Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10252022 CC Agenda
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title 11]. AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 25, 2022 - 6:00 PM CLOSED SESSION - 5:00 PM CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — POTENTIAL LITIGATION. The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) with respect to three matters of potential litigation. A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Attorney, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City. Based on existing facts and circumstances, the City Council will decide whether to initiate litigation. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — POTENTIAL LITIGATION. The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) with respect to one matter of potential litigation. A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Attorney, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City from MCM Construction, Inc., with respect to bids for the project known as I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements —Phase II (Project No. PW16-01). The October 14, 2022 letter from Attorney D. Michael Schoenfeld of Murphy Austin on behalf of MCM Construction, Inc., objecting to the bid process and threatening litigation is on file in the office of the City Clerk and is attached to the agenda packet with Item #9 on the Consent Calendar. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Matt Rahn INVOCATION: Dr. Brenda Harper of AACTS International Ministries FLAG SALUTE: Mayor Matt Rahn ROLL CALL: Alexander, Edwards, Rahn, Schwank, Stewart PRESENTATIONS Proclamation for Domestic Violence Awareness Month Presentation Regarding Girl Scout Recognition for Scout's Closet Presentation by National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals for Dia De Los Muertos Page 1 City Council Agenda October 25, 2022 BOARD / COMMISSION REPORTS Planning Commission and Race, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Commission PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT Riverside County Sheriffs Department PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON -AGENDA ITEMS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the City Council on matters not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. 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 minutes will be devoted to these reports. CONSENT CALENDAR 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. A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the City Council on items that appear on the Consent Calendar. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. 1. Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions Recommendation: That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. Attachments: Agenda Report 2. Approve Action Minutes of October 11, 2022 Recommendation: That the City Council approve the action minutes of October 11, 2022. Page 2 City Council Agenda October 25, 2022 Attachments: Action Minutes 3. Approve List of Demands Recommendation: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: Attachments: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A Agenda Report Resolution List of Demands 4. Approve City Council Meeting Schedule for November and December 2022 Recommendation: That the City Council 1. Approve the cancellation of the regular meetings in November 2022; and 2. Conduct adjourned regular meetings on November 15, 2022 and November 29, 2022; and 3. Approve the cancellation of the December 27, 2022 meeting. Attachments: Agenda Report 5. Approve Site Access for Research Agreement with Center for Natural Lands Management, Riverside Conservation Authority and Riverside County Transportation Commission on City -Owned Properties within Roripaugh Ranch Recommendation Attachments That the City Council approve the site access for research agreement with the Center for Natural Lands Management, Riverside Conservation Authority, Riverside County Transportation Commission, Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency and City of Temecula on city -owned properties within Roripaugh Ranch. Agenda Report Agreement 6. Approve License Agreement with Eastern Municipal Water District for Facilities Removal on Pujol Street Recommendation: That the City Council approve the license agreement with Eastern Municipal Water District for removal of facilities on Pujol Street. Page 3 City Council Agenda October 25, 2022 Attachments: Agenda Report Agreement 7. Approve First Amendment to Non -Exclusive Commodity greement with SWARCO McCain, Inc. 8. 9. Recommendation Attachments: That the City Council approve the first amendment to the agreement with SWARCO McCain, Inc., in the amount of $500,000, and extend the terms of the agreement to June 30, 2025, for the purchase of traffic signal equipment maintenance supplies for operations and maintenance, and to support the City's Capital Improvement Program Project, Traffic Signal Equipment Enhancement Program -Citywide. Agenda Report Agreement Accept Improvements and File Notice of Completion for Pedestrian Si _ agn 1 Equipment Upgrade -Citywide, PW19-10 Recommendation: That the City Council: 1. Accept the improvements for the Pedestrian Signal Equipment Upgrade -Citywide, PW19-10, as complete; and 2. Direct the City Clerk to file and record the Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond; and 3. Release the Labor and Materials Bond seven months after filing the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. Attachments: Agenda Report Notice of Completion Maintenance Bond Contractor's Affidavit and Final Release Reject All Construction Bids Received for the I-15 / French Valley ParkwaY improvements - Phase H. PW 16-01 and Authorize Construction Contract to be Rebid Recommendation: That the City Council: 1. Reject all construction bids received for the I-15 / French Valley Parkway Improvements - Phase H, PW 16-01; and 2. Authorize the Department of Public Works to re -advertise construction contract for the I-15 / French Valley Parkway Improvements - Phase II, PW16-01. Page 4 City Council Agenda October 25, 2022 10. Attachments: Agenda Report Letter from Murphy Austin Attorneys Receive and File Temporary Street Closures for 2022 Winterfest Events Recommendation: That the City Council receive and file the temporary closure of certain streets for the following 2022 Winterfest Events: HOLIDAY DECORATION INSTALLATION PU'ESKA MOUNTAIN DAY EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FAIR SANTA' S ELECTRIC LIGHT PARADE TEMECULA ON ICE NEW YEAR'S EVE GRAPE DROP Attachments: Agenda Report Exhibit A Fxhihit R RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND/OR THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY Page 5 City Council Agenda October 25, 2022 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING CALL TO ORDER: President James Stewart ROLL CALL: Alexander, Edwards, Rahn, Schwank, Stewart CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON -AGENDA ITEMS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on matters not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. CSD CONSENT CALENDAR 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 Community Services District request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on items that appear on the Consent Calendar. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. 11. Approve Action Minutes of October 11, 2022 Recommendation: That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of October 11, 2022. Attachments: Action Minutes CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTOR REPORTS Page 6 City Council Agenda October 25, 2022 CSD ADJOURNMENT The next adjourned regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District will be held on Tuesday, November 15, 2022, at 4:30 p.m., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 6:00 p.m., at the Council Chambers located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Page 7 City Council Agenda October 25, 2022 SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - NO MEETING TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY - NO MEETING TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY - NO MEETING RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of a project at the time of the hearing. If you challenge a project 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. For public hearings each speaker is limited to 5 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. Email comments on all matters, including those not on the agenda, must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. At public hearings involving land use matters, the property owner and/or applicant has the burden of proof and, therefore, shall be allowed 15 minutes for an initial presentation, and an additional 10 minutes for rebuttal by its development team following other comments on the matter. An appellant, other than the property owner and/or applicant, and the spokesperson for an organized group of residents residing within the noticed area of the property, which is the subject of the public hearing, shall be allowed 15 minutes to present the appellant's position to the Council. The Mayor may allow more time if required to provide due process for the property owner, applicant or appellant. All other members of the public may speak during the public hearing for a maximum period of 5 minutes each. Deferral of one speaker's time to another is not permitted. In the event of a large number of speakers, the Mayor may reduce the maximum time limit for members of the public to speak. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. 12. Conduct Public Hearing Adopt Resolution Making Certain Findings, and Adopt Ordinance No. 2022-12 Adopting the 2022 California Fire Code (Second Reading) Recommendation: That the City Council conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution and ordinance entitled: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA MAKING EXPRESS FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS THAT MODIFICATIONS TO THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, 2022 EDITION, ARE REASONABLY NECESSARY BECAUSE OF LOCAL CLIMATIC, GEOLOGICAL AND/OR TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS Page 8 City Council Agenda October 25, 2022 13. ORDINANCE NO.2022-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE 2022 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE BASED ON THE 2021 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE, IN ITS ENTIRETY, REGULATING AND GOVERNING THE SAFEGUARD OF LIFE AND PROPERTY FROM FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS ARISING FROM THE STORAGE, HANDLING AND USE OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES, MATERIALS AND DEVICES, AND FROM CONDITIONS HAZARDOUS TO LIFE OR PROPERTY IN THE OCCUPANCY OF BUILDINGS AND PREMISES IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, INCLUDING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS, AND PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND THE COLLECTION OF FEES Attachments: Agenda Report Resolution Ordinance Notice of Public Hearing Conduct Public Hearing Adopt Resolution Making Certain Findings, and Adopt Ordinance No. 2022-13 Adopting the 2022 California Building Codes Second Reading Recommendation: That the City Council conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution and ordinance entitled: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA MAKING EXPRESS FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS THAT MODIFICATIONS TO THE 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE; CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE; CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE; CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE; AND CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE, AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA, ARE REASONABLY NECESSARY BECAUSE OF LOCAL CLIMATIC, GEOLOGICAL AND/OR TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS ORDINANCE 2022-13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE 2022 EDITIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE; CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE; CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE; CALIFORNIA Page 9 City Council Agenda October 25, 2022 ELECTRICAL CODE; CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE; CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE; CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE; CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE; CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE; CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE; AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCED STANDARDS CODE; TOGETHER WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS AND DELETIONS, AND AMENDING TITLE 15 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE Attachments: Agenda Report Resolution Ordinance Notice of Public Hearing RITSINFR9 Any member of the public may address the City Council on items that appear on the Business portion of the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 5 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. 14. Receive and File Update Regarding Coppty of Riverside Winchester Community Plan and Recent Development Applications in the Interstate (I-215)Policy Area Related to the 2003 Settlement Agreement and 2005 Cooperative Agreement Between the City of Temecula and County of Riverside Recommendation: That the City Council receive and file the update on the County of Riverside's proposed Winchester Community Plan and recent development applications in the I-215 Policy Area related to an increase of residential density by 33,000 units, traffic impacts, road and freeway Attachments: mitigation measures, public service infrastructure, compliance with California Environmental Quality Act, and the 2003 Settlement Agreement and the 2005 Cooperative Agreement between the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside, and provide direction to staff. Agenda Report Exhibits A and B Exhibit C Exhibit D Page 10 City Council Agenda October 25, 2022 DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS (RECEIVE AND FILE) 15. City Council Travel/Conference Report Attachments: Agenda Report Itinerary 16. Community Development Department Monthly Report Attachments: Agenda Report Planning Activity Report 17. Fire Department Monthly Report Attachments: Agenda Report Fire Department Report 18. Public Works Department Monthly Report Attachments: Agenda Report Project Status Report ITEMS FOR FUTURE CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS Any Council Member, including the Mayor, may request an item be placed on a future agenda. Any such request will be discussed under this section. In making the request, a Council Member may briefly describe the topic of the proposed agenda item and any timing associated with the placement of the item on the agenda. This description shall not exceed 3 minutes unless extended by a majority vote of the City Council. No substantive discussion on the subject of the motion may occur. General discussion amongst the City Council on items listed under this section of the agenda shall be limited to 15 minutes. Items may only be placed on the agenda by Council Members pursuant to policy or by the City Manager based on administrative or operational needs of the City. Public comments on the placement of these agenda items shall be limited to a maximum of 30 minutes. Individual comments shall not exceed 3 minutes. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings and Agenda Placements by Council Members adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. A. Resolution Opposing Proposition 1 (At the Request of Council Member Jessica Alexander) CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT Page 11 City Council Agenda October 25, 2022 ADJOURNMENT The next adjourned regular meeting of the City Council will be held on Tuesday, November 15, 2022, at 4:30 p.m., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 6:00 p.m., at the Council Chambers located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The full agenda packet (including staff reports, public closed session information, and any supplemental material available after the original posting of the agenda), distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on the agenda, will be available for public viewing in the main reception area of the Temecula Civic Center during normal business hours at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. The material will also be available on the City's website at TemeculaCa.gov. and available for review at the respective meeting. If you have questions regarding any item on the agenda, please contact the City Clerk's Department at (951) 694-6444. Page 12 Item No. 1 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, Director of Legislative Affairs/City Clerk DATE: October 25, 2022 SUBJECT: Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, Director of Legislative Affairs/City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula is a general law city formed under the laws of the State of California. With respect to adoption of ordinances and resolutions, the City adheres to the requirements set forth in the Government Code. Unless otherwise required, the full reading of the text of standard ordinances and resolutions is waived. