~ 10, 2003 tl4AXIMUS Pa~e 8-3
Cl~y of Temecula - Impact fee Study Hre Department Facilities and Equipment
Table 8.2, on the next page, lists existing and future firefighting apparatus and
other vehicles needed to serve the City's fire protection needs. As with the facilities
in Table 8.1 existing apparatus is shown at depreciated replacement value. Esti-
mated acquisition cost in current dollars is shown for future apparatus. Some of
the apparatus shown is fully depreciated.
Table 8.2
Fire Department Equipment - Existing and Future
Existing Purchase Replacement Service Depreciated
Vehicle/Apparatus Date Cost t Life Ors) 2 Value 3
Truck73 1991 $ 800,000 20 $ 360,000
Engine 73 1993 $ 350,000 15 $ 140,000
MS-73 (Paramedic Squad) 2003 $ 150,000 10 $ 165,000
Engine 84 1993 $ 350,000 15 $ 140,000
Engine 84A 1978 $ 350,000 15 $
MS-84R (Paramedic Squad) 1999 $ 150,000 10 $ 105,000
MS-84 (Paramedic Squad) 2002 $ 150,000 10 $ 150,000
Engine 92 1993 $ 350,000 15 $ 140,000
Engine 12 1993 $ 350,000 15 $ 140,000
Engine 12R 1985 $ 350~000 i 15 $
' Subtotal $ 3~350~000 I $1~060~000
Future Vehicle/ Purchase Estimated
Apparatus Needs Date Cost ~
Fire Chiefs Vehicle 2003 $ 40,000
Prevention Specialist Vehicle 2003 $ 20,000
Planned Station Engine 2004 $ 350,000
Planned Station Squad 2004 $ 200,000
Planned Station Engine 2004 $ 350,000
Planned Station Engine 2009 $ 350,000
Reserve Engine 2004 $ 350,000
Reserve Engine 2008 $ 400~000
Subtotal $210601000
Total $3~120~000 i
Source: Temecula Fire Department
Estimated current replacement cost of apparatus
Estimated useful service life of item
Depreciated value using straight-line method
COST PER ACRE
Table 8.3 on the next page summarizes costs for facilities and apparatus from the
previous two tables. It also calculates the cost per net acre for all facilities and ap-
paratus needed to serve existing and future development in the City. That per-acre
cost is the basis for the impact fees calculated in this chapter.
IVlarch 10, 2003 AdAXIAdUS Pa~e 84
City o£ Temecula - Impact Fee Study
Fire Department Fadlltles and Equipment
By dividing the cost of all existing and future fire protection facilities and equip-
ment in the City by total developable acreage in the City, this analysis allocates fire
protection costs to existing and future development on an equivalent basis. To the
extent that revenue from these impact fees is not sufficient to fund future facilities,
the City will have to turn to other sources of revenue to make up the difference.
Table 8.3
Average Cost per Net Acre - Fire Facilities/Apparauts
Facilities/Equip City Dev Cost
Type Cost t Net Acres 2 Per Acre 3
Existing Facilities $ 9,$10,000 13,438 $ 706.67
Future Facilities $ 9,600,000 13,458 $ 713.36
Existing Apparatus $ 1,060,000 13,438 $ 78.77
Future Apparatus $ 2~060~000 13~458 $ 153.07
Totals $ 22~230~00o 13~458 $11651.87
See Tables 8.1 and 8.2 for facility and vehicle/apparatus cost
Projected net developed acres in City at buildout. See Table 2.4
Cost per net developed acre -- total cost / developed net acres
IAdPA CT FEE CALCULATION
In Table 8.4, on the next page, the cost per acre from Table 8.3 is converted into
impact fees per unit of development, by development type. To make that conver-
sion, the cost per acre is divided by the number of units per acre for each type of
development. Note that, since acres are used as the units of development for all
non-residential development types, the per-acre fee is equal to the per-unit fee for
non-residential development. For consistency with other chapters in this report,
impact fees for residential development are converted to a cost per dwelling unit,
based on existing residential densities for each category. In practice, the City could
choose to apply this impact fee to residential development on a per-acre basis.
A~larch 10, 2003 AdAXIA4U$ Page 8-5
CiO~ of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Fire Department Facilities and Equipment
Table 8.4
Impact Fees per Unit of Development - Fire Facilities and Equipment
Development Dev Cost per Units per Impact Fee KSF per Non-Res Fee
Type Units ~ Acre 2 Acre 3 per Unit 4 Acre s per KSF 6
Residential, Detached DU $1,651.87 3.51 $470.17 N/A N/A
Residential, Attached DU $1,651.87 7.57 $218.18 N/A N/A
Professional Office Acre $1,651.87 1.00 $1,651.87 17.42 $94.80
Business Park/Light Ind Acre $1,651.87 1.00 $1,651.87 17.42 $94.80
Commercial, Retail Acre $1,651.87 1.00 $1,651.87 13.07 $126.41
Commercial, Highway Acre $1,651.87 i 1.00 $1,651.87 13.07 $126.41
Commercial, Service Acre $1,651.87 1.00 $1,651.87 13.07 $126.41
Public/Institutional Acre $1~651.87 1.00 $1~651.87 10.89 $151.69
DU = dwelling unit
See Table 8.3
See Table 2.1
Impact fee per unit of development = cost per acre / units per acre
1,000 square fee of building area (KSF) per acre for non-residential development types. See Table 2.1
For comparison with existing fees, non-residential fees are converted from an amount per acre
into an amount per KSF
PROJECTED REVENUE
Finally, the impact fees from Table 8.4 can be applied to future development to
project the total revenue that would be generated by those fees through buildout of
the study area, assuming future development occurs as projected in Chapter 2 of
this study. It is important to note that most future development in Temecula is
covered by existing development agreements or vesting tentative subdivision maps,
and would not be subject to the fees calculated in this study. Those developments
may have agreed to dedicate land, or will pay fees in effect at an earlier time. Table
8.5 on the next page shows projected revenue that would be generated if fees calcu-
lated in this chapter are applied to future development not subject to existing de-
velopment agreements or vesting tentative maps.
The projected revenue from these fees, as shown in Table 8.5 is substantially less
than the total cost of planned future fire protection facilities and equipment. It
should be noted that some of the revenue from the "Public/Institutional" develop-
ment category may not be collected because the City may not impose most impact
fees on schools or state or county facilities. The City currently has approximately
$650,000 of fire impact fee revenue on hand. Most of that has been committed to
facilities shown in this chapter as "funded" and treated as existing. To the extent
that any previously collected impact fee revenue remains available, it can be used to
)'darch 10, 2003 AdA.XIMUS Page 8-6
CRy o£Ternecula - Impact Fee Study Fire Department £acllltle~ and Equipment
make up the shortfall between the cost of future facilities and the revenue gener-
ated by these fees.
Table 8.5
Projected Revenue - Fire Impact Fees
Development Dev Future Impact Fee Projected
Type Units ~ Dev Units 2 per Unit 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Detached DU 2,163 $470.17 $1,016,982
Residential, Attached DU 744 $218.18 $162,327
Professional Office Acre 229.0 $1,651.87 $378,278
Business Park/Light Ind Acre 554.5 $1,651.87 $915,894
Commercial, Retail Acre 160.2 $1,651.87 $264,613
Commercial, Highway Acre 67.0 $1,651.87 $110,675
Commercial, Service Acre 129.1 $1,651.87 $213,173
Public/Institutional Acre 84.0 $1~651.87 $1381790
$ 31200~732
DU = dwelling unit
Furore residential development potentially subject to these fees
See Table 8.4
Projected revenue = future development units x impact fee per unit
It should be noted that all costs used in this report are given in current dollars. To
keep pace with changing price levels, the fees calculated above should be adjusted
annually for inflation. See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of
fees.
~ 10, 2003 A4AXIA4US Pa~e 8-7
¢l~y of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Police Fad#ties
CHAPTER 9
POLICE FA CILITIES AND VEHICLES
This chapter addresses police facilities and vehicles needed to serve future devel-
opment in Temecula. Information on police facilities was obtained from the Te-
mecula Police Department. The City of Temecula contracts with the Riverside
County Sheriff's Department for police services. At present, Sheriff's personnel as-
signed to the Temecula Police Department operate out of the Sheriff's Department
Southwest Station in Murrieta, north of Temecula. Staffing includes 73 sworn offi-
cers and 22 non-sworn employees.
SERVICE AREA
The service area for the impact fee analysis is the existing City, which is the study
area defined in Chapter 2 of this report. Impact fees for police facilities will be cal-
culated on a citywide basis and applied to new development in all parts of the exist-
ing City. This analysis will address only facilities needed to serve future develop-
ment within the existing City. Facilities needed to serve new development in areas
annexed in the future will be addressed in development agreements.
METHODOLOGY
This chapter calculates impact fees using the plan-based method discussed in Chap-
ter 1. Plan-based fees are calculated by allocating costs for a set of existing and/or
planned facilities to a certain set of land uses. Impact fees are based on the cost of
facilities needed to serve future development.
DEA4AND VARIABLE
In this chapter, demand for police services is measured by calls for service. De-
mand factors representing calls for service per unit of development per year are
used to represent demand for each type of development used in this study. See
Chapter 2 for a discussion of how those factors were established.
The demand factors are used in this analysis to allocate the cost of police facilities,
vehicles and equipment between existing and future development and among vari-
ous types of development.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Like most cities, Temecula has not adopted numerical level-of-service standards for
police facilities. However, existing facilities used by the Police Department are at
capacity, and additional space will be required to serve the department as it grows
IViatch 10, 2003 MAXIMU$ Page 9-1
CIO, of Temecula - lmlaact Fee Study Police £acJIltle~
to keep pace with new development in the City. Temecula plans to construct a new
Police substation in the City to augment the space available in the building now oc-
cupied by the Department and to house some police services that are location sensi-
tive. That facility is planned to increase the department's space in proportion to
the projected demand related to future development. The cost of the planned facil-
ity is allocated to various types of future development in this chapter, using calls for
service--the demand variable identified above. Table 9.1 shows the estimated cost
of the planned police substation.
Table 9.1
Planned Police Facility
Building
Size
17fi00 Sq Ft
Est Total
Est Total [ Est Land I Cost
Constr Cost 1 Cost 3
$ 4~500~000 $ 400~000 $ 4~900~000
1 Cost estimates include design, construction, project administration,
site development, perimeter enclosures and furn., fixtures, and equip.
2 Land cost assumes a 2 acre site at $200,000 per acre
COST PER CALL FOR SERVICE
Table 9.2 calculates the cost per call for service for the planned police substation.
Cost per call for service is calculated by dividing the total cost of the planned facil-
ity by the projected total calls for service that facility can support. The facility is
planned to serve all future development in the existing City, so the cost is divided
by the projected total calls for service from future development at buildout.
Table 9.2
Cost per Call for Service - Police Facility
Total I Added Calls ] Cost per
Facility Cost t for Service 2 Added Call
$4~900~000 13~177 $371.85
See Table 9.1
Projected calls for service added by new development. See Table 2.4
Cost per call for service = Total facility cost/added calls for service
POLICE VEHICLES
Patrol cars used by the Temecula Police Department are owned by the Sheriff's De-
partment, and the cost of those vehicles is covered by the City's contract with the
County. However, the City does own the following vehicles that are assigned to
the Police Department: 6 police motorcycles, two all-terrain vehicles, a pickup
~ 10, 2003 II4AXIMUS Page 9-2
O{y of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Police Fadlltle~
truck, a sports utility vehicle, and a mobile command post trailer. Total replace-
ment cost is estimated at $210,000.
This study assumes that, as the City grows, it will be necessary to expand that fleet
in proportion to the number of additional calls for service generated by new devel-
opment. To establish a basis for projecting the need for additional City-owned po-
lice vehicles, Table 9.3 calculates the average cost per call for service for the exist-
ing fleet. Note that, in this case, that cost is divided by the number of calls gener-
ated by existing development, because the current fleet serves only existing devel-
opment.
Table 9.3
Cost per Call for Service - City-owned Police Vehicles
Total
Repl Cost
$210~000
Existing
Calls for Service 2
23~723
Cost per
Call for Service
$8.85
Estimated replacement cost of existing city-owned police vehicles
See Table 2.2
Cost per call for service = Total cost / existing calls for service
IMPA CT FEE CALCULA lION
Table 9.4, on the next page, calculates impact fee per unit of development, by de-
velopment type, for police facilities and vehicles, using the combined cost per call
figures from the two preceding tables. Table 9.4 also converts non-residential im-
pact fees from a per-acre basis into a fee per 1,000 square feet (KSF) of building
area, to allow easier comparison with current impact fees.
IVlarch I0, 2003 AdAXIAdUS Pa~e 9-3
CiO~ o£ Temecula - Impact Fee Study Police Fadlltles
Table 9.4
Impact Fees per Unit of Development - Police Facilities and Vehicles
Development Dev Calls Cost per Impact Fee KSF Fee per
Type Units t per Unit 2 Call 3 per Unit 4 per Acre s KSF 6
Residential, Detached DU 0.32 $ 380.70 $ 197.97 N/A N/A
Residential, Attached DU 0.92 $ 380.70 $ 350.25 N/A N/A
Professional Office Acre 2.80 $ 380.70 $1,065.97 17.42 $ 61.18
Business Park/Light Ind Acre 2.20 $ 380.70 $ 837.54 17.42 $ 48.07
Commercial, Retail Acre 6.80 $ 380.70 ~ $ 2,588.77 13.07 $ 198.10
Commercial, Highway Acre 6.80 $ 380.70 $ 2,588.77 13.07 $ 198.10
Commercial, Service Acre 3.40 $ 380.70 $1,294.39 13.07 $ 99.05
Public/Institutional Acre 4.00 $ 380.70 $1fl22.81 10.89 $139.84
DU = dwelling unit
See Table 2.1
Sum of cost per call from Tables 9.2 and 9.3
Impact fee per unit of development = calls per unit x cost per call
1,000 sq. ft. of building area (KSF) per acre for non-residential development types. See Table 2.1
For comparison with existing fees, non-residantial fees are converted from an amount per acre
into an amount per KSF
PROJECTED REVENUE
Finally, the impact fees from Table 9.4 can be applied to future development to
project the total revenue that would be generated by those fees through buildout of
the study area, assuming future development occurs as projected in Chapter 2 of
this study. It is important to note that most future development in Temecula is
covered by existing development agreements or vesting tentative subdivision maps,
and would not be subject to the fees calculated in this study. Those developments
will pay fees in effect at an earlier time. Table 9.5 on the next page shows pro-
jected revenue that would be generated if fees calculated in this chapter are applied
to future development not subject to existing development agreements or vesting
tentative maps.
Afat<h 10, 2005 A4AXIA4LI$ Page 9-4
OOt o£ Temecula - lml~ct Fee Study Police Facilities
Table 9.5
Projected Revenue - Fees for Police Facilities and Vehicles
Development Dev Future Impact Fee Projected
Type Units ~ Dev Units: per Unit 3 Revenue a
Residential, Detached DU 2,163 $197.97 $ 428,198
Residential, Attached DU 744 $350.25 $ 260,583
Professional Office Acre 229.0 $1,065.97 $ 244,106
Business Park/Light Ind Acre 554.5 $837.54 $ 464,385
Commercial, Retail Acre 160.2 $2,588.77 $ 414,696
Commercial, Highway Acre 67.0 $2,588.77 $ 173,448
Commercial, Service Acre 129.1 $1,294.39 ' $ 167,041
Public/Institutional Acre 84.0 $11522.81 $ 1271946
Total $ 212801403
DU = dwelling unit
Future residential development potentially subject to these fees
See Table 9.4
Projected revenue = future development units x impact fee per unit
All costs used in this report are given in current dollars. To keep pace with chang-
ing price levels, the fees calculated above should be adjusted annually for inflation.
See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
ll4~nzh 10, 2005 tlffAXIAfU$ P, We 9-5
O~y of Temecula - Impact £ee Study Implementation
CHAPTER 10
IAdPL £MENTA TION
This chapter of the report contains recommendations for adoption and administra-
tion of a development impact fee program hased on this study, and for the inter-
pretation and application of impact fees recommended herein. Statutory require-
ments for the adoption and administration of fees imposed as a condition of devel-
opment approval are found in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections
66000 et seq.).
ADOPHON
The form in which development impact fees are adopted, whether by ordinance or
resolution, should be determined by the City Attorney. Typically, it is desirable
that specific fee amounts be set by resolution to facilitate periodic adjustments.
Procedures for adoption of fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act, including notice
and public hearing requirements, are specified in Government Code Section 66016.
By statute, those fees do not become effective until 60 days after final action by the
governing body. Actions establishing or increasing fees subject to the Mitigation
Act require certain findings, as set forth in Government Code Section 66001 and
discussed below and in Chapter 1 of this report.
Cost per Unit of Service vs. Impact Fee per Unit of Development. In general, im-
pact fees recommended in this report are calculated initially in terms of a cost per
unit of service, and then converted into fees per unit of development. Service units
are attributes of development (e.g., population, peak hour vehicle trips) that are
used to represent demand for various types of public facilities. To implement im-
pact fees, it is necessary to estimate how many units of service are required by a
certain development project. For the administrative convenience of the City, and
to facilitate cost estimating by builders and developers, it is useful to convert the
cost per unit of service into impact fees for common units of development, such as
dwelling units for residential development or square feet of building area for non-
residential development. All impact fee rates calculated in this study have been
converted into fees per unit of development for the land use categories defined in
this study.
However, wherever possible, we recommend adopting impact fees in terms of an
amount per unit of service rather than as a schedule of fees per unit of develop-
ment, because it affords the City flexibility in setting fees for projects whose de-
mand characteristics differ substantially from the assumptions used in this study
regarding demand per unit of development.
March I0, 2003 MAXIMI. IS Page 10-1
City of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Implementation
ADMINISTRA lION
Several requirements of the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sec-
tions 66000 et seq.) address the administration of impact fee programs, including
collection and accounting procedures, refunds, updates and reporting. References
to code sections in the following paragraphs pertain to the California Government
Code.
Imposition of Fees. Section 66001 of The Mitigation Fee Act states that, "in any
action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a de-
.velopment project by a local agency on or after January 1, 1989, the local agency
shall do all of the following:"
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use to which the fee is to be put; and
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the type of development on
which it is imposed;
The need for the public facility and the type of
development on which the fee is imposed
Section 66001 also requires that: "In any action imposing a fee as a condition of
approval of a development project by a local agency on or after January 1, 1989,
the local agency shall determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the
amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or the portion of the public fa-
cility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed."
Note that items I through 3 above must be included in findings supporting the es-
tablishment or increase of the fees, and that whenever the fee is imposed on a par-
ticular project, the City must meet all of those requirements plus the further re-
quirement regarding the relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of
facilities attributable to the project on which the fee is imposed.
The following findings are suggested to satisfy those requirements of The Mitiga-
tion Fee Act:
1. The City Council of the City of Temecula finds that the purpose of these
impact fees is to prevent a deterioration in the quality of public services to
residents and businesses in the City of Temecula as a result of new develop-
ment by requiring new development to bear a portion of the cost of addi-
tional capital assets needed to meet its service needs.
A4ea'ch 10, 2003 iViAXIA4U$ P,~ge 10-2
City of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Implementation
o
The City Council of the City of Temecula finds that revenue from these im-
pact fees will be used to construct facilities and acquire other capital assets
identified in the 2003 Impact Fee Study prepared for the City by MAXI-
MUS, Inc.~
Based on analysis presented in the 2003 Impact Fee Study prepared by
MAXIMUS, Inc., the City Council of the City of Temecula finds that there
is a reasonable relationship between:
ao
The use of the fee and the development type on which it is im-
posed, in that fees are proportional to the impacts of develop-
ment and will be used only to pay for facilities needed to ~erve
new development;
bo
The need for the facility and the type of development on which
the fee is imposed, in that the fee calculations are based on the
demand for capital facilities created by new development; and
The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the de-
velopment project, in that the fees are calculated by allocating fa-
cility costs in proportion to the impacts created by new develop-
ment.
In addition, Section 66006, as amended by SB 1693, provides that a local agency,
at the time it imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development pro-
ject, "... shall identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance."
Although that language can be interpreted as requiring the City to identify a spe-
cific facility, common practice is to identify the type of improvement the fee will be
used to finance, and to refer to the specific improvements identified in this study.
Collection of Fees. Section 66007, provides that a local agency shall not require
payment of fees by developers of residential projects prior to the date of final in-
spection, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. How-
ever, "utility service fees" (not defined) may be collected upon application for utility
service. In a residential development project of more than one dwelling unit, the
agency may choose to collect fees either for individual units or for phases upon fi-
nal inspection, or for the entire project upon final inspection of the first dwelling
unit completed.
~ According to Gov't Code §66001, the use of the fee may be specified in a capital improvement plan, the
General Plan, or other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged. We
recommend that this study be designated as the source of that information.
Adarch 10, 2003 AdAXIAdUS Pa~e
City of Teme~ul~ - lml~¢t F~ Study lmlNemen~#on
An important exception allows fees to be collected at an earlier time if they will be
used to reimburse the agency for expenditures previously made, or for improve-
ments or facilities for which money has been appropriated. The agency must also
have adopted a construction schedule or plan for the improvement. Statutory re-
strictions on the time at which fees may be collected do not apply to non-
residential development.
In cases where the fees are not collected upon issuance of building permits, Section
66007 provides that the city may require the property owner to execute a contract
to pay the fee, and to record that contract as a lien against the property until the
fees are paid.
Impact Fee Exemptions. In the event that a development project is found to have
no impact on facilities for which impact fees are charged, such project must be ex-
empted from the fees.
Impact Fee Waivers. In some cases, the City may desire to waive impact fees that
would otherwise apply to a project to promote goals such as affordable housing or
economic development. Such waivers are not recommended, and if granted may
not result in increased costs to other development projects. They are allowable
only if the City offsets the revenue lost as a result of the waiver from other sources
of revenue.
Credit for Improvements provided by Developers. If the City requires a developer,
as a condition of project approval, to construct facilities or improvements for
which impact fees have been, or will be, charged, the impact fee imposed on that
development project for that type of facility must be adjusted to reflect a credit for
the cost of the facilities or improvements constructed by the developer. Of course,
this requirement does not apply to any facilities constructed under a development
agreement.
In the event a developer offers to dedicate land or construct improvements in lieu
of paying impact fees, the City has the discretion to accept or reject such offers. If
impact fee credits provided in exchange for such consideration would exceed the
amount of the fees that would otherwise have been imposed on such developer(s),
the City may wish to execute a reimbursement agreement so that the excess credits
are not paid until impact fees are collected from other benefiting development.
Credit for Existing Development. If a project involves replacement, redevelopment
or intensification of previously existing development, impact fees should be applied
only to the portion of the project which represents a net increase in demand for
City facilities, as measured by the demand variables used in this study. Since resi-
dential service demand is normally estimated on the basis of demand per dwelling
unit, an addition to a single family dwelling unit typically would not be subject to
A4arc. h 10, 2003 A4AXIA4US Po, ge 10-4
City ol~'emecu/a - Impact Fee Study Implementation
an impact fee if it does not increase the number of dwelling units in the structure.
In any project that results in a net increase in the number of dwelling units, the
added units would be subject to impact fees. A similar approach can be used for
non-residential development.
Earmarking of Fee Revenue. Section 66006 mandates that fees be deposited "with
other fees for the improvement" in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a
manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the
local agency, except for temporary investments. Fees must be expended solely for
the purpose for which they were collected. Interest earned on the fee revenues
must also be placed in the capital account and used for the same purpose.