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: None Item No. 2 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 11, 2022 - 6:00 PM CLOSED SESSION - 5:00 PM CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — POTENTIAL LITIGATION. The City Council convened in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) with respect to three matters of potential litigation. A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Attorney, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City. Based on existing facts and circumstances, the City Council will decide whether to initiate litigation. CALL TO ORDER at 6:01 PM: Mayor Matt Rahn INVOCATION: Chaplain Buck Longmore, Retired Firefighter FLAG SALUTE: Mayor Pro Tern Zak Schwank ROLL CALL: Alexander, Edwards, Rahn, Schwank, Stewart (absent) PRESENTATIONS Proclamation for Manufacturing Month Presentation by Temecula Valley Women's Club Community Recognitions Regarding Fairview Fire BOARD / COMMISSION REPORTS Community Services Commission PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON -AGENDA ITEMS The following individual(s) addressed the City Council: • Mark from Murrieta • Kare Brann • Slim Killens • Allison Aranda • Dan Collins Bob Quaid • Steven Gerard Sidlovsky Bob Kowell • Payam Daneshvar PUBLIC COMMENTS — RECEIVED ELECTRONICALLY Electronically submitted comments have been made part of the record. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS CONSENT CALENDAR Unless otherwise indicated below, the following pertains to all items on the Consent Calendar. Approved the Staff Recommendation (4-0, Stewart absent): Motion by Edwards, Second by Schwank. The vote reflected unanimous approval with Stewart absent. 1. Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions Recommendation: That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. 2. Approve Action Minutes of September 27, 2022 Recommendation: That the City Council approve the action minutes of September 27, 2022. 3. Approve List of Demands Recommendation: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2022-79 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4. Approve City Treasurer's Report as of June 30, 2022 Recommendation: That the City Council approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of June 30, 2022. 5. Authorize Purchase of Lighting Equipment for the Sports Field Lighting - LED Conversion Proj ect Recommendation: That the City Council authorize the purchase of lighting equipment for the Sports Field Lighting - LED Conversion Project, from Musco Sports Lighting, LLC, in the amount of $426,735, plus a contingency of $15,000 for delivery and handling, for a total of $441,735. 6. Appropriate Funding and Award Construction Contract to All American Asphalt for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Citywide, Ynez Road, Solana Way, Nicolas Road and Winchester Road Project, PW21-10 Recommendation: That the City Council: 1. Appropriate $3,600,000 from the Street Maintenance Fund to be transferred to Fund 210 - Capital Improvement Program for the aforementioned project; and 2. Award a construction contract to All American Asphalt in the amount of $3,629,219 for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Citywide, Ynez Road, Solana Way, Nicolas Road and Winchester Road Project, PW21-10; and 3. Authorize the City Manager to approve construction change orders up to $362,921.90, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount; and 4. Make a finding that the Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Citywide, Ynez Road, Solana Way, Nicolas Road and Winchester Road Project, PW21-10 is exempt from Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) fees. 7. Approve Grant of Easement on Portion of Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 921-300-006, Michael "Mike" Naggar Community Park, to Southern California Edison (SCE) for EV Charging Station Project, PW21-09 Recommendation: That the City Council: 1. Approve a grant of easement on a portion of Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 921-300-006, Michael "Mike" Naggar Community Park, to Southern California Edison (SCE); and 2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the grant of easement. RECESS: At 7:18 PM, the City Council recessed and convened as the Temecula Community Services District Meeting and the Temecula Public Financing Authority Meeting. At 7:21 PM the City Council resumed with the remainder of the City Council Agenda. RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL ITEMS FOR FUTURE CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT The City Attorney stated there was no reportable actions from closed session. ADJOURNMENT At 7:29 PM, the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, October 25, 2022, at 4:30 PM for Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Matt Rahn, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] Item No. 3 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance DATE: October 25, 2022 SUBJECT: Approve the List of Demands PREPARED BY: Pam Espinoza, Accounting Technician II RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2022- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A BACKGROUND: All claims and demands are reported and summarized for review and approval by the City Council on a routine basis at each City Council meeting. The attached claims represent the paid claims and demands since the last City Council meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: All claims and demands were paid from appropriated funds or authorized resources of the City and have been recorded in accordance with the City's policies and procedures. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. List of Demands RESOLUTION NO.2022- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the office of the City Clerk, has been reviewed by the City Manager's Office and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $ 17,008,239.68. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 25th day of October 2022. Matt Rahn, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 25th day of October 2022, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 09/27/2022 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 09/29/2022 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 10/04/2022 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 10/06/2022 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 10/13/2022 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 10/25/2022 COUNCIL MEETING: DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: $ 1,220,337.05 13,988,309.00 703,925.16 373,943.66 721,724.81 $ 17,008,239.68 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 001 GENERAL FUND $ 12,992,986.86 002 MEASURE S FUND 2,934.54 110 RANCHO CALIF ROAD REIMB DIST 459.51 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 3,895.48 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 3,890.03 170 MEASURE A FUND 334,143.55 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 256,034.96 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "B" STREET LIGHTS 160.90 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "D" REFUSE/RECYCLING 1,167.25 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 2,298.63 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 4,407.15 210 CAPITAL IMPROV PROJ FUND 1,616,616.34 300 INSURANCE FUND 40,172.18 305 WORKER'S COMPENSATION 7,996.81 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 84,107.25 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 6,950.90 340 FACILITIES 18,437.31 380 SARDA DEBT SERVICE FUND 895,435.71 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 455.34 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 1,224.91 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 1,007.68 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 231.41 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 1,550.86 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 407.24 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 464.58 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 2,883.03 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 246.97 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 103.82 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 833.74 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 141.21 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 50.68 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 1,452.53 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 269.80 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 1,698.31 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 171.94 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 996.85 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 228.61 $ 16,286,514.87 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 001 GENERAL FUND $ 376,430.33 110 RANCHO CALIF ROAD REIMB DIST 766.84 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 642.88 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 4,264.31 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 201,618.55 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REFUSE RECYCLING 1,590.76 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 201.67 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 4,192.00 300 INSURANCE FUND 3,205.56 305 WORKERS' COMPENSATION 3,205.63 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 41,369.13 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 5,019.84 340 FACILITIES 8,771.17 700 CERBT CALIFORNIA EE RETIREE-GASB45 70,446.14 721,724.81 TOTAL BY FUND: $ 17,008,239.68 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 09/27/2022 4:08:25PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 503151 9/29/2022 009374 ALLEGRO MUSICAL VENTURES PIANO TUNING/MAINT: MUSEUM: 2,450.00 DBA, ALLEGRO PIANO TCSD SERVICE PIANO TUNING/MAINT: THEATER 280.00 2,730.00 503152 9/29/2022 005037 AMERICAN ASPHALT SOUTH CITYWIDE SLURRY SEAL: PW22-02: 334,143.55 334,143.55 INC CIP 503153 9/29/2022 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES DRUG/ALCOHOL ANALYSIS: TEM 248.04 248.04 AFN SHERIFF 503154 9/29/2022 013950 AQUA CHILL OF SAN DIEGO SEP DRINKING WTR SYS MAINT: CIVIC 213.97 CTR SEP DRINKING WTR SYS MAINT: SF 69.60 SEPT DRINKING WTR SYS MAINT: T 28.28 311.85 503155 9/29/2022 018408 BOB CALLAHAN'S POOL POOL MAINT: CRC 1,100.00 SERVICE FOUNTAIN MAINT: OLD TOWN & CIV 950.00 2,050.00 503156 9/29/2022 000442 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS JUL-SEP ALARM SYS MONITORING: 5,505.00 5,505.00 FACILITIES 503157 9/29/2022 017542 COX, KRISTI LYN TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 1,148.00 1,148.00 503158 9/29/2022 022483 DE LA SECURA INC, DBA DLS DSGN-BUILD SVCS: MRC PW 17-21 726,362.76 726,362.76 BUILDERS 503159 9/29/2022 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL TEMP RESTROOM SVCS: TES POOL 325.76 325.76 SRVCS RENO 503160 9/29/2022 004192 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: BLDG 377.74 INSPECTORS FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TRAFFIC 309.07 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: FIRE DE 207.43 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: EOC 155.50 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TCSD 95.42 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: POLICE 90.35 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: CODE E 66.18 1,301.69 503161 9/29/2022 012217 DUDEK CONSULTANT SVCS: PW19-16 22,937.50 22,937.50 503162 9/29/2022 021412 EIDE BAILLY LLP FY22/23 AUDIT FEES: ACFR/GANN: 12,300.00 12,300.00 FINANCE 503163 9/29/2022 022726 FORENSIC NURSING OF SART EXAM: TEM SHERIFF 1,200.00 SOCAL INC SART EXAM: TEM SHERIFF 1,200.00 SART EXAM: TEM SHERIFF 800.00 3,200.00 Page:1 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 09/27/2022 4:08:25PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 503164 9/29/2022 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS MISC OFC SUPPLIES: FINANCE 119.17 119.17 INC 503165 9/29/2022 004890 GOLDEN STATE FIRE FIRE INSP REPAIRS: SAFE HOUSE 1,139.00 1,139.00 PROTECTION 503166 9/29/2022 020628 HASA INC POOL SANITIZING CHEMICALS: VARI 761.50 POOLS POOL SANITIZING CHEMICALS: VAR 723.25 POOL SANITIZING CHEMICALS: VAR 526.78 2,011.53 503167 9/29/2022 022056 IDETAIL SUPPLY CO ENGINE MAINT SUPPLIES: FIRE STA 12 139.16 139.16 503168 9/29/2022 012285 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY A/C UNIT: SENIOR CENTER: PW 4,076.00 4,076.00 503169 9/29/2022 000482 LEIGHTON CONSULTING INC MATERIALS TESTING SVCS: PW21-10 257.00 257.00 503170 9/29/2022 003726 LIFE ASSIST INC MEDICAL SUPPLIES: MEDIC: FIRE 241.50 MEDICAL SUPPLIES: MEDIC: FIRE 241.50 483.00 503171 9/29/2022 018253 EMPLOYEE #00509 Void COMPUTER PURCHASE PRGM 1,263.16 1,263.16 503172 9/29/2022 022664 MARIPOSATREE ARBOR DAY PLANTING PROJECT: 13,293.00 MANAGEMENT INC PARKS ANNUAL TREE TRIMMING: ROW: PA 929.63 ANNUAL ROW TREE TRIMMING: PAF 522.00 14,744.63 503173 9/29/2022 018675 MDGASSOCIATES INC AUG LABOR COMPLIANCE SVCS: 1,009.38 1,009.38 PW20-13 503174 9/29/2022 004951 MIKE'S PRECISION WELDING WELDING SVCS: SPLASH PAD 580.00 INC WELDING SVCS: CUBICAL REPAIRS 300.00 WELDING SVCS: TRASH LOCK REP) 240.00 1,120.00 503175 9/29/2022 004043 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: OLD TOWN 751.76 INC MAINT ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR 530.39 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: FOC 399.15 1,681.30 503176 9/29/2022 004040 MORAMARCO ANTHONY J, FACE PAINTING: SPECIAL EVENTS: 5,000.00 5,000.00 DBA BIGFOOT GRAPHICS TCSD 503177 9/29/2022 002925 NAPAAUTO PARTS AUTO PARTS & MISC SUPPLIES: FIRE 36.95 36.95 STA 92 503178 9/29/2022 022599 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC IRRIGATION REPAIRS: LONG CANYON 2,502.18 2,502.18 PARK Paget apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 09/27/2022 4:08:25PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 503179 9/29/2022 021998 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE VEHICLE MAINT: STREET MAINT: PW 2,350.91 INC VEHICLE REPAIRS: PARKS: PW 265.57 VEHICLE REPAIRS: FACILITIES 45.21 2,661.69 503180 9/29/2022 005075 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: CIVIC 95.70 SUPPLY CENTER FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: CIS 95.70 FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: CIS 95.70 UNIFORM SVCS: PW PARKS 57.63 UNIFORM SVCS: STREET MAINT: P� 44.18 UNIFORM SVCS: STREET MAINT: Pb 44.18 FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: CRC 29.51 FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: CRC 29.51 FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: SEI 23.15 FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: CH 21.37 FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: TEI 12.96 FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: TC( 12.96 FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: MU 11.37 FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: MU 11.37 FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: FO, 9.70 FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: FO, 9.70 FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: FO, 9.70 FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: THI 9.10 FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: THI 9.10 FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: JR( 8.28 FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: JR( 8.28 649.15 503181 9/29/2022 002412 RICHARDS WATSON AND AUG 2022 LEGAL SERVICES 14,107.98 GERSHON AUG 2022 LEGAL SERVICES 6,029.49 AUG 2022 LEGAL SERVICES 3,908.75 AUG 2022 LEGAL SERVICES 1,680.25 AUG 2022 LEGAL SERVICES 619.50 AUG 2022 LEGAL SERVICES 501.50 AUG 2022 LEGAL SERVICES 197.25 AUG 2022 LEGAL SERVICES 79.50 27,124.22 503182 9/29/2022 004274 SAFE AND SECURE LOCKSMITH SVCS: CRC 64.60 64.60 LOCKSMITH SRVC 503183 9/29/2022 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC JAZZ @ THE MERC 9/15 700.00 700.00 503184 9/29/2022 021620 SIEMENS MOBILITY INC, STREETLIGHT MAINT: STREETS: PW 160.90 160.90 YUNEX LLC 503185 9/29/2022 013482 SILVERMAN ENTERPRISES SECURITY SVC: HEALTH FAIR 367.40 367.40 INC, DBA BAS SECURITY EQPMNT: TCSD Page:3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 09/27/2022 4:08:25PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 503186 9/29/2022 003849 TERRYBERRY COMPANY EMPLOYEE SVC RECOGNITION: HR 118.13 EMPLOYEE SVC RECOGNITION: HR 103.37 EMPLOYEE SVC RECOGNITION: HR 88.05 309.55 503187 9/29/2022 016311 TIERCE, NICHOLAS GRAPHIC DESIGN SERVICES: 4,380.00 4,380.00 THEATER 503188 9/29/2022 021603 TITAN RENTALS GROUP INC, RENTALS: SPECIAL EVENTS: TCSD 7,463.28 TITAN TENT & EVENT RENTAL RENTALS: EMPLOYEE RECOGNITIO 1,333.51 8,796.79 503189 9/29/2022 017415 TK ELEVATOR CORPORATION ELEVATOR MAINT: PARKING GARAGE 773.50 773.50 503190 9/29/2022 008977 VALLEY EVENTS INC HEALTH FAIR WELLNESS: MPSC: 1,785.00 1,785.00 TCSD 503191 9/29/2022 018147 WADDLETON, JEFFREY L. DJ/MC SVCS: ART/STREET FESTIVAL: 1,975.00 TCSD DJ/MC SVCS: HEALTH FAIR: TCSD 875.00 DJ/MC SVCS: COLOR RUN: TCSD 875.