The language of the law is not clear as to whether depositing fees "with other fees
for the improvement" refers to a specific capital improvement or a class of im-
provements (e.g., street improvements). We are not aware of any city that has in-
terpreted that language to mean that funds must be segregated by individual pro-
jects. As a practical matter, that approach is unworkable because it would mean
that no pay-as-you-go project could be constructed until all benefitting develop-
ment had paid the fees. Common practice is to maintain separate funds or ac-
counts for impact fee revenues by facility category (i.e., streets, park improve-
ments), but not for individual projects. We recommend that approach.
Reporting. As amended by SB 1693 in 1996, Section 66006 requires that once
each year, within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year, the local agency must
make available to the public the following information for each separate account
established to receive impact fee revenues:
1. The amount of the fee;
2. The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund;
3. The amount of the fees collected and interest earned;
Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and
the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the per-
centage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees;
Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of a public
improvement will commence, if the City determines sufficient funds have
been collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement;
A description of each inter-fund transfer or loan made from the account or
fund, including interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the im-
provement on which the transfer or loan will be expended;
A4arch 10, 2003 /14AXIA4U$ P4ge 10-5
City of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Implementation
7. The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to Section 66001,
paragraphs (e) and (f).
That information must be reviewed by the City Council at its next regularly sched-
uled public meeting, but not less than 15 days after the statements are made public.
Findings and Refunds. Prior to the adoption of Government Code amendments
contained in SB 1693, a local agency collecting impact fees was required to expend
or commit the fee revenue within five years or make findings to justify a continued
need for the money. Otherwise, those funds had to be refunded. SB 1693 changed
that requirement in material ways.
Now, Section 66001 requires that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first de-
posit of any impact fee revenue into an account or fund as required by Section
66006, and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the follow-
ing findings for any fee revenue that remains unexpended, whether committed or
uncommitted:
1. Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put;
2. Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose
for which it is charged;
3. Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financ-
ing of incomplete improvements for which impact fees are to be used;
Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to com-
plete financing of those improvements will be deposited into the appropriate
account or fund.
Those findings are to be made in conjunction with the annual reports discussed
above. If such findings are not made as required by Section 66001, the local
agency could be required to refund the moneys in the account or fund. Once the
agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete an incom-
plete improvement for which impact fee revenue is to be used, it must, within 180
days of that determination, identify an approximate date by which construction of
the public improvement will be commenced. If the agency fails to comply with that
requirement, it must refund impact fee revenue in the account according to proce-
dures specified in the statute.
Costs of Implementation. The ongoing cost of implementing the impact fee pro-
gram is not included in the fees themselves. Implementation costs would include
the staff time involved in applying the fees to specific projects, accounting for fee
A4at~h 10, 2003 A4AXIA4US Pa~e 10-6
City of remecula - Impact Fee Study Implementation
revenues and expenditures, preparing required annual reports, updating the fees,
and preparing forms and public information handouts. We recommend that those
costs be included in user fees charged to applicants for processing development ap-
plications.
Annual Update of the Capital Improvement Plan. Section 66002 provides that if a
local agency adopts a capital improvement plan to identify the use of impact fees,
that plan must be adopted and annually updated by a resolution of the governing
body at a noticed public hearing. The alternative is to identify improvements in
other public documents. We recommend that this study be identified as the source
of information on the use of the fees.
Indexing of Impact Fee Rates. Fees calculated in this report are stated in current
dollars. Fees should be adjusted annually to account for changes in land or con-
struction cost. We recommend the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index
as the basis for indexing construction costs for future projects. We also recom-
mend that the ordinance or resolution establishing the fees include provisions for
annual escalation.
TRAINING AND PUBLIC INFORMATION
Administering an impact fee program effectively requires considerable preparation
and training. It is important that those responsible for applying and collecting the
fees, and for explaining them to the public, understand both the details of the fee
program and its supporting rationale. Before fees are imposed, a staff training
workshop is highly desirable if more than a handful of employees will be involved
in collecting or accounting for fees.
It is also useful to pay close attention to handouts that provide information to the
public regarding impact fees. Impact fees should be clearly distinguished from user
fees, such as application and plan review fees, and the purpose and use of particular
impact fees should be made clear.
Finally, anyone who is responsible for accounting, capital budgeting, or project
management for projects involving impact fees must be fully aware of the restric-
tions placed on the expenditure of impact fee revenues. The fees recommended in
this report are tied to specific improvements and cost estimates. Fees must be ex-
pended accordingly and the City must be able to show that funds have been prop-
erly expended.
RECOVERY OF STUDY COST
We do not recommend adding an administrative fee to impact fees to cover the
costs of administering the impact fee program. Those costs should be included in
A,l,e, rch 10, 2003 A4AXIA4US Pa~e 10-7
City of Ternecula - Impact Fee Study Implementation
the processing fees charged to developers and builders. However, it is reasonable
for the City to recover the cost of this study through the impact fee program. Once
the City Council decides what impact fees to impose, it is a relatively simple matter
to calculate an adjustment to cover the cost of the study.
Assuming the impact fee study will be updated every five years, the cost of this
study could be divided by the amount of revenue projected over the next five years
to determine the percentage by which fees should be increased to cover the cost of
the study. That percentage typically represents a very small increase in the fees.
For example, if the study cost amounts to $30,000 and the City expects to collect
an average of $2,000,000 per year in impact fees over the next five years, the fees
calculated in this study would be have to be increased by 0.3%, or $3.00 per
$1,000, to recover the cost of the study over five years [30,000 / (2,000,000 x 5) =
0.003]. The necessary adjustment should be made before the fees are actually
adopted by the City Council, and should be reflected in the adopting resolution.
~larch I0, 2003 AdAXIAdU$ Pa~e 10-8
Appendix A
S tree t Impro veto en t A4a trix
TABLE A-1
MATRIX OF IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDED IN STREET PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
CURB &: LANDSCAPED ADD STREET
ROADWAY SIDEWALK GU I-I'ER MEDIAN LANES LIGHTS
BUSINESS PARK DRIVE X X
BU'YFERFIELD STAGE ROAD X X X X
COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE X X
DE PORTOLA ROAD X X X X X
DEL RIO X X
DIAZ ROAD X X X X X
ENTERPRISE CIRCLE WEST X X X
OLD TOWN FRONT STREET X X X
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH X
JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD X X X X
i JEFFERSON AVENUE X X X
iLA PAZ X X X X
]LA SERENA WAY X X X X
!MARGARITA ROAD X
;MEADOWS PARKWAY X
MORAGA ROAD X
NICOLAS ROAD X X
OVERLAND DRIVE X X X X
PAUBA ROAD X X X X
P,.AINBOW CANYON ROAD X X X X
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD X X X X X
RANCHO VISTA ROAD X X X X
RANCHO WAY X X X X
PdDER WAY X
SANTIAGO ROAD X X X X X
SOLANA WAY X
VIA MONTEZUMA X X
VINCENT MOIL&GA X X X X
VIO RIO TEMECULA X X X X
WINCHESTER ROAD X
FNEZ ROAD X X X X X
REVISED: 3/11/2003
ITEM 22
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE.. _~
CITY MANAGER ~4')
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City ManagedCity Council
~/~ William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
May 27, 2003
Ordinance 2003- Prima Facie Speed Limit on Certain Streets
PREPARED BY: Ali Moghadam, Senior Engineer - Traffic
RECOMMENDATION:
entitled:
That the City Council introduce and read by title only an ordinance
ORDINANCE 2003-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, AMENDING SECTION 10.28.010(d) OF THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PRIMA FACIE
SPEED LIMITS TO INCLUDE PECHANGA PARIONAY BETWEEN
STATE ROUTE 79 (SOUTH) AND SOUTH CITY LIMITS, RAINBOW
CANYON ROAD BETWEEN PECHANGA PARKVVAY AND SOUTH
CITY LIMITS, AVENIDA DE MlSSlONES BETWEEN STATE
ROUTE 79 (SOUTH) AND VIA RIO TEMECULA, VIA RIO
TEMECULA BETWEEN AVENIDA DE MISSIONES AND
REDHAWK PARKVVAY, COUNTRY GLEN WAY BETWEEN STATE
ROUTE 79 (SOUTH) AND VIA RIO TEMECULA, DIAZ ROAD
BETWEEN WINCHESTER ROAD AND DENDY PARKWAY, AND
WINCHESTER ROAD BETWEEN DIAZ ROAD AND DENDY
PARKWAY
BACKGROUND: Section 40803 of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) states that in order to
enforce posted speed limits using radar, an Engineering and Traffic Survey must be conducted to
establish a prima facie speed limit, which is found to be appropriate to facilitate a safe and orderly
movement of traffic. An Engineering and Traffic Survey as described in the CVC, is a survey of the
prevailing speeds, accident records and roadway conditions not readily apparent to the drivers.
Staff has conducted an Engineering and Traffic Survey to establish the appropriate speed limit on
Pechanga Parkway, Rainbow Canyon Road, Avenida De Missiones, Via Rio Temecula, Country
Glen Way, Diaz Road and Winchester Road.
The results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey are summarized in the table below:
1
r:~ gd rpt',2003\0527~va do u slocatio nsspdord
85th
Percentile Posted Recommended
Speed Speed Limit Speed Limit
Roadway Segment MPH MPH MPH
Pechanqa Parkway:
State Route 79 to Rainbow Canyon Road 42 35 40
Rainbow Canyon Road to Loma Linda Road 52 35/50 50
Loma Linda Road to Wolf Valley Road 54 50 50
Wolf Valley Road to South City Limits 43 50 40
Rainbow Canyon Road:
Pechanga Parkway to Bayhill Drive 42 40 40
Bayhill Drive to South City Limits 42 40 40
Avenida De Missiones:
State Route 79 to Via Rio Temecula 37 25 35
Via Rio Temecula:
Avenida De Missiones to Redhawk Parkway 44 25 40
Country Glen Way:
State Route 79 to Via Rio Temecula 35 Not Posted 35
Diaz Road
Winchester Road to Dendy Parkway 48 Not Posted 45
Winchester Road
Diaz Road to Calle Empleado 50 Not Posted 45
Calle Empleado to Dendy Parkway 48 Not Posted 45
The results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey indicate that the 85th percentile speed increased at
two (2) locations along Pechanga Parkway. This increase could be attributed to the addition of
travel lanes and increase in roadway width, which have reduced congestion and increased vehicular
speed. In conformance with the CVC, an increase in the posted speed limit is being recommended
at these locations. The survey also indicates that the 85th percentile speed decreased on Pechanga
Parkway south of Wolf Valley Road due to the installation of a new traffic signal control and
increased vehicular volume. In conformance with the CVC, a decrease in the posted speed limit is
being recommended at this location.
Although the speed limit is currently posted at 25 MPH on Avenida De Missiones and Via Rio
Temecula, this speed limit was not established by an Engineering and Traffic Survey nor do the
roadways satisfy the criteria for a prima facie residential or business district. The results of the
survey indicate that a posted speed limit of 35 MPH and 40 MPH, respectively, is appropriate for
conditions and moreover, enforceable.
At their meeting of April 24, 2003, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission reviewed the proposed
speed limits and recommended (3-1-1) that the City Council amend Section 10.28.01(d) of the
Temecula Municipal Code to establish the recommended speed limit shown in the Table.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in Public Works Signing and Striping Account.
ATrACHMENTS:
Ordinance 2003-
Exhibit "A" - Public/Traffic Safety Commission Agenda Report - April 24, 2003
2
r:~agdrpt~oo3\o527~vadouslocationsspdord
ORDINANCE 2003-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, AMENDING SECTION 10.28.010(d) OF THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PRIMA FAClE
SPEED LIMITS TO INCLUDE PECHANGA PARKVVAY BETWEEN
STATE ROUTE 79 AND SOUTH CITY LIMITS, RAINBOW CANYON
ROAD BETWEEN PECHANGA PARKVVAY AND SOUTH CITY
LIMITS, AVENIDA DE MISSIONES BETWEEN STATE ROUTE 79
AND VIA RIO TEMECULA, VIA RIO TEMECULA BETWEEN
AVENIDA DE MlSSlONES AND REDHAWK PARKVVAY, COUNTRY
GLEN WAY BETWEEN STATE ROUTE 79 AND VIA RIO
TEMECULA, DIAZ ROAD BETWEEN WINCHESTER ROAD AND
DENDY PARKWAY, AND WINCHESTER ROAD BETWEEN DIAZ
ROAD AND DENDY PARKWAY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, The City of Temecula finds and determines that from time to time it is necessary
to add or modify existing prima facie speed limits within the City for certain streets, or parts of
streets.
WHEREAS, the City conducts Engineering and Traffic Surveys on its roadways in order to
determine the appropriate speed limits,
WHEREAS, the Engineering and Traffic Surveys on the segments of roadways designated in
this Ordinance indicate that the following speed limits be established in accordance with the results
of the Engineering and Traffic Surveys.
SECTION 1. Section 10.28.010(d)of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended as
follows to modify the declared prima facie speed limit only on the following streets:
"Name of Street and
Portion Affected
Pechanga Parkway:
State Route 79 to Rainbow Canyon Road
Rainbow Canyon Road to Loma Linda Road
Loma Linda Road to Wolf Valley Road
Wolf Valley Road to South City Limits
Rainbow Canyon Road:
Pechanga Parkway to Bayhill Drive
Bayhill Drive to South City Limits
Avenida De Missiones:
State Route 79 to Via Rio Temecula
Via Rio Temecula:
Avenida De Missiones to Redhawk Parkway
3
Declared Prima
Facie Speed Limit,
Miles Per Hour
4O
5O
5O
4O
40
40
35
4O
r:~agdq3t~oo3\o527~variouslocationsspdord
"Name of Street and Declared Prima
Portion Affected Facie Speed Limit,
Miles Per Hour
Country Glen Way:
State Route 79 to Via Rio Temecula
35
Diaz Road:
Winchester Road to Dendy Parkway
45
Winchester Road:
Diaz Road to Calle Empleado
Calle Empleado to Dendy Parkway
45
45
SECTION 2. 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 3. The City Clerk shall certi~ to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the
same to be published as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27TM day of May 2003.
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
4
r:~gdrpt'~2003\0527~vadouslocationsspdord
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALiFORNiA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certi~ that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 2003- was dully introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the 27th day of May, 2003 and that thereafter, said Ordinance
was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 10th day of June, 2003,
by the following vote:
AYES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
5
r:~agdrpt~2003\0527~variouslocafionsspdord
EXHIBIT "A"
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
~-----'~li Moghadam, P.E., Senior Traffic
Engineer,
April 24, 2003
Item 3
Engineering and Traffic Survey- Various Locations
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommend that the City Council adopt an Ordinance establishing
the recommended speed limits as specified in Exhibit "B".
BACKGROUND:
In July 2000, the City Council mended Section 10.28.01 (d) of the Temecula Municipal Code, which updated
the prima facie speed limits on certain streets throughout the City. At that time, Pechanga Parkway (known
then as Pala Road) and Rainbow Canyon Road were not surveyed because of the roadway construction in the
area. The roadway improvements on Pechanga Parkway, including the installation of three O) additional
traffic signals, necessitate a new Engineering and Traffic Survey to reaffirm or modify the posted speed limit.
In addition to the two (2) roadways, staff identified five (5) other new roadways that required an Engineering
and Traffic Survey to establish an enforceable speed limit. An Engineering and Traffic Survey has been
performed t0 update and establish speed limits on all seven (7) roadways. The public has been notified ofthe
Public/Traffic Safety Commission's consideration of this matter through the agenda notification process.
As required by the California Vehicle Code (CVC), the Engineering and Traffic Survey performed included a
survey of vehicular speeds, review of the accident historY and roadway conditions not readily apparent to
drivers. The table below summarizes the Engineering and Traffic Survey results as shown on Exhibit "B".
Recommended
85t~Percentile Posted Speed Speed Limit
Roadway Segment Speed MPH Limit MPH MPH
Pechanga Parkway:
State Route 79 to Rainbow Canyon Road 42 35 40
Rainbow Canyon Road to Loma Linda Road 52 35/50 50
Loma Linda Road to Wolf Valley Road 54 50 50
Wolf Valley Road to South City Limits 43 50 40
Rainbow Canyon Road:
Pechanga Parkway to Bayhill Drive 42 40 40
Bayhill Drive to South City Limits 42 40 40
Recommended
85*Percentile Posted Speed Speed Limit
Roadway Segment Speed MPH Limit MPH MPH
Avenicla De Missiones:
State Route 79 to Via Rio Temeeula 37 25 35
Via Rio Temeeula:
Avenida De Missiones to Redhawk Parkway 44 25 40
Country Glen Way:
State Route 79 to Via Rio Temeeula 35 Not Posted 35
Diaz Road
Winchester Road to Dendy Parkway 48 Not Posted 45
Winchester Road
Diaz Road to Calle Empleado
Calle Empleado to Dendy Parkway 50 Not Posted 45
48 Not Posted 45
As shown in the table, the Engineering and Traffic Survey indicates the 85t~ percentile speed increased at two
(2) locations along Pochanga Parkway. This increase could be attributed to the addition of travel lanes and
increase in roadway width, which have reduced congestion and increased vehicular speed. In conformance
w~th the CVC, an increase m the posted speed lmmt is being reeommended at these locations.
· The survey also indicates that the 85t~ percentile speed decreased on Pechanga Parkway south of Wolf Valley
Road due to the installation of a new traffic signal control and increased vehicular volume. In conformance
with the CVC, a deerease in the posted speed limit is being recommended at this location.
The survey also ind!cates that an increase in the posted speed limit is necessary on Avenida De Missiones and
Via Rio Temecula. Although these roadways are currently posted at 25 MPH, this speed limit was not
established by an Engineering and Traffic Survey. Moreover, the roadways do not satisfy the ariteria for a
prima faeie residential or business district.
Based on the results of the Engineering and Traffic Surveys, staffrecommends approval of the speed limits as
specified above and in Exhibit "B".
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funds are available for signing and pavement markings in the Public Works Routine Street Maintenance
Account.
Attachment:
1. Exhibit "A" -Location Map
2. Exhibit "B" - Engineering and Traffic Survey - Summary of Reeommendations
EXHIBIT "A"
LOCATION MAP
City of Temecula
February 20, 2003
Highways
Streets
C~ty
#gis/k~lFarcviewprojec~s/basemapSx11,apr
This map was made by the City of Temecula
Geographic Information System (GIS).
EXHIBIT "B"
ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
SUMMARY, OF RECOMMENDATIONS
ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SECTION ~27)
Street:
Pechanga Parkway between Loma Linda Road and Woff Valley Road
Year of Survey: 2003
PART I: PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT
Date of survey March 13~ 2003
50t~ pcs~;~ntile [ 85t~ Percentile 50 MPH [ 54 MPH
10 ml~h pace (% of vehicles) 48 TO 57 MPH (65%)
Posted Speed Limit 50 MPH
PART II: ACCIDENT RECORDS
Time Period Covered January 1~ 2001 - January 31~ 2002
Number of Intersection 6
Accidents Mid-Block 0
Mid-Block Accident Rates per
Million Vehicle Miles 0
Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 3.50/MVM
)
PART l~: HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC AND ROADSIDE CHARACTI~.RISTICS
Date of Observation March 26~ 2003
Highway: Geomehi~s, access Numerous intersections with left-mm
(driveways, intersections, other) access provided by left-turn pocket;
signalized intersection at Loma Linda
Rd. and Wolf Valley Rd.
Tm/fie: Pedestrians, on-street parking
turnover, school crossings Not Applicable
Roadside:. Land uses not apparent
(park, school, etc...) other conditionsNot Applicable
PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS
RECOMMENDED SPEED
50 MPH
,ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SECTION 627)
Street: Peehanga Parkway between Woff Valley Road and South City Limits
Year of Survey: 2003
PART I: PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT
~te of Survey March 13, 2003
50t~ percentile I 85~ percentile 38 MPH I 43 MPH
10 mph pace (% of vehicles) 32 TO 41 MPH (61%)
Posted Speed Limit 50 MPH
PART 1I: ACCIDENT RECORDS
Time Period Covered ,lammry 1~ 2001 -January 31~ 2002
Number of Intersection 0
Accidents !Mid-Block 0
Mid-Block Accident Rates per
Million vehicle Miles 0
Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 3.50/MVM
PART IH: HIGHWAY. TRAFFIC AND ROADSIDE CHARACTEI~
Date of Observation March 26~ 2003
l-l;ghway: Geomeaics, access Several driveways, signalized
(driveways, intersections, other) intersections at Wolf Valley Rd.,
Pechanga Casino Dwy. (hO and
Pechanga Casino I)w~. (S)
TraffiC: Pedestrians, on-street parking
turnover, school crossin§s Not Applicable
Roadside: Land uses not apparent
(park, school, etc...) other conditions Not Applicable
PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS
[RECOMMENDED SPEED
40 MPH
Street:
.ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SECTION 627)
Rainbow Canyon Road between Pechanga Parkway and Bayhill Drive
Year of Survey: 2003
PART I: PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT
Date of Survey March 12, 2003
50t~ Percentile I 85t~ Pesc~ntile 38 MPH I 42 MPH
10 mph pace (% of vehicles) 32 TO 41 MEH (72%)
Posted Speed Limit 40 MPH
PART II: ACCIDENT RECORD
Time Period Covered January 1~ 2001 - January 31, 2002
Number of Intersection 0
Accidents Mid-Block 0
Mid-Block Accident Rates per
Million Vehicle Miles 0
gx?eted Mid-Block Aecident Rate 1.80/MVM
PART HI: HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC AND ROADSIDE CHA]
Date of Obsei ration March 26, 2003
H~ghway: Geometries, access Numerous intersections and signalized
(driveways, intersections, other) intersection at Rainbow Canyon Rd.
Traffic: Pedestrians, on-street parking
turnover, school crossings Not Applicable
Roadside: Land uses not apparent Single family land uses with direct
(park, school, etc...) other conditions access located on cast side of street
PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS
RECOMMENDED SPEED 40 MPH
ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SECTION 627)
Street: Rainbow Canyon Road between Bayhill Drive and South City Limits
Year of Survey: 2003
PART I: PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT
Date of Survey March 12~ 2003
50t" percentile I 85~ Percentile 39 MPH [ 42 MPH
10 mph pace (% of vehicles) 35 TO 44 MPH (77%)
Posted Speed Limit 40 MPH
PART II: ACCIDENT RECORDS
Time Period Covered Jan,,~ry ls 2001 - January 31~ 2002
Number of Intersection 0
Accidents Mid-Block 2
Mid-Block Accident Rates per
Million Vehicle Miles 0.73/MVM
Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 1.80/MVM
PART IH: HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC AND ROADSIDE CHARACTERISTIC~ NOT Rt
Date of Observation March 26, 2003
Highway: Geom~klcs, access Several driveways, numerous curves
(driveways, intersections, other) and limited visibility due to horizontal
and vertical ali~nment of the roadway
Traffic: Pedestrians, on-street parkingGolf cart crossing on Rainbow Canyon
turnover, school crossings Rd. for Temeeula Creek Inn Golf
Course
Roadside: Land Uses not apparent Golf course located adjacent to
(park, school, etc...) other conditionsroadway
PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS
RECOMMENDED SPEED 40 MPH
Street:
ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SECTION 627)
Avenida De Missiones between State Route 79 and Via Rio Temeeula
Year of Survey: 2003
PART I: PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT
Date of Survey March 11~ 2003
50 Pei~ntile I 85t~ Percentile 31 MPH I 37 MPH I
10 mph pace (% of vehicles) 24 TO 33 MPH (68%)
Posted Speed Limit 25 MPH
PART II: ACCIDENT RECORD
Time Period Covered Jan',a~d 1, 2001 -January 31~ 2002
Number of /a~trrueefion 1
Accidents Mid-Block 0
Mid-Block Accident Rates per
Million Vehicle Miles 0
Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 1.90/MVM
PART III: I-IIGHWAY, TRAFFIC AND ROADSIDE CHARA~
' Date of Ob~x valion March 11~ 2003
l-ligbway: Gcometrics, access Access to residential development;
(driveways, intersections, other) Stop controls on Avenida De
Missionus at both ends of the segment
Traffic: Pedestrians, on-street parking
mover, school crossings On-Street Parking allowed.
Roadside: Land uses not apparent
(park, school, etc...) other Conditions Not Applicable
PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS
RECOMMENDED SPEED 35 MPH
ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SECTION 627)
'Street:
Via Rio Temecula between Avenlda De Missiones and Redhawk Parkway
Year of Survey: 2003
PART I: PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT
Date of Survey August 29, 2002
50m Percentile. I 85t~ Percentile 38 MEH I n4 MEH I
10 mph pace (% of vehicles) 36 TO 45 MPH (62%)
Posted Speed Limit 25
PART 11: ACCIDENT RECORDS
Time Period Covered January 1s 2001 - January 31, 2002
Number of Intersection 0
Accidents Mid-Block 0
Mid-Block Accident Rates per
Million Vehicle Miles 0
Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 1.90/MVM
(
PART II1: HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC AND ROADSIDE CHARACTERISTICS NOT RE/
Date of Observation March 11s 2003
Highway: Geoawhics, access
(driveways, intersections, other) Not Applicable
Traffic: Pedestrians, on-street parking
turnover, school crossings On-Street Parking allowed.
Roadside: Land uses not appat tnt
(park, school, etc...) other conditions Not Applicable
PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS
RECOMMENDED SPEED 40 MPH
F:\gonza Ij~e& t summary form
ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SECTION 627)
Street: Country Glen Way between State Route 79 and Via Rio Temecula
Year of Survey: 2003
PART I: PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT
Date of Survey March 11~ 2003
50tu Percen~le [ 85t~ Percentile 30 MPH [ 35 MPH I
10 mph pace (% of vehicles) 25 TO 34 MPH (72%)
PoSted Speed Limit Not Posted
PART II: ACCIDENT RECORDS
Time Period Covered January 1, 2001 - January 31, 2002
Number of Intersection 4
Accidents Mid-Block 0
Mid-Block Accident Rates per
Million Vehicle Miles 0
Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 1.90/MVM
)
PART HI: HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AND ROADSIDE CHARACT
Date of Observation March 11, 2003
Highway: Geometrics, access Access to residential and commexcial
(driveways, intersections, other) development; stop controls on Country
Glen Way at both ends of thc segment
Traffic: Pedestrians, on-street parking
turnover, school crossings On-Street Parking allowed.
Roadside: Land uses not apparent
(park, School, etc...) other conditions Not Applicable
PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS
RECOMMENDED SPEED 35 MPH
ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SECTION 626)
Stree(: Diaz Road between Winchester Road and Dendy Parkway
Year of Survey: 2003
· PART I: PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMEJqT
Date 0f Survey April 15, 2003
50t~ Percentile I 85t~ Percentile 43 MPH I 48 MPH
10 mph pace (% of vehicles) 38 TO 47 MPH (67.0%)
Posted Speed Limit Not Posted
PART II: ACCIDENT RECORDS
Ttme Period Covered January 1~ 2001 - January 31, 2002
Number of Intersection 4
Accidents Mid-Block 0
Mid-Block Accident Rates per
Million Vehicle Miles 0
Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 1.90/MVM
PART m: · 'HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC AND ROADSIDE CHARACTERISTICS NOT READILY APPARENT '
Date of Observation ' April 15~ 2003
Highway: Geometries, Numerous driveways and intersections
access(driveways, intersections, other) with letMurn access, traffic signal
control at Winchester Road
Traffic: Pedestrians, on-street parking Not Applicable
turnover, school crossings
'Roadside: Land uses not apparent Community park located at
{park, school, etc...) other conditions Winchester Road
PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS
RECOMIVIENDED SPEED 45 MPH
ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SECTION 627)
Street: Winchester Road between Calle Empleado and Dandy Parkway
Year of Survey: 2003
PART I: PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT
Date of Survey April 15, 2003
50a Percentile I 85a Percentile 44 MPH I 48 MPH I
10 mph pace (% of vehicles) 40 TO 49 MPH (61.5%)
Posted Speed Limit Not Posted
PART II: ACCIDENT RECORDS
Time Period Covered January 1, 2001 - January 31, 2002
Number of Intersection 1
Accidents Mid-Block 1
Mid-Block Accident Rates per
Million Vehicle Miles 0.39/MVM
Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 3.50fMVM
PART III: ItlGHWAY, TRAFFIC AND ROADSIDE CHARACTERISTICS NOT READILY APPARENT
Date of Observation April 15~ 2003
Highway: Geometrics, Numerous driveways and intersections
access(driveways, intersections, other) w/th leR-tum access, all-way stop
controls at Remington Road
Traffic: Pedestrians, on-street parking Not Applicable
turnover, school crossings
Roadside: Land uses not apparent Not Applicable
(park, school, etc...) other conditions
PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS
RECOMMENDED SPEED 45 MPH
ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SECTION 627)
Slreet: WincheSter Road between Diaz Road and Calle Empleado
Year of Survey: 2003
PART I: PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT
Date of Survey April 15~ 2003
50a Percentile I 85t~ percentile 42 MPH I 50 MEH
10 mph pace (% of vehicles) 38 TO 47 MPH (54%)
Posted Speed Limit Not Posted
PART Il: ACCIDENT RECORD
Time Period Covered January 1, 2001 - January 31~ 2002
Number of Intersection 3
Accidents Mid-Block 1
Mid-Block Accident Rates per
Million Vehicle Miles 0,25/MVM
Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 3.50/MVM
(
PART III: ItIGHWAY, TRAFFIC AND ROADSIDE CItARACTERISTICS NOT READILY APPARENT
Date of Observation April 15~ 2003
Highway: Geometries, Numerous driveways and intersections
access(driveways, intersections, other) with left-turn access, traffic signal
controls at Diaz Road
Traffic: Pedestrians, on-street parking Not Applicable
turnover, school crossings
Roadside: Land uses not apparent Community park located at Diaz Road
(park, school, etc...) other conditions
PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS
RECOMMENDED SPEED 45 MPH
DEPARTMENTAL
REPORTS
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL~
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manager~'p~'~'
v
May 27, 2003
Economic Development Monthly Departmental Report
Prepared by: Gloria Wolnick, Marketing Coordinator
The following are the recent highlights for the Economic Development Department for the month
of April 2003.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Leads & Inquiries
In the month of April, the City received 3 leads.
On April 9th, staff met with Lea DiBernardo to discuss her plans of opening a gourmet deli in
Temecula.
Staff provided Bill Ferguson with information on available properties and owners. Mr. Ferguson
is a commercial broker who is representing a client looking for a 5-acre site to sell RVs.
On April 16th, staff met with Reed Armstrong, the plant manager from Doortech Industries, to
discuss expanding its Oceanside operations to Temecula. The company manufacturers garage
doors and employs 60. The company is interested in the former AMSCAN building.
In the month of March, the Southwest Riverside County Alliance responded to 4 leads. The
leads were direct contact to the Alliance via phone or web site response. Attached is a copy of
their activity report.
Open House
Staff attended the Boys & Girls Club Open House on April
Media/Outreach Materials
Staff wrote the City article for the May Chamber of Commerce Newsletter titled, "Two Local
Companies Receive Achievement in Technical Ingenuity Awards." UCR CONNECT and
IEtechSOURCE organized the Inland Empire's first Achievement in Technical Ingenuity Awards
(ATI) competition. Modeled after competitions in the Silicon Valley and San Diego, the ATI
Awards celebrates the private-public partnership needed to foster a high-technology economy in
the Inland Empire Region. Tumkey Schools of Amedca and ProLacta BioScience were honored
for making a significant contribution to high technology and to the region's emerging technology
employment base.
R:\Wo[nickg~DEPT REPORTSk~pdl ~)3 Dept. Rpt..doc I
Meetin.qs
Staff attended the Economic Alliance Regional Broker Breakfast Meeting on April 3rd at
Temecula Creek Inn. The Alliance GIS and website were the focus of the breakfast. Fifty-eight
guests attended the meeting.
On April 8th, staff met with Randy Fleming and John Atwood to discuss the appropriate
improvements that need to be made to Motor Car Parkway in order for it to become a City
street. It is currently a private street, which is maintained by the Motor Car Parkway
Association. Staff also met with representatives of Guidant on April 9th to discuss the same
matter.
Staff attended the Temecula Partners in Education committee on April 7th. Parents, business
leaders and community members also contribute valued time and input to the Temecula Valley
Unified School District. Through this committee, the business community works with the District
to attract resources within the community to support education, to solicit input from potential
employers regarding TVUSD technical/vocational education programs and to facilitate contact
and communication between students and the business community. The committee, comprised
of representatives from throughout the Temecula Valley including the City of Temecula, the
Chamber of Commerce, the Manufacturer's Council, small businesses, Guidant, teachers,
students, parents and retired business leaders, is currently working to establish an internship
program for high school students with local employers.
The Economic Development Subcommittee members, Jeff Comerchero and Ron Roberts, and
staff met on April 10th to discuss the FY2003/04 economic development funding requests.
Staff sent out letters notifying the groups of the Subcommittee's recommendations.
Staff is studying the creation of a Telecommunications Master Plan to determine what parts of
the city have access to services such as fiber optics and high-speed Internet connections. Staff
met several times in April to discuss this. This will assist with our economic development efforts
in attracting new business to the area.
Staff met with representatives of the Temecula Valley Film Council several times in April to
discuss their operations and plans for the next year.
Staff met with Jim Morgan on April 15th to discuss the planned YMCA project.
Staff attended the California Association for Local Economic Development (CALED)
Conference held in Monterey on April 16 - 18 and attended a variety of sessions regarding site
location, use of GIS and other economic development topics. Temecula was presented with an
Award of Merit in the Development Promotions Category for the Temecula Interactive Tourism
CD-ROM The Southwest Riverside County Economic Alliance received an Award of Merit for
their Economic Development Program and Economic Development Promotions.
Staff attended the EDC Board of Director's Meeting on April 17th. The EDC Board approved
their operating budget. Due to the increase of activity the EDC will expand its part-time position
to become full-time.
Action Committee Chairs were appointed for the following committees:
Business Attraction - Stevie Field
Government - Ken Carlisle
Permit & Planning - Gary Youmans & Rex Oliver
Education - Maryann Edwards & Harry Shank
Transportation & Infrastructure - David Phares
R:\Wolnickg~DEPT REPORTSVkpril '03 Dept. Rpt..doc 2
Kathy Matthews & Ken Carlisle of Guidant provided a detailed presentation on Workers'
Compensation reform and shared their story. On May 28 at 7:30 am at Embassy Suites there
will be a Workers Comp Forum sponsored by the EDC and Temecula Chamber. Dennis Frank
will be the moderator. Chambers, state legislatures, Riverside County representatives and local
businesses will attend.
The State is proposing a series of mid-year cuts for Regional Occupational Center
Programs, which will affect the Manufacturing Technology ROP as well as other training
programs. David Hunt who is the Manufacturing Technology ROP Instructor at Chaparral High
has prepared a letter urging ROP supporters to contact our legislators by fax or phone.
The EDC will update their brochure since it has not been updated for sometime.
Joan Spark man asked that the cities of Murrieta & Temecula provide her with information
regarding the Murrieta/Temecula Creek Flood Control Project as she will be leaving on May
3rd to make a presentation in Washington DC. Staff followed-up with Ms. Sparkman.
Staff announced the Brokers/Developers meeting & Tourism CD awards.
On April 22nd, staff met with Edge Development - PIE Foundation?
On Apdl 23fa, staff hosted a meeting for the local development community regarding the
DIF recommendations from the study done recently by Maximus. Approximately 20
brokers, developers, bankers, and others from the development community attended.
Staff provided background information as to the purpose of DIF, and the need to update our
current DIF fee schedule. Joe Colgan of Maximus described the studies that his firm did on this.
The development community is concerned with the amount of the proposed fees, especially on
top of TUMF, but seemed to understand that there is also a need to provide for infrastructure. If
these fees are adopted, and when TUMF is considered, Temecula will have one of the very
highest development fee structures in San Diego, Orange, or the Inland Empire.
The study recommendations will be considered by the City Council on May 27th. Staff handed
out the study recommendations and copies were made available of the PowerPoint presentation
and the fee report to those attendees that requested the information. After discussing DIF, Bill
Hughes answered several questions relating to upcoming capital improvements.
TOURISM
Awards
The Temecula Interactive Tourism CD ROM received a 2nd place award in the Innovations
Category from the California Association of Public Information Officials. The Megan's
Law section on the website won a CAPIO Honorable Mention Award. The awards were
presented to Councilmember Jeff Comerchero and Pat Comerchero at the CAPIO Annual
Conference during a luncheon ceremony on April 25t' at the Catamaran Resort Hotel in San
Diego. More than 30 entrants from across the state received CAPIO's highest honors for
demonstrating excellence in communications.
Special Events
Staff provided assistance to the City's Public Work's Department on hosting the Maintenance
Superintendents Association Secretaries Luncheon, which was held at Thornton Winery on
April 24~h. Over 100 people attended this year's event. The MSA organization was founded in
R:\Wolnickg~DEPT REPORTSXApril '03 Dept. Rpt..doc 3
1966 and is made up of professionals from the general fields of public works, services,
maintenance, and operations. All cities in the Inland Empire/Desert area are members. Hosting
such events as this allows Temecula the opportunity to market itself to individuals within our
same region.
Through the Inland Empire Toudsm Council, Temecula participated in the California One
Southwest Airlines promotion. On May 15th, the Inland Empire will be featured during the
Southwest Airlines flights. Each seat will have a goody bag and a California Visitors Guide
(Temecula has a co-op ad). Staff provided 700 Temecula magnets for the goody bags. Mary
Casanova, the Inland Empire Rural Representative, will be on each flight to answer any
questions that travelers to the region might ask.
Two major Temecula prizes were donated which included a two night stay at Embassy Suites,
golf for two at Cross Creek, and a wine tasting gift certificate valued at $200. The second prize
included a two-night stay & dinner for two at the Pechanga Resort & Casino. Other Temecula
giveaways consisted of Balloon & Wine Festival tickets, Temecula wear and other Temecula
promotional items.
Medial Outreach Materials
Staff provided Ann Shepphird of Association News with information on Temecula for their
publication. Temecula will be covered in their December Southern California issue, which
focuses on the Orange County and San Diego areas.
The City ad appeared in the May/June issue of Westways Magazine and was positioned on the
same page as the Temecula Valley Winegrowers ad. (see attached)
Staff worked with Mark Fisher on creating a new City ad for the 20th Annual Balloon & Wine
Festival Program. As a major sponsor, the City receives a free full-page color ad in the event
program.
The Inland Empire Tourism Council contacted staff to provide Temecula locations to K2
Communications for consideration for ~The Best of California" Series television series, which is
supported by the California Travel & Tourism Commission. The series will highlight a "romantic
getaway" segment featuring Temecula Creek Inn, Stampede and Miramonte Winery. The show
will air the weekend of May 17 - 18 throughout California and on San Diego's KFMB (Station 8)
at 3:30 p.m. on May 18).
Meetings
On April 10th, staff attended a meeting sponsored by the Inland Empire Tourism Council and
San Bernardino Convention & Visitors Bureau at the National Orange Show's Sports Center to
hear an update on California's Tourism Program. Speakers included Jennifer Jasper, Deputy
Director For the State of California's Travel & Tourism Commission, Pam Coffey, California
publications and Kathy Anderson, local state representative. The speakers provided an update
on the State budget, 2993-04 Marketing Plan, 2003 Spring Advertising Campaign, "Best of
California" television series, and available co-op opportunities.
On April 10th, staff met with the Chamber of Commerce Trade Show Task Force Committee
to discuss participation at additional tourism trade shows and what funds the City could provide
for this program.
Kathee Finn of Community Media Corp met with staff on April 29t~ and provided an update on
the book she is publishing. The hardbound book will highlight Temecula's history and provide
R:\Wolnickg~DEPT REPORTS~pril '03 D~pt. Rpt..doc 4
current information on the area and businesses in the Temecula Valley. Staff will assist in
providing photos and information.
Melody Brunsting met with various City departments on April 28th and provided an updated on
The Street Painting Festival and other Old Town Events.
ATTACHMENTS
Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Activities Report
Economic Development Corporation of Southwest Riverside County
Activities Report
Southwest Riverside County Economic Alliance Activities Report - March
Temecula Valley Film Council Activities Report - March & April
Advertising/Media Coverage
R:\Wolnickg~DEPT REFORTSLApril ~)3 Del)t. Rpt..doc 5
TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
May 13, 2003
Shawn Nelson, City Manager
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Shawn,
Attached please find the April Monthly Activity Report as per our contract with the City of
Temecula.
This is the month of April at a glance:
Business Inquiry Highlights:
In the month of April, 7 businesses requested information on starting or relocating their business to
Temecula. They received a business packet, which includes a copy of the City of Temecula
demographics, relocation, housing, rentals, maps, organizations, etc.
Board of Directors Highlights: The Chairman of the Board Ron Bradley, Treasurer Doug
McAIlister, Director Janese Reyes and President Alice Sullivan attended the Volunteer Leadership
Conference in Sacramento representing Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce.
The Chamber is sponsoring the Workers' Compensation Forum to be held on Thursday, May 15,
2003 at Embassy Suites Hotel. Senator Hollingsworth, Senator Bill Morrow, Assemblyman Ray
Haynes, Dayna Wagoner of Edge Development and Ken Carlisle of Guidant will be guest speakers.
Committee Highlights:
Tourism & Visitors Council: The Chamber has hired Carrie CebaIles as Tourism Director for
the Visitors & Convention Bureau. Carrie's first project is to design a Winery survey to be sent to
our local restaurants and inform them of the importance the local Wine Industry is in our
community. The May meeting was held at Pala Casino Resort. The Trade Show Task Force is
looking at which tradeshows to attend and partnering with other entities. The 20th Anniversary
Temecula Balloon & Wine Festival will be from June 6, 2003 and the Chamber is organizing
volunteers to work at the City/Chamber booth.
Education Committee: The committee is researching additional performers for the Diversity
Awareness Program to make presentations to the local High Schools. The Committee has
currently 22 businesses participating in the 3rd Annual Youth Job Fair. The committee will have a
presentation at the May meeting made by the Temecula Valley Unified School District
Assessment Teacher. The committee met with Chaparral High School to begin the Career
Education Video program.
· Ways & Means Committee: The 12th Annual Chamber Golf Classic took place May 2''~ at
Temecula Creek Inn. The 3'~ Annual Economic Outlook Conference featuring Dr. John E. Husing
26790 Ynez Court * Temecula, CA 92591
Phone: (909) 676-5090 ~ Fax: (909) 694-0201
www,temecula.org * e-mail: info@temecula,org
will take place Thursday, June 5, 2003 at Temecula Creek Inn. Dr. Husing will be presenting his
recent demographic study taken from the 2000 Census. The event's Title Sponsors are The
Press-Enterprise/The Business Press and the Southwest Riverside County Association of
Realtors. The conference will begin at 7:30AM with a buffet breakfast followed by Dr. Husing's
presentation at 8:00 AM.
Local Business Promotions Committee: The Local Business Promotion Committee have
completed the taping for the Business Resource DVD. The committee will soon meet to edit the
contents of the DVD. 31 member businesses are signed up for the June and November Shop
Temecula First Campaign. The participants will now be listed on the Chamber's Website. The
Businesses of the Month for May selected by the Membership & Marketing committee are jann
gentry Photography and Longs Drug Store. Thompson & Colegate LLP was awarded the
Chamber Spotlight, and Great Graphics Art Gallery & Frame Design is the Mystery Shopper
winner for the month of May.
Government Action Committee: The committee reviewed the following legislation and took a
stance of opposition to: SB 108: Alcohol-Related Emergency Services Reimbursement Act of
2003. Seeks to enact a tax of $0.05 per drink, levied upon alcohol wholesalers of alcoholic
beverages. This bill and the establishment of a Trust Fund associated with it would be used for
reimbursement of expenses incurred in providing services for alcohol-related emergencies based
upon the presumption that economic burdens are placed upon emergency care givers for alcohol
related emergencies. California's wine-grape grower community will feel an increase in the tax on
wine as well by an amount of $217.60 per ton, a tax rate much higher than the amount paid per
ton for the majority of wine-grapes sold in California.
Citrus Vineyard Policy Area - Allied Domecq Wines -The board and committee also Opposed
the Vineyard Policy Area - Callaway/Allied Domecq Wines request to change Allied Domecq
Wines USA from Citrus Vineyard to two-acre Rural Community. We feel this request would be
devastating to local economy, drastically impacting agricultural business and Temecula's tourism
industry. Letters were sent to Riverside County Board of Supervisors.
Membership Committee: Guaranty Bank hosted a very successful mixer April 16~' at their main
office. CalWorks Gain and Potamus Press is the two Business Spotlight for the month of April.
The membership committee will be sending letter to businesses who may want to participate in
the Discount Program, which will be implemented in June 2003,
Tourism Highlights (Bulk brochure distribution)
Activity Report:
50 Tourism Maps, 50 Temecula Brochures and 50 Visitor Guides to Pachanga Resort & Casino
to distribute to convention guests.
· 10 School Brochures, 15 Visitor Guides and 50 Tourism Maps to Beazer Homes to distribute to
homebuyers.
· 25 Visitor Guides and 25 Tourism Maps to Kathy Dickensen to distribute to RV Rally attendees.
· 250 Tourism Maps and 200 Visitor Guides to World Harvest Church to distribute in Ministers
packets.
· 25 City Maps and 20 Museum Brochures to Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Weekend
Visitor Center to distribute to visitors.
100 Visitor Guides, 100 Winery Brochures and 80 Business Resource Guide to Coldwell Banker
to distribute to clients relocating to the area.
· 210 Visitor Guides to Lawrence Walk Resort to distribute to visitors.
· 25 Business Resource Guides to The City of Temecula.
· 400 Visitor Guides and 250 Winery Brochures to Century 21 Newsom to distribute to visitors.
· 20 Visitor Guides, 20 Winery Brochures and 10 Tourism Maps to Coldwell Banker to distribute to
relocation clients.
· 250 Temecula Brochures, 210 Visitor Guides and 150 Winery Brochures to Temecula Country
Store to distribute to tourists.
· 20 Visitor Guides, 20 Winery Brochures, 20 Tourism Maps to Addie Anderson to distribute to
visitors.
· 25 Visitor Guides and 25 Winery Brochures to Sam's RV Group to distribute to RV Group
members.
Activity Report:
Tourism calls for the month of April - 1,933
Phone calls for themonth of April - 3,613
Walk-ins for the month of April - 3,016
Web Page User Sessions for the month of April - 5,023
Website Tourism Survey - "How did you hear about Temecula" - 283 responses were received:
Article - 2%
· Friend - 29%
Link - 9%
· Magazine - 3%
· Other - 37%
· Radio - 1%
· Search-Il%
'I'V- 7%
Aisc, attached are the meeting minutes for the Tourism and Visitors Council, Education, Local
Business Promotions, Government Action, Membership and Marketing and Ways & Means
committee. If you have any questions regarding this information, please call me at (909) 676-5090.