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 772.80 DJ/MC SVCS: CHANGING OF FLAG: 525.00 5,022.80 503192 9/29/2022 020275 WALLACE & ASSOC AUG CONSTRUCTION MGMT SVCS: 8,995.00 CONSULTING LLC, ANSER PW18-05 ADVISORY MNGMT LLC JUL CONSTRUCTION MGMT SVCS: 1 6,763.00 15,758.00 503193 9/29/2022 000820 WINCHAK KRIS R, DBA K R W & 8/17-9/12 ENG PLAN CHECK & RVW: 4,900.00 4,900.00 ASSOCIATES LAND DEV Grand total for EFT UNION BANK: 1,221,600.21 Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 09/27/2022 4:08:25PM CITY OF TEMECULA 43 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 1,221,600.21 Void Ck# 503171 (1,263.16) Adjusted Grant Total: $ 1,220,337.05 Page:5 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 09/29/2022 3:37:40PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor Description 14089 9/26/2022 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' PERS RETIREMENT PAYMENT RETIREMENT) 14105 9/2/2022 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE AUGUST INTERNET SVCS 29119 MARGARITA RD 14120 9/9/2022 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 015626 EVENTBRITE.COM REGIST FEE: MORENO VALLEY STATE OF CITY 14121 9/9/2022 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 005716 BIRTH CHOICE OF TEMECULA REGIST FEE: CHOICE GALA INC FUNDRAISER 023057 CORONA CHAMBER OF REGIST FEE: WOMEN'S LEADERSHIP COMMERCE CONF 14122 9/9/2022 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 023058 SAVAGE TRAINING GROUP REGIST FEE: ADV CRITICAL INCIDENT 14123 9/9/2022 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 005716 BIRTH CHOICE OF TEMECULA REGIST FEE: CHOICE GALA INC FUNDRAISER 015626 EVENTBRITE.COM REGIST FEE: MORENO VALLEY STATE OF CITY 016384 CALIFORNIA INLAND, EMPIRE REGIST FEE: CITIZEN OF THE YEAR COUNCIL EVENT 14124 9/9/2022 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 013338 APPLE STORE ADD'L PHONE STORAGE: SOCIAL MEDIA 013338 APPLE STORE ADD'L PHONE STORAGE: SOCIAL MEDIA 013338 APPLE STORE APP CHARGES: SOCIAL MEDIA: ECO DEV 023048 TAP'S TACO CATERING INC RFRSHMNTS:DEPOSIT: PIO: ECO DEV 020829 MURRIETA CHAMBER OF REGIST: STATE OF THE CITY: ECO COMMERCE DEV 013338 APPLE STORE APP CHARGES: SOCIAL MEDIA: ECO DEV 14125 9/9/2022 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 018185 BLUEBEAM INC CONF REGISTRATION: LAND DEV: PW Amount Paid Check Total 137,201.10 137,201.10 1,424.78 1,424.78 65.28 65.28 125.00 100.00 225.00 268.00 268.00 125.00 65.28 150.00 340.28 2.99 2.99 2.99 271.88 105.00 2.99 388.84 400.00 400.00 Page:1 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 09/29/2022 3:37:40PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 14126 9/9/2022 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 004432 ALBERTSONS GROCERY STORE 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA 491 010307 CHICK FILA INC 008315 TACO BELL CORPORATION 023059 POPEYES LOUISIANA KITCHEN 14127 9/9/2022 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 013338 APPLE STORE 013338 APPLE STORE 020032 CHALLENGER WATER INTL INC 14129 9/9/2022 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 014779 TOWN CENTER CLEANERS 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPANY INC 007837 ALASKAAIRLINES 009612 BJS RESTAURANTS INC 020419 CHIPOTLE - CORP OFC 14130 9/9/2022 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 007987 WALMART 011090 TEMECULAVALLEY TRANSPORTATION, DBA STRYDER TRANSPORT. 008668 WES FLOWERS 021482 GIFTCARDS.COM 006937 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES 006937 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES 006937 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES 006937 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES 006937 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES 007282 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total RFRSHMNTS: ACTIVE SHOOTER 20.20 TRAINING: PD RFRSHMNTS: ACITVE SHOOTER 64.92 TRAINING: PD RFRSHMNTS: VOLUNTEER 126.97 APPRECIATION EVENT RFRSHMNTS: ACTIVE SHOOTER 94.57 TRAINING: PD RFRSHMNTS: ACTIVE SHOOTER 97.84 404.50 TRAINING: PD IPAD KEYBOARD & CASE: FIRE DEPT 379.54 ADD'L PHONE STORAGE: FIRE DEPT 0.99 WATER FILTERS: FIRE STA 84 55.09 435.62 DRY CLEANING SVCS: TABLE LINENS 180.25 ONLINE SUBSCRIPTION: CITY CLERK 14.00 AIRFARE: LAWS & ELECTIONS 258.00 SEMINAR RFRSHMNTS: CITY CNCL MTG 07/26 236.37 RFRSHMNTS: CITY CNCL MTG 08/09 224.50 913.12 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: HR 103.27 TRANSP: HR EVENT 250.00 SUNSHINE FUND 91.11 EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION: HR 218.82 AIRFARE: NEOGOV CONF: HR 97.96 AIRFARE: NEOGOV CONF: HR 97.96 AIRFARE: NEOGOV CONF: HR 97.96 AIRFARE: NEOGOV CONF: HR 97.96 AIRFARE: NEOGOV CONF: HR 97.96 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: HR 16.30 1,169.30 Paget apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 09/29/2022 3:37:40PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 14131 9/9/2022 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 022560 UBER 022560 UBER 020489 GREYHOUND LINES 020489 GREYHOUND LINES 021688 PHIL'S BBQ OF TEMECULA INC 000293 STADIUM PIZZA INC 021438 PUBLIC RELATIONS SOCIETY OF, AMERICA- I.E. CHAPTER 021438 PUBLIC RELATIONS SOCIETY OF, AMERICA- I.E. CHAPTER 023061 LADERA KITCHEN LLC 023061 LADERA KITCHEN LLC 021106 UPS STORE #2725, THE 007987 WALMART 022560 UBER 022560 UBER 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC 14132 9/9/2022 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 023056 PENDRY 023056 PENDRY 021148 WEX BANK 019244 HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. 020074 LA COCINA BARAND GRILL 018323 GOAT & VINE, THE 017736 FEAST CALIFORNIA CAFE LLC, DBA CORNER BAKERY CAFE (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total TRANSP: HOMELESS OUTREACH 41.99 TRANSP: HOMELESS OUTREACH 103.37 HOMELESS OUTREACH: BUS PASS 68.99 HOMELESS OUTREACH: BUS PASS 258.99 RFRSHMNTS: MEETING HOMELESS 26.89 TEAMS RFRSHMNTS: OUTREACH RECAP MTG 134.44 AWARD ENTRY FEE: COMMUNITY 150.00 OUTREACH AWARD ENTRY FEE: CULTURE FEST 150.00 RFRSHMNTS: OUTREACH RECAP MTG 46.25 RFRSHMNTS: OUTREACH RECAP MTG 45.24 LIVE SCAN FEE: PROJ TOUCH CLIENT 62.00 SUPPLIES: HELP CTR: TCSD 82.38 TRANSP: HOMELESS OUTREACH 97.97 TRANSP: HOMELESS OUTREACH 49.99 SUPPLIES: HELP CTR 116.29 1,434.79 RFRSHMNTS: CCMF BOARD MTG: CITY 24.95 MGR LODGING: CCMF BOARD MTG: CITY 418.68 MGR FUEL: CCMF BOARD MTG: CITY MGR 77.34 CUSTOM FRAMES: HISTORICAL 248.73 PRINTS: CM RFRSHMNTS: TVUSD MTG: CITY MGR 39.28 RFRSHMNTS: COUNCIL WORKSHOP: 213.68 COUNCIL RFRSHMNTS: COUNCIL WORKSHOP: 492.62 1,515.28 COUNCIL Page:3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 09/29/2022 3:37:40PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 14133 9/9/2022 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 012085 ISTOCK INT'L INC. 020886 NETFLIX.COM 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPANY INC 019291 TLK ICE, INC., DBA:KONA ICE TEMECULA VAL 006952 PAYPAL 021438 PUBLIC RELATIONS SOCIETY OF, AMERICA- I.E. CHAPTER 021113 DISCOVERY SCIENCE CTR OF OC, DBA DISCOVERY CUBE OF OC 004329 COSTCO TEMECULA 491 004329 COSTCO TEMECULA 491 000152 CALIF PARKS AND RECREATION SOC, C P R S 000152 CALIF PARKS AND RECREATION SOC, C P R S 020249 LAUND3R.COM LLC 022936 OSCARS BREWING COMPANY, DBA OBC INC 021199 THE DROP ZONE 021199 THE DROP ZONE 020792 CANVA.COM 000152 CALIF PARKS AND RECREATION SOC, C P R S 000152 CALIF PARKS AND RECREATION SOC, C P R S 010364 REGAL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP 003810 AMERICAN ASSOC OF MUSEUM DBA 003773 REUBEN H FLEET SCIENCE CENTER (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total SUBSCRIPTION: PROMO IMAGES: 120.00 TCSD MONTHLY SVC CHARGE: TEEN ROOM: 9.99 CRC ONLINE SUBSCRIPTION: TCSD 18.00 RFRSHMNTS: NATIONAL NIGHT OUT 600.00 EVENT VERISIGN PAYFLOW PRO 489.40 TRANSACTION AWARD ENTRY FEE: CULTURAL ARTS: 150.00 TVM RFRSHMNTS: DAY CAMP: TCSD 171.00 RFRSHMNTS: SUMMER DAY CAMP: 50.76 TCSD RFRSHMNTS: SUMMER DAY CAMP: 162.31 TCSD WEBINAR REGISTRATION: 35.00 MARKETING: TCSD WEBINAR REGISTRATION: 35.00 MARKETING: TCSD LAUNDRY SVC: SPECIAL EVENTS: 38.85 TCSD RFRSHMNTS: DAY CAMP: TCSD 411.08 OVER THE CREDIT LIMIT FEE: TSCD 35.00 DAY CAMP EXCURSION: TCSD -721.00 DAY CAMP EXCURSION: TCSD -85.00 DAY CAMP EXCURSION: TCSD 119.40 WEBINAR REGISTRATION: MPSC: 20.00 TCSD WEBINAR REGISTRATION: MPSC: 35.00 TCSD RFRSHMNTS: SUMMER CAMP: TCSD 85.65 PUBLICATION: COLLECTIONS: TVM 69.99 RFRSHMNTS: DAY CAMP: TCSD 265.14 2,115.57 Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 09/29/2022 3:37:40PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 14134 9/9/2022 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 017716 CLEVERBRIDGE INC DESKTOP ACCESS SFTWR RENEWAL: TPL 019967 MISAC REGIST FEE: CONFERENCE: INFO TECH 022825 MARCO'S PIZZA RFRSHMNTS: TEAM PACE -'21 WINNER 019967 MISAC MEMBERSHIP DUES: INFO TECH 14135 9/9/2022 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 000175 GOVERNMENT FINANCE WEGINAR REGISTRATION: FINANCE OFFICERS, ASSOCIATION, GFOA 006952 PAYPAL VERISIGN PAYFLOW PRO TRANSACTION 019159 CALPERS EDUCATION FORUM WEBINAR REGISTRATION: FINANCE 2016 000154 C S M F O MEMBERSHIP DUES: FINANCE 000175 GOVERNMENT FINANCE WEBINAR REGISTRATION: FINANCE OFFICERS, ASSOCIATION, GFOA 017300 ADOBE.COM CONF REGISTRATION: INFO TECH 14136 9/6/2022 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE AUGUST INTERNET SVCS 32364 OVERLAND TRL 14139 9/8/2022 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE SEPTEMBER INTERNET SVCS 32211 WOLF 14145 9/8/2022 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY AUG 095-167-7907-2: 30650 PAUBA RD 14156 9/12/2022 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY AUG 101-525-1560-6: 27415 ENTERPRISE 14209 9/26/2022 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' PERS RETIREMENT PAYMENT RETIREMENT) 14230 9/15/2022 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA INC SEPT INTERNET SVCS: CIVIC CENTER 14231 9/15/2022 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA INC SEPT INTERNET SVCS: EOC 14233 9/16/2022 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE SEPTEMBER INTERNET SVCS: 41000 MAIN ST 14234 9/19/2022 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER AUGUST WATER SVCS: 32131 SOUTH DIST LOOP RD Amount Paid Check Total 2,250.00 475.00 126.80 260.00 3,111.80 1,610.00 25.00 499.00 75.00 650.00 1,195.00 4,054.00 119.99 119.99 194.54 194.54 138.66 138.66 124.06 124.06 137, 481.90 137, 481.90 102.89 102.89 168.16 168.16 1,069.26 1,069.26 51.31 51.31 Pages apChkLst 09/29/2022 3:37:40PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 6 Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 14235 9/19/2022 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER AUGUST WATER SVCS: 31991 101.65 101.65 DIST RORIPAUGH 14236 9/19/2022 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER AUGUST WATER SVCS: 39656 DIEGO 141.21 141.21 DIST DR 14237 9/19/2022 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER AUGUST WATER SVCS: 32101 170.74 170.74 DIST SOMMERS BEND 14238 9/19/2022 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER AUGUST WATER SVCS: 32131 SOUTH 185.94 185.94 DIST LOOP RD 14239 9/19/2022 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER AUGUST WATER SVCS: 32131 SOUTH 2O1.60 201.60 DIST LOOP RD 14240 9/19/2022 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER AUGUST WATER SVCS: 31991 2,539.24 2,539.24 DIST RORIPAUGH 14241 9/19/2022 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER AUGUST WATER SVCS: 0 SOMMERS 9,906.86 9,906.86 DIST BEND 14242 9/19/2022 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA INC SEPT INTERNET SVCS: LIBRARY 5.31 5.31 14243 9/19/2022 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA INC SEPT INTERNET SVCS: LIBRARY 5.31 5.31 14245 9/19/2022 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE SEPTEMBER INTERNET SVCS: 32131 S 282.73 282.73 LOOP RD 14246 9/19/2022 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE SEPTEMBER INTERNET SVCS: 30875 600.91 600.91 RANCHO 14247 9/20/2022 000537 SO CALIF EDISON AUGUST 700618534991 30395 38.92 38.92 MURRIETA HOT 14248 9/20/2022 000537 SO CALIF EDISON AUGUST 70036783566328582 1,119.37 1,119.37 HARVESTON DR 14249 9/20/2022 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE SEPTEMBER INTERNET SVCS: 41000 298.38 298.38 MAIN ST 14258 9/12/2022 005460 U S BANK RETURN LAS HACIENDAS DRAW 7 895,435.71 895,435.71 14259 9/12/2022 020062 MEDLINE INDUSTRIES INC CE JUN 2022 SALES TAX PHS 320,480.00 320,480.00 14260 9/21/2022 005460 U S BANK INVESTMENT PURCHASE: FINANCE 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 Pagefi apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 09/29/2022 3:37:40PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 14262 7/25/2022 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 14263 9/29/2022 010349 CALIF DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT 14264 9/29/2022 021301 1 C M A RETIREMENT -PLAN 106474 14265 9/29/2022 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT -PLAN 303355 14266 9/29/2022 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 14267 9/29/2022 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 14268 9/29/2022 001065 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 14269 9/29/2022 019088 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 14270 9/29/2022 000389 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 102132 9/20/2022 023070 RUPERT, BRYCE 210166 9/29/2022 004594 2 HOT UNIFORMS INC 210167 9/29/2022 023079 ABAD, LOUIE (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total JUNE 700036969370 40820 1,311.18 1,311.18 WINCHESTER RD SUPPORT PAYMENT PAYMENT 138.92 138.92 ICMA- 401(A) RETIREMENT PLAN 384.62 384.62 PAYMENT ICMA-RC RETIREMENT TRUST 457 16,161.87 16,161.87 PAYMENT STATE TAX PAYMENT 35,798.44 35,798.44 FEDERAL TAX PAYMENT 108,191.39 108,191.39 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT PAYMENT 12,866.85 12,866.85 NATIONWIDE LOAN REPAYMENT 427.79 427.79 PAYMENT OBRA- PROJECT RETIREMENT 4,408.04 4,408.04 PAYMENT REFUND FOR DUPLICATE PAYMENT 184.20 184.20 UNIFORMS: TCC: FIRE DEPT 371.93 UNIFORMS: TCC: FIRE DEPT 329.98 UNIFORMS: TCC: FIRE DEPT 334.33 UNIFORMS: TCC: FIRE DEPT 329.98 UNIFORMS: TCC: FIRE DEPT 329.98 1,696.20 REFUND: WEST SIDE STORY 24.00 24.00 CANCELLED Page:? apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 09/29/2022 3:37:40PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 210168 9/29/2022 007282 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES OFFICE SUPPLIES: PREV: FIRE INC SUPPLIES FOR FIT FUN COLOR RUN: TC MISC OFC SUPPLIES: CHIEF/BC: FIRE SUPPLIES FOR FIT FUN COLOR RUN: TC MISC OFC SUPPLIES: FIRE SUPPLIES FOR FIT FUN COLOR RUN: TC REC SUPPLIES: HUMAN SVCS: TCSD MISC BOOKS: RHRTPL: TCSD SUPPLIES FOR FIT FUN COLOR RUN: TC MISC SUPPLIES: 2ND SAT: TVM: TCSD MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECI 210169 9/29/2022 023030 ARJONA, GLORIA STTLMNT: BRAZILIAN AND LATIN JAZZ 9/23/2 210170 9/29/2022 017149 B G P RECREATION INC TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 210171 9/29/2022 015592 BAMM PROMOTIONAL STAFF UNIFORMS: HEALTH FAIR: PRODUCTS INC TCSD 210172 9/29/2022 015765 BEISTLE COMPANY THE, DBA PROMO ITEMS: PREVENTION: FIRE FIRE SMART PROMOTIONS 210173 9/29/2022 011348 BONCOR WATER SYSTEMS 9/15-10/12 WTR FILTER: FIRE STA 73 LLC, DBA SUNSHINE WATER SOFT 210174 9/29/2022 001054 CALIF BUILDING OFFICIALS, WEBINAR: HIGHLIGHTING (CALBO) ACCESSIBILTY: BLDG ED WEEK REGISTRATION: SAN RAMON: ED WEEK REGISTRATION: SAN RAMON: 210175 9/29/2022 016384 CALIFORNIA INLAND, EMPIRE SPONSORSHIP: BOY SCOUTS OF COUNCIL AMERICA 210176 9/29/2022 004971 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES SEP COPIERS LEASE: LIBRARY INC 210177 9/29/2022 019143 CASO, MARCIA REFUND: WEST SIDE STORY CANCELLED 210178 9/29/2022 004462 CDW LLC, DBA CDW MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: IT GOVERNMENT LLC MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECI MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECI 210179 9/29/2022 023073 CHAVEZ, CAMILA REFUND: SOCCER 1: TCSD Amount Paid Check Total 291.44 54.36 39.14 222.91 75.57 803.94 513.05 -19.56 2,391.94 62.92 193.56 4,629.27 761.70 761.70 3,895.50 3,895.50 797.18 797.18 3,088.50 3,088.50 345.00 345.00 210.00 780.00 390.00 1,380.00 1,200.00 1,200.00 671.56 671.56 36.00 36.00 1,050.85 195.03 -693.41 552.47 120.00 120.00 Page:8 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 09/29/2022 3:37:40PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 210180 9/29/2022 017429 COBRAADVANTAGE INC, DBA AUG FSA ADMINISTRATION FEES: HR THE ADVANTAGE GROUP JUL FSAADMINISTRATION FEES: HR 210181 9/29/2022 004329 COSTCO TEMECULA 491 SUPPLIES: MPSC/HUMAN SVCS: TCSD MISC SUPPLIES: CONTRACT CLASSES: 210182 9/29/2022 012600 DAVID EVANS AND AUG ENG SVCS: BIDDING & CONST: ASSOCIATES INC PW18-03 210183 9/29/2022 002990 DAVID TURCH AND AUG FEDERAL LOBBYING SVCS: CITY ASSOCIATES MGR 210184 9/29/2022 000395 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FY22/23 ECONOMIC DEV CORP, OF SW CALIFORNIA MEMBERSHIP (EDC) 210185 9/29/2022 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC EXPRESS MAIL SVCS: TCSD EXPRESS MAIL SVCS: FIRE 210186 9/29/2022 021501 FG TEMECULA SENIOR APTS CDBG RENTAL ASSISTANCE: NEWTON LP, FOUNTAINGLEN AT TEMECULA 210187 9/29/2022 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD GARNISHMENT PAYMENT PAYMENT 210188 9/29/2022 009097 FULL COMPASS SYSTEMS SOUND/LIGHTING SUPPLIES: THEATER SOUND/LIGHTING SUPPLIES: THEATER