Thank you.
cc: Mayor Jeff Stone
Councilman Jeff Comerchero
Councilman Sam Pratt
Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manager
Gloria Wolnick, Marketing Coordinator
Mayor Pro Tern Mike Naggar
Councilman Ron Roberts
Shawn Nelson, City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager
TVCC Board of Directors
Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce
Monthly Activity Report
April 2003
PHONE CALLS
TOURISM
Tourism Referrals
Calendar of Events
Special Events
General Information
TOTAL TOURISM CALLS
Relocation
Demographics
Chamber
Miscellaneous
TOTAL PHONE CALLS
WALK-INS
Tourism
Calendar of Events
Special Events
General Information
Relocation
Demographics
Chamber
Miscellaneous
TOTAL WALK-INS
MAILINGS
Tourism
Relocation
Demographics
TOTAL MAILINGS
E-MAIL
Tourism
Relocation
Miscellaneous
TOTAL E-MAIL
WEB PAGE USER SESSIONS
GRAND TOTALS
PHONE CALLS
WALK-INS
MAILINGS
E-MAIL
WEB PAGE USER SESSIONS
Chamber Vis. Center Year-To-Date
This Month This Month Total
29O
162
2O2
1,279
1,933
187
137
993
363
3,613
198
150
75
948
183
130
546
386
2,616
163
112
108
383
104
103
236
443
2,669
193
2O7
4OO
This Month
3,613
2,616
383
443
2,669
1,040
63O
363
4,798
6,831
718
457
3,717
1,315
13,038
1,470
610
301
4,361
698
466
2,289
1,325
11,520
668
404
401
1,473
392
326
663
1,401
12,984
Year-To-Date
13,038
11,520
1,473
1,401
12,984
Annual Volume Comparisons
Chamber
April 2002
Chamber
April 2003
Percentage
PHONE CALLS
TOURISM
Tourism Referrals 348 290 -17%
Calendar of Events 176 162 -8%
Special Events 209 202 -3%
General Information 1,248 1,279 2%
TOTAL TOURISM CALLS 1,981 1,933 -2%
Relocation 151 187 24%
Demographics 38 137 261%
Chamber 1,165 993 -15%
Miscellaneous 216 363 68%
TOTAL PHONE CALLS 3,551 3,613 2%
WALK-INS
Tourism 309 198 -36%
Calendar of Events 153 150 -2%
Special Events 40 75 88%
General Information 1,022 948 -7%
Relocation 242 183 -24%
Demographics 88 130 48%
Chamber 916 546 -40%
Miscellaneous 246 386 57%
Visitor Center Walk-Ins 312 400 28%
TOTAL WALK-INS 3,328 3,016 -9%
MAILINGS
Tourism 102 163 60%
Relocation 122 112 -8%
Demographics 104 108 4%
TOTAL MAILINGS 328 383 17%
E-MAIL
Tourism 81 104 ;'8%
Relocation 52 103 98%
Miscellaneous 154 236 53%
TOTAL E-MAIL 287 443 54%
WEBSITE USER SESSIONS
* Chamber referrals reflect faxes, walk-ins and phone calls
2,669
May7,2003
Jim O'Grady
City of Temecula
PO Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
RE: ActNRy Summm3,-April2003
Business and Workforce Development
Staff responded to the following 8 business and workforce development requests in April 2003:
Date Lead Source Request Action Taken
4/8/03 In-Person Client seeking employment Met with client and provided leads to three
as consultant in Public companies currently hiring for positions in
Relations. marketing. Assistance in ongoing.
4/10/03 In-Person Clients seeking information Staffand Board President met with clients to
to form EDC agency in discuss efforts and resources.
Menifee/Sun City.
4/10/03 In-Person Client seeking employment. Met with client and provided information on
job search and Workforce Development Center
resources. Assistance is ongoing.
4/11/03 Website Client interested in Referred client to two local business brokers.
purchasing an existing
business.
4/21/03 Website Client firom New York Referred client to Riverside County EDA
requested demographic
information on issued
housing permits in Riverside
County since 1990.
4/23/03 Phone Referred by Aaron Adams, Contacted client and discussed recruitment and
City ofTemecula - Client hiring needs. Company will hire up to 60
wanted information on people. Provided information on Workforce
workforce development Development Center and EDD services.
assistance for new business Referred Mary W'flliams, EDD, to assist client
opening in 9 months, with recruitment/interview needs.
4/29/03 Phone Client looking for small Provided client with contact information for
business financing. SBDC, CDC Small Business Finance Corp. and
EDC members in banking/financing.
4/29/03 In-person Client provides hous'mg Provided EDC material and referred client to
solutions for employees of Stevie Fields, SWRC Economic Alliance.
relocating companies.
Jim O'Grady
City of Temecula
Activity Summary - April 2003
Page 2 of 2
Community Outreach
Staff and/or directors attended the following meetings/events to promote or assist economic
development/community outreach:
· Murrieta Temecula Group Meeting (4/4) - Topic was The "Tunnel" to Orange County
· TVCC Partnership in Education Committee Meeting (4/7)
· United Way Landmark Reception (4/8)
· Lake EIsinore Valley Chamber EDC Luncheon (4/10) - Topic was "Identity Theft"
· Riverside County Manufacturing Industry Council Board Meeting (4/14)
· Meeting with Stevie Field, SWRC Economic Alliance, and Bonnie Wright, Field Rep.
for Congresswoman Bono (4/15)
· United Way Executive Committee Meeting (4/16)
· SANDAG IRP Technical Working Group Meeting (4/17)
· Workforce Development Center Ali-Staff Meeting (4/22) - Monthly WDC partner
meeting.
Business Retention
· Business Relations Committee Meeting (4/3) - See attached meeting minutes for discussion
topics.
Administration/Organization
· Budget Committee teleconference (4/2)
· Golf Tournament Committee Meeting (4/3)
· EDC Board of Directors Meeting (4/17) - See attached meeting minutes for discussion
topics. Board of Directors took action to send a letter to legislators to support Workers'
Compensation reform.
· Administration - Staff managed the daily operations of the EDC office; coordinated various
EDC committee meetings; submitted EDC article to Valley Business Journal; coordinated
action items for golf tournament; coordinated EDC election ballot mailing; managed EDC
website updates; mailed four EDC membership solicitations; and emailed the following
business development/community announcements:
~' Request for Workers' Compensation Reform
} Temecula Planning Commission Meeting agenda (faxed to area
brokers/developers)
~Lake Elsinore Chamber luncheon
~RFP notice for Verizon Foundation grant funding
}Guidant's storyboard on Workers' Compensation issues
This concludes the activity summary for April 2003. Should you have questions or need further
detail, please call me at 600-6064.
Respectfully,
Diane Sessions
Executive Director
DRAFT
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
OF SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY
BOARD OF DIRECTORS GENERAL MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 9:00 a.m.
Workforee Development Center
27447 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, CA
DRAFT
BOARD MEMBERS
Ken Carlisle, Guidant Corporation
Frank Casciari, California Bank & Trust
Mike Doblado, The Promenade in Temecula
Stevie Field, SWRC Economic Alliance
Dennis Frank, UCR Extension
Keith Johnson, Mission Oaks National Bank
Rex Oliver, Murrieta Chamber of Commerce
Greg Prudhomme, Kuebler, Prudhnmme & Co.
Peter Rosen, Rancon Real Estate
A1 Sabsevitz, Verizon
Joan Sparkman, Temecula Valley Bank
Nancy Wagner, Eastern Municipal Water District
Gary Youmans, Community National Bank
Roger Ziemer, Southern California Gas Company
EDC STAFF
Diane Sessions
Liz Yuzer
MEMBERS AND GUESTS
Maryann Edwards, Temecula Valley Unified
School District
Kathryn Matthews, Guidant Corporation
Melanie Nieman, Eastern Municipal Water
District
Paul Ramsey, Kecton Construction
Harry Shank, Southwest Community Bank
Gloria Wolnick, City of Temecula
CALL TO ORDER
· Board President Dennis Frank called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m.
MINUTES
· The Board reviewed the minutes of the March 20, 2003 Board of Directors Meeting. Motion was made by Gary
Youmans, seconded by Roger Ziemer and carried unanimously to approve the minutes o£the March 20, 2003 Board of
Directors Meeting as presented.
FINANCIAL REPORT
· The Board reviewed the March 31, 2003 Financial Report that showed total monthly revenues of $8,455, total expenses
of $8,074 and total cash-in-bank o£ $76,475. Motion was made by Ken Carlisle, seconded by Keith Johnson and
carried unanimously to approve the March 31, 2003 Financial Report.
· Budget Committee Update - Gary Youmans highlighted several items in the proposed budget that included projected
increases in revenue for business and municipal memberships.
· Approve Operating Budget FY 2003-04 - Motion was made by Rex Oliver, seconded by Joan Sparkman and carried
unanimously to approve the FY 2003-04 Operating Budget.
· Quarterly Luncheon Reconciliation - Diane Sessions thanked Mt. San Jacinto for their sponsorship of thc March
quarterly luncheon and presented the reconciliation report which showed an excess of revenues over expenses of
$545.82.
NEW BUSINESS
· Appoint Action Committee Chairs - Dennis Frank appointed thc chairs of the Action Committees as follows:
Basiness Attraction Committee: Stevie Field
Government Action Committee: Ken Carlisle
Permit and Planning Committee: Rex Oliver and Gary Youmans
Education Committee: Maryann Edwards
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee: David Phares
Communications Committee: Mike Doblado
Economic Development Corporation
of Southwest Riverside County
Board of Directors Meeting - April 17, 2003
Minutes - Page 2 of 3
Motion was made by Keith Johnson, seconded by Mike Doblado, and carried unanimously to approve the appointment
of the Action Committee Chairs.
Workers Compensation Update - Ken Carlisle introduced Kathy Matthews, Manager of Workers Compensation for
Guidant, West Coast. Ms. Matthews provided a review of California Workers Compensation, the impact on business
and opportunities to effect change in legislation. Mr. Carlisle presented a Guidant storyboard showing the impact of
Workers Compensation on their company and encouraged other companies to prepare a similar storyboard for display
at public meetings and at the state capitol. Motion was made by Gary Youmans, seconded by Keith Johnson, and
carried unanimously to authorize Dennis Frank to write a letter of support for Workers' Compensation reform to the
appropriate legislators.
CONTINUING BUSINESS
· Golf Tournament Update - Gary Youmans reported that the committee continued to solicit sponsorships, door prizes
and golfers for the June 9 golf tournament.
· Nominating Committee Update - Rex Oliver reported that ballots would be mailed early in May for election of board
members for 2003-2004.
· Utilities Updates - Al Sabsevitz reported that the FCC would address up a number of issues including advanced
broadband and the TelCom Act. No action had been taken on the 909 area code issue. Melanie Nieman reported that
May was California Water Awareness month and a community water festival would be held May 3 at The Promenade
in Temecula. A solar-powered boat race was scheduled for May 30 and June 1, with high school students building and
racing their boats.
OPEN DISCUSSION
· EDC Administrative/Retention Updates - The Board reviewed the March 2003 Activity Summary submitted by
Diane Sessions. Ms. Sessions distributed information regarding changes in funding for Regional Occupational Centers
and Programs (ROCP).
· SWRC Economic Alliance Update - Stevie Field announced that the Alliance had won awards from CALED for their
program and promotions and City of Temeeula had been honored for their CD-ROM and presentation kit; there were
1,800 visitors to their GIS site since the end of January; and the San Diego Daily Transcript had published a
supplement that highlighted Southwest Riverside County.
· City Updates - City ofLahe Elsinore - No report available. City ofMurrieta - Rex Oliver reported that work on the
new city budget continued and representatives would attend ICSC in Las Vegas in May. City of Temecula - Gloria
Wolnick reported that a broker/developer metering would be held April 23 at city hall and that Maximus, a consulting
firm, would review the city's development impact fee structure.
· SWRC Manufacturers' Council Update - No report available.
· Education Updates - Mt. San Jacinto Community College - Joan Sparkman reported that MSJC would be purchasing
land in Wildomar for a third campus as well as 43 acres in the Banning/Beaumont area for possible future expansion.
Temecula Valley Unified School District - Maryann Edwards reported on plans to open new high schools in 2003 and
2004.
· Chamber Updates - Lake Elsinore Chamber of Commerce - No report available. Murrieta Chamber of Commerce
- Rex Oliver reported their Business Expo would be held May 1 in the Lowe's parking lot; the board installation
banquet would be held at Pala Mesa Resort in June; and their golf tournament was scheduled for August 22 at SCGA.
Mr. Oliver also announced that a new community calendar would be available on their Chamber website and that
participating organizations would update their own information. Temecula Chamber of Commerce - Mike Doblado
reported the Chamber would sponsor the Economic Forecast on June 5.
Economic Development Corporation
of Sguthwest Riverside County
Boar.d:of Directors Meeting -April 17, 2003
Minutes - Page 3 of 3
ADJOURNMENT
Motion was made by Keith Johnson, seconded by Al Sabsevitz and carried unanimously to adjourn the board meeting.
Respectively submitted by:
Elizabeth Yuzer Phil Oberhansley
Recording Secretary Board Secretary
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
OF SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY
BUSINESS RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
Thursday, April 3, 2003 - 9:00 a.m.
Workforce Development Center, Executive Board Room
27447 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, CA
Committee Members Present:
Keith Johnson, Mission Oaks National Bank
Paul Ramsey, Keeton Construction
Diane Sessions, Economic Development Corporation
Harry Shank, Southwest Community Bank
Grant Yates, City of Temecula
Guests:
Glenn Eckels, Lake Elsinore Valley
Chamber of Commerce
Jack McColley, Lake Elsinore Valley
Chamber of Commerce
Liz Yuzer, Economic Development
Corporation
Call To Order
· Diane Sessions called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. in the absence of Committee Chair Michael Lewin.
She welcomed guests to the meeting and led introductions.
Company Contact Reports
· Isomedix/Steris - Grant Yates reported on a visit that Jim O'Grady made to Christopher Bares, Plant
Manager at Isomedix/Steris in Temecula. They were a contract sterilizer of medical products and their
primary customers were medical product manufacturers including Professional Hospital Supply. Mr. Bares
reported that their primary customers were in Southern California and Mexico, and they consider the
proximity an advantage to this location. They ranked their business as large with sales up in the past year
due to improved efficiency and marketing. They found the local economy getting better. There were 18
employees at this location; 17% lived in the Temecula/Murrieta area, 17% lived in Sun City/Menifee, 39% in
Lake Elsinore and 28% in other parts of Riverside County. Mr. Bares indicated that they did not expect their
workforce to change in the foreseeable future nor did they plan to expand their plant. They do have a backup
generator in case of an electrical outage. Mr. Bares indicated that they wanted information on the City's
plans relating to security threats. Mr. O'Grady reported that he would arrange for Mr. Bares to meet with
Jim McBride regarding contingency planning. Mr. O'Grady was also pleased to facilitate a safety drill at
Isomedix with the fire department. Mr. Bares indicated that they were happy doing business in SW Riverside
County.
~lction: Jim O'Grady to arrange meeting with Jim McBride regarding emergency/homeland security
planning. Chris Bares also requested information about the EDC.
Transducer Techniques - Keith Johnson reported on a visit with Gary Baker, president of Transducer
Techniques located in Temecula. They manufactured electronic parts for use in manufacturing production
operations. Mr. Baker indicated that the business moved here from Fullerton 15 years ago so that he could
live in the area and provide economical housing for his employees. At this time all twenty-one of the
employees lived in the Temecula/Murrieta area. They hoped to increase the number of employees in the
foreseeable future but continued to have difficulty finding qualified employees in the area. Their primary
customers were in the computer and electronics industry and were located all over the world. A prim~try
competitor was Eaton Corporation located in Orange County. Mr. Baker ranked his business as medium and
said that he considered the local economy stable. Their principal suppliers of steel, aluminum and electronic
components were located in Orange County and San Diego. They had no plans to expand their plant and did
not have contingency plans for electrical outages. Mr. Baker indicated that he had some difficulty working
with the City of Temecula during a recent move and was unhappy about special charges
Business Relations Committee Meeting
Minutes - April 3, 2003
Page 2 of 3
to hook up electricity. He also expressed concern about criteria inequities for architectural standards in
different areas of the city.
Action: Grant Yates will contact Gary Baker to discuss electric hook~up charge and architectural criteria.
Goal Prooress Reoort
· Diane Sessions announced that visits and phone interviews in the tenth month of the fiscal year were as
follows:
27 visits ~ 3 points each + 33 phone interviews ~ 1 points each = 60 visits/calls ~114 points
YTD VISIT PHONE POINTS
Goal 27 33 114
Actual 10 12 42
Variance -17 -21 - 72
New Committee Assignments
Diane Sessions reviewed the list of outstanding calls. Keith Johnson recommended that OJ Insulation be
removed tiom the list and he agreed to call on Pauley Equipment Co. and Professional Hospital Supply.
Glenn Eckles would call on TransWestern Publishing and Harry Shank would call on Manning Engineering.
Committee Presentation
The committee discussed scheduling a presentation to board members to highlight the work of the Business
Relations Committee. Keith Johnson recommended that the presentation be part of a regular Board of
Directors meeting rather than inviting board members to a committee meeting.
Open Discussion
· EDC Board Update - Diane Sessions reported that the Budget Committee was preparing the budget for
2003-2004; committees were being formed to act on issues identified at the Regional Strategic Planning
Workshop; and the Board of Directors had sent a letter to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors
regarding the request by Allied Domecq to change zoning in an agricultural area that would allow smaller
housing lots. The next Quarterly Luncheon was scheduled for May 22.
· Announcements - Glenn Ecldes reported that the next Lake Elsinore EDC luncheon would focus on identity
theft and business fi:aud.
Adiournment - The meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m.
26442 8ed~Ten Q.
Mume~, CA 92562
1~9) 600~000
ECONOMIC
ALLIANCE
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Bradley J. Hudson
Assistant County Executive Officer
Riverside County EDA
Jim O'Grady
Assistant City Manager
City of Temecula
Lori Moss
Assistant City Manager
City of Murrieta
Marlene Best
Assistant City Manager
City of Lake Elsinore
Stevie Field
Manager, Business Development
April 16, 2003
SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY MONTHLY MARKETING UPDATE
Dear Partners:
Please consider this an update on the marketing activities for the Alliance as required in the Southwest
Riverside County Marketing for Business Attraction Agreement.
Leads
A total of four leads were generated in the month of March. These leads were direct contact to the
Alliance via phone or web site response.
In March we announced another success story. As a result of the Alliance GIS, Roland Loelkes of The
Loelkes Group announced that he not only was able to open escrow with an existing client already in
Murrieta but was also able to work with a new client which resulted in two separate escrows in the
same week. In a letter to the Alliance, Roland writes: "1 firmly believe that the tools and advantages lhe
SWRCO Economic Alliance offers through its demographic information and site features is
unsurpassable. What better way for us to keep up with technology and all it has to offer and also
continue working hard on a positive future for this developing commun~ than by using you to assist
Reqional Breakfast
Fifty-eight guests attended the April 3ru Regional Breakfast for our broker com m unity at the Temecula
Creek Inn. The Alliance GIS and website were the main focus of this breakfast, which included a virtual
tour and mini-training of the GIS. As a result of this breakfast, th/e additional brokers signed up for
passwords, which enables them to unload available listings. To date rAy-three brokers are registered
on this site. I continue to receive positive feedback via note cards and email on this event.
'02-'03 Year in Review
I am currently working on the '02-'03 Year in Review report and binder. The binder will include hard
copies of marketing projects, press releases, awards etc., which the Alliance has accomplished in the
past fiscal year.
Cuttina Edoe Marketina
I am currently working with Cutting Edge on the following projects:
Branding Campaign
Postcard mailings
CD Rom/Demographic Report
Business Resource Guide
Updates on these projects will be provided at our next Alliance meeting.
GIS/VVebsite
Our GIS site has been well received by both the broker community and by the business community.
Since the sites completion and web site launch in late January, we have had appro)~ 1740 visitors (I
subtracted 160 sessions from the actual total for maintenance and testing).
Our website seems to be equally as successful. We have had over 1700 visitors since its official
launch on January 22nd. Last month, I reported seventeen sessions were users in the Netherlands,
this month that number has jumped to forty-six. Most users enter our site directly using
www.swrco.com. During the month of February, we had a total of 454 visitors, and during the month
of Mamh we had 526 visitors visit the Alliance web site.
On March 20th, I received an Email from Anatalio of GIS Planning, Inc., that news about the Alliance
GIS was featured on Yahoo! Finance and Yahoo! Finance UK & Ireland. I have listed the sites below
for you to visit:http://biz.yahoo.com/pz/030122/35778.html
and http://216.239,57.100/search?q=cache:A2R3yH-afxoC:uk.biz.¥ahoo.com/03012
On May 1st, I will be attending a conference at ESRI with Jim O'Grady and John Degange. Jim, John
and I will be the guest speakers at a workshop; economic developers and various city and county
representatives will in attendance.
At the request of Bonnie Wright, Field Representative for Congresswoman Mary Bono and Chairperson
for the Valley EDC (VEDC), On May 2nd, I will be providing a training session to VEDC Board members.
CALED
On behalf of the Alliance, I submitted two applications to CALED for the Awards For Excellence
Program In January. Our application was submitted in the categories of Economic Development
Programs and Economic Development Promotions. lam pleased to report that the Alliance haswon
an Award of Merit in both categories. Jim O'Grady and Marlene Best will be accepting these awards
on behalf of the Alliance.
ADDY Award
On Friday, March 21st, I attended the Inland Empire AddyAward dinner and award presentation. The
Alliance won a Silver Award for the CD-Rom and an Award of Merit for both our presentation kit and
our website.
Business Attraction Committee
As a result of the EDC Strategic Planning meetings and the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities,
and Threats (SWOT), analysis that was conducted, a Business Attracl~on Committee was formed. This
committee is on a volunteer basis, from business leaders and consultant that would like to be involved
in activities such as the regional branding campaign, business site visits, marketing projects etc. I have
received the list of volunteers and will set up a meeting within the next few weeks. Our first agenda
item will be to discuss the branding campaign. I will provide a copy of the volunteer list to each Partner
at our next Alliance meeting.
I-15Inter-Regional Partnership
On behalf of the Alliance, I met with Jeff Martin and Drew Brown of SANDAG, Kevin Viera, WRCOG,
Aaron Adams, City of Temecula and Diane Sessions, EDC of SWRC to discuss other grant
opportunities available through SANDAG that would complement the current jobs to housing study
recently completed. We are working on various ideas including an available job listing web site for
SWRC companies. I will provide more information as this project develops.
Trade shows
On behalf of the Alliance, I am scheduled to attend the following trade shows:
· Biotechnica America (Biotechnology) April 27-30
· Corenet (Real Estate Executives) May 3-7, 2003
· Bio2003 (Biotechnology) June 22-25
Mon~rey, CA
TomnD, Canada
WashingDn DC
'03-'04 Marketinq Plan/MOU
I will provide draft copies of the Marketing Plan and MOU at our next Alliance meeting. If you have any
thoughts on the Marketing Plan and/or marketing activities for '03-'04, please forward them to me at
your earliest convenience.
On an ongoing basis, I attend the following meetings:
Temecula/Murrieta Group
Business Relations Committee
SWRC EDC
LE EDC
1-15-1 Partnership Meetings
Economic Development meetings concerning the Southwest Riverside County region
UCR Connect meetings
If you need any additional information or have any questions, please contact me at (909) 600-6066.
Sincerely,
Stevie Field
Manager, Business Development
Copy: Belinda Graham
John Viafora
Robed Moran
Teresa Gallavan
A=17-203 2:$3PM FROM
TEMECULa VALLEY
FILM COUNCIL
Pat Martlnc~
ExecutiVe Director
Stmfly,Po~son Thoma~
Co-F~e ~dent
Ste~e Phell~
Co-Presldent
Ellen War kixm
Vice Pfe~ideat
Patty Slnton
TEMECULA VALLEY FILM COUNCIL
ACTIVITIES REPORT
MARCH 2003
OFFICERS & MEMBERS OF THE FILM COUNCIL:
Pat Martin~, Executive Director; Sunny Thomas, President; Ellen Watkins,
Vice President; Heiene Scoma, Secretary/Treasure; Eve Craig, Maggi AHen,
Patty Slaton & Judi Staats
Judi Staat~
THE
BUSINESS OF THE FILM COUNCIL:
Monthly mailing of thc four color Post Card.