SOUND/LIGHTING SUPPLIES: THEATER Sound/Lighting & Misc Supplies: Theater SOUND/LIGHTING SUPPLIES: THEATER SOUND/LIGHTING SUPPLIES: THEATER SOUND/LIGHTING SUPPLIES: THEATER 210189 9/29/2022 009608 GOLDEN VALLEY MUSIC STTLMNT: CLASSICS @ THE MERC SOCIETY, DBA CA CHAMBER 9/11 & 9/25 ORCHESTRA 210190 9/29/2022 023085 GRUWELL, NICHOLAS REIMB: LASO MOTOR SCHOOL: PD REIMB: LASO MOTOR SCHOOL: PD 210191 9/29/2022 023087 HALL, HELEN E. INTERPRETER SVCS: MASSAGE 210192 9/29/2022 022551 HAULAWAY STORAGE CONTAINERS, INC 210193 9/29/2022 013749 HELIXSTORM INC APPEAL CARGO CONTAINER: SENIOR CTR PA-440 LICENSE & SUPPORT: INFO TECH PA-440 LICENSE & SUPPORT: PW TRAFF Amount Paid Check Total 628.20 638.70 399.97 97.42 1,515.50 5,500.00 30,000.00 8.37 7.54 3,283.00 253.13 499.68 428.63 125.28 127.90 18.27 -278.40 462.00 149.54 139.98 600.00 5,799.31 2,880.00 2,880.00 1,266.90 497.39 1,515.50 5,500.00 30,000.00 15.91 3,283.00 253.13 957.91 462.00 289.52 600.00 5,799.31 5,760.00 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10 09/29/2022 3:37:40PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 210194 9/29/2022 020698 HICKS AND HARTWICK INC ENG PLAN CHECK SVCS: LAND DEV: SOLANA WY 210195 9/29/2022 014435 INLAND EROSION CONTROL MISC EROSION CONTROL SUPPLIES: SRVCS STREETS 210196 9/29/2022 022569 INLAND FLEET SOLUTIONS INC VEHICLE & EQUIPMENT REPAIR: PW EQUIPMENT REPAIR: STREET MAINT: PV EQUIPMENT REPAIR: STREET MAINT: PV EQUIPMENT REPAIR: STREET MAINT: PV EQUIPMENT REPAIR: PW STREET MAINT EQUIPMENT REPAIR: PW STREET MAINT EQUIPMENT REPAIR: STREET MAINT: PV 210197 9/29/2022 023081 KIDDER, GARY REFUND: WEST SIDE STORY CANCELLED 210198 9/29/2022 019691 L C PAVING AND SEALING INC CNSTRCTN CONTRACT SVCS: SIDEWALKS: DLR 210199 9/29/2022 003975 EMPLOYEE #00231 COMPUTER LOAN PROGRAM: INFO TECH 210200 9/29/2022 018253 EMPLOYEE #00509 COMPUTER PURCHASE PRGM 210201 9/29/2022 023080 LOWE, JULIE REFUND: WEST SIDE STORY CANCELLED 210202 9/29/2022 004813 M AND J PAUL ENTERPRISES JUMPER/GAME RENTALS: SPECIAL INC, DBA JOLLY JUMPS EVENTS 210203 9/29/2022 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS, DBA VARIOUS SIGNS & SUPPLIES: PW ATHACOINC PARKS 210204 9/29/2022 011956 EMPLOYEE #00438 REIMB: TEAM PACE 210205 9/29/2022 021515 EMPLOYEE #00587 REIMB: TEAM PACE 210206 9/29/2022 021602 PUBLIC RESTROOM COMPANY, JUL DSGN, FAB, INSTALL: RRSP THE RSTRM:PW18 210207 9/29/2022 022771 QUAKEHOLD INDUSTRIAL INC EMERG PREPAREDNESS BACKPACKS: EOC 210208 9/29/2022 011952 RAID HATTER, THE, AKA RAID HATTER: SPECIAL EVENTS: TCSD ANTONIO MELENDEZ Amount Paid Check Total 5,490.00 5,490.00 1,100.00 1,100.00 3,703.70 131.25 131.25 131.25 3,052.54 413.52 131.25 7,694.76 36.00 36.00 158, 715.59 158, 715.59 1,700.00 1,700.00 1,263.16 1,263.16 40.00 40.00 2,565.00 2,565.00 5,255.69 5,255.69 345.10 345.10 100.00 100.00 25,507.50 25,507.50 5,346.41 5,346.41 920.00 920.00 Page:10 apChkLst 09/29/2022 3:37:40PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 11 Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 210209 9/29/2022 011853 RANCON COMMERCE CNTR OCT-DEC'22 BUS PKASSN DUE: STA 510.71 510.71 PH2,3&4 73 210210 9/29/2022 000418 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK AND, CEQA FILING: PVMT REHAB: 50.00 50.00 RECORDER LR22-08789 210211 9/29/2022 000267 RIVERSIDE CO FIRE FPARC-TM, INV#234857, 21/22, Q4 1,637,680.19 1,637,680.19 DEPARTMENT 210212 9/29/2022 022715 RIVERSIDE CO PUBLIC JUL EMERG RADIO RENTALS: EOC 77.67 SAFETY, ENTERPRISE COMMUNICATION AUG EMERG RADIO RENTALS: POLICE 1,893.31 JUL EMERG RADIO RENTALS: CODE 116.51 2,087.49 210213 9/29/2022 000278 SAN DIEGO UNION -TRIBUNE AUG PUBLIC NTC ADS: CITY CLERK 211.38 211.38 210214 9/29/2022 009980 SANBORN GWYNETH A, CO COUNTRY LIVE! @ THE MERC 9/17 1,125.00 1,125.00 TEMECULA MUSIC ACADEMY 210215 9/29/2022 017699 SARNOWSKI SHAWNA M PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: MUSEUM 200.00 PRESTON PHOTOS PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: 9/11 EVENT: TCS 200.00 PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: ARTIST MURAL:' 175.00 PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: ART FESTIVAL: T 550.00 PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: COLOR RUN: TC, 300.00 PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: MPSC EVENT: TC 220.00 1,645.00 210216 9/29/2022 023083 SCHNEIDER, SHARON REFUND: WEST SIDE STORY 216.00 216.00 CANCELLED 210217 9/29/2022 015674 SJ LINKING SYSTEMS HEALTH FAIR: WALKIES: TCSD 200.00 200.00 210218 9/29/2022 020545 SOCIAL WORK ACTION GROUP AUG HOMELESS/STREET OUTREACH: 30,707.20 30,707.20 TCSD 210219 9/29/2022 002503 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY, FY22/23 LATE FEE: LAST FY 7.59 7.59 MANAGEMENT DISTRICT EMISSIONS: 210220 9/29/2022 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST PEST CONTOL SVCS: STA 84 80.00 CONTROL INC PEST CONTROL SVCS: STA 12 74.00 154.00 210221 9/29/2022 019250 ST FRANCIS ELECTRIC LLC PAVEMENT REHAB: VEH/BIKE TRAFFIC 15,200.00 15,200.00 LOOPS: 210222 9/29/2022 000293 STADIUM PIZZA INC RFRSHMNTS: HIGH HOPES: TCSD 165.99 165.99 Page:11 apChkLst 09/29/2022 3:37:40PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 12 Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 210223 9/29/2022 008337 STAPLES BUSINESS CREDIT MISC OFC SUPPLIES: TCSD 343.79 RETURN: OFFICE SUPPLIES: HUMAN SV -326.91 OFFICE SUPPLIES: HUMAN SVCS: TCSD 326.91 CREDIT: MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES: TCSD -163.11 180.68 210224 9/29/2022 009061 STURDIVANT, ANGELA P TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 441.00 441.00 210225 9/29/2022 023084 TAMAYO, AUBREY REFUND: WEST SIDE STORY 60.00 60.00 CANCELLED 210226 9/29/2022 000515 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER TVCC SPONSORSHIP FUNDS: ECON 50,000.00 50,000.00 OF, COMMERCE DEV 210227 9/29/2022 010046 TV CONVENTION &VISITORS JUL'22 BUS. IMPRV DISTRICT ASMNTS 225,898.66 225,898.66 BUREAU, DBA VISIT TEMECULA VALLEY 210228 9/29/2022 021242 TWOS COMPANY INC WHOLESALE GIFT PRODUCTS: GIFT 98.70 98.70 SHOP:TVM 210229 9/29/2022 020963 UPTOWN TEMECULAAUTO AUG VEHICLE DETAILING SVCS: PW 10.00 SPA LLC STREETS AUG VEHICLE DETAILING SVCS: TCSD 5.00 15.00 210230 9/29/2022 019793 URBANE CAFE, TGH RFRSHMNTS: WORKFORCE PRGMS: 10.00 ENTERPRISES LLC TCSD RFRSHMNTS: WORKFORCE PRGMS: TC 89.18 RFRSHMNTS: WORKFORCE PRGMS: TC 86.31 185.49 210231 9/29/2022 023074 VALENCIA, INEZ CHALK COMPETITION WINNER: TCSD 100.00 100.00 210232 9/29/2022 023055 VAN OTTERLOO INC LIGHT TOWER REPAIRS: PW STREET 2,922.56 2,922.56 MAINT 210233 9/29/2022 007987 WALMART MISC SUPPLIES: THEATER 338.83 HOSPITALITY SUPPLIES: FIT COLOR RUN: TCSD 536.83 SUPPLIES: FIT COLOR RUN: TCSD 475.29 1,350.95 210234 9/29/2022 007987 WALMART MISC SUPPLIES: MPSC: TCSD 85.02 85.02 210235 9/29/2022 010487 EMPLOYEE#00460 REIMB: LOCC CONF: 09/07-09/08 571.33 571.33 210236 9/29/2022 012343 WEST COAST PERFORMING, "TICKET TO RIDE:BEATLES TRIBUTE" 13,344.89 13,344.89 ARTS PRESENTERS 9/25/22 210237 9/29/2022 020193 WHITE CAP LP MISC SUPPLIES: PW STREET MAINT 160.91 MISC SUPPLIES: PW STREET MAINT 1,802.57 1,963.48 Page:12 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 13 09/29/2022 3:37:40PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 210238 9/29/2022 000341 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES INC 210239 9/29/2022 023078 YORKE, DONNA (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total APR TRAFFIC ENG SVCS: PW 3,308.32 3,308.32 TRAFF/55 REFUND: WEST SIDE STORY 40.00 40.00 CANCELLED Grand total for UNION BANK: 13,988,309.00 Page:13 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 14 09/29/2022 3:37:40PM CITY OF TEMECULA 127 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 13,988,309.00 Page:14 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 10/04/2022 1:08:12PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor Description 503194 10/6/2022 022546 AIRWAVE COMMUNICATIONS, EMPG GRANT: RADIO EQUIPMENT: ENTERPRISES EOC 503195 10/6/2022 009374 ALLEGRO MUSICAL VENTURES PIANO TUNING/MAINT: THEATER DBA, ALLEGRO PIANO SERVICE 503196 10/6/2022 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES DRUG/ALCOHOL ANALYSIS: TEM AFN SHERIFF DRUG/ALCOHOL ANALYSIS: TEM SHERIF DRUG/ALCOHOL ANALYSIS: TEM SHERIF DRUG/ALCOHOL ANALYSIS: TEM SHERIF NOV STAND BY FEE: POLICE DRUG/ALCOHOL ANALYSIS: TEM SHERIF DRUG/ALCOHOL ANALYSIS: TEM SHERIF 503197 10/6/2022 013950 AQUA CHILL OF SAN DIEGO AUG DRINKING WTR SYS MAINT: HARVESTON AUG DRINKING WTR SYS MAINT: HARVE SEP DRINKING WTR SYS MAINT: AQUATI 503198 10/6/2022 018941 AZTEC LANDSCAPING INC RESTROOM MAINTENANCE: PW PARKS RESTROOM MAINTENANCE: PW PARKS 503199 10/6/2022 004248 CALIF DEPT OF AUG BLOOD & ALCOHOL ANALYSIS: JUSTICE-ACCTING PD 503200 10/6/2022 022790 CLEARSTAR INC PRE -EMPLOYMENT SCREENINGS: HR 503201 10/6/2022 022687 EMPLOYEE #00604 REIMB: HEALTH & WELLNESS FAIR: HR 503202 10/6/2022 000442 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS OCT-DEC ALARM SYS MONITORING: FACILITIES OCT-DEC ALARM SYS MONITORING: FIR JUL-SEPALARM SYS MONITORING: POL JUL-SEPALARM SYS MONITORING: FIRE 503203 10/6/2022 021230 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL SMALL TOOLS: TRAFFIC: PW DISTR, DBA CALIF ELECTRIC SUPPLY LightGrid software renewal:street lights 503204 10/6/2022 021230 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL MISC ELECTRICAL: PW STREETS DISTR, DBA CALIF ELECTRIC SUPPLY 503205 10/6/2022 021291 COOKE AARON, DBA PROPER COLOR RUN BANNERS: CRC: TCSD MANAGEMENT Amount Paid Check Total 2,093.93 2,093.93 380.00 380.00 124.00 62.01 496.08 157.91 1,420.55 1,420.55 157.91 3,839.01 28.55 28.55 68.96 126.06 9,098.22 9,098.22 18,196.44 1,225.00 1,225.00 601.29 601.29 89.50 89.50 5,505.00 405.00 193.58 405.00 6,508.58 -358.88 25,327.88 24,969.00 9,396.00 9,396.00 271.67 271.67 Page:1 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 10/04/2022 1:08:12PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 503206 10/6/2022 010650 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & PLUMBING SVCS: PARKS: PW HVAC INC 503207 10/6/2022 001393 DATA TICKET INC, DBA AUG CITATIONS PROCESSING: POLICE REVENUE EXPERTS 503208 10/6/2022 020648 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 MAINT OF SECURITY SYSTEM: INFO INC, CONVERGINT TECH TECHNOLOGIES 503209 10/6/2022 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL PORTABLE RESTROOMS: PW PARKS SRVCS PORTABLE RESTROOMS: PW PARKS PORTABLE RESTROOMS: PW PARKS PORTABLE RESTROOMS: PW PARKS 503210 10/6/2022 004192 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TCSD FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PARK RANGE FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: LAND DEV: F FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: POLICE FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TRAFFIC: PN FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: CIP: PW FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: EOC FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: STREET MAI FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: CODE ENFOI FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: BLDG INSPE FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PARKS: PW FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: FIRE DEPT FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: STREET MAI 503211 10/6/2022 002577 ENGINEERING RESOURCES, ENG SVCS: BIKE TRAIL PRGM: OF SOUTHERN CALIF., INC. PW19-11 ENG CONSULT SVCS: OVERLAND: PW2C 503212 10/6/2022 020921 EMPLOYEE #00539 REIMB: MOTIVATIONAL SPEAKER: HR 503213 10/6/2022 022526 EMPLOYEE #00594 REIMB: NAT'L SAFETY EXPO: 09/18-09/21 503214 10/6/2022 022726 FORENSIC NURSING OF SART EXAM: TEM SHERIFF SOCAL INC 503215 10/6/2022 014865 FREIZE UHLER KIMBERLY DBA, PROMOTIONAL ITEMS: HEALTH FAIR: CLEAR BLUE PROMOTIONS HR CITY APPAREL: CITY MGR 503216 10/6/2022 001937 GALLS LLC TRAFFIC UNIFORM: SOMMERCIAL VEH: SHERIFF traffic uniform for commercial veh: tern Amount Paid Check Total 1,858.96 1,858.96 1,292.11 1,292.11 1,798.68 1,798.68 110.88 110.88 110.88 165.88 498.52 157.10 96.44 149.37 149.64 611.84 79.22 86.69 1,141.04 50.90 328.77 2,038.02 404.83 1,305.87 6,599.73 1,543.00 44,705.66 46,248.66 155.27 155.27 313.46 313.46 1,200.00 1,200.00 364.23 113.14 477.37 214.98 67.73 282.71 Paget apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 10/04/2022 1:08:12PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 503217 10/6/2022 021365 GEORGE HILLS COMPANY INC AUG CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION: HR 503218 10/6/2022 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS MISC OFC SUPPLIES: BLDG & SAFETY INC MISC OFC SUPPLIES: BLDG & SAFETY MISC OFC SUPPLIES: BLDG & SAFETY MISC OFC SUPPLIES: BLDG & SAFETY 503219 10/6/2022 003792 GRAINGER TRAFFIC SIGNAL PARTS: PUBLIC WORKS TRAFFIC SIGNAL PARTS: PUBLIC WORK 503220 10/6/2022 020628 HASA INC POOL SANITIZING CHEMICALS: VARI POOLS 503221 10/6/2022 000520 HDL COREN AND CONE JUL-SEP SALES TAX & RECOVERY SVCS FY21/22 ACFR STATISTICAL PKG 503222 10/6/2022 020249 LAUND3R.COM LLC LAUNDRY SVCS: MPSC: TCSD 503223 10/6/2022 000482 LEIGHTON CONSULTING INC MATERIALS TESTING SVCS: PW18-03 503224 10/6/2022 022664 MARIPOSATREE ANNUAL TREE TRIMMING: ROW: MANAGEMENT INC PARKS TREE SVCS: BAHIA VISTA: PARKS TREE SVCS: CRC REMOVAL PROJ: PARK TREE SVCS: NORTH STAR CT: PARKS TREE SVCS: S-03 RANCH HIGHLANDS: F TREE SVCS: DUCK POND: PARKS TREE SVCS: CRC REMOVAL PROJ: PARK TREE SVCS: S-21 VAIL RANCH: PARKS 503225 10/6/2022 018675 MDG ASSOCIATES INC AUG ADA LABOR COMPLIANCE: PW18-16 503226 10/6/2022 004951 MIKE'S PRECISION WELDING WELDING SVCS: CRC POOL REPAIRS: INC PW 503227 10/6/2022 004043 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: WOLF CREEK INC SLOPE ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: LIBRARY ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: WEST WING 503228 10/6/2022 004040 MORAMARCO ANTHONY J, ART ROOM EVENT: TCSD DBA BIGFOOT GRAPHICS COMMUNITY MURAL PROJ: TCSD Amount Paid Check Total 2,804.80 2,804.80 424.96 73.49 32.60 11.90 542.95 199.56 450.23 649.79 708.05 708.05 3,234.54 695.00 3,929.54 156.55 156.55 1,488.65 1,488.65 5,304.75 762.30 5,590.27 635.25 1,007.68 10,206.35 4,912.00 1,253.10 29,671.70 76.88 76.88 160.00 160.00 59.26 1,071.77 191.74 512.67 699.15 157.25 2,691.84 1,200.00 1,500.00 2,700.00 Page:3 apChkLst 10/04/2022 1:08:12PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 4 Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 503229 10/6/2022 022599 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC IRRIGATION REPAIRS: WOLF CREEK 394.07 TRAIL IRRIGATION REPAIRS: OVERLAND VAIL 1 205.17 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: SOLANA WAY 2,770.55 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: WOLF CREEK S-2 169.35 LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS: DUCK PC 4,830.00 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: VAIL RANCH S-21 240.04 8,609.18 503230 10/6/2022 014173 NPG INC DBA, GOLDSTAR ASPHALT REPAIRS: CIP: PW21-10 238,244.00 ASPHALT PRODUCTS PAINT FOR VARIOUS PARKS: PW 769.34 ASPHALT REPAIRS & STRIPING: PW STF 137,010.00 376,023.34 503231 10/6/2022 009337 NV5 INC PROJECT MGT SVCS: MRC PW17-21 40,169.36 40,169.36 503232 10/6/2022 021998 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE VEH REPAIR & MAINTENANCE: TEM 958.99 958.99 INC SHERIFF 503233 10/6/2022 020544 PARKHOUSE TIRE SERVICE TIRE SERVICE: PW STREET MAINT 5,020.00 5,020.00 INC 503234 10/6/2022 005075 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL UNIFORM SVCS: STREET MAINT: PW 44.18 SUPPLY UNIFORM SVCS: PARK MAINT: PW 55.21 FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: FOC 9.70 UNIFORM SVCS: PARKS MAINT: PW 57.63 FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: CRC 29.51 FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: THEATE 9.10 FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: JRC 8.28 FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: TVM 11.37 FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: TCC 12.96 FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: CIVIC C 95.70 FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: SENIOR 23.15 FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: FOC 9.70 366.49 503235 10/6/2022 022537 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES, MISC HVAC SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR 453.87 DISTRIBUTOR MISC HVAC SUPPLIES: TVE2 971.70 MISC HVAC SUPPLIES: SENIOR CTR 122.42 MISC HVAC SUPPLIES: LIBRARY 239.55 MISC HVAC SUPPLIES: FIRE 128.08 MISC HVAC SUPPLIES: SENIOR CTR 38.26 MISC HVAC SUPPLIES: JRC 32.76 1,986.64 503236 10/6/2022 020429 REMOTE SATELLITE SYSTEMS AUG'22 SAT PH AIRTIME/OCT FEE: 295.00 295.00 INTL EOC Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 10/04/2022 1:08:12PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 503237 10/6/2022 002412 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON (Continued) Description AUG 2022 LEGAL SERVICES AUG 2022 LEGAL SERVICES AUG 2022 LEGAL SERVICES AUG 2022 LEGAL SERVICES AUG 2022 LEGAL SERVICES AUG 2022 LEGAL SERVICES 503238 10/6/2022 017549 ROSENAND ROSEN UNIFORMS: PW PARKS INDUSTRIES INC, DBA RAND R INDUSTRIES Amount Paid Check Total 46,073.30 29,030.09 702.00 248.50 73.50 885.00 231.27 503239 10/6/2022 004274 SAFE AND SECURE LOCKSMITH SVCS: FOC 58.29 LOCKSMITH SRVC 503240 10/6/2022 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC 503241 10/6/2022 013482 SILVERMAN ENTERPRISES INC, DBA BAS SECURITY 503242 10/6/2022 000645 SMARTAND FINAL INC 503243 10/6/2022 003840 STRONG'S PAINTING 503244 10/6/2022 003849 TERRYBERRY COMPANY 503245 10/6/2022 018147 WADDLETON, JEFFREY L. 503246 10/6/2022 020275 WALLACE & ASSOC CONSULTING LLC, ANSER ADVISORY MNGMT LLC LOCKSMITH SVCS: PARKS: PW 60.60 LOCKSMITH SERVICES: PARKS: PW 203.32 LOCKSMITH SVCS: NPDES 17.38 LOCKSMITH SVCS: CRC 117.45 LOCKSMITH SERVICES: PARKS: PW 262.95 JAZZ @ THE MERC 9/8 399.00 JAZZ @ THE MERC 9/24 983.25 JAZZ @ THE MERC 9/22 520.00 9112-9/25 SECURITY: ROTATING PARKS 2,338.00 & REC CREDIT MEMO: DOUBLE PMNT 8/16 &-581.80 7/11 RFRSHMNTS: HUMAN SVCS: TCSD 669.56 PAINTING SVCS: FOC: PW 600.00 EMPLOYEE SVC RECOGNITION: HR 91.11 EMPLOYEE SVC RECOGNITION: HR 126.69 DJ/MC SVCS: TRAIL OPENING: TCSD 525.00 DJ/MC SVCS: COLOR RUN: TCSD 525.00 DJ/MC SVCS: OPEN STREETS BIKE: TCS 930.00 DJ/MC SVCS: 9/11 REMEMBERANCE 525.00 PROJECT INSP & OVERSIGHT: PW 7,935.00 CONSTRUCTION INSP SVCS: PW21-06 414.00 CONSTRUCTION MGMT SVS: PW19-10 2,530.00 Grand total for EFT UNION BANK: 77,012.39 231.27 719.99 1,902.25 2,338.00 87.76 600.00 217.80 2,505.00 10,879.00 703,925.16 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 10/04/2022 1:08:12PM CITY OF TEMECULA 53 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 703,925.16 Page6 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 10/06/2022 3:40:57PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor Description 14128 9/9/2022 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 018925 MEMORABLE BITES LLC, DBA RFRSHMNTS: QLMP BLUE RIBBON FIREHOUSE SUBS COMMITTEE 020535 LUNA GRILL RFRSHMNTS: PLAN COMMISSION MTG 000293 STADIUM PIZZA INC RFRSHMNTS: PLANNNING MTG 14229 9/23/2022 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER VAR AUG WATER 3019521 WARBLER DISTRICT DR 210240 10/6/2022 007282 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: TEM INC SHERIFF MISC OFC SUPPLIES: FINANCE SKATE PARK SUPPLIES: CRC: TCSD MISC SUPPLIES: TVM: TCSD MISC SUPPLIES: CITY CLERK MISC OFC SUPPLIES: TEM SHERIFF MISC OFC SUPPLIES: MALL STOREFROI MISC SUPPLIES: HUMAN SVS: TCSD SMALL TOOLS/EQUIPMENT: TEM SHERIF MISC OFC SUPPLIES: TEM SHERIFF 210241 10/6/2022 021689 ASCENT ENVIRONMENTAL INC SEIR: TEM VLY HOSPITAL: PA22-0105 INITIAL: RENDEZVOUS PHASE II PA20-1� 210242 10/6/2022 015592 BAMM PROMOTIONAL STAFF UNIFORMS: INFO TECH PRODUCTS INC 210243 10/6/2022 001323 BLUETRITON BRANDS INC, 8/7-9/6 WTR DLVRY SVC: TVE2 DBA READYREFRESH 210244 10/6/2022 022976 BUSH, BRENDA 210245 10/6/2022 020125 CABRERA, LISA 210246 10/6/2022 003138 CAL MAT, DBA VULCAN MATERIALS CO 210247 10/6/2022 001054 CALIF BUILDING OFFICIALS, (CALBO) 210248 10/6/2022 022930 CCS SAN DIEGO JANITORIAL INC, DBACCS FACILITY SERVICES 8/23-9/22 WTR DLVRY SVC: TES POOL 8/23-9/22 WTR DLVRY SVC: SKATE PARK 8/23-9/22 WTR DLVRY SVC: PBSP UTILITY BOX PROJECT:TCSD UTILITY BOX PROJECT:TCSD ASPHALT SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT: PW ED WEEK REGISTRATION: ONTARIO: BLDG ED WEEK REGISTRATION: ONTARIO: BLI ED WEEK REGISTRATION: ONTARIO: BLI janitorial services: otsf police Amount Paid Check Total 386.28 277.21 91.04 23,630.34 1,841.40 198.97 156.28 155.93 90.83 63.25 26.96 22.68 21.50 50.58 2,160.00 282.50 1,419.97 75.44 17.39 11.30 -42.97 400.00 400.00 293.64 650.00 390.00 260.00 616.04 754.53 23,630.34 2,628.38 2,442.50 1,419.97 61.16 400.00 400.00 293.64 1,300.00 616.04 Page:1 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 10/06/2022 3:40:57PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 210249 10/6/2022 004462 CDW LLC, DBA CDW GOVERNMENT LLC 210250 10/6/2022 019878 CERTIFIED ACCESS SPECIALIST, INSTITUTE 210251 10/6/2022 005417 CINTAS PROTECTION NO 2, CINTAS FIRE 636525 210252 10/6/2022 022974 CORREA, MARIA 210253 10/6/2022 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA 491 210254 10/6/2022 016755 CRASH DATA GROUP INC 210255 10/6/2022 012600 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC 210256 10/6/2022 020977 DEBRA GAYLE DESIGNS 210257 10/6/2022 022798 DS SERVICES OF AMERICA INC, SPARKLETTS 210258 10/6/2022 022968 ESTRELLA, JONATHAN 210259 10/6/2022 023068 FALCICCHIO, NICHOLAS 210260 10/6/2022 019469 FALCON ENGINEERING SERVICES 210261 10/6/2022 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: IT 787.74 MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECI 148.68 MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECI 81.13 1,017.55 CASI MEMBERSHIP: BLDG & SAFETY 175.00 175.00 FIRST AID KIT MAINTENTANCE 1,693.95 FIRST AID KIT MAINTENTANCE 936.76 FIRST AID KIT MAINTENTANCE 714.27 FIRST AID KIT MAINTENTANCE 482.33 FIRST AID KIT MAINTENTANCE 351.92 FIRST AID KIT MAINTENTANCE 244.23 FIRST AID KIT MAINTENTANCE 218.05 FIRST AID KIT MAINTENTANCE 188.00 FIRST AID KIT MAINTENTANCE 139.05 FIRST AID KIT MAINTENTANCE 124.59 FIRST AID KIT MAINTENTANCE 118.71 5,211.86 UTILITY BOX PROJECT:TCSD 400.00 400.00 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: THEATER 167.07 MISC SUPPLIES: PLANNING COMM MTG 130.25 297.32 CDR SFTWR SUBSCRIPTION 1,250.00 1,250.00 RENEWAL: PD DOG PARK RENOVATION: PW 13,940.00 ENG DSGN SVCS: HOCKEY RINK: RRSP 5,942.25 19,882.25 UTILITY BOX PROJECT:TCSD 400.00 400.00 WATER DELIVERY: CMO 48.21 48.21 UTILITY BOX PROJECT:TCSD 400.00 400.00 CELLULAR TECH REGISTRATION: TEM 1,200.00 1,200.00 SHERIFF CONSTRUCTION MGMT SVCS: 57,233.02 PW08-04 CONSTRUCTION MGMT SVCS: PW08-04 30,030.00 87,263.02 EXPRESS MAIL SVCS: CIP 13.24 EXPRESS MAIL SVCS: FINANCE 8.23 21.47 Paget apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 10/06/2022 3:40:57PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 210262 10/6/2022 023085 GRUWELL, NICHOLAS 210263 10/6/2022 022972 HALL, FREIDA 210264 10/6/2022 013749 HELIXSTORM INC 210265 10/6/2022 003198 HOME DEPOT 210266 10/6/2022 021896 JP HANDMADE CORP, DBA MINUTEMAN PRESS 210267 10/6/2022 016257 KELLY SPICERS INC, DBA KELLY SPICERS STORES 210268 10/6/2022 022967 KIRCHGESSNER, ANN E 210269 10/6/2022 017118 KRACH BREE B, DBA TEMECULA TROPHY& DES (Continued) Description REIMB: LASO MOTOR SCHOOL: PD UTILITY BOX PROJECT:TCSD IT INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT: IT HRDWR SUPPLIES: IWTCM BUSINESS CARDS: TVE2 BUSINESS CARDS: STREET MAINT: PW WHITE COPY PAPER: CENTRAL SERVICES UTILITY BOX PROJECT:TCSD EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION AWARDS: HR EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION AWARDS: HR RIC TAGS/PLATES: FIRE DEPT NAME BADGES: ECO DEV 210270 10/6/2022 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS, DBA CITY SIGNAGE: CITY MGR OFC ATHACO INC 210271 10/6/2022 022980 MCFARLAND NELSON, BRYANT UTILITY BOX PROJECT:TCSD 210272 10/6/2022 017861 MYTHOS TECHNOLOGY INC OCT-DEC MONITORING SVCS: TVE2 210273 10/6/2022 019331 NELSON, BARBARA UTILITY BOX PROJECT:TCSD 210274 10/6/2022 006140 NORTH JEFFERSON BUSINESS OCT-DEC'22ASSN DUES 3561 #20: FV PARK OCT-DEC'22ASSN DUES 3561 #19: FV OCT-DEC'22ASSN DUES 3561 #16: FV OCT-DEC'22ASSN DUES 3561 #17: FV 210275 10/6/2022 017148 OAKLEY SALES CORP Motor glasses: Tern Sheriff 210276 10/6/2022 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW CIP DIV 210277 10/6/2022 017815 OWEN, LISA UTILITY BOX PROJECT:TCSD Amount Paid Check Total 128.97 400.00 3,881.25 70.82 60.17 81.82 2,652.17 400.00 149.53 53.29 13.05 8.70 77.26 400.00 450.00 400.00 778.72 749.11 616.70 573.16 111.13 inlillivA 400.00 128.97 400.00 3,881.25 70.82 141.99 2,652.17 400.00 224.57 77.26 400.00 450.00 400.00 2,717.69 111.13 125.17 400.00 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 10/06/2022 3:40:57PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 210278 10/6/2022 014273 PARAGON PARTNERS, PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORTS: CONSULTANTS INC PW17-25: CIP 210279 10/6/2022 022970 PARKER, CHLOE UTILITY BOX PROJECT:TCSD 210280 10/6/2022 022969 PARKER, KAI B UTILITY BOX PROJECT.TCSD 210281 10/6/2022 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 210282 10/6/2022 006653 PLAYPOWER LT FARMINGTON PLAYGROUND EQUIP: TEMEKU HILLS PK 210283 10/6/2022 010338 POOLAND ELECTRICAL, VARIOUS SUPPLIES: SPLASH PAD: PW PRODUCTS INC VARIOUS SUPPLIES: AQUATICS: PW POOL SUPPLIES: AQUATICS 210284 10/6/2022 020127 QUINN COMPANY BACKUP GENERATOR & ATS: PW 210285 10/6/2022 002176 RANCHO CALIF BUS PKASSOC OCT-DEC'22 BUS PKASSN DUE: TVE2 OCT-DEC'22 BUS PKASSN DUE:: DIAZ F OCT-DEC'22 BUS PKASSN DUE: FOC 210286 10/6/2022 011853 RANCON COMMERCE CNTR OCT-DEC'22 BUS PKASSN DUE: PH2,3&4 OVRLND PRJT OCT-DEC'22 BUS PKASSN DUE: OVRLN OCT-DEC'22 BUS PKASSN DUE: OVRLN 210287 10/6/2022 019712 RED HELMET TRAINING INSPECTOR TRAINING CLASSES: FIRE 210288 10/6/2022 022494 REVZILLA MOTORSPORTS LLC, GLOVES: TRAFFIC: TEM SHERIFF DBA REVZILLA.COM GLOVES: TRAFFIC: TEM SHERIFF 210289 10/6/2022 000411 RIVERSIDE CO FLOOD ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APP FEE: CONTROL AND, WATER PW16-01 CONSERVATION DIST 210290 10/6/2022 022495 RIVERSIDE CO BUSINESS CARDS: TEM SHERIFF SHERIFF'S-GREYBAR 210291 10/6/2022 001365 RIVERSIDE, COUNTY OF, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERMIT: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CRC DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERMIT: CRC 210292 10/6/2022 021005 SACHA HOPE DBA, SACHA UTILITY BOX PROJECT:TCSD HOPE HEARTSTONE HOU Amount Paid Check Total 11,575.00 11,575.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 1,011.84 1,011.84 3,205.79 3,205.79 121.80 101.35 50.69 273.84 54,486.25 54,486.25 2,234.14 2,033.07 1,843.17 6,110.38 249.03 198.38 177.27 624.68 600.00 600.00 775.79 339.40 1,115.19 2,000.00 2,000.00 16.16 16.16 933.00 763.00 1,696.00 400.00 400.00 Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 10/06/2022 3:40:57PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 210293 10/6/2022 017699 SARNOWSKI SHAWNA M PRESTON 210294 10/6/2022 021309 SB&OINC 210295 10/6/2022 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 210296 10/6/2022 012652 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, TELEPHONE COMPANY 210297 10/6/2022 000293 STADIUM PIZZA INC 210298 10/6/2022 017814 STC TRAFFIC INC 210299 10/6/2022 003599 TY LIN INTERNATIONAL 210300 10/6/2022 003941 TEMECULA WINNELSON COMPANY 210301 10/6/2022 020911 T-MOBILE USA, INC 210302 10/6/2022 004124 TRUELINE CONSTRUCTION AND, SURFACING INC 210303 10/6/2022 020963 UPTOWN TEMECULAAUTO SPA LLC 210304 10/6/2022 019793 URBANE CAFE, TGH ENTERPRISES LLC 210306 10/6/2022 002702 USPS - POC, ACCOUNT#8089685 (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total PHOTOGRPAHY SVCS: HEADSHOT: 150.00 ECO DEV PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: 9/11 EVENT: CITY 350.00 PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: 9/11 EVENT: FIRE 350.00 PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: TEM SAFE: ECO 300.00 1,150.00 DESIGN, ENVIRO & SURVEY SVS: 5,966.25 5,966.25 RRSP TRAILS PEST CONTROL SVCS: WOLF CREEK 49.00 PK PEST CONTROL SVCS: BIRDSALL PK 493.00 PEST CONTROL SVCS: HARVESTON PK 95.00 PEST CONTROL SVCS: CRC 90.00 PEST CONTROL SVCS: BIRDSALL PK 70.00 797.00 SEP GEN USAGE: 0141,0839,0978,0979 920.37 OCT GEN USAGE: 0141,0839,0978,0979 917.94 1,838.31 RFRSHMNTS: HIGH HOPES: TCSD 97.26 97.26 TRAFFIC ENG SVCS: FIBER OPTIC 7,800.00 COMM PLAN FIBER OPTIC COMM SYS UPGRADE: PW 1,690.00 9,490.00 6/25-8/15 CONSULT: FV PKWY/1-15: PH 11 61,228.38 61,228.38 PLUMBING SUPPLIES: PARKS 1,198.97 MISC PLUMBING SUPPLIES: PARKS 1,150.03 MISC PLUMBING SUPPLIES: TCC 614.59 2,963.59 GPS LOCATE: TEM SHERIFF 125.00 125.00 TENNIS COURT MAINT: M NAGGAR 11,800.00 PARK: PW TENNIS COURT MAINT: M NAGGAR PART 10,420.00 22,220.00 AUG VEHICLE DETAILING SVCS: B&S 45.00 AUG VEHICLE DETAILING SVCS: PW PAF 20.00 AUG VEHICLE DETAILING SVCS: PW PAF 20.00 AUG VEHICLE DETAILING SVCS: CODE 5.00 90.00 RFRSHMNTS: WORKFORCE PRGMS: 525.94 525.94 TCSD AUG'22 POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 2,169.55 MAY'22 POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 1,501.63 JUN'22 POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 1,165.85 JUL'22 POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 1,138.22 5,975.25 Page:5 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 10/06/2022 3:40:57PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 210307 10/6/2022 014486 VERIZON WIRELESS 8/11-9/10: CELLULAR/BROADBAND: PD 210308 10/6/2022 001890 VORTEX INDUSTRIES INC DOOR REPAIR: LIBRARY: PW 210309 10/6/2022 007987 WALMART MISC SUPPLIES: THEATER HOSPITALITY 210310 10/6/2022 021131 WARREN BURLEY, DBA 2 GUN BENEFITS VIDEO: HR PRODUCTIONS 210311 10/6/2022 000339 WEST PUBLISHING SEP CLEAR SUBSCRIPTION: TEM CORPORATION, SHERIFF DBA:THOMSON REUTERS Amount Paid Check Total 665.34 900.00 191.50 9,107.00 1,053.45 210312 10/6/2022 023093 WOLFE INTERACTIVE INC CITY LABEL DESIGN: ECO DEV 750.00 210313 10/6/2022 022979 WYNNE, PATRICIA GREENE UTILITY BOX PROJECT:TCSD 400.00 210314 10/6/2022 022977 YOUNG, GEORGE W UTILITY BOX PROJECT:TCSD 400.00 Grand total for UNION BANK: 665.34 900.00 191.50 9,107.00 1,053.45 750.00 400.00 400.00 373,943.66 Page.-6 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 10/06/2022 3:40:57PM CITY OF TEMECULA 76 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 373,943.66 Page:? Item No. 4 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, Director of Legislative Affairs/City Clerk DATE: October 25, 2022 SUBJECT: Approve City Council Meeting Schedule for November and December 2022 PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, Director of Legislative Affairs/City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve the cancellation of the regular meetings in November 2022; and 2. Conduct adjourned regular meetings on November 15, 2022 and November 29, 2022; and 3. Approve the cancellation of the December 27, 2022 meeting. BACKGROUND: The November 8, 2022 meeting falls on Election Day and the November 24, 2022 falls during Thanksgiving week. In lieu of these meetings, November 15, 2022 and November 29, 2022 may be conducted as adjourned regular meetings. The December 27, 2022 meeting falls during the holiday week. Similar to previous years, it is recommended that the December meeting be cancelled. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: None Item No. 5 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: October 25, 2022 SUBJECT: Approve the Site Access for Research Agreement with the Center for Natural Lands Management, Riverside Conservation Authority and Riverside County Transportation Commission on City -Owned Properties within Roripaugh Ranch PREPARED BY: Anissa Sharp, Management Assistant Ron Moreno, Principal Civil Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Site Access for Research Agreement with the Center for Natural Lands Management, Riverside Conservation Authority, Riverside County Transportation Commission, Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency and City of Temecula on City -Owned Properties within Roripaugh Ranch. BACKGROUND: On August 29, 2022, City of Temecula staff received the Site Access for Research Agreement ("Agreement") from the Center for Natural Lands Management. The Agreement grants access to multiple properties in Riverside County for the purpose of researching and monitoring the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys stephensi, SKR). The Agreement requires individual executions, as individual organizations, of the Center for Natural Lands Management ("CNLM"), Riverside Conservation Authority/Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCA/RCTC"), County of Riverside ("County"), Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency ("RCHCA") and the City of Temecula ("City"). CNLM has managed the City -owned Roripaugh Ranch Preserve for over twenty years. This preserve was set aside as mitigation for various federal/state threatened and endangered species under the Assessor's District 161 Habitat Conservation Plan. As the property owner, the City must grant access hence the recommendation. If approved, the Agreement shall remain in effect until November 30, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the approval of this agreement. ATTACHMENTS: Site Access for Research Agreement SITE ACCESS FOR RESEARCH AGREEMENT Stephen's Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys stephenst) Rangewide Monitoring at CNLM's Roripaugh Ranch (S015) and Skunk Hollow (S028) Preserves Under the terms and conditions of this SITE ACCESS FOR RESEARCH AGREEMENT ("Agreement"), upon their individual executions of this Agreement, as individual organizations, Center for Natural Lands Management ("CNLM"), and the City of Temecula ("City"), the latter two, together "Landowners," hereby grant access to Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency ("RCHCA") to enter certain properties owned by Landowners for which CNLM is the Manager for the purpose of monitoring the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys stephensi, SKR). RECITALS A. CNLM is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the perpetual protection and science -based management of habitat and species through effective long-term stewardship. B. CNLM is owner and habitat manager and conducts biological monitoring or management responsibilities, or conducts biological monitoring and/or management activities on the following properties located in Riverside County, together "Preserves": o S015 Roripaugh Ranch, owned by City of Temecula o S028 Skunk Hollow, owned by CNLM CNLM has the legal authority to enter into this Agreement as the holder of fee title and manager or perpetual manager for the Preserves (Manager). The purpose of these Preserves is conservation of their resident sensitive and listed species and their habitats in perpetuity. C. The Preserves are a desirable part of this research because they are located within the species range of SKR and their inclusion in this regional study will aid in determining SKR population status and trends, distribution, and occupation. D. The RCHCA is a is a Joint Powers Authority comprised of the County of Riverside and the cities of Corona, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Perris, Riverside, Temecula and Wildomar; its mission is to effectively manage conserved and open space lands in Riverside County. F. RCHCA proposes to conduct Research on the Preserves as further described in Exhibit A, attached hereto. TERMS AND CONDITIONS NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants contained herein, Landowners, CNLM, and RCHCA hereby agree as follows: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to define the terms and conditions RCHCA, CNLM, City of Temecula Site Access for Research Agreement Page 1 of 13 under which RCHCA will be granted site access to the Preserves for conducting the Research, as described in Exhibit A, attached. CNLM, as the Manager, will not unreasonably refuse to cooperate or to allow RCHCA to conduct the intended Research. 