Worked with Sheri Davis, the Dimctor'of the Inland Empire Film
Commission, to bring filming into Tcmccula~
implementing and creating a Sponsomhip Package for the Student Film
Festival to 1~ held in February, 2004. Continued'conversation with Scan
McCarthy regarding the scope and form Film Festival should take.
Studem Workshops: Worked with Sheri Davis to gain contact with
industry professionals to condu~t student workshops in our local high
schools.
Worked with the Art I~parunent to make a new colored flyer as a making
tool to b~ used at the Locations Expo, April 10 - 12, 2004.
New Members: seanM_cCarthy a teacher for the Murricta High School
and The Director of the Film Club. Darrel Vameer a professional
Photographer, Musician and Production Dirctor. Lbigth Di Bemardo,
Film Producer and Screen writer.
E-mai! tef¢@po,uet · www,temecul~film.org
28636 Old Town Front St.* Suite 201.4 · Tcmeeula. CA gggg0 * lzhor, e g0g-Bgg-6267 · Fax 909-693-2748
A-17-203 2:3APM FROM
Activity Report
Page 2
SUPPORT FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY INTERNATIONAL
FILM AND MUSIC FESTIVAL:
Provided by receiving incoming calls regarding the 2003 Film and Music Festival
'co be held September 10 - t4t~.
The Film Council will host "An Evening with Producers, Directors, Writers And
Location Scouts" on September 11t~ for the Film Festival. The event will be
Housed in a private estate and will consist of food, beverage and entertainment.
This event will insure the Film Council of having a one on one with the above
professionals.
FILM COUNCIL INQUIRES:
Seventy plus calls have come irt regarding filming in Temecula and the Film
Festival.
"Original Production" will be filming in Perils, but will stay in Temecula~ They
will be filming for one week ia April, exact date is unknown.
"The Dating Game" will be filming the week of April 1~t at Wilson Winery for
one day.
Additionally an Independent Film will be shot in our local vineyards around April
10tr.
B-09-203 3:27PM FROM P. 2
TE~t~C'UC~ VALLEY
FILM COUNCIL
Pa~ Martlnc~
Eze cutivc Director
TEMECULA VALLEY FILM COUNCIL
ACTMTIES REPORT
APRIL 2003
Sunny Pgulson Thoma~
Stye Fh~lps
C,o-Pt~ sidcat
Vice Ft~s~dent
]Patty slaton
Secrem~y/Tr¢ a~u~cr
Eve Craig
Maggie AII~
J~di
Officers & Members of the Film Council:
Pat Martinez, Executive Director; Sunny Thomas, President; Ellen
Watkins,Vico President; Helcne Scorns, Secretary/Treasure; Eve
Craig, Maggi Mien, Patty Slaton, Judi St_~s~s & Senn McCarthy
TI~E BUSINESS OF THE FILM COUNCIL:
* Monthly mailing of the four color post. card will be replaced
with a computer disc, Discover Temeeula.
Continue tu work with Sherl Davis,'the Director of the Inland
Empire Film Commission, to bring filming into Temecula.
Implementing a Sponsorship Package for the Student Film
Festival to be held February, 2004.
Solicitation of sponsors for the Student Film Festival has
begun.
Locations Expo held in April at the Santa Monies Convention
Center was a true success for Temeculla. The new flyer
"Discover Temeeula" was handed out to over 500 Location
Scout~ Temceula Valley Film Council had the Privilage of
sharing a booth with the Inland Empire Film Commission.
New Computer Disc: Filming Locations in Temecula will focus
on commercials and still shots).
· A fall page ad was placed in the Inland Empire Production
Guide- It is expected that a signifieate.number of location
scouts will be reached.
E.malI tvfc~p¢.nct * www.temeculafilm,org
28636 Old Town Front St** Suite 2OlA o Tem¢cala. CA. 92.g90 * Phone 909-699-6g67 * Fax 909-693-gY&8
B-09-203 3:27PH FRON P. 3
Activity Report
Page 2
'lH~: TEMECULA VALLEY ENTERNATIONAL FILM AND MUSIC FESI'IVAL:
The Film Council will host "An Evening with Producers, Directors,
Writers and Location Scouts on September 11, 2003. The event will
be held in a private estate. Invitation will be mailed directly to the
FILM COUNCIL INQUIRES:
167 phone calls were received in the month of April.
A motorcycle commercial was filmed by Film Permits Inc. on April
23, 2003. It was a one day shot at 33171 Madera De Piaya. Thirty
Five cast and crew members were on hand and a local caterer was
used.
A feature film was produced by Bonita Entertainment Films on
April 20 and 21'* on Via Cordoba. Fifty cast and crew members were
on hand stay at local hotels.
HOME · FAMILY · OFFICE o SCHOOL
r Kits Starting From
1 Person $6.95
2 Person $58.00
4 Person $72.00
r Save 10% OFF
your order,
enter code wy0503
during checkout
www. urbansu rvivaltools.com
AAA MEMBERS receive a 10% discount off room
rates, plus a free room upgrade when you make
reservations or at check-in by referring to this ad.
Enjoy one of San Luts Obispo's
special treasures o.. stay at the SANDS.
Our 2-room suites have wet bars, microwaves & refrigerators; we offer
complimentary continental breakfast, air-conditioned rooms and heated
p~ol and spa. We are close to Cai Po[y, the Old Mission, historical
downtown, fine restaurants and shopping. Located iust off of the
101 Freeway, North at the Monterey Street exit.
IvtAy/JuN~ 2003
Set in one of Southent California's ~
~ost beautiful valleys Temecula's Wine
Country has it all ~ Year-round wine
tasting, special events, dining, shopping,
golf, ballooning and more!
Call or visit our website for a colorful
Wine Country brochure.
1-800-801-WINE
www. temeeulawines.eom
i II;MI;CULA
Enjo)
Wine Country,
Temecula is a vibrant
community with an exceptional quality of life.
Picturesque Wine Country,
historic Old Town, championship
golf courses, unlimited shopping,
community parks and outdoor
recreation provide a wealth of leisure
activities for residents of all ages and
visitors alike.
Rich with economic
promise,Temecula's
great family environment.
safe neighborhoods,
excellent schools, and abundant business opportunities
make Temecula one of the most desirable places to live,
work and play!
Phone: 909-50&-5100 Website:. wv*v.cttyofta~ecula.org
43200 Busine~ Park Drive.. RO. Box 9033 Temec~la, CA 92589.9033
APPROVAL ~
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER ~ ~''
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Jim Domenoe, Chief of Police
May 27, 2003
Monthly Departmental Report
The following report reflects special teams, traffic enforcement and miscellaneous activity occurring
during April 2003. The Police Department responded to 45 "priority one" calls for service during the
month of March, with an average response time of approximately 5.2 minutes. A total of 4,030 calls
for police service were generated in the Cityof Temecula during the month.
During April, the Temecula Police Department's Town Center Storefront served a total of 161
customers. Sixty-one sets of fingerprints were taken, 37 people filed police reports and nine people
had citations signed off. Crime Prevention Officer Lynn Fanene padicipated in a number of special
events, neighborhood watch and community-oriented programs during the month. Of particular note
was the Military Dependant's Day that was held on April 19 at the CRC. This event was put on to
assist the families of active duty military personnel who were deployed overseas. It provided them
with information about a variety of local services available to them. Officer Fanene also coordinated
requests for patrol ride-alongs. Additionally, he continued to provide residential and business
security surveys/visits and past crime follow-up. Officer Fanene also continued to process City
Planning Department submissions of site plans/conditions.
The POP Teams continued the Warrant Apprehension Program during April, resulting in three
felony and seven misdemeanor warrant arrests. They also issued 25 citations for various traffic
violations. POP Teams also continued with the homeless persons program, with the goal of
assisting homeless in finding services and aid to help them. POP officers spent a majority of their
time during March conducting background checks on the Temecula Citizen Corps applicants. POP
off~cers conducted 15 background investigations for the Temecula Citizen Corps program. Apart
from the warrant arrests that ha~e been mentioned, they made an additional seven felony and 25
misdemeanor arrests for various crimes.
The Old Town Storefront serves as an office for the POP teams and a location to assist the public
with police services. During April, the Old Town Storefront served 293 customers. Forty-three sets
of fingerprints were taken, 26 reports were written, and 37 citations were signed off.
The traffic team reported that during the month of April there were 683 citations issued for
Monthly Departmental Report - Police Department
hazardous violations, 280 citations were issued for non-hazardous violations and 177 parking
citations were issued. During the month there were 13 injury traffic collisions, 68 non-injury
collisions were reported and 21 drivers were arrested for DUI. The Neighborhood Enforcement
Team (NET) program resulted in 190 citations being issued. This program addresses traffic
concerns in residentiat neighborhoods with a dedicated motor officer. The SLAP program (Stop
Light Abuse Program) resulted in 124 citations being issued.
During the month of April, the POP officers assigned to the Promenade Mall handled a total of 170
calls for service. The majority of these calls were for shoplifting investigations. During the month,
calls and on-sight activity resulted in the criminal arrest and filings on six felony and 27
misdemeanor cases. Officers McEIvain and Rupe continued to provide training to security staff
during the month. The mall officers continued to work to prevent vehicle theft and vehicle burglaries.
Our five school resource officers have remained active during April. The school resource officers
conducted many counseling sessions with students. A total of 56 investigations/reports were
conducted/written by the school resource officers during April. The school resource officers also
made arrests for various misdemeanor crimes during the month, such as battery, annoying
telephone calls, theft and drunk in public. The school resource officers also made several felony
arrests for possession of methamphetamine and possession of stolen property.
The JOLT program (Juvenile Offender Law Enforcement Program) continues to be a success in part
through its Youth Court program. Officer Sherry Adams conducted the 110th Youth Court session.
The JOLT officer assisted at other schools when needed and conducted follow-ups with parents of
juveniles in the JOLT program. Officer Adams also worked with "at risk" juveniles throughout the
month and also conducted counseling sessions with their parents. She assisted the Riverside
County District Attorney's Office and Probation Department by providing training during home visits
with incorrigible/at risk juveniles during the month of April. Officer Adams also made felony arrests
for child endangerment and a juvenile making terrorists threats.
During the month of April, the Special Enforcement Team (SET Team) made four felony arrests and
three misdemeanor arrests, primarily for narcotics violations. The SET Team recovered quantities
of marijuana and methamphetamine during April. This team continues to work street level narcotics
and specialty patrol within the city on a proactive basis.
Volunteers from the community continue to be an integral part of the Temecula Police Department's
staff. Under the guidance of volunteer coordinator Officer Bob Ridley and assistant coordinator
Gayle Gerrish, the Police Department's volunteer staff contributed 522 hours of service in April.
Volunteer assignments include computer data input, logistics support, special event assistance and
telephone answering duties.
Community Action Patrol (CAP) Program volunteers have continued their activities, patrolling the city
for graffiti, conducting vacation residential checks and assisting patrol with special logistical needs
and special events. Other duties these volunteers attend to are business checks and abandoned
vehicles and traffic control. The goal of the program is high visibility, which prevents crime from
occurring. CAP Team members contributed 274 hours of service to the community during the
month of April.
The reserve officer program and mounted posse are additional valuable volunteer resources
available to the police department. The police department utilizes reserve officers to assist with
patrol, traffic enforcement, crime prevention and a variety of special functions. Reserve police
officers worked a total of 191 hours specifically on patrol in Temecula during April.
Monthly Departmental Report - Police Department
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY~/_~_~ .~
DIRECTOR OF FIN,~NCEw:~.~'
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Anthony J. Elmo, Director of Building & Safet~
May 27, 2003
Departmental Report
April 2003
PREPARED BY: Carol Brockmeier, Administrative Secretary
TOTAL NUMBER OF PERMITS ISSUED ................................................................... 464
NSFR .................................................................................................................. 72
NCOM ................................................................................................................... 7
TOTAL VALUATION ..................................................................................... $13,386,386
TOTAL NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS PERFORMED .............................................. 3,303
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE_,~:~
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Howard Windsor, City Fire Chief ~'~
May 27, 2003
Monthly Departmental Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Attached for City Council's review and filing is the Fire Department's Monthly Activity Report for the
first quarter of 2003.
Month: January Year: 2003
Fires
Other Fire
False Alarms
Public Service Assists
Fire Menace Standbys
Haz Mats
Other Incidents
Total
% of Calls on Scene in 5 min or less
Average Response Times
88% 85% 67% 90% 91% 84%
3.6 4.4 5.3 4 3.3 4.1
Number of Calls 0 0 0 13 14 14
Time Committed 0.25 0 0 0 2.95 3.20 3.20
School Programs
Fairs and Displays
Company Inspections
LE-38 Dooryard Inspections
Burning Permits Issued
Pre Plans
9O
21
0 6 6
0 5 5
0 111 111
0 0 0
39 39
23 0 0 13 3
2 0 0 I 0 3 3
Total 120 21 0 20 3 164 164
Month: February
Year: 2003
Other Fire
False Alarms
Public Service Assists
Fire Menace Standbys
Haz Mats
Other Incidents
Total
% of Calls on Scene in 5 min or less
Average Response Times
96% 87% 33% 91% 92% 80% 82%
3.35 3.25 6.3 4.1 3.1 4.02 3.61
0 0 0 0 7 7
0 0 0 0 2.31 2.:31
5.51
Permits Issued
Pre Plans
Total
70
0 0 0
0 0
20 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
21 0
12
0
2
37
5
189
76
18 17 126 290
Month: March
Year: 2003
Medical Aids
Traffic Collisions
Ringing Alarms - No Fire
Ringing Alarms - With Fire
Commercial Structure Fires
Residential Structure Fires
Vegetation Fires
Other Fire
False Alarms
Public Service Assists
Fire Menace Standbys
Haz Mats
Other Incidents
Total
% of Calls on Scene in 5 min or less 97% 85% 57% 90% 89%
84% 83%
Average Response Times
3.4 3.75 5.9 3.65 3.5 4.04 3.8.5
0 0 0 0 5 5 26
Time Committed 0 0 0 0 1.3 1.30 6.81
School Programs
Fairs and Displays
Company Inspections
LE-38 Dooryard Inspections
Burnin~ Permits Issued
Pre Plans
12
3 0
0 l
48 429
0 0
14 0
2 0
67 430
0 0 1
0 0 0
0 13 2
0 1 0
Total 0 26 3
15 25
1 8
478 667
0 0
29 105
3 11
526 i 816
Month: January
Year: 2003
~mercial Structure Fires
Residential Structure Fires
of Calls on Scene in 5 rnin or
Times
I
Month: February Year: 2003
Aids 103 68 171 360
~'ollisions 26 26 52 105
Rescues 0 0 0 0
Commercial Structure Fires 1 2 3 5
Residential Structure Fires 5 0 5 11
Vehicle Fires 0 0 O 1
Vegetation Fires 0 0 0 0
[m[}rovement Fires 0 0 0 1
Refuse Fires 0 0 0 0
Ringing Alarms 1 3 4 10
Public Service Assists 2 2 4 6
:ire Menace Standbys 0 0 0 2
Haz Mats 0 0 0 0
Cover Assignments 0 0 0 1
Other Incidents I 0 1 2
101 240 504
81% 85% 89%
Total 139
% of Calls on Scene in 5 min or less 89%
Average Response Times 5.45 3.80 4.63 4.19
Month: March
Year: 2003
Medical Aids 141 211
Traffic Collisions 36
Rescues 0
Commercial Structure Fires
Residential Structure Fires
Vehicle Fires
Vegetation Fires
Improvement Fires
Refuse Fires
Ringing Alarms
Public Service Assists
Fire Menace Standbys
Haz Mats
2over Assignments
Other Incidents
4 0
2 1
0 0
0 0
'0 0
0 1
4 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
188 99
Total
% of Calls on Scene in 5 min or less 94% 87%
3.70
571
60 165
0 0
2 7
4 15
4
0
0 0
1 11
6 12
0 2
0 0
0 1
0 2
287 791
91% 90%
3.60 3.89
Average Response Times 3.50
Month: January Year: 2003
Buildin[~ TI 17 17
NCOM Buildin~ 10 10
UG Water 10 10
Over/Under Ground Tanks 0 0
NCOM Sprinkler 3 3
Sprinkler TI 24 24
Hood Duct 8 8
Spray Booths 0 0
Special Suppression Systems I 1
Alarm s 15 15
Plannin$ Cases 34 34
Special Code Permits 0 0
Miscellaneous 7 7
Total 129 129
Fire C of O 11 11
Shell Final 4 4
UG Hydro 2 2
Thrust Blocks 4 4
Over Head Hydro 14 14
Fire Flow 1 1
Flush 2 2
Sprinkler Final 11 11
Weld Inspection 2 2
Hood Duct Final 0 0
Alarm Pre-wire 18 18
Alarm Final 13 13
Spray Booth Final 0 0
Fire Safety Inspection 4 4
State Mandated Inspection 0 0
Special Events Inspection 0 0
Pipin~ Hydro 0 0
Shear Valves 0 0
Over/Under Tank Final 0 0
Special Suppression System 0 0
Special Project Investigation 0 0
Engine Company Follow-up 0 0
Miscellaneous 2 2
Total 88 88
Month: February Year: 2003
Building TI 21 38
NCOM Building 7 17
UG Water 2 12
Over/Under Ground Tanks 1 1
NCOM Sprinkler 16 19
Sprinkler TI 9 33
Hood Duct 5 13
Spray Booths 0 0
Special Suppression Systems 0 1
Alarms 14 29
PlanninIl Cases 14 48
Special Code Permits 0 0
Miscellaneous 13 20
Total 102 231
Fire C of O 15 26
Shell Final 2 6
UG Hydro 4 6
Thrust Blocks 3 7
Over Head Hydro 14 28
Fire Flow 0 1
Flush 4 6
Sprinkler Final 12 23
Weld Inspection I 3
Hood Duct Final 2 2
Alarm Pre-wire 3 21
Alarm Final 12 25
Spray Booth Final I 1
Fire Safety' Inspection 3 7
State Mandated Inspection 0 0
Special Events Inspection 0 0
Piping Hydro 0 0
Shear Valves 0 0
Over/Under Tank Final 0 0
Special Suppression System 0 0
Special Project Investigation 0 0
Engine Company Follow-up 0 0
Miscellaneous 3 5
Total 79 167
Momh: March Year: 2003
Building TI 32 70
NCOM Building 11 28
UG Water 12 24
Over/Under Ground Tanks 0 1
NCOM Sprinkler 11 30
Sprinkler TI 15 48
Hood Duct 3 16
Spray Booths 1 1
Special Suppression Systems 2 3
Alarms 23 52
Plannin~ Cases 22 70
Special Code Permits 0 0
Miscellaneous 5 25
Total 137 368
Fire C of O 17 43
Shell Final 6 12
UG Hydro 2 8
Thrust Blocks 0 7
Over Head Hydro 5 33
Fire Flow 0 1
Flush I 7
Sprinkler Final 8 31
Weld Inspection 1 4
Hood Duct Final 2 4
Alarm Pre-wire 3 24
Alarm Final 15 40
Spray Booth Final 0 1
Fire Safet~ Inspection 0 7
State Mandated Inspection 0 0
Special Events Inspection 0 0
Pipin~ Hydro 0 0
Shear Valves 0 0
Over/Under Tank Final 0 0
Special Suppression System 0 0
Special Project Investigation 0 0
En[~ine Company Follow-up 0 0
Miscellaneous 0 5
Yotal 6O 227
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Maneger/City~o~u~
Debbie Ubnosk~;'Director of Planning
May 27, 2003
Monthly Report
The following are the recent highlights for the Planning Division of the Community Development
Department in the month of April 2003.
CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITIES
New Cases
The Division received 5--4 new applications for administrative, other minor cases, and home
occupations and 6 applications for public hearings during the month of April. The new public
hearing cases are as follows;
Certificate of Land Division Compliance 1
Lot Line Adjustment 1
Development Plan 2
Tentative Tract Map Residential 1
Conditional Use Permit 1
Status of Major Proiects
Recently Approved Projects
Beer and Wine Sales at Arno Service Station/Convenience Store - Minor Conditional Use Permit
to allow wine and beer sales onsite. The subject property is located at 44987 Front Street. This
project was approved at the March 20, 2003, Director's Hearing because there was not an over-
concentration of alcohol outlets in that census tract.
Fairmont Homes at Crowne Hill - is a Development Plan application by Greystone Homes. This
application is the Product Review for 112 detached single-family residential homes that will offer
three different floor plans and three architectural designs. The homes will be located in the
central portion of the Crowne Hill Subdivision, Tract 23143-6, east of Butterfield Stage Road
south of Pauba Road and west of Crowne Hill Drive. This project was approved at Director's
Hearing on April 3, 2003.
R:'~IONTHLY. RPT~2003~Apri12003 Report.doc
1
Iron Wok o A Development Plan to add an outdoor patio to an existing restaurant located at the
Promenade Mall. The project was approved on March 3, 2003. Building permit has been
issued.
Nottingham Homes at Crowne Hill - A Development Plan application by Greystone Homes. This
application is the Product Review for 119 detached single-family residential homes and it will
offer three different floor plans with three different architectural designs. The homes will be
located in the northeast end of Crowne Hill Subdivision, Tracts 23143-10 -11 & -Final, east of
Butterfield Stage Road south of Pauba Road, east and west of Crcwne Hill Drive. This project
was approved at the April 10th Director's Hearing.
PA03-0152 - Substantial Conformance application to divide an existing 10,000 square foot
commercial building (former Krause's Sofa Factory) into two retail suites. The plan was
approved administratively on April 10, 2003.
Roripaugh Ranch Phasing Map - A phasing map to establish the Specific Plan into 3 individual
phases. The project was approved on April 7, 2003..
Paradise Chevrolet - An Administrative Development Plan for an automobile storage and
employee parking lot for Paradise Chevrolet located on the southwest corner of Ynez Road
across from the new Chamber of Commerce building. The application was submitted on
December 30, 2002, and deemed incomplete on January 21,2003. On March 10, 2003, the
applicant submitted revised plans. The plan was approved at the April 24, 2003 Directors
Hearing.
Rancho Community Church Map - A request to divide 39.14 acres into 17 parcels based upon
the approved configuration of the church and school campus. This project is located on the
north side of SR79 South east of Jedediah Smith Road and west of Avenida de Missiones. Mr.
Jay Beckley, with Rancho Community Reform Church, submitted this project on October 11,
2002. This was approved at the April 24th Director's Hearing.
Bel Villaggio LLC - A development plan to construct, operate and establish an 8100 square foot
retail building for Building C in the Bel Villaggio Retail Center located west of Margarita Road
and 470 feet south of the Mall Access Road. The project was deemed incomplete on December
17, 2002. The applicant resubmitted plans on January 21,2003, and an incomplete letter was
sent on February 5, 2003. Revised plans were submitted on March 11th. The project was
subsequently deemed complete on March 1 g, 2003, and approved by Planning Commission on
April 23, 2003.
Harveston Apartments - PA02-0698 a multi-family residential apartment complex totaling 300
units. The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Margarita Road and Harveston
Way. The application was submitted on December 20, 2002. Staff conducted a DRC meeting
with the applicant on January 30, 2003. The Planning Commission approved the project on April
23, 2003.
Harveston Tentative Tract Map No. 30668 - Residential Tract Map application to subdivide 18.3
acres into 107 lots. The application was submitted on December 3, 2002. Staff conducted a
DRC meeting with the applicant on March 6, 2003. The Planning Commission approved the
Tentative Tract Map on May 7, 2003..
R:\MONTHLY.RPT~2003~Apri12003 Report.doc
2
Harveston Tentative Tract Map No. 30699 - Residential Tract Map application to subdivide 31.3
acres into 205 lots. The application was submitted on November 20, 2002. Staff conducted a
DRC meeting with the applicant on March 6, 2003. The Planning Commission approved the
Tentative Tract Map on May 7, 2003.
Harveston Tentative Tract Map No. 30673 - Residential Tract Map application to subdivide 40.5
acres into 182 lots. The application was submitted on December 20, 2002. Staff conducted a
DRC meeting with the applicant on March 6, 2003. The Planning Commission approved the
Tentative Tract Map on May 7, 2003.
Harveston Tentative Tract Map No. 31053 - Residential Tract Map application to subdivide 34.2
acres into 214 lots. The application was submitted on December 20, 2002. Staff conducted a
DRC meeting with the applicant on March 6, 2003. The Planning Commission approved the
Tentative Tract Map on May 7, 2003.
Rainbow Canyon Retail Center Design Guidelines - Application for approval of architectural,
landscaping and signage design guidelines for the Rainbow Canyon Retail Center. The subject
property is located at the southeast and southwest corners of State Hwy. 79 South and Pala
Road. Staff is currently working with the project amhitect to draft specific architectural design
guidelines. The Planning Commission at their February 19th meeting considered this item. The
item was subsequently continued to the March 19th meeting for redesign. The applicant has
now indicated that the redesign issues cannot be fully addressed by the April 23rd meeting. The
Planning Commission approved the design guidelines on May 7, 2003.
Rancho Community Church Map - A request to divide 39.14 acres into 17 parcels based upon
the approved configuration of the church and school campus. This project is located on the
north side of SR79 South east of Jedediah Smith Road and west of Avenida de Missiones. Mr.
Jay Beckley, with Rancho Community Reform Church, submitted this project on October 11,
2002. This was approved at the April 24th Director's Hearing.
Talon Sports Industrial Building - A Development Plan to construct, operate and establish an
18,243 square foot industrial building on .99 acres, located at 42044 Winchester Road, west of
Diaz Road, submitted August 28, 2002, by McArdle & Associates Amhitects. Project was
approved by Planning Commission on April 23, 2003.
Jefferson Avenue Office Building - A Development Plan to construct a 21,870 square foot two
story office building on 1.67 acres of land, located at 27708 Jefferson Avenue (APN 921-400-
037-2); Submitted by Diamond Central Investors, LLC. The application was submitted on June
21,2002. A DRC meeting was held on August 8, 2002. The item was approved at the April 23,
2003, Planning Commission meeting.
Carlyle Homes at Crowne Hill - A Development Plan application by Lennar Homes. This
application is the Product Review for 100 detached single-family residential homes and it will
offer three different floor plans with three different architectural designs. The homes will be
located in the central portion of the Crowne Hill Subdivision, Tract 2314310-8, east of Butterfield
Stage Road south of Pauba Road. This project was approved at Director's Hearing on May 15,
2003.
Tentative Parcel Map 31144 - A residential Tentative Parcel Map, proposing to subdivide one
existing lot into three separate lots located north of Santiago Road and south of Pauba Road, at
the bulb of the cul-de-sac (Avenida de San Pasqual). The project is located in the Chapparal
R:'W~ONTHLY.RPT~2003"~,pri12003 Report.doc
3
area as described in the General Plan. The Planning Department has identified major issues
and communicated those to the applicant/owner. An Environmental Assessment is required per
CEQA. Staff has requested specific studies be submitted in order to complete the EA.
Additionally, staff requested an extension as required by CEQA, which the applicant has signed
and agreed to. The applicant submitted a revised Tentative Parcel Map on March 20, 2003.
The project was approved at the May 15, 2003 Director's Hearing.
Recently Denied Projects
Bob and Gary's Field Fresh Berries - A Temporary Use Permit for a temporary fruit stand located
on the northeast corner of Winchester Road and Nicolas Road. This TUP was submitted on
January 9, 2003. On February 5th the Planning Director denied the application due to traffic
safety concerns. On February 19, 2003, the Planning Commission denied the application in
support of the Director's decision. On April 2, 2003 the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision to deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision to deny the
Temporary Use Permit. The appeal will be scheduled for a City Council meeting tentatively in
July.
Projects Under Review
Commercial
Big Lots - A Development Plan proposal to build a 28,100 square foot retail store on the vacant
lot adjacent to Michael's in the Tower Plaza shopping center. STDR Amhitects of Costa Mesa
submitted the application on February 27, 2003. This project will go to the Planning Commission
on June 4, 2003.
Bridgeport Map - A request to divide 14.48 acres into an 8 lot commercial subdivision, located
on the north side of SR79 South east of Avenida de Missiones (east of the Rancho Community
Church project). Mr. Orley Weaver, with Bridgeport Builders, submitted this project on
September 16, 2002. The project was deemed incomplete and inconsistent with the General
Plan's requirement for this property to develop as a unified site. This project is on hold while the
applicant works with several commercial users to submit a comprehensive development plan for
the entire site.
Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints - A Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan to
construct, operate and establish a 24,119 square foot single story church located on the north
side of Pauba Road, approximately 170 linear feet west of the centerline of Corte Villoso. A
DRC was held on February 13, 2003. A Community Meeting subsequently held in the Council
Chambers, on March 17, 2003. Staff noted a number of concerns, which were voiced by the
neighbors, which were then summarily sent to each attendee. Staff met with the applicant on
May 14, 2003 to further discuss neighborhood concerns and define action plan.
Margarita Canyon - A request for the first extension of time for Tentative Pamel Map No. 28627
located west of Interstate 15 and south of Old Town Front Street, submitted by Margarita
Canyon, LLC. The application was submitted on February 21,2003. The item was scheduled
for a DRC meeting on April 24, 2003. A DRC letter was mailed to the applicant on April 24,
2003.
· Monkey Feet- A Minor Conditional Use Permit proposal to establish a computer network service
and Internet access facility. The site is located at 27911 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 103. The
R:\MONTHLY,RPT~2003'~Apri12003 Report.doc
4
applicant has submitted the additional requested information on May 7, 2003. Staff is reviewing
the project.
Overland Self Storage Facility - Conditional Use Permit to construct a 124,496 square foot, one
story, self-storage mini warehousing facility with beige stucco and beige metal siding exterior
walls and olive green color metal roofing on a two lot, 3.65-acres site, located south of Overland
Drive and east of Commeme Center Drive. Future phase to include construction of a one-story
3,000 square foot office and caretaker's dwelling unit located at front of site. Staff held a
Development Review Committee meeting on May 8, 2002. As a result, a number of issues have
been identified and have been communicated to the owner and applicant. On November 2,
2002, staff met with the owner of the property and continued discussion of the project. A
General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone and a Certificate of Parcel Merger were submitted
on February 12, 2003. The applicant/owner has revised the architectural elevation plans for
staff review. Revised plans have been re-submitted and staff has continued to note
discrepancies. The project was reassigned to Rick Rush on April 22, 2003. Staff will schedule a
meeting with the applicant within the next week.
ABC Pre-School Facility- A Development Plan proposal to establish a two-story 21,849 square
foot day care/pre-school facility on a 1.9 acre site. The property is located at the northwest
corner of Village Road and Landings Road in the Harveston Specific Plan area. A DRC meeting
was conducted on April 3, 2003. Staff is awaiting plan revisions from the applicant.
Power Center II - A Development Plan request to develop an 8.8 acre commemial site for
multiple building pads (under separate reviews) to build retail and restaurants buildings totaling
49,072 square feet, located on the northwest corner of North General Kearny Read and
Margarita Road within the Temecula Regional Center. Jack Tarr, with Diversified Investment
Co., submitted this project on November 7, 2002. A DRC meeting was held for this and all
related projects on December 12, 2002. Revised plans were resubmitted on April 1, 2003.
Comments related to this project are being prepared. This project is scheduled for Planning
Commission review on May 21,2003, with other related projects.
o Krispy Kreme - A Development Plan request for a 4,025 square foot donut shop/restaurant
with drive-thru.
o Islands Restaurant - A Development Plan request for a 5,293 square foot restaurant.
Redhawk Car Wash - A Conditional Use Permit proposal to build a self-service car wash
located approximately 500 feet west of Redhawk Parkway on the south side of Via Rio
Temecula. A DRC was held April 15, 2003. A letter was sent on April 16, 2003, with
requirements for a redesign.
St. Catherine's expansion - A Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan to establish an
educational/community meeting room, and construct a 2,301 square foot office addition and a
10,902 square foot classroom building on an 8.43-acre site located at 41875 C Street. A DRC
meeting was held on April 24, 2003. A DRC letter was mailed out on April 25, 2003. Staff is
waiting for applicant to address Staff concerns and resubmit.
Tentative Parcel Map 30849 - A request to subdivide 2.61 gross acres of commercially zoned
property into 2 lots. The project was deemed incomplete on November 8, 2002. Revised plans
were resubmitted on December 18, 2002. The applicant has been advised by Public Works that
a parcel map with a waiver of the final map is highly recommended. However, the applicant has
not yet decided.
R:'W1ONTHLY. RPT,2.003~Apd12003 Report.doc
5
Vince's Spaghetti Express - An Administrative Development Plan proposal to remodel an
existing drive-thru restaurant (Taco Bell) for use as an Italian casual dinning restaurant with
drive-thru take out located at 28145 Jefferson Street. Staff met with applicant on April 23 and
revisions were discussed. Staff is awaiting resubmittal.
Winchester Pavilion - A Development Plan to construct, operate and establish a 15,156 square
foot commemial building on 1.15 acres, located at 41720 Winchester Road, west of Enterprise
Circle South, east of Enterprise Circle West and south of Winchester Road. The project was
submitted on March 27, 2003. A DRC meeting was scheduled for May 15, 2003 and plans will
need revisions.
Remington Business Center - A Development Plan to design and construct a light industrial
complex consisting of 11 buildings, built in two phases, totaling 127,162 square feet, on 8.9
acres. The project is located on the south side of Remington Avenue between Winchester and
Diaz Roads in the Westside Business Center. Smith Consulting Architect, of San Diego,
submitted the application on April 22, 2003, and Staff is currently reviewing the plan.
· Rancho Pueblo Professional Center- A Development Plan to design and construct a mixed-use
professional center with 6 buildings for medical office, restaurant, and other uses with a total of
110,197 square feet of floor area, on 14.5 acres. The project is located on the north side of
Highway 79 South, east of Avenida de Missiones, and the future Rancho Pueblo Road. Malkoff
& Associates, of Villa Park, submitted the application on April 25, 2003, and it is set for a Pre-
DRC meeting on May 20, 2003.
· Temecula Super Storage - A Conditional Use Permit to design, construct, and operate a mini-
storage facility consisting of a single-story, 1,307 square foot office, three 1 -story buildings, and
two 2-story buildings for a total of 109,177 square feet, on 3.9 acres. The project will be located
on the north side of Highway 79 South, east of Avenida de Missiones, on the north side of the
future Rancho Pueblo Road. Jordan Amhitects, of San Clemente, submitted the application for
Bridgeport Builders, of Costa Mesa, on April 25, 2003. The project has been set for a Pre-DRC
meeting on May 20, 2003.
Industrial
O'Hern Wall Industrial Building - A Development Plan to construct a 18,400 square foot
industrial building on 1.28 acres, located at 42108 Roick Drive, submitted on October 8, 2002,
by O'Hern Wall Associates. The applicant has revised the plans. A staff report is being
prepared for the June 4, 2003 Planning Commission.
Sigma Industrial Complex - A Development Plan to construct 6 detached industrial buildings
totaling approximately 83,000 square feet on 5 acres located on the north side of Zevo Drive,
submitted December 23, 2002. A DRC was held on January 23, 2003. Revised plans were
submitted on March 11, 2003 and there are still outstanding design concerns. Staff is in
discussion with Applicant regarding options for project.
Zevo Drive Condos - A Development Plan to construct 2 industrial condominium facilities totaling
approximately 91,337 square feet on 3.5 acres located on the north side of Zevo Drive,
submitted December 26, 2002. Development Review Committee was held on January 30th and
the revised plans were submitted on April 17, 2003. The Applicant is revising a Geotechnical
report for the County Geologist.
R:~IONTHLY. RP~2003~Apri12003 Report.doc
6
Mixed Use
Lago Bellagio - A Development Plan and Vesting Parcel Map to construct a 396-unit senior
retirement facility building totaling 477,020 square feet, an 110,121 square foot office building
and a 19,357 square foot clubhouse on 22.62 acres, located at the corner of Pechanga Parkway
and Loma Linda. Staff routed the plans for comments on April 1,2003, and the comments are
due on April 15, 2003. Due to the complexity of the project, Staff is continuing to analyze the
plans.
Linfield Christian School Master Plan - Submitted by Linfield Christian School; a Conditional Use
Permit and a Planned Development Overlay proposal to expand the existing facility with 154,397
square feet of additional classroom and accessory structures and a proposed 37,500 square
feet of housing for a superintendent, caretaker and facility. This project is located on the north
side of Pauba Road west of Margarita Road (behind Temecula Valley High School). The
applicant has submitted the PDO, and it is currently under review. A DRC was held December
12, 2002, and a letter has been sent out with staff comments. The applicant revised the
documents on February 21,2003. Staff is currently working on the Negative Declaration. The
project has been scheduled for Planning Commission on May 21,2003.
Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan Amendment and Development Proposals - A variety of project
proposals affecting 20.2 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Nicolas and
Winchester Roads. Rod Del Pesco, with Pacific Development Partners, submitted this project
on July 9, 2002. The project was deemed incomplete August 8, 2002. A DRC meeting was held
on September 5, 2002, to discuss numerous issues identified by staff. The applicant has taken
staff's recommendations under consideration and will be resubmitting later in the year. This
project consists of the following proposals:
o Amend the General Plan and Specific Plan Land Use of 8.3 acres from Neighborhood
Commercial (NC) to Medium Density Residential (M). The SPA affects Planning Area 9 (a
commercial area) by creating a new Planning Area 12 for single family residential, and
relevant text additions and modifications to cover the creation of this residential area.
o A tentative map request to divide 8.3 acres into 54 residential lots.
o Roripaugh Town Center is development application/conditional use permit for a 102,875
square feet commercial center on 11.9 acres.
· Villages of Old Town - Staff has recently met with the applicant regarding the new proposal,
however, no formal submittal has been received.
Residential
Astoria Homes at Crowne Hill - A Development Plan application by Greystone Homes. This
application is the Product Review for 111 detached single-family residential homes that will offer
three different floor plans and three architectural designs. The homes will be located in the
northeast end of Crowne Hill Subdivision, Tracts 23143-10 -11 & -Final, east of Butterfield Stage
Road south of Pauba Road, east and west of Crowne Hill Drive. Additional revisions are being
prepared by applicant prior to scheduling for Director's Hearing.
Ham Residence - A request for a Certificate of Compliance for the southern portion of lot 7 of
TM 8211 located on Santiago Road east of Ynez Road, submitted by Tracy Ham. The
application was submitted on February 12, 2003. A Development Review Committee has been
R:'dVIONTHLY.RPT~2.003~Apri12003 Report.doc
7
scheduled for March 13, 2003. A second DRC meeting was held on April 13, 2003. Staff is
preparing Conditions of Approval for the Conditional Certificate of Compliance.
Harveston Tentative Tract Map No. 31267 - Residential Tract Map application to subdivide 5.6
acres into 62 single-family residential lots, 3 private driveway lots and 8 open space lots. The
site is located on the south side of Harveston Drive east of lake view Road. The application was
submitted on April 23, 2003. It is anticipated that a DRC meeting will be conducted on May 22,
2003.
Naron Pacific Tentative Tract Map 30434 - A proposal for zone change from L-1 to L-2 on 31.93
Acres and Tentative Tract Map to subdivide into 32 residential lots and 3 open space lots in the
Chaparral area. The second submittal is incomplete. Staff is waiting for submittal of a constraint
map. The applicant has not provided the requested information.
Quiet Meadows - A proposal to subdivide 4.57 acres into 7 residential lots with one open space
lot; and a proposal to change the zoning designation from L-1 to L-2. This project was submitted
on July 11,2002. The project was deemed incomplete on August 9, 2002 and December 4,
2002. Revised plans were submitted on February 3, 2003 and routed to all departments for
conditions of approval. An Environmental Assessment has been completed. Based on the EA,
no significant impacts have been identified. The project was recommended for denial by the
Planning Commission on May 7, 2003.
Stratford Homes at Crowne Hill - A Development Plan application by US Home Corporation.
This application is the Product Review for 114 detached single-family residential homes that will
offer three different floor plans in three amhitectural designs. The homes will be located in the
northeast end of Crowne Hill Subdivision, Tracts 23143-1 & a portion of 23143 -11, northeast
corner of Butterfield Stage Road and Royal Crest Place and the southeast corner of Buttedield
Stage Road and Pauba Road west of Crowne Hill Drive. Revised plans were resubmitted on
May 7, 2003.
Tentative Tract Map 29133 Revision - A request to revise a previously approved TTM to change
a public street to private, add a gated entry and relocate affected driveways and drainage. Staff
met with the applicant on February 13, 2003, and the applicant is revising their map due to a
legal issue.
Miscellaneous
AT&T Wireless - A Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan to construct, operate and
establish an unmanned wireless communication facility consisting of a 60'-0" mono-pine and a
8'x12' equipment area, located at the Rancho California Water District Water Reservoir
Complex, east of Meadow Parkway. The project was submitted on June 21,2002. Although the
project was deemed complete on July 19, 2002, the applicant was advised that staff could not
support the proposal. Additionally, since the project was submitted, staff has received numerous
phone calls, letters and petitions in opposition to the project from the adjacent homeowners.
The applicant's representative indicated that AT&T is reviewing their options for this site.
Calvary Baptist Church Addition - A Conditional Use Permit to construct the proposed expansion
of the existing church facility with a 12,610 square foot addition. This addition involves the
expansion of the vestibule & sanctuary, the addition of new classrooms, restrooms, a kitchen,
and multi-purpose room. The site is located at 31087 Nicolas Road at Calle Colibd off of
R:'~,IONTHLY.RP'r~2003~Apd12003 Report.doc
8
Nicholas Road. A DRC letter was sent on January 30, 2003, requesting corrections. Staff is
awaiting resubmittal.
Cingular Wireless - A Conditional Use Permit to construct, operate, establish and maintain a
wireless telecommunications facility with 3 antennas housed within the bulb portion of the
proposed 55-foot artificial mono-palm tree located at 31575 Enfield Lane, east of Riverton Lane
and north of Humboldt Court. The project was deemed incomplete in February 5, 2003. An
Environmental Assessment is required per CEQA. Staff has requested additional studies in
order to complete the assessment. Aisc, the applicant has provided staff with photographs of
existing mono-palms and additional items. As of May 15, 2003, staff has not received all
environmental studies required for the Initial Study preparation.
Grace Presbyterian Church - A Conditional Use Permit to construct a church facility in two
phases. The site is located at the southwest corner of Calle Medusa and Nicholas Road. Staff
has scheduled the project for June 18th Planning Commission meeting.
Landwerx/PC Gaming Arcade - A Minor Conditional Use Permit submitted by Landwerx/PC
Gaming to operate an internet/arcade caf~ for entertainment of customers between the ages of
15-25 years of age. The arcade will be operated out of a business suite in a commercial center
located at 27309 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 104. The Police Department is preparing COA to
assess the proposal's hours of operation. Staff has provided the applicant with a list of the
Police Department's COA regarding hours of operation. Staff is awaiting word from the
applicant.
Meadowview Golf Coume - Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan to design and
construct a public golf course and driving range within the Meadowview Community. The
Focused EIR requires modification. The applicant has retained a new environmental consultant
to complete the modifications. It is anticipated that the EIR will be distributed in August 2003.
Planning Commission consideration in December 2003.
Rench Variance - An application requesting a Variance to a site a second unit dwelling in the
front yard located at 39330 Kimberly Lane (957-340-030), submitted by William Rench. The
application was submitted on December 27, 2002, and staff met to discuss concerns with the
applicant on February 6th. As of May 12, 2003 the applicant has not resubmitted. Staff will
determine if applicant wishes to withdraw and receive a fee refund.
Roripaugh Ranch Private Recreation Facility - Located in planning area 5 of the Roripaugh
Specific Plan, this recreation center includes an 8,000 square foot building, pool, spa, tennis
courts and other noted facilities was submitted on February 13, 2003. Staff expects to
administratively approve the project by the end of May.
Vail Ranch Sign Program - A Riverside County approved project has submitted a master sign
program for a center located along the south side of Highway 79, immediately east of a medical
building under construction. A letter was sent out August 19, 2002, requesting changes to the
program. Staff has been in contact with the applicant; however, no revisions have been
received. No change in the status as of May 12, 2003.
Verizon Mono-Palm Wireless Antenna - A Conditional Use Permit to construct, operate,
establish and maintain a wireless telecommunications facility with 3 antennas housed within the
palm fronds of the proposed 40-foot artificial palm tree. The site is located on the east side of
Margarita Road just north of the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel north of Winchester Road on
R:~vlONTHLY.RP'i52003~Apri12003 Report,doc
9
the Rancho California Water District's well site. The applicant is working with staff on a new
location. Staff is awaiting revised plans.
Wireless Telecommunication - A Minor Conditional Use Permit to co-locate three sector
antennas on an existing 57 foot high monopine and the installation of four equipment cabinets,
located at 41520 Margarita Road (954-020-005); submitted by AT&T Wireless. The project was
deemed incomplete on May 7, 2002. A DRC meeting was held on May 23, 2002, and staff is
awaiting re-submittal by applicant. As of May 12, 2003, staff has not received any new plans
from the applicant. Staff will be sending a letter to the applicant closing out the file.
Small Business Assistance
La Tacqueria - Staff is working with the owners of this Old Town business on a revised plan for
an exterior fagade improvement that includes new awnings, paint and signs. A proposal from
the contractor is to be submitted to the Old Town Local Review Board in June.
Mad Madeline's - The sign contractor working with the owners of this Old Town restaurant
advised staff that new exterior paint colors and sign designs will be submitted for review by the
Old Town Local Review Board in June.
· Temecula Olive Oil Company - With the assistance of staff, new sign designs are being
developed for this business that relocated in the Old Town Tourist Retail Core area.
The Barn (Formally Lighthouse Thrift) - Staff continued to work with the new owner of this
building and helped him obtain a building permit for a new fa(;ade treatment. An application for
the funding of this project through the Fa(;ade Improvement Program has been submitted to the
Redevelopment Department.
The Firehouse Building - Preliminary paint and sign designs are being completed for this
historical Old Town building. The sign contractor working on this project plans to submit a
planning application for this project to the Old Town Local Review Board when Fa(;ade
Improvement Funds become available,
The Sagebrush Center - The sign program for this commemial complex has been delayed due
to the addition of new tenants. Preliminary designs are currently under development and will be
submitted to the old Town Local Review Board when Fa(;ade Improvement Funds become
available.
Yellow Basket Burger: Staff assisted the owner of this business and his sign contractor in
developing a compromise solution to a problem with an illegal sign. The sign program will be
amended to equitably accommodate all tenants in the center where this restaurant is located.
Special Event Permits
· Bluegrass Festival - Staff processed this special event organized by the City of Temecula. It
was held in Old Town Temecula on March 22 and 23,
· Boys and Girls Club - Staff has continued to help this applicant process a Temporary Use Permit
for a commercial coach to be used as an interim office at this Pujol Street location.
R:'~MONTHLY. RP'F~2.003'~Apd12003 Report.doc
10
· Dixieland Jazz Festival - This event, organized by the City of Temecula, will take place in various
locations in Old Town Temecula on April 12 and 13, 2003.
Taste of Southwestern County - The American Red Cross is working with the Planning and
Community Services Departments on this event that will take place at the Duck Pond on May 4,
2003.
· Taste of the World - Preliminary plans have been submitted by the Sister City Association for
this annual event to be held at Tower Plaza on April 27, 2003.
Special Proiects & Lon,q Ran.qe Planning Activities
The Division also commits work effor/s toward larger scale and longer time frame projects for both
private and public purposes. These activities can range from a relatively simple ordinance or
environmental review to a new specific plan or a general plan amendment. Some of the major
special projects and long range planning activities are as follows:
Comprehensive General Plan Update - The CAC has completed its review of the draft goals and
policies, and is currently considering alternative land uses. The consultant is providing draft
elements for Staff and CAL review. This process will continue through July 2003. The following
amendment requests have been received; they will be addressed in more detail when the
updated General Plan is considered.
O
A request to reduce the size of Via Industrial (Western Bypass Corridor) north of Avenida
Alvarado has been submitted and has been on hold pending the approval of a revised
Circulation Element.
South Margarita Road adjacent to the Santa Gertrudis channel, across the channel from
Chaparral High School. The property owner is requesting a change from Public Institutional
to Professional Office.
The southeast corner of Via Lobo and Nicolas Road, and properties along the northeast
edge of Meadowview. The property owner is requesting a change from Very Low Density
Residential to a combination of Low Medium Density Residential and Open Space.
The southeast corner of Margarita Road and Solana Way. The property owner is requesting
a change from Very Low Density Residential to Professional Office.
· Hillside Development Policy - The policies are being examined for integration into the draft-
grading ordinance. This item is on hold pending additional staff resources.
John Warner Road Assessment District - Assisting Public Works with formation of an
Assessment District for road, sewer and storm drain improvements. Storm drain plans have
been submitted to planning for review. A negative declaration is being prepared.
Procedures to Implement CEQA - Staff initiated project to develop local guidelines and
procedure manual for processing CEQA documents, including the adoption of local exemptions.
The process will also conform to the new 2003 CEQA Guidelines, and will create new templates
for standard CEQA forms. The new process is expected to be in place by the end of June.
R:~IONTHLY.RPT~2003~Apri[ 2003 Report.doc
Surface Mining Ordinance - The staff and City Attorney had been making final changes based
upon feedback from the State prior to submitting this item to the Council for their consideration.
This item is on hold pending additional staff resources.
Traditional Neighborhood Development Ordinance - Final changes are being made prior to
scheduling this item for a Planning Commission workshop. This item is on hold pending
additional staff resources.
Updating of the Old Town Specific Plan - Staff has worked with the Old Town Local Review
Board and prepared a list of changes and enhancements to the plan. These proposed changes
are currently being organized into the SP documents.
City - Project environmental reviews and permitting:
o Overland Drive Extension - Staff has reviewed 2nd submittal of the draft initial study /
Mitigated Negative Declaration and has provided comments to Public Works. No
resubmittal to date.
c Old Town Southern Gateway Landscaping Project - Request from Public Works for
Environmental Determination for this project. Previously prepared Negative Declaration may
need to be modified because the project description has changed.
o Paloma del Sol Supplemental EIR and Specific Plan Amendment 8.1 - Staff is assisting the
applicant's consultant in preparing a Supplemental EIR and Specific Plan Amendment to
address drainage issues. The City and the consultant have agreed on a schedule to
complete the process by January 2004. Newland is behind schedule in submitting the
application. Keith Companies has not completed the drainage plans.
o Pechanga Parkway (formerly Pala Road) Widening & Sound Wall - Staff has prepared an
Addendum to the Wolf Creek Specific Plan EIR to examine the impacts of required off-site
mitigation. This will satisfy CEQA Requirements to proceed with construction of the
drainage channel. The Notice of Determination has been prepared and recorded.
o Temecula Education Complex- Staff reviewed and commented on the Initial Study Checklist
for a mixed-use development that will focus on adult-education, located at the northwest
corner of Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway. The applicant has revised and resubmitted the
Initial Study. Recommendation that an EIR be prepared.
o Winchester Road Widening Project - Request from Public Works for Environmental
Determination to widen Winchester Road west of Jefferson. Staff is examining the impact of
removing landscaping along both sides of Winchester Road between Jefferson and
Enterprise Circle. Staff has received additional information from Public Works and has
started to prepare an Initial Study.
General Plan Amendments
Margarita Village Specific Plan - A General Plan Amendment for Pamel Map 22513, amending
the land use from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial on 9.77 acres located
at the southeast corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway (954-030-001);
Submitted by Venture Point. In addition to the General Plan Amendment the applicant has also
submitted a Specific Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan. The
applications were submitted on May 23, 2002. A DRC meeting was held on August 8, 2002.
The project was continued from the December 4, 2002, Planning Commission meeting, and is
scheduled for the January 15, 2003, meeting. The item was continued to the February 19, 2003,
R:~VlONTHLY,RPT~?_003~Apri12003 Report.doc
12
Planning Commission meeting. At the February 19, 2003, meeting, the Planning Commission
recommended that the City Council approve the project. The item was scheduled for the April 8,
2003, City Council meeting, but due to a noticing error, the project was rescheduled for the April
22nd, City Council meeting. The Project was denied at the April 22, 2003, City Council meeting.
Overland Self-Storage Facility - A proposal for a General Plan Amendment and a change of
zone, changing the designation and zoning from Service Commercial (SC) to Light Industrial.
The applications were submitted on February 11,2003. This proposal is in conjunction with a
Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan for an RV Storage facility known as (PA01-0605). As
of April 9, 2003, the project is still under review.
PA02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship - City to process as City initiated GPA/ZC to change
designation on several parcels near southwest corner of DePortola and Margarita. A
Development Plan to construct a Senior Congregate Care facility has been filed..
Geoqraphic Information System (GIS) Activities
Staff made its scheduled updates to street centerline data and preplan information for the City's
fire response program.
· Staff received training in the updated version of ARCGIS at ESRI in Redlands.
· Staff received training in Geodatabase Management at ESRI in Redlands.
· Staff purchased and implemented ERMapper data compression software package. GIS staff
also received a Y2 day training session regarding the use of the software.
· Staff established a template and procedures for providing digital orthophoto and topography
maps for purchase by the public.
Finance and GIS Staff have been working with the Southwest County Economic Development
Alliance to standardize business license data within the GIS to provide more detailed information
for perspective clients.
· Staff attended the annual CALGIS conference in Palm Springs.
· Staff made its weekly updates to the database and maps for the City's Megan's Law link on the
web page.
· Recent mapping products and data requests include:
Made updates and modifications to the weed abatement maps for Code Enforcement
Provided a detailed map of the RDA boundary for a site near Lowe's for Redevelopment
Prepared maps for Public Works for their street crack seal program
Provided topographic data for Public Works
Updated Public Work's tree trimming program maps
Updated the RV Ordinance map for Planning
Provided an aerial map of the perspective hospital site for the City Manager's Office
R:~MONTHLY. RP'F~2003~pd12003 Report.doc
13
Reseamhed and created maps of the original Vail Ranch boundary for Council member Pratt
Prepared a series of maps of all existing grocery stores within the City for Planning
Provided an aerial map of the DMV site and surrounding properties for Planning
Updated maps within the CIP document for Finance
Provided address ranges along Pechanga Parkway for Planning
Made updates and modifications to the Restaurant map
Prepared an aerial map of the Old Town area for Planning
Prepared a hydrology map for Public Works
Updated the boundaries of the disaster response area map for Building
Created a series of maps (including land use, aerial, zoning, hazards, and topography) for a
proposed church project for Planning
Provided a list of all the streets within the Fire Department's response area for the Fire
Department
Provided an aerial/topographic map of Main Street Bridge for Public Works
Prepared a series of maps of identifying potential development in the Wine Country for the
City Manager's office
Prepared various vicinity, zoning, and General Plan land use maps for Planning
Commission/City Council staff report exhibits
Various aerial vicinity maps for Planning, Redevelopment, Community Services and Public
Works
Prepared mailing labels for various Planning projects
Provided mailing labels for the Loma Linda housing tract for TCSD
Provided data of specific plan projects within the greater Temecula vicinity the Ci~s General
Plan consultant
On a continuous basis staff conducts updates and maintenance on the City's GIS database and
layers.
R:~MONTHLY. RPT~2.003~Apri12003 ReporLdoc
14
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINAN~_-~
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
May 27, 2003
Department of Public Works Monthly Activity Report
RECOMMENDATION: Attached for City Council's review and filing is the Department of
Public Works' Monthly Activity Reports for the month of April, 2003.
MOACTRPT. FRM
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Monthly Activity Report
April ! May 2003
Prepared By: Amer Attar
Submitted by: William G. Hughes
Date: May 27, 2003
PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
1. First Street Extension - Environmental Mitigation
This project will create approximately 1.49 acres of wetlands along Murrieta Creek at First Street. It
includes construction of landscaping and irrigation improvements, and maintenance of said
improvements for a period of five (5) years in accordance with California Department of Fish and
Game and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit requirements. ACOE and RCFC are requesting
the relocation of the mitigation site to avoid conflict with Murrieta Creek Improvement Project. A
letter was sent from the City to ACOE for possible alternate mitigation sites. The City received a
response from ACOE approving the relocation of the mitigation site. Reseamh is underway to
acquire property at an alternate site.
2. Community Theatre - Mercantile Seismic Retrofit
This project will create a community theatre at the old Mercantile building in downtown Temecula.
2H Construction began construction on Monday, September 16, 2002. The project is substantially
complete, with only punchlist items remaining.
3. Children's Museum
This project will construct a 7,500 square foot children's museum. The contractor, Fleming
Construction, is completing the punch list for the building shell improvements that include the
construction of the gazebo entrance, improvements to the restrooms and other items to make the
building suitable for the installation of the museum exhibits and use bythe public. 2H Construction
is continuing with the repairs to the building structure and a proposal for additional necessary work
will be forwarded to the Board for approval. Due to the extent of structural repairs required, the
completion date for the building shell improvements has been extended to the fall of 2003.
4. Pechanga Parkway (Formerly Pala Road) Sound Wall Improvements
Under this project, sound walls will be designed and constructed on the southwest side of Pechanga
Parkway, from Rainbow Canyon Road to the Pechanga casino and on the northeast side along the
residences just north of Loma Linda. The project was awarded to R.J. Bullard Construction, Inc. at
the Council meeting held on February 25, 2003. Bullard Construction has begun building the sound
wall at the northeasterly limits of the project along the right-of-way of Jedediah Smith Road just north
of Muirfield Drive. The footings have been poured in this area and the block will be placed
thereafter. The contractor has also cleared and grubbed the area on the north west side of the
project between Muirfield Drive and Masters Drive.
R:WlontlflyActivityRepor t\C IP~2003XApril.doc
5. Rancho California Road Bridge Widening Over Murrieta Creek
This project will widen Rancho California Road Bridge over Murrieta Creek to provide four additional
traffic lanes. Bids were opened on April 10. It appears that the lowest bidder is MCM Construction
with a bid of $3,994,121.45. Construction began the week of May 19 with a completion of the work
scheduled for early 2004.
6. Annual Slurry Seal Project 2002/2003
This is the annual project to slurry seal various areas in the City. The Vail Ranch area is the area of
concentration this fiscal year. Bids were opened on April 15, 2003. The lowest bidder appears to be
American Asphalt South, Inc with a bid amount of $300,297.79. The City Council awarded the
construction contract to Sudhakar Company International on May 13, 2003.
7. Citywide Concrete Repairs- FY2002/2003
Annual maintenance project to repair/replace miscellaneous damaged concrete improvement
including sidewalk, curb & gutter, driveway approaches, etc. City Council awarded a construction
contract to Malton Construction on May 13, 2003.
PROJECTS BEING ADVERTISED FOR BIDS
1. Pavement Rehabilitation Program - FY 2002/2003
The plans and specifications have been completed and the project is being advertised for
construction bids. Bid opening is scheduled for June 10. The project involves removing and
replacing the pavement in the two westbound lanes of Rancho California Road between Margarita
Road and Meadows Parkway. This area was identified as needing rehabilitation in the report
"Update of Citywide Pavement Management Program 2002-2007" prepared by Berryman & Henigar
dated December 10, 2002.
PROJECTS IN DESIGN
1. Pechanga Parkway (Formerly Pala Road) Improvements - Phase II (SR 79 South to
Pechanga Road)
This project will widen Pechanga Parkway (formerly Pala Road) to its ultimate width from the
Pechanga Parkway Bridge to Pechanga road. The City is currently working with Caitrans' Local
Assistance and City's Environmental Consultant to expedite the environmental approval process.
The Preliminary Environmental Document Classification (NEPA) of the project has been determined
to be an "Environmental Assessment" (EA). Required technical studies (involving Federal action)
will be included in the EA. The Planning Department completed Addendum No. 3 to the Wolf Creek
EIR and the Notice of Determination for the project. The Addendum and NOD was needed to
satisfy all CEQA requirements for the project. The City will return checkprints to DMJM+HARRIS
when all of the street plans/specifications/utility companies' comments are completed.
This project will be divided into two stages. The first stage is to construct the storm drain triple box
2 R:'uMontldyAc~ivityRepo~fiCIPk2003~April.doc
culvert and the channel improvements north of Loma Linda. Construction of this stage is scheduled
for Fall 2003. The second stage will construct the remaining street improvements and drainage
structures. Construction of this stage will start once the first stage is completed,
2. Temecula Library
A full service library, approximately 34,000 square feet in area, will be designed and built on Pauba
Road, just west of Fire Station #84. This project will provide the community with library resources
and services. A separate pamel has been created for the library for bond purposes. The application
to the State was submitted on 6/13/02. The City's application was not among the approved ones.
The City resubmitted its application for the second round of funding approvals later this year during
the last period. Construction is delayed until Spring 2004, provided that the City receives funding.
Utility services construction will be coordinated with Pauba Road, Phase II Street Improvements.
3. Pauba Road Improvements - Phase II (Margarita Road to Showalter Road)
This project will widen Pauba Road from Showalter to just west of Margarita Road to its ultimate
width. The City has reviewed the 100% Design Plans submitted by the consultant. Specifications
are under review. Plans were sent to all utilities and utility issues are being addressed.
Environmental documents have been finalized by the City Planning Department and the public
comments period will begin next month. Work is being coordinated with the library project.
4. John Warner Road Assessment District - Hydrology Study
Under this project a drainage study will be done to compliment the improvement plans being done
by the property owners. Eventually the City will be the oversight agency for a property owners
sponsored assessment district. An agreement amendment was approved by City Council on
October 8, 2002. ERSC submitted a revised hydrology study with storm drain alternatives on
10/30/02. The City chose a preferred alternative and directed ERSC to prepare the final Storm
Drain plans and the Engineer's Cost Estimate. The City reviewed 60% design documents and
comments were returned to ERSC. Final Design documents are expected in June for City's review.
5. Landscaping and Sidewalk On SR 79 South (Old Town Front Street to Pechanga
Parkway)
The project consists of the design and construction of new sidewalk, landscaping, and irrigation
along State Route 79 South between Pechanga Parkway and Old Town Front Street Review of 1st
plan submittal is complete. The Civil and Landscaping plans are being finalized. Technical specs
are being finalized. Anticipate construction during Summer 2003.
6. Temecula Sports Complex
A new 40+ Acres sports complex will be built at the corner of Pechanga Parkway and Deer Hollow
Way. The City Council approved the Conceptual Master Plan of the project and funding at the
January 14, 2003 meeting. RJM, the landscape amhitect, continues to work on the design of the
complex.
7. Bridge Barrier Rail Upgrade, Rainbow Canyon Road over Pechanga Creek/Del Rio Road
over Empire Creek
This project will replace the existing barrier rails of the Rainbow Canyon Bridge over Pechanga
Creek and the Del Rio Road Bridge over Empire Creek. Simon Wong Engineering (SWE) delivered
the 100% Plans and the Engineer's Cost Estimate in early October. The Specifications are
complete. The request for authorization for construction funding was sent to Caltrans on 1/14/03.
Once Caitrans approval is received the project will go out to bid.
8. Fire Station - Wolf Creek Site
A fire station will be built at the Wolf Creek Site. The Plans have been approved with exception of
grading plans. We are waiting for the parcel to be recorded and an APN so an address can be
assigned and utility services finalized. The Developer was noticed of the need in March 2003.
9. Vail Ranch Park (Near Pauba Valley School) - Add Amenities
This project will add amenities, including play equipment, to the recently annexed Vail Ranch Park.
RHA Landscape Architects/Planners Inc. is the design firm. The final design documents were
resubmitted and they were reviewed by City staff. Comments were returned to the consultant and
they will be making the revisions during the next reporting period.
10. Murrieta Creek Multi Purpose Trail
This project will build portions of the equestrian and bike trails along Murrieta Creek within City
limits. The City has received a federal grant of $1,214,000. Caltrans has given the City the
"Authorization to Proceed with Preliminary Engineering." The contract between the City and Kimley-
Horn and Associates, Inc. was approved by City Council on March 25, 2003. The project kick-off
meeting was held on April 8, 2003. A meeting was held with the ACOE and RCFCD on April 28,
2003, and they are gathering the requested documents. The next update meeting is scheduled for
June 3, 2003.
11. State Route 79 South Medians
Under this project medians will be constructed on State Route 79 South within the City of Temecula
limits. Scope of work and contract negotiations with consultant are complete. Agreement is being
presented to the City Council for approval at the 5-17-03 meeting.
12. Guardrail Installation and Replacement On Rainbow Canyon Road
In this project, old guardrails will be replaced and new guardrails will be installed in needed locations
on Rainbow Canyon Road within the City of Temecula. The RFP for design has been prepared but
must be approved by Caltrans prior to publishing. The request for RFP approval and design
funding was submitted to Caltrans on 11/06/02. The City's Planning Department has prepared the
required environmental documents. A Field Review for the project with Caltrans was conducted on
February 19, 2003. The information requested by Caltrans at the Field Review is being gathered
and should be submitted during the next reporting period.
13. Old Town Southern Gateway Landscaping
Under this project, 10,000 square feet remnant parcel west of Front Street, which was created by
the realignment of First Street, will be landscaped. Project plans were returned the landscape
architect after the third plan check.
14. Old Town Community Theatre
This project will construct a 20,000 square foot community theater complex and refurbishes the
existing Mercantile Building. Plans are in third plan check. RFP's for construction management and
pre-qualification of the contractors for the project are underway as well as the preparation of the bid
package. We are also in the process of acquiring Fourth Street right-of-way for utilities and access.
4 R:'uMonthlyAcfivityRepoffiC1P'x2003~April.doc
15. Diaz Road Realignment
Under this project, Diaz Road will be realigned to Vincent Moraga Road at Rancho California Road.
Business Park Drive will be a T-intersection at Diaz. City staff is currently designing the project.
Street and landscaping design completion is scheduled for April 2003. Widening Diaz Road an
additional 20 feet to accommodate four lanes of traffic has been added to the project and is currently
under design. In addition, a signal at Rancho Way and Diaz has been added to this project and is
being designed in house. Right of Way processing is anticipated to be completed by May of 2003.
Association CC&R restrictions applicable to the proposed roadway are currently being appraised for
valuation.
16. Rancho California Road Median Modifications at Town Center
The project will include the closing of the two median openings on Rancho California Road in front
of the Town Center, while lengthening the left turn lanes at Ynez Road, Town Center Drive, and Via
Los Colinas to improve traffic circulation. The design is 100% complete. This project is being
combined with PW00-20, which includes a right turn lane eastbound on Rancho California Road at
Ynez Road. Combining the design of the two projects will be completed by May 2003. Final right-of-
way acquisition for the turn lane is expected to occur by late May, at which time the project will be
advertised for bids.
17. Rancho California Road Widening at Ynez Road (Add right turn lane to westbound lanes)
This project will add a right turn lane on westbound Rancho California Road at Ynez Road. Right of
way acquisition at the northeast corner of Rancho California and Ynez is in process with Claim
Jumper Restaurant and Swedish American Corporation signing the acquisition agreements. Claim
Jumper escrow is closed and Swedish American Corporation is in process. Construction is
anticipated to begin in the Summer of 2003. Design is 90% complete. This project will be combined
with PW00-02.
18. Winchester Road Widening Between Enterprise Circle and Jefferson
This project will widen Winchester road between Enterprise Circle and Jefferson Avenue. It will also
add a right turn lane from Eastbound Winchester to Southbound Jefferson, starting at Enterprise
Circle. Project layout was plotted and discussed with Traffic and the Director of Public Works n-
house design continues. Right-of-way plats and legals have been prepared and the acquisition
process is underway.
19. Rancho California Sports Park ADA Access and Shade Structure
This project entails the design and construction of ADA compliant concrete walkways to the
remaining ball fields, 3,4,5,7 & 8. It will also include the installation of two shade picnic/seating areas
adjacent to the snack bar building. Bidding is in process. Since this is an informal bid, five bidders
were invited to submit bids for this project Bids were opening on 5-17-03. Due to park maintenance
activities, construction is to occur between July 5 and Aug 17, 2003.
20. Bus Bench Upgrades
Under this project, bus benches and shade structures will be installed and existing ones will be
upgraded at various locations. Project research on locations of current bus stops, existing bus
bench/shade structures, bus bench/shade structure costs and RTA routes is complete. Bus
bench/shade structure design and location options were reviewed and a report with
5 R:'uMonthlyActivityRcpor t\C 1]~2003~A pril.doc
recommendations is being prepared,
21. Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation - Phase II
This project will rehabilitate Jefferson Avenue from south of Overland Drive to Rancho California
Road. The rehabilitation will include pavement overlay, and road and driveway reconstruction. A
surveying firm was hired. They performed the required surveying and provided the data to the City.
Staff is in the process of hiring a geotechnical firm to provide pavement testing. Once the test results
ara provided, staff will begin the design.
PROJECTS IN THE PLANNING STAGE
1, 1-15/SR 79 South Interchange - Project Study Report (PSR)
This project will modify the I-15/SR 79 South Intemhange to accommodate projected future traffic.
The City will proceed with the modified alternative #5. The draft Project Study Report was submitted
to Caltrans and the City on April 7, 2003, for review and comments. The consultant will finalize the
documents once all the comments are received and addressed. Caltrans is scheduled to provide
comments by the end of May.
2. French Valley Parkway Overcrossing and Interchange, Project Report (PR), Plans
Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) Preparation
This project will construct an interchange between Winchester Road Intemhange and the 1-15/I-215
split. The consultant continues to work on the Project Report. A PDT meeting was held on 04/30/03.
In addition, we started the process to hire a facilitator for the Value Analysis process. We are
reviewing proposals we received from consultants. We are also pursuing the acquisition of a
number of properties to protect them from development.
3. Fire Station - Northeast Site (Roripaugh Ranch)
This project will construct a new fire station in the north part of the City. Preliminary design is
complete and approved by Fire, Planning and Developer. The Developer (Ashby USA) is willing to
deposit additional funds to complete the final design. Amendment of the design agraement is
scheduled for the 6-10-03 Council meeting. Commencement of final design is pending deposit of
additional funds from the developer.
4. Murrieta Creek Bridge - Overland Drive Extension to Diaz Road
This project will entail alignment studies and the design of an extension of Overland Drive, westerly
to Diaz Road, which includes a new bridge over Murrieta Creek. The project includes the widening
of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Commeme Center Drive, and the extension of Overland
Drive across Murrieta Creek to Diaz Road. PDC has completed the alignment study and staff has
reviewed copies of the preliminary plans. Staff has reviewed design costs for next year's fiscal
funding. No funding until FY04-05.
5. Alignment Study for Murrieta Creek Bridge Between Winchester Road and Temecula City
Limits and Diaz Road Extension
This study will determine the alignment and location of the Murrieta Creek crossing between
6 R:'~M ont~lyActiviiyRepo~Cll~2003~ApfiL doc
Winchester Road and the northern City Limits. In addition, the study will be combined with the Diaz
Road Extension alignment study and design. Coordination with the City of Murrieta, Riverside
County Flood Control and Army Corps of Engineers is necessary. The Consultant and Staff met
with Riverside County Flood Control to discuss possible alignments. The consultant is currently
awaiting data from Riverside County Flood Control in order to complete the work on the first draft of
the alignment study. Staff was informed this data could take up to a year to receive (from May
2002).
PROJECTS THAT ARE SUSPENDED OR ON-HOLD
1. Santa Gertrudis Bridge Widening at 1-15
This is Phase II of the Southbound Auxiliary Lane project at the southbound exit ramp for
Winchester Road. This project will widen the 1-15 southbound exit-ramp at the Santa Gertrudis
Creek Bridge to provide an additional lane on the exit ramp just north of Winchester Road. Staff is
revisiting the merits of this project in light of the Project Study Report for French Valley Parkway
Interchange. The study shows that this bridge may have to be removed in the future to
accommodate the new Interchange. This project is suspended indefinitely.
2. Margarita Road/Winchester Road Intersection Improvements
Project is on hold. Under this project, an additional left turn from eastbound Winchester to
northbound Margarita will be added in order to accommodate increasing traffic volumes. Design is
50% complete. A developer will be doing this project.
3. Pujol Street Sidewalk Improvements - Phase II
Project is on hold. This project will complete the knuckle at the intersection of Sixth Street and
Felix Valdez. The developer of a nearby property may be designing and constructing this project.
4. School Site ADA Improvements
Project has been removed from this year's ClP. Design and construct ADA concrete walkways
and hand railing to athletic facilities at Temecula Middle School, James L. Day Middle School and
Margarita Middle School. TCSD rs-allocated the funds.
5. City Hall Parking Lot Modifications
Project is on-hold. Funding has been postponed until FY 2004/2005. Under this project, a
security fence will be installed between the existing maintenance facility and the western side of City
Hall to secure the parking lot west of the main building. The design of a security fence between the
existing maintenance facility and the western side of City Hall will be performed in-house. A scoping
meeting was held on November 12, 2001. Research on existing base maps for the proposed area
and as-builts for the existing security fence near the maintenance facility is complete. Design and
review of the proposed layout is complete. The project is currently on hold waiting for further
direction.
7 R ?~MontlxlyActiviiyRepor fxC1Px2003~April.doc
u.I
~. LU
I--
Z
1.1.1
ILl
0
,=2
o
8
LB !
~,= ILl
0
n-
h
(J
8
I,M
8
I--
Z
I,LI
1.1.1
0
13.
_1
0
8
mmm
8
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Bill Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent
May 5, 2003
SUBJECT: Monthly Activity Report - April, 2003
The following activities were performed by Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division in-house
personnel for the month of April, 2003:
I. SIGNS
A. Total signs replaced 108
B. Total signs installed 2
C. Total signs repaired 68
I1.
TREES
A. Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns
17
2~187
48
196
Ill.
ASPHALT REPAIRS
A. Total square feet of A. C. repairs
B. Total Tons
IV.
CATCH BASINS
A. Total catch basins cleaned
RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT
A. Total square footage for right-of-way abatement
4~755
VI.
GRAFFITI REMOVAL
A. Total locations
-23
VII.
B. Total S.F.
STENCILING
A. 31 New and repainted legends
B. 78~941 L.F. of new and repainted red curb and striping
7~607
Also, City Maintenance staff responded to 55 service order requests ranging from weed abatement, tree
trimming, sign repair, A.C. failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings. This is compared to 65
service order requests for the month of March~ 2003.
The Maintenance Crew has also put in 120 hours of overtime which includes standbytime, special events
and response to street emergencies.
The total cost for Street Maintenance performed by Contractors for the month of April, 2003 was
$ 761794.64 compared to $ 51~770.12 for the month of March ~ 2003.
Account No. 5402 $ 31,614.64
Account No. 5401 $ 45,180.00
Account No. 999-5402 $ - 0 -
CC;
Ron Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works
Ali Moghadam, Senior Engineer (CIP/-rraffic)
Greg Butler, Senior Engineer (Capital Improvements)
Amer Attar, Senior Engineer (Capital Improvements)
Jerry Alegria, Senior Engineer (Land Development)
STREET MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS
The following contractors have performed the following projects for the month of April, 2003
DATE DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST
ACCOUNT STREET/CHANNEL/BRIDGE OF WORK SIZE
CONTRACTOR: MONTELEONE EXCAVATING
Date: 04/11/03 CITYWIDE CHANNEL CLEANING REMOVAL OF SILT & DEBRIS FROM
CHANNELS
# 5401
TOTAL
COST
I $ 33,500.00
CONTRACTOR: IMPERIAL PAVING COMPANY
Date: 04/02/03 PECHANGA PARKWAY R&R A.C. 4,000 S.F.
# 5402
TOTAL
COST
I $ 23,741.00
CONTRACTOR: BECKER ENGINEERING
Date: 04/08/03 VAIL RANCH PARKWAY AT CONSTRUCT MODIFIED HANDICAP RAMP
CAMINO RUBANO
# 5402
TOTAL
COST
I $ 3,500.00
Date: 04/25/03 MUIRFIELD CHANNEL REMOVAL OF SILT & DEBRIS FROM
CHANNEL
# 5401
TOTAL
COST
I $ 4,180.00
Date: 04/21/03 MARGARITA ROAD AT EMERGENCY REPAIRS TO STREET DUE
SANTA GERTRUIDIS CREEK AT TO EROSION
# 5402
BRIDGE TOTAL COST I $ 4,373.64
CONTRACTOR: RENE'S COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT
Date: 04/07/03 ClTYWIDE CHANNELS APPLICATION OF POST-EMERGENT
HERBICIDES
# 5401
TOTAL
COST
{ $ 7,500.00
TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5401 $ 45,180.00
TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5402 $ 31,614.64
TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #99'5402
oo
o
oo
O0
o o
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
SERVICE ORDER REQUEST LOG
MONTH OF APRIL, 2003
DATE LOCATION REQUEST DATE WORK
RECEIVED COMPLETED
04/01/03 41291 RUE JADOT DRAINAGE CONCERN 04/01/03
04/01/03 29835 VIA ALTURAS TREE TRIMMING 04/01/03
04/02/03 27260 NICHOLAS ROAD DEBRIS PICK-UP 04/02/03
04/02/03 WINCHESTER ROAD AT YNEZ ROAD SIGN REPAIR 04/02/03
04/02/03 32722 CAMPO DRIVE S.N.S. MISSING 04/02/03
04/03/03 41844 4TM STREET DEBRIS PICK-UP 04/03/03
04/04/03 WINCHESTER AT ENTERPRISE CIRCLE SO. LOST CAR COVER 04/04/03
04/07/03 41985 MARGARITA CRACK FILL QUESTIONS 04/07/03
04/07/03 31756 PASEO DE LAS OLAS TREE REPLACEMENT 04/07/03
04/07/03 42338 AGENA STREET TREE REPLACEMENT 04/07/03
04/07/03 42049 HUMBER DRIVE ROOT PRUNING 04/07/03
04/07/03 43384 VIA ANGELES DOWNED R-1 04/07/03
04/07/03 42596 REMORA ROOT PRUNING 04/07/03
04/07/03 30500 MILANO ROAD TREE TRIMMING 04/07/03
04/08/03 41775 YORBA AVENUE DEBRIS REMOVAL 04/08/03
04/08/03 28690 OLD TOWN FRONT STREET TREE REMOVAL 04/08/03
04/09/03 29301 YNEZ ROAD SAND REMOVAL 04/09/03
04/11/03 28860 OLD TOWN FRONT STREET TREE DOWN 04/11/03
04/11/03 30482 SPICA COURT STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE 04/11/03
04/11/03 21641 BENDY CANYON ROAD POTHOLE 04/11/03
04/14/03 44972 MUIRFIELD DRIVE CHANNEL CLEANING 04/14/03
04/14/03 HWY. 79 SO. AT FRONT STREET SIGN REPAIR 04/14/03
04/14/03 44972 MUIRFIELD DRIVE CHANNEL CLEANING 04/14/03
04/14/03 31605 CALLE GIRASOL ROAD GRADING 04/14/03
04/14/03 42104 VIA CUESTA AL SOL POTHOLE 04/14/03
04/14/03 30485 SIERRA MADRE STRIPING QUESTION 04/14/03
DATE LOCATION REQUEST DATE WORK
RECEIVED COMPLETED
04/14/03 43248 BROOKWAY DRIVE SIDEWALK REPAIR 04/14/03
04/14/03 31605 CALLE GIRASOL POTHOLES 04/14/03
04/15/03 CALLE ARANDA TREE DOWN 04/15/03
04/15/03 JEFFERSON, YNEZ STREET MAINTENANCE 04/15/03
04/16/03 42102 SWEET SHADE ROOT PRUNING 04/16/03
04/16/03 31275 PESCADO DRIVE POTHOLES 04/16/03
04/17/03 42017 SWEET SHADE LANE SINKHOLE 04/17/03
04/17/03 42084 SWEET SHADE LANE SINKHOLE 04/17/03
04/17/03 27548 YNEZ ROAD FENCE REPAIR 04/17/03
04/18/03 30660 MILKY WAY DRIVE STORM DRAIN REPAIR 04/18/03
04/21/03 43482 VIA CANDELEDA S.N.S. MISSING 04/21/03
04/21/03 45990 CLUBHOUSE DRIVE A.C. REPAIRS 04/21/03
04/21/03 45685 KIMO STREET TREE PLANTING 04/21/03
04/21/03 30353 KERONDA PLACE DEBRIS PICK-UP 04/22/03
04/22/03 30407 MILKY WAY DEBRIS PICK-UP 04/22/03
04/'22/03 40643 CALLE KATERINE SAND PICK-UP 04/22/03
04/22/03 TARGET CENTER DRILLING 04/22/03
04/22/03 42030 AVENIDA ALVARADO BARRICADE REQUEST 04/22/03
04/22/03 31535 AVENIDA DEL REPOSO POTHOLE 04/22/03
04/23/03 29826 VIA PUESTA DEL SOL SIDEWALK REPAIR 04/23/03
04/23/03 43780 PAULITA ROAD ROAD GRADING 04/23/03
04/24/03 HWY. 79 SO. AT PECHANGA PARKWAY DEBRIS PICK-UP 04/24/03
04/24/03 39340 LIEFER ROAD ROAD GRADING 04/24/03
04/24/03 29510 VIA CERRITO SHOULDER GRADING 04/24/03
04/28/03 45362 ZUMA DRIVE ROOT PRUNING 04/28/03
04/28/03 29090 VIA NORTE A.C. REPAIRS 04/28/03
04/28/03 27495 COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE TREE TRIMMING 04/28/03
04/29/03 44875 MELISSA CIRCLE SIGHT PROBLEM 04/29/03
04/29/03 31783 LOMALINDA DEBRIS PICK-UP 04/29/03
TOTAL SERVICE ORDER REQUESTS 55
R:LMAINTA II~WKC MPLTD~ ORS'dULY 2~2 - JUNE 2003',APRIL.03.DOCAPRIL.03
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT
MONTH OF APRIL, 2003
DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED
04/02/03 YNEZ AT PREECE
04/02/03 LA SERENA AT V-DITCH ABATED 4,645 S.F.R.O.W. WEEDS
04/02/03 RANCHO VISTA AT YNEZ
04/02/03 SANTIAGO AT YNEZ
04/22/03 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD EAST OF DIAZ ABATED 110 S.F.R.O.W. WEEDS
TOTAL S.F.R.O.W. WEEDS ABATED 4,755
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE TRIMMING
MONTH OF APRIL, 2003
DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED
04/02/03 VALENTINO TRIMMED 2 R.O.W. TREES
04/16/03 PECHANGA PARKWAY AT HURON TRIMMED 5 R.O.W. TREES
04/22/03 AMARITA AT VIA RAMIA TRIMMED 2 R.O.W. TREES
04/29/03 27495 COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE TRIMMED 2 R.O.W. TREES
04/29/03 MARGARITA AT JEDEDIAH SMITH TRIMMED 2 R.O,W. TREES
)4/30/03 RANCHO VISTA EAST OF MARGARITA TRIMMED 4 R.O.W. TREES
TOTAL R.O.W. TREES TRIMMED 17
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
GRAFFITI REMOVAL
MONTH OF APRIL, 2003
DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED
04/02/03 40720 WINCHESTER ROAD REMOVED 10 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
04/03/03 WINCHESTER AT RUSTIC GLEN REMOVED 582 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
04/04/03 VIA NAVA AT CARABANA REMOVED 165 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
04/07/03 1 ST STREET BRIDGE REMOVED 110 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
04/07/03 TARGET CENTER REMOVED 54 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
04/08/03 29740 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REMOVED 10 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
04/08/03 WINCHESTER AT 1-15 REMOVED 22 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
04/08/03 MARGARITA BRIDGE REMOVED 22 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
04/08/03 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD S/O HWY 79 SO. REMOVED 4,400 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
04/09/03 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT HUMBER REMOVED 176 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
04/14/03 28550 PUJOL STREET REMOVED 200 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
04/14/03 42929 SUNNY MEADOWS REMOVED 5 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
04/15/03 TARGET CENTER REMOVED 488 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
04/17/03 NORTH GENERAL KEARNEY REMOVED 5 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
04/21/03 lST STREET BRIDGE REMOVED 10 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
04/21/03 PUJOL STREET AT CABOOSE REMOVED 34 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
04/21/03 BUTTERFIELD STAGE BRIDGE REMOVED 502 $.F. OF GRAFFITI
04/21/03 HUMBER AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REMOVED 92 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
04/21/03 EMPIRE CREEK REMOVED 20 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
04/23/03 RANCHO VISTA AT RIO VISTA REMOVED 28 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
04/28/03 TARGET CENTER REMOVED 88 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
04/29/03 PECHANGA AT LOMALINDA REMOVED 30 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
04/29/03 SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK AT MARGARITA REMOVED 554 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
TOTAL S.F. GRAFFITI REMOVED 7~607
TOTAL LOCATIONS 23
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
STENCILS / STRIPING
MONTH OF APRIL, 2003
DATE LOCATION
WORK COMPLETED
04/01/03 AREA gl REPAINTED 4,488 L.F. RED CURB
04/03/03 AREA gl REPAINTED 8,100 L.F. RED CURB
04/07/03 AREA gl REPAINTED 3,486 L.F. RED CURB
04~08/03 AREA # 1 REPAINTED 13,050 L.F. RED CURB
04/09/03 AREA gl REPAINTED 5,850 L.F. RED CURB
04/10/03 AREA gl REPAINTED 6,150 L.F. RED CURB
04/16/03 AREA #2 REPAINTED 5,188 L.F. RED CURB
04/17/03 AREA #2 REPAINTED 3,369 L.F. RED CURB
04/21/03 AREA #2 REPAINTED 5,811 L.F. RED CURB
04/23/03 AREA #2 REPAINTED 9,194 L.F. RED CURB
04/24/03 AREA #2 REPAINTED 6,123 L.F. RED CURB
04/28/03 AREA #2 REPAINTED 4,381 L.F. RED CURB
04/29/03 FRONT STREET AT HWY. 79 SO. REPAINTED 31 LEGENDS
04/30/03 AREA #3 REPAINTED 3,751 L.F. RED CURB
TOTAL NEW & REPAINTED LEGENDS 31
NEW & REPAINTED RED CURB & STRIPING L.F. 78~941
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
ASPHALT (POTHOLES) REPAIRS
MONTH OF APRIL, 2003
DATE LOCATION SCOPE OF WORK S.F. TOTAL
TONS
04/02/03 RANCHO WAY AT DIAZ R & R A.C. 50 ,.L
04/02/03 43475 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE R & R A.C. 80 4.5
04/07/03 43475 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE R & R A.C. 108 4.5
04/08/03 FRONT STREET SOUTH OF IsT STREET R & R A.C. 150 5
04/09/03 43475 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE R & R A.C. 140 4.5
04/16/03 DEL REY AT VIA NORTE R & R A.C. 108 5
04/23/03 43475 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE R & R A.C. 245 6.5
04/24/03 43475 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE R & R A.C. 231 6.5
04/28/03 30809 CALVADO COURT A.C. OVERLAY 600 3.5
04/29/03 DIAZ ROAD A.C. OVERLAY 194 !.5
04/30~03 VIA NORTE AT DEL REY R & R A.C. 281 6.5
TOTAL S.F. OF REPAIRS 2~187
TOTAL TONS 48
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
CATCH BASIN MAINTENANCE
MONTH OF APRIL, 2003
DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED
04/03/03 AREA #3 CLEANED & CHECKED 17 CATCH BASINS
04/07/03 AREA #3 CLEANED & CHECKED 12 CATCH BASINS
04/08/03 AREA #3 CLEANED & CHECKED 9 CATCH BASINS
04/09/03 AREA #3 CLEANED & CHECKED 13 CATCH BASINS
04/10/03 AREA #3 CLEANED & CHECKED 12 CATCH BASINS
04/14/03 CITYWIDE"RAIN" CLEANED & CHECKED 33 CATCH BASINS
04/15/03 AREA #3 CLEANED & CHECKED 7 CATCH BASINS
04/16/03 AREA #3 CLEANED & CHECKED 22 CATCH BASINS
04/17/03 AREA #3 CLEANED & CHECKED 6 CATCH BASINS
04/21/03 AREA #3 CLEANED & CHECKED 16 CATCH BASINS
04/23/03 AREA #3 CLEANED & CHECKED 10 CATCH BASINS
04/28/03 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 25 CATCH BASINS
04/29/03 AREA #3 CLEANED & CHECKED 14 CATCH BASINS
TOTAL CATCH BASINS CLEANED & CHECKED 196
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
SIGNS
MONTH OF APRIL, 2003
DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED
04/01/03 4TM STREET AT MERCEDES REPLACED R-I
04/01/03 PASEO DE LAS OLAS & MEADOWS PARKWAY REPLACED R-I
04/02/03 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT COSMIC REPLACED R-26
04/02/03 26810 YNEZ REPLACED R-26-D
04/02/03 YNEZ & OVERLAND INSTAI.I.I~D R-18
04/02/03 VALENTINO INSTAI~I.ED 3 N.W.S. & R-2 "25"
04/02/03 MEADOWS PARKWAY AT VIA CAMINO REPLACED 3 R-26
04/02/03 PAUBA TO CORTE CARA REPLACED 8 CARSONITES
04/03/02 MEADOWS PARKWAY AT PAUBA REPLACED 4 R-26
! 04/03/02 YNEZ AT WINCHESTER REPLACED R-18-2, R~16-A
04/03/03 YNEZ AT WINCHESTER REPLACED TYPE "P"
04/03/03 NO. GENERAL KEARNEY AT MARGARITA REPLACED R-2-40
04/03/03 NO. GENERAL KEARNEY AT LA COMIMA REPLACED R-2-40
04/07/03 DE PORTOLA AT VIA ANGELES REPLACED R-1
04/07/03 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 6 SIGNS
04/08/03 MARGARITA SOUTH OF LA SERENA REPLACED R-26D
04/08/03 MARGARITA AT 79 SO. REPLACED R-7, K-MARKER
04/08/03 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 5 SIGNS
04/09/03 WINCHESTER AT 1-15 REPLACED R-18
04/10/03 SHADOW VIEW AT RUSTIC GLEN INSTAI.!,RD R-2 25
04/10/03 WINCHESTER AT MARGARITA REPLACED R-7
04/11/03 VAIL RANCH PARKWAY AT CAMINO RUBANO REPLACED W-66
DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED
04/11/03 BUTTERFIELD AT TEMECULA CREEK BRIDGE REPLACED R-26
04/14/03 DIAZ AT KLARER REPLACED 5 CARSONITES
04/15/03 ROICK AT WINCHESTER REPLACED R-26
04/16/03 YNEZ AT SANTIAGO REPLACED R-96
04/16/03 PAUBA AT YNEZ REPLACED R-96
04/16/03 PECHANGA PARKWAY AT LOMALINDA REPLACED W-41
04/16/03 YNEZ AT JEDEDIAH SMITH REPLACED R-26-D
04/16/03 DIAZ AT ZEVO REPLACED W-56
04/16/03 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE WEST OF DIAZ REPLACED W-14, W-9
04/16/03 JEFFERSON AT SANBOR REPLACED 3 TYPE N
04/16/03 CITYW1DE REPAIRED 12 SIGNS
)4/17/03 ;OLANA AT MARGARITA REPLACED R-7
04/17/03 EH~ERSON REPLACED 2 R-18
04/22~03 SIERRA MADRE AT CROSS CREEK REPLACED S.N.S.
04/22/03 SIERRA MADRE AT PUMA REPLACED S.N.S.
04/22/03 VIA RAMIA REPLACED R-2 "25", R-2-40
04/22/03 VINTAGE HILL REPLACED N MARKER
04/22/03 TEE DRIVE AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REPLACED R-7, R-18-1, 2 R-26
04/22/03 1-15 FWY AT RANCHO CALIFONRIA ROAD REPLACED R-96
04/22/03 YNEZ AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REPLACED R-2 40
04/22/03 VIA MONTEZUMA AT DEL RIO REPLACED N MARKER, W-56
' 04/23/03 26631 YNEZ ROAD REPLACED R-7
04~23/03 MEADOWS AT RANCHO CALIFORINA ROAD REPLACED R-96
04/23/03 MEADOWS AT ROYAL BURKDALE REPLACED R-7
04/23/03 TEMEKU AT ROYAL BURKDALE REPLACED R-7
04/23/03 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT MARGARITA REPLACED R-7, 4 DELINEATORS
04/23/03 DE PORTOLA AT CAMPANULA REPLACED R-7
04/23/03 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD EAST OF YNEZ REPLACED 6 DELINEATORS, R-7
04/23/03 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 15 SIGNS
04/24/03 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 7 SIGNS
DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED
04/24/03 27447 JEFFERSON REPLACED W-41
04/24/03 CAMINO ROMO REPLACED W-63
04/28/03 VIA CANDADERDA AT VIA FLORE REPLACED S.N.S.
04/29/03 VIA CESARIO AT CORTE ARSENTO REPLACED R-I
04/29/03 WALCOTT AT CALLE CHAPOS REPLACED TYPE N
04/29/03 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 4 SIGNS
04/30/03 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 19 SIGNS
04/30/03 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT CITY LIMITS REPLACED R-48, 6 CARSONITES
04/30/03 MARGARITA NORTH OF RANCHO VISTA REPLACED R-8 1
04/30/03 MEADOWS PARKWAY AT PAUBA REPLACED 4 R-l, 4 R-I-A
04/30/03 MARGARITA AT WINCHESTER REPLACED 3 DELINEATORS
04/30/03 OVERLAND EAST OF YNEZ REPLACED R-7, K-MARKER
04/30/03 LA SERENA NORTH OF MARGARITA REPLACED R2-45
04/30/03 WALCOTT AT CALLE CHAPOS REPLACED W-57-1
TOTAL SIGNS REPLACED 108
TOTAL SIGNS INSTALLED 7.
TOTAL SIGNS REPAIRED 68