2. Term. This Agreement shall be in effect from October 1, 2022 through November 30, 2023. 3. Fee. Neither Landowner is imposing any financial requirements on RCHCA. 4. Notice. Prior to any entry onto the Preserves, RCHCA shall give CNLM reasonable notice, at a minimum of seven (7) days or as provided otherwise in Exhibit C, of its intention to enter one of the Preserves. Unless otherwise provided herein, such notice shall be to the Preserve Manager. Alternatively, Preserve Manager and RCHCA may agree in advance to an access schedule to the Preserves and to a means of notifying and coordinating with, as needed, the individual Landowners. 5. Access. Access onto the Preserves shall be limited to individuals, equipment, and materials, the presence of which on the Preserves is necessary in order to conduct the Research. This Agreement does not grant RCHCA the right to undertake any activity on the Preserves which will in any way interfere with activities being conducted on the Preserves by CNLM or at its direction. Special access conditions, if any, are detailed in Exhibit C, attached. 6. Acknowledgements and Research Reports/Publications. RCHCA agrees to formally acknowledge Landowner contributions to Research, including the use of the Preserves, any intellectual contributions by CNLM employees and/or City, and other CNLM or City assistance, in any reports or publications that arise from Research. RCHCA further agrees to provide CNLM, in a timely fashion, a copy of RCHCA's publications and electronic data published as a result of the Research, including any thesis or dissertation derived from said Research. RCHCA shall submit publications and/or electronic data published as a result of the Research relating to the Landowners' property to the individual Landowners upon request. 7. Special Provisions and Conditions. Special provisions and conditions, if any, imposed upon and agreed to by RCHCA, are described in Exhibit D, attached. 8. Non -Interference. RCHCA shall use its best efforts to avoid interfering in any way with the activities being conducted on the Preserves by CNLM or City. RCHCA shall immediately halt any and all activities on the Preserve at the request of CNLM or City if CNLM or City determines that any activity is (a) being conducted in violation of this Agreement, (b) inconsistent with or not covered by this Agreement, or (c) likely to negatively impact the native species, habitat, or environmental values of the Preserves as determined by CNLM or City. 9. Conduct of Activities. RCHCA will conduct Research in compliance with all Federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and orders including, without limitation, any RCHCA, CNLM, City of Temecula Site Access for Research Agreement Page 2 of 13 permit, notice, approval requirements, or deed restrictions. 10. Habitat Protection and Damage. RCHCA agrees that (a) it is responsible for any and all damage or destruction it causes to the Preserves, Preserves' species and habitat, and/or Landowners' property (including fences, gates, signage, roads, and trails); (b) no trash or discarded material will be left on the Preserves at any time by the RCHCA; (c) no exotic or non -local native species will be introduced into the Preserves; and (d) all equipment, stakes, temporary fences, enclosures, and similar materials will be completely removed from the Preserves at the conclusion of each research period/season and the Research. 11. Responsibility and Accountability. a. RCHCA shall have full and sole responsibility for the safety of any of its agents, and contractors, and for the operation, safety, security, and proper handling of all equipment and materials brought on or about the Preserves. RCHCA shall hold harmless, indemnify, and defend the Landowners and their directors, officers, employees, agents, and invitees (collectively "Indemnified Parties") from and against all liabilities, penalties, costs, losses, damages, expenses, causes of action, claims, demands, or judgment, including without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees (collectively "Claims"), arising from or in any way connected with this Agreement including, without limitation, Claims for injury to or the death of any person, or physical damages to any property, resulting from any act, omission, condition, or other matter related to or occurring on or about the Preserves, but only in proportion to and to the extent that such Claims arise from the negligent or intentional acts or omissions of RCHCA, its officers, agents, contractors or employees. b. RCHCA agrees that all individuals participating in Research on the Preserves will be under its direct supervision and are subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. C. RCHCA shall maintain a copy of this Agreement and other supporting authorizations and permits on its person at all times while on the Preserves and shall present same to CNLM employees or agents, Landowners (if different), and other authorities (including law enforcement and resource agency officials), when requested. RCHCA, CNLM, City of Temecula Site Access for Research Agreement Page 3 of 13 12. Notices. All notices to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and addressed to the recipients as set forth below: Center for Natural Lands Management 27258 Via Industria, Suite B Temecula, CA 92590 Attn: Executive Director Telephone: (760) 731-7790 Director of Conservation Science and Stewardship Center for Natural Lands Management 27258 Via Industria, Suite B Temecula, CA 92590 Telephone: (510) 799-7701 Email: drogers@cnlm.org Brian Shomo RCHCA Director Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency 3390 University Ave., Suite 200 Riverside, CA 92501-3609 Telephone: (951) 840-8070 Email: bshomo@wrcog.us City Manager City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 All notices shall be deemed effectively given: (a) when delivered, if delivered personally or by couriered mail service (such as, for example only, Federal Express or DHL); (b) five (5) days after such notice has been deposited in the United States mail postage prepaid, if mailed certified or registered U.S. mail, return receipt requested; or (c) when received by the party for which notice is intended if given in any other manner. In an emergency, contact all other parties immediately. 13. General Provisions. a. Applicable Law. The validity of this Agreement and of its terms or provisions, as well as the rights and duties of the parties hereunder, shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. b. Nonwaiver. No provision of this Agreement shall be waived, by conduct or otherwise, except in writing signed by both parties. No assent or waiver whether expressed or implied, of any breach of any one or more of the covenants, conditions, or provisions set forth in this Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other covenant, condition, or provision hereof. C. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be adjudged invalid by any court, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain valid and RCHCA, CNLM, City of Temecula Site Access for Research Agreement Page 4 of 13 enforced to the full extent permitted by law. d. Authority. The individuals signing this Agreement represent that they are authorized to execute this document, that their execution of this document shall be binding on the parties that they represent, and that the other parties hereto may rely upon such representation. e. Integrated Agreement. This Agreement, including all Exhibits attached hereto, contains the entire understanding and agreement between the parties, sets forth all the rights and duties of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and replaces and supersedes all previous agreements or understandings, whether written or oral, relating thereto. No modification of this Agreement or any of its terms shall be effective unless in writing and signed by the duly authorized representatives of the parties. f. Cancellation. All parties individually reserve the right to terminate this Agreement as it relates to them, in whole or in part, with thirty (30) days prior written notice if it determines it to be in the best interest of such party. g. Counterparts. The parties may execute this instrument in counterparts, which shall, in the aggregate, be signed by CNLM and RCHCA; each counterpart shall be deemed an original instrument as against any party who signed it. The terms and conditions incorporated herein are a material part of this Agreement. The parties have read and fully understand each and all of the terms and conditions set forth above. RCHCA, CNLM, City of Temecula Site Access for Research Agreement Page 5 of 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. Center for Natural Lands Management Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency Deborah L. Rogers, PhD Brian Shomo Director of Conservation Science and RCHCA Director Stewardship Date: October 11, 2022 Date: , 2022 City of Temecula, a municipal corporation Matt Rahn Mayor Date: . 2022 RCHCA, CNLM, City of Temecula Site Access for Research Agreement Page 6 of 13 Exhibit A Description of Proposed Research SKR Rangewide Monitoring Request Brian Shomo, RCHCA Director 3390 University Ave., Ste.# 200 Riverside, CA 92501 bshomo@wrcog.us 951-840-8070 2. Title of Research: Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Rangewide Monitoring 3. Project Duration: September 2022 — November 2022. a. The RCHCA anticipates trapping during the new moon lunar cycle to avoid brightly lit nights in order to increase SKR capture probability. Specifically trapping would take place for 3 days during the period of 1 week before or 1 week after the new moon during each of the months listed above on each location requested. 4. Research Project Summary: In February 2022, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) downlisted the Stephens' kangaroo rat (SKR) from federally endangered to threatened. In order to fully recover the species a coalition of stakeholders consisting of the Bureau of Land Management, Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency, Conservation Biology Institute, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in consultation with land managers, researchers, and land owners developed a SKR Rangewide Management and Monitoring Plan. This plan, once fully implemented, will improve and ultimately assist in the long term recovery of SKR populations by unifying sub -regional efforts in a consistent approach towards habitat management and monitoring throughout the range. Specific goals for this effort are: To integrate existing SKR management plans and monitoring protocols into a cohesive regional strategy by: o Recognizing and accommodating existing plans and efforts (i.e HCPs, INRMPs); o Incorporating emerging science and modeling; o Aligning current monitoring efforts into a standardized, range -wide protocol; Identify and prioritize habitat management options for improving population resilience and connectivity. RCHCA, CNLM, City of Temecula Site Access for Research Agreement Page 7 of 13 In order to effectively determine the SKR population status and trends, the USFWS requires an understanding of the species distribution and occupation. To accomplish this the RCHCA is attempting to monitor 100 sampling plots throughout the range of SKR, of which 10-15 sampling locations are requested to be placed on Center for Natural Lands Management (CNLM) Preserves throughout Western Riverside County. If permitted, the RCHCA would send 6 biologists (3 teams of 2) and up to 4 field technicians to sample the requisite sites on CNLM lands. The survey would take place over 3 days in either September or October 2022. The first day, a group of technicians / biologists would set up the monitoring sites and perform basic habitat assessments by walking the site and looking for SKR sign (scat, tail drags, dust bathing, burrows, etc.). If SKR sign is observed, the biologists / techs will set up a sampling plot consisting of 25 traps spaced in 5 rows of 5 traps with 10m between traps and rows. Traps consist of small 12" long Sherman style traps suitable for capturing kangaroo rats. Each trap location will be marked with a bright colored pin flag and baited but not opened. The 2nd day a technician will arrive before dusk to bait and open the traps. Then around midnight, 3 teams of 2 biologists will arrive to check the traps and again around 4 hours later, closing them just before dawn. The same process will occur on the 3rd day / night routine with the exception that the traps and flags will be collected at the final trap check just before dawn on the 3rd night. All survey personnel will be using white pickups with gov't plates and marked with the RCHCA logo. Vehicles will remain at all times on existing roads. 5. Project Methodology a. See attached pdf for detailed methodology 6. Project Locations a. See attached pdf for potential grid locations. Specific grids will be randomly selected from the pool of potential grids after input is gathered from Reserve Managers. RCHCA, CNLM, City of Temecula Site Access for Research Agreement Page 8 of 13 Roripaugh Preserve A AAA r11 fry T • P9•• LULL Orr-C 1 1 C1ppll l Jlll✓5 pk !�`� y '3i.-WeerWater. prfhRif �Irl i Lo 5@ i Rd 1 ��m SoEt'meYs grid `� � � o�a5 •-Y - • � CHC A 0 0.13 0.25 0.5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY HABITAT a IAI CONSERVATION AGENCY Miles IV Ranch, I woo � - Access Special Conditions RCHCA is required to contact CNLM's Preserve Manager, as appropriate for each preserve, in advance of entering the Preserves. Access to each preserve must be coordinated with CNLM, and Researcher must be accompanied by the Preserve Manager, unless otherwise directed by CNLM. There may be additional conditions required by the Landowners (e.g., additional documentation or signatures). The Preserves contain sensitive habitats and listed species. CNLM Preserve Manager Kim Klementowski (she/her) Phone: (951) 226-7228 Email: kklementowski@cnlm.org A. Given concerns related to plant pathogens (e.g., Fusarium. Brachygibbosum), snake fungal disease (Ophidiomyces ophidiicola), and rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus serotype-2 (RHDV2)—the latter two have been detected in multiple California counties to date —and that these and other viruses and fungal pathogens can be spread on equipment, clothing, vehicle tires, and shoes, it is required that RCHCA follow the more stringent of USGS, CDFW, or CNPS (cleaning and disinfecting) guidelines for minimizing the risk of vectoring viruses and fungal pathogens upon entering the Preserve. B. All RCHCA staff and every other person working with that staff (assistants, volunteers, etc.) are required to sign a liability waiver (Exhibit D) prior to entering the Preserves. C. All current State, County, and affiliated Institution's conditions and requirements pertaining to health and safety considerations regarding COVID-19 must be observed and practiced. Additional safety practices may be required at the discretion of the Preserve Manager. D. Always mark vehicle with (RCHCA) affiliation, either with identification on dashboard or logo on vehicle. E. No driving on the Preserves is allowed except on any existing roads, if any. The speed limit on the Preserves, if/where vehicles are allowed, is 15 mph. Preserve Manager will advise on acceptable driving locations and conditions. F. Gates should be left in the condition in which they are encountered (open or closed/ locked or unlocked). Multiple entities may use certain gates; if more than one lock is on the gate ensure you restore it to the same configuration (e.g., daisy chain). Preserve Manager will provide information on how to navigate any anticipated locked gates. Special Provisions and Conditions • SKR trapping will not be conducted when nightly low temps are forecast to be below 50 degrees (F), when sunset temps are above 90 degrees, or when inclement weather is forecast (rain, high wind, etc.). RCHCA will ensure that traps are empty and closed prior to sunrise to protect animals from heat exposure. • RCHCA is requested to provide training to any CNLM staff who request to accompany them during the SKR trapping, including verification of training events towards the potential permit application by CNLM staff • All equipment associated that could possibly vector pathogens should be sterilized prior to entry onto the Preserves • RCHCA is required to provide to CNLM any updates or changes to the collection protocol, as described in Exhibit A, prior to entering the Preserves or, if changed onsite in response to conditions, immediately after the site visit. • Any equipment associated with monitoring should be removed from the Preserves at the end of the (season's) monitoring period. • As a courtesy, we request that RCHCA staff assist in removing garbage from the Preserves as reasonably possible, when the research site is visited. We also request that CNLM be notified immediately if there are trespassers or domestic animals observed on the Preserves. • RCHCA shall provide to CNLM a copy of reports for each year that activities are undertaken on the Preserve. Including but not limited to copies of deliverables, survey results, and management recommendations relevant to CNLM preserves. • The following activities or conditions will beprohibited on the Preserves: X Pets X Fires X Drones (otherwise known as UAVs, UASs) RCHCA, CNLM, City of Temecula Site Access for Research Agreement Page 12 of 13 W14:113111191C RELEASE FORM SITE ACCESS FOR RESEARCH AGREEMENT ON CNLM'S (S028) SKUNK HOLLOW AND (S015) RORIPAUGH RANCH PRESERVES Dear (PRINT COMPLETE NAME OF INDIVIDUAL SEEKING LIMITED SITE ACCESS) You have requested permission from the Center for Natural Lands Management (CNLM) and the City of Temecula (City) to enter upon the Preserves for the purpose of monitoring the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat. as more fully described in the 2022 Site Access for Research Agreement ("Agreement') among CNLM, City, and Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency ("RCHCA"). In consideration of CNLM, its officers, directors, employees, and agents (collectively, "Released Parties") agreement to permit your participation in the foregoing activity on the Preserves at various times between execution date(s) of this Agreement and November 30, 2023, you agree to each of the following conditions: 1. You acknowledge that you are aware and have been informed that the Preserves may present risk to your safety. You agree to assume all risks involved in your visit to the Preserves. You agree to take all necessary precautions while on or about the Preserve to avoid injury to yourself or others. You also acknowledge that you are physically able to undertake the activities contemplated on the Preserves. You agree to follow the rules for the Preserves provided to you by CNLM, by RCHCA, and by City as may be required by the Agreement. You agree that although they may not choose to be present during your visit to the Preserves, neither CNLM nor any other Released Party shall have any obligation to you. 2. You hereby release each and all of the Released Parties from any and all liability, claims, causes of action, damage, loss, casualty, expense, or similar items, in law or in equity, whether known or unknown, that you may suffer or incur as a result of, or relating to, your visit(s) to the Preserves. 3. You hereby agree to indemnify, defend and hold each and all of the Released Parties, harmless in all respects from any and all claims causes of action, judgments costs, expenses, attorney's fees, and liabilities (collectively "Claims"), whatsoever, arising in any way in connection with your visit(s) to the Preserves, but only in proportion to and to the extent that such Claims arise from the negligent or intentional acts or omissions of RCHCA, its officers, agents, or employees. 4. You agree to accept any and all financial and legal responsibility for any fire fighting activities that are a direct result of your activities while on the Preserves. Please indicate your agreement to the above by signing this letter. Sincerely yours, CENTER FOR NATURAL LANDS MANAGEMENT The above is hereby agreed to and confirmed this day of 20 PRINT NAME SIGNATURE: Address: Telephone: RCHCA, CNLM, City of Temecula Site Access for Research Agreement Page 13 of 13 Item No. 6 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: October 25, 2022 SUBJECT: Approve the License Agreement with Eastern Municipal Water District for Facilities Removal on Pujol Street PREPARED BY: Anissa Sharp, Management Assistant Ron Moreno, Principal Civil Engineer/City Surveyor RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the license agreement with Eastern Municipal Water District for removal of facilities on Pujol Street BACKGROUND: In 2020, Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) upgraded a force main on the west side of Old Town. As part of that project the aging force main was abandoned on Pujol Street. The affordable housing project known as the Vine Creek apartments (located at 28590 Pujol St, Temecula - APN 922-053-047) has progressed and the Civil Engineer recently reached out to EMWD for removal of the abandoned facility. The removal of said facility would allow for more efficient construction of the project including drainage facilities. EMWD has asked for the City to be a party to the license agreement since the force main is in the City right of way. The agreement stipulates that EMWD has determined the facilities are no longer useful and must be destroyed in order for the project to proceed. If approved, the City will grant a permit to EMWD to conduct the work within the City right of way. The agreement shall terminate six months from the execution date. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the approval of this agreement. ATTACHMENTS: Agreement EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER emwdD,,TR,CT LICENSE AGREEMENT (FACILITY DESTRUCTION) This License Agreement ("Agreement"), dated for purposes of identification only as of , is entered by and between EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, a public agency organized and existing under and by virtue of the Municipal Water District Law of 1911 ("Licensor") and CITY OF TEMECULA ("Licensee"). RrrITAI C The following recitals are a substantive part of this Agreement: A. Licensor is the owner of certain f a c i l i t i e s s h o w n i n SD 1755 drawing, attached hereto and incorporated herein, located in the City of Temecula, State of California (the "Facilities"); and B. Licensee's project, located near APN 922-053-047 in the City of Temecula (the "Project") requires removal of the Facilities; and C. Licensor has determined that the Facilities are no longer useful and must be destroyed in order for Licensee to proceed with its Project; and D. Licensee desires to destroy the Facilities pursuant to District, state and local guidelines ("Permitted Use"). E. Licensor desires to accommodate Licensee's desire to commence such Permitted Use by granting a license as provided herein. NOW, THEREFORE, WITHOUT ANY DEMAND FOR MONETARY OR OTHER CONSIDERATION LICENSOR AND LICENSEE AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Right to Demolish Facilities. Licensor hereby grants to Licensee, its agents, contractors, employees, representatives, consultants, successors and assigns a non-exclusive license demolish facilities described herein. 2. Term. The Agreement shall begin upon execution by Licensee and shall terminate six months from that date. 3. Facility Destruction. Prior to construction, Licensee shall prepare plans, specifications and project schedule that includes Licensor's Facilities. Licensor shall review and Page 1 of 5 approve such Licensee plans, specifications, and schedules which review and approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Such plans and specification shall, at a minimum, include the means and methods of Facility abandonment. Licensor staff shall inspect Licensee's activities in abandoning Licensor Facilities. Upon the completion of the destruction of the Facilities, Licensee shall promptly provide Licensor with notice and evidence of such Facility destruction. 4. Non-exclusive Agreement. This Agreement is a non-exclusive Agreement, and Licensor reserves the right to allow the Property to be used by other parties. 5. Liens, Construction Activity and Disposal. Licensee shall keep Licensor free from any liens or encumbrances which might arise out of conducting the Permitted Use. Licensee must promptly pay when due all costs and charges associated with its exercise of the rights granted in this Agreement and must take all steps necessary to avoid the filing of any mechanics liens against Licensor as a result of the conducting the Permitted Use. In the event any such lien is filed against Licensor, Licensee must cause the same to immediately paid, discharged, released and satisfied and/or bonded of record. Time is of the essence with respect to this obligation. The obligations as set forth in this section shall survive termination of this Agreement. Licensee shall dispose of facilities appropriately in accordance with local and state rules and ordinances. Licensor makes no guarantee that the subject facilities are free from hazardous materials 6. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Licensee agrees to indemnify, immediately defend and hold harmless Licensor from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, defense costs, or liabilities, of any kind or nature (collectively referred to hereinafter as "Claims"), caused by, arising out of, or in any way related to the this Agreement, except for those Claims which arise out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of Licensor. The obligations set forth in this indemnification provision (i) shall be in effect without regard to whether or not Licensee, Licensor, or any other person maintains, or fails to maintain, insurance coverage, or a self-insurance program, for any such Claims; and (ii) shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 7. Maintenance of Licensor Property. N/A 8. Governing Law. The formation, interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue for all litigation relative to the formation, interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be in the City and County of Riverside. 9. Interpretation. This Agreement shall be interpreted as a whole and in accordance with its fair meaning and as if each party participated in its drafting. Captions are for reference only and are not to be used in construing meaning. Page 2 of 5 10. Amendments. No modification, rescission, waiver, release or amendment of any provision of this Agreement shall be made except by a written agreement executed by Licensee and Licensor. 11. Authority to Enter Agreement. Each of the persons executing this Agreement on behalf of themselves or a party hereto warrant that: (i) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) the signer is duly authorized to execute and deliver the Agreement on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such party is formally bound, and (v) there is no litigation or legal proceeding that would prevent said party from entering into this Agreement. 12. Notices, Demands and Communications Between the Parties. Any notices, requests, demands, documents, approvals or disapprovals given or sent under this Agreement from one Party to another (collectively, "Notices") may be personally delivered, or deposited with the United States Postal Service for mailing, postage prepaid, to the address of the other party as stated in this Section, and shall be deemed to have been given or sent at the time of personal delivery or, if mailed, on the third day following the date of deposit in the course of transmission with the United States Postal Service. Notices shall be sent as follows: If to Licensor: City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: City Manager If to Licensee: Eastern Municipal Water District 2270 Trumble Rd. Perris, CA 92572 Attention: Real Property Manager 13. Attorneys' Fees. In the event of a dispute between the Parties with respect to the terms or conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to collect from the other its reasonable attorneys' fees as established by the judge or arbitrator presiding over such dispute. 14. Ambiguity. Any ambiguity in this Agreement shall not be construed against the drafter, but rather the terms and provisions hereof shall be given a reasonable interpretation as if both Parties had in fact drafted this Agreement. 15. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which, taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument, and any of the parties hereto may execute this Agreement by signing any such counterpart. 16. Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assigned by either party without a written agreement executed by Licensee and Licensor. Page 3 of 5 17. Severability. In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement will for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability will not affect any other provision hereof, this Agreement will be construed as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein and, so far as is reasonable and possible, effect shall be given to the intent manifested by the portion or portions held to be invalid illegal or unenforceable. 18. Successors/Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon Licensor and its successors and assigns. 19. No Third Party Rights. The Parties intend not to create rights in, or to grant remedies to, any third party as a beneficiary of this Agreement or of any duty, covenant, obligation or undertaking established herein. 20. Integration. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between Licensor and Licensee relating to this Agreement. Any prior Agreements, agreements, promises, negotiations, or representations not expressly set forth in this Agreement are of no force and effect. 21. Legal Advice. Each Party represents and warrants to the other the following: they have carefully read this Agreement, and in signing this Agreement, they do so with full knowledge of any right which they may have; they have received independent legal advice from their respective legal counsel as to the matter set forth in this Agreement, or have knowingly chosen not to consult legal counsel as to the matters set forth in this Agreement; and, they have freely signed this Agreement without any reliance upon any agreement, promise, statement or representation by or on behalf of the other Party, or their respective agents, employees, or attorneys, except as specifically set forth in this Agreement, and without duress or coercion, whether economic or otherwise. Page 4 of 5 Dated: IN Dated: Page 5 of 5 "LICENSEE" CITY OF TEMECULA Matt Rahn, Mayor CITY OF TEMECULA ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney "LICENSOR" EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, a public agency organized and existing under and by virtue of the Municipal District Law of 1911 Shaun Stone Sr. Director of Engineering ,AM I '40'A a. Ldrlo1_' YAP I I Tl1 iop Aez JI Item No. 7 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick A. Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: October 25, 2022 SUBJECT: Approve First Amendment to the Non -Exclusive Commodity Agreement with SWARCO McCain, Inc. PREPARED BY: Julie Tarrant, Principal Management Analyst Stacey Biddle, Management Assistant RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the first amendment to the agreement with SWARCO McCain, Inc., in the amount of $500,000, and extend the terms of the agreement to June 30, 2025, for the purchase of traffic signal equipment maintenance supplies for operations and maintenance, and to support the City's Capital Improvement Program Project, Traffic Signal Equipment Enhancement Program -Citywide. BACKGROUND: On July 1, 2022, the Director of Public Works executed an Agreement with McCain, Inc., for the purchase of traffic signal equipment maintenance supplies, including service cabinets, safety street lighting, light emitting diodes (LED) traffic signal indicators and various equipment to continue operations and maintenance of our traffic signals throughout the city, and in support of our ongoing Traffic Signal Equipment Enhancement Program — Citywide, as identified in the Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2020-24. McCain, Inc., has been the City's sole supplier of traffic signal hardware and software for the past several years and is the only Southern California supplier/distributor/technical supporter of the traffic signal control system that is currently used by the City. In an effort to provide for the ongoing operations and maintenance needs, and to continue the installation of network upgrades to hardware components and software, staff recommends to approve the First Amendment to extend the terms of the Agreement, and increase the Agreement in the amount of $400,000, for a total Agreement of $500,000. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available in Department of Public Works, Traffic Engineering Division's Annual Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2022-23, and Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2020-2024. ATTACHMENTS: First Amendment FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND MCCAIN, INC. TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of October 25, 2022 by and between the City of Temecula , a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and SWARCO McCain, Inc., a Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Contractor"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: This Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes: a. On July 1, 2022, the City and Contractor entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Non -Exclusive Commodity Agreement for Traffic Signal Equipment," in the amount of $100,000. b. The parties now desire to extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2025, increase the payment in the amount of $400,000; and, C. All sections of the Agreement, and any prior Amendments that refer to the Contractor as "McCain, Inc.", shall be changed to "SWARCO McCain, Inc.", pursuant to the name change of said company effective August 16, 2022, and to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 1 of the Agreement entitled "TERM" is hereby amended to read as follows. This Agreement shall remain and continue in effect until tasks herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2025 unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 3. Section 3 of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "a" is hereby amended to read as follows: The City agrees to pay Contractor monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and schedules and terms set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. The FIRST Amendment amount shall not exceed Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000), for additional traffic signal equipment for a total Agreement amount of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000). 4. The Consultant shall furnish certificates of insurance and an IRS W-9 form pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement, and any prior Amendments pursuant to the name and ownership change of said company. Letter informing Company Name Change and Ownership is set forth on Attachment "A" to this Amendment, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 5. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 08/09/2021 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA By: Matt Rahn, Mayor ATTEST: By: Rand! Johl, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: SWARCO MCCAIN, INC. (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: -�r�� Ol`26•�- Renata Roles, Director of Accounting By: C7 ZlP `L`Z Jo Ann Mills, Vice President of Human Resources Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONTRACTOR McCain, Inc. Attn: Jennifer Phelan 2365 Oak Ridge Way Vista, CA 92081 (760) 734-5000 Jennifer.phelan@mccaln-inc.com City Purchasing Mgr. Initials ar Date: 08/09/2021 11= The Better Way, Leery Day 411 August If, 2022 Subject: SWARCO McCain, Inc, r Official Name Change Dear Customers, Effective August 16, 2022, the company has been renamed SWARCO McCain, Inc. The change will be in name only and will not impact our organizational structure, valued team members, physical address, telephone numbers, banking information, tax ID number or quality products, software, and solutions_ Our Tijuana, Mexico based manufacturing subsidiary will not be impacted either and will maintain its current legal name. The SWARCO brand will be found across the organization. Our employees will be issued a new email address that incorporates their full firstname_iostname r7rswarco.com. The McCain logo will be replaced with the SWARCO brand on all stationery, including letterhead, envelopes, and business cards. New invoices will have the SWARCO logo and the remit to address will convey SWARCO McCain, Inc_ Our website, product sheets, presentations, tradeshow booths, and giveaways will incorporate the SWARCO logo and corporate design look and feel. All our trucks, service vehicles, and Vista office signs will proudly display the new global brand_ We will also be introducing and communicating SWARCO's core values of agility, reliability & trust, passion, innovation, and cooperation. Because we already have so many qualified and certified products across the country, we will maintain the A1cCain brand on all our legacy products, and only introduce the SWARCO logo when qualifying new products or new DOTS for the first time. Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to reach out to any of our team members or simply call (760) 721-8100 and we will gladly help connect you with the right person. www.swai co.comlmccain SWARCC McCain, inc, 2365 Ciak Ra9ge'Way, Vista, CA 92081 T -760-727-8100. E info us@swarco com 3 08/09/2021 The Letter Way Every Day 411111 On behalf of SWARCO ownership, Executive Board, and the SWARCO McCain, Inc. management team, I would like to take this opportunity to thank our valued customers, employees, vendors, and strategic partners for your continued support and sharing this milestone in our common journey towards finding "The Better W,ty, Every Day_" Sincerely, ZCarl McCollum Vice President SWARCO McCain, Inc- 4 08/09/2021 Item No. 8 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: October 25, 2022 SUBJECT: Accept Improvements and File the Notice of Completion for the Pedestrian Signal Equipment Upgrade - Citywide, PW19-10 PREPARED BY: Nick Minicilli, Senior Civil Engineer Julie Tarrant, Principal Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Accept the Improvements for the Pedestrian Signal Equipment Upgrade - Citywide, PW 19-10, as complete; and 2. Direct the City Clerk to file and record the Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond; and 3. Release the Labor and Materials Bond seven months after filing the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. BACKGROUND: On March 23, 2021, the City Manager, under the authorities delegated by the City Council of the City of Temecula in Resolution 2020-83, approved the plans and specifications and authorized the Department of Public Works to solicit bids for the Pedestrian Signal Equipment Upgrade - Citywide Project, PW19-10. The Pedestrian Signal Equipment Upgrade - Citywide Project installed pedestrian countdown signal heads, ADA compliant pedestrian pushbuttons, and upgraded traffic signal controllers to improve safety and operations at signalized intersections citywide including the Butterfield Stage Road, Redhawk Parkway, Pechanga Parkway, Rancho California Road, Temecula Parkway, and Ynez Road corridors. Baker Electric, Inc. has completed the work in accordance with the approved plans and specifications to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. All work is warranted for a period of one year from July 18, 2022, the date the City obtained "beneficial use" of the Project. The retention for this project will be released pursuant to the provisions of Public Contract Code 7107. The original and final contract amount is $773,060. There were no change orders on the project. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with accepting the Project and filing the Notice of Completion. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Notice of Completion 2. Maintenance Bond 3. Contractor's Affidavit and Final Release RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF TEMECULA 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 EXEMPT FROM RECORDER'S FEES Pursuant to Government Code Sections 6103 and 27383 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: 1. The City of Temecula is the owner of the property hereinafter described. 2. The full address of the City of Temecula is 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. 3. The Nature of Interest is a Contract which was awarded by the City of Temecula to Baker Electric, Inc., 1298 Pacific Oaks Place, Escondido, CA 92029 to perform the following work of improvement: PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL EQUIPMENT UPGRADE - CITYWIDE Project No. PW19-10 FEDERAL PROJECT NO. HSIPL-5459(029) 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 October 25, 2022. That upon said contract the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland 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: PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL EQUIPMENT UPGRADE - CITYWIDE Project No. PW19-10 FEDERAL PROJECT NO. HSIPL-5459(029) 6. The location of said property is: Various signalized intersections citywide, Temecula, California. Dated at Temecula, California, this October 25, 2022. City of Temecula Randi Johl, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing NOTICE OF COMPLETION is true and correct, and that said NOTICE OF COMPLETION was duly and regularly ordered to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside by said City Council. Dated at Temecula, California, this October 25, 2022. City of Temecula Randi Johl, City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS BOND NO. 9377597 Premium included in Performance Bond MAINTENANCE BOND for PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL EQUIPMENT UPGRADE- CITYWIDE PROJECT NO. PW19-10 FEDERAL PROJECT NO. HSIPL-5459(029) KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENT THAT Baker Electric & Renewables LLC 1298 Pacific Oaks Place Escondido, CA 92029 NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR a Corporation (hereinafter called "Principal'), and (fill in whether a Corporation, Partnership, or Individual) Fidelity and Deposit Company of Ma land,1299 Zurich Way, 5th Floor, Schaumburg, IL 60196-1056 NAME AND ADDRESS OF SURETY (hereinafter called "Surety"), are held and firmly bound unto CITY OF TEMECULA (hereinafter called "Owner") in the penal sum of Seve Seven Thousand Three Hundred Six DOLLARS AND No CENTS ($ 77 oouo ) in lawful money of the United States, said sum being not less than ten percent of 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, the Principal entered into a certain Contract with the Owner, dated the 23rd day of November , 2021 a copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof for the construction of PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL EQUIPMENT UPGRADE- CITYWIDE, PROJECT NO. PW19-10, FEDERAL PROJECT NO. HSIPL-5459(029). WHEREAS, said Contract provides that the Principal will furnish a bond conditioned to guarantee for the period of one 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 said Contract has been completed, and was the final estimate approved on this the 18th day of July , 20 22 . NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if within one year from the date of approval of the final 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, and 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 virtue, 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. The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration, or addition 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, alteration, or addition to the terms of the Contract, or to the work, or to the Specifications. Signed and sealed this 7th day of September , 20 22 (Seal) SURETY: F' lity and Deposit Company of Maryland By: La e F. McMahon (Name) Attorney -in -Fact (Title) PRINCIPAL: Baker Electric & Renewables LLC Ted N. Baker (Name) President (Title) By: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Brian Miliate (Name) Chief Financial Officer Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney (Title) NOTE: Signatures of two corporate officers required for corporations. A Notarial Acknowledgement or Jurat must be attached for each of the Surety and Principal Signatures. � a.,, n 3-'n5;-:,aic�J �: "" .:3'+:: d� ' :.�s�?•,' •,ti .s n�. _ ';3:�= 3�'Uc: A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California M ` l County of Son 1f 1eyrl J} On vl' "1 before me, Date personally appeared Pon" Abbe Here InseytName and TitW e Officer C� I -- Name(s) of igner(s) who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the JESSlCAGETCHEL laws of the State of California that the foregoing Notary Public - California San Diego County paragraph is true and correct. I Commission # 2318319 F ��• •N`' Ay Comm. Expires Jan 9, 2024 WITNESS my hand and official seal Signature r a-cui- Placeg Notary Seal and/or Stamp Above Signature of Notary Public Completing this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Individual ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer is Representing: Number of Pages: Signer's Name: ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Individual ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer is Representing: 'b 3=� s."'.3: a::; - ti^"•ir•,o•;. ' c•�ss� y�"°i3yz'S:rd W�3� s' sa -3 a ;eau-:�s9's a •. 7� �''til•a ,�_sy h^:;x .-'.r 5-'_r y h 02018•nal Notary Association ACKNOWLEDGMENT A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California County of San Diego On September 7, 2022 before me, Maria Hallmark, Notary Public (insert name and title of the officer) personally appeared Lawrence F. McMahon who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Seal) *my MARIAHALLMARK Notary Public • California San Diego County �Commission # 2356793 Comm. Expires May 9, 2025 ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY COLONIAL AMERICAN CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND POWER OF ATTORNEY KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation of the State of New York, the COLONIAL AMERICAN CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, a corporation of the State of Illinois, and the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND a corporation of the State of Illinois (herein collectively called the "Companies"), by Robert D. Murray, Vice President, in pursuance of authority granted by Article V, Section 8, of the By -Laws of said Companies, which are set forth on the reverse side hereof and are hereby certified to be in full force and effect on the date hereof, do hereby nominate, constitute, and appoint Lawrence F. MCMAHON, Sarah MYERS, Maria GUISE, Ryan E. WARNOCK, Janice MARTIN, Tara BACON, John R. QUALIN, Maria HALLMARK of San Diego, California EACH, its true and lawful agent and Attomey-in-Fact, to make, execute, seal and deliver, for, and on its behalf as surety, and as its act and deed: any and all bonds and undertakings, and the execution of such bonds or undertakings in pursuance of these presents, shall be as binding upon said Companies, as fully and amply, to all intents and purposes, as if they had been duly executed and acknowledged by the regularly elected officers of the ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY at its office in New York, New York., the regularly elected officers of the COLONIAL AMERICAN CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY at its office in Owings Mills, Maryland., and the regularly elected officers of the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND at its office in Owings Mills, Maryland., in their own proper persons. The said Vice President does hereby certify that the extract set forth on the reverse side hereof is a true copy of Article V, Section 8, of the By -Laws of said Companies, and is now in force. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Vice -President has hereunto subscribed his/her names and affixed the Corporate Seals of the said ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, COLONIAL AMERICAN CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, and FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, this 126' day of July, A.D. 2021. �a otra+� m ATTEST: ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY COLONIAL AMERICAN CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND By: Robert D. Murray Vice President By: Dawn E. Brown Secretary State of Maryland County of Baltimore On this 12th day of July, A.D. 2021, before the subscriber, a Notary Public of the State of Maryland, duly commissioned and qualified, Robert D. Murray, Vice President and Dawn E. Brown, Secretary of the Companies, to we personally known to be the individuals and officers described in and who executed the preceding instrument, and acknowledged the execution of same, and being by me duly swom, deposeth and saith, that he/she is the said officer of the Company aforesaid, and that the seals affixed to the preceding instrument are the Corporate Seals of said Companies, and that the said Corporate Seals and the signature as such officer were duly affixed and subscribed to the said instrument by the authority and direction of the said Corporations. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Official Seal the day and year first above written. etI ft�;ry�. . �?:' t::rY • mill,`� Constance A. Dunn, Notary Public My Commission Expires: July 9, 2023 Authenticity of this bond can be contirtned at bondvalidator.zurichna.com or 410-559-8790 EXTRACT FROM BY-LAWS OF THE COMPANIES "Article V, Section 8, Attomevs-in-Fact. The Chief Executive Officer, the President, or any Executive Vice President or Vice President may, by written instrument under the attested corporate seal, appoint attomeys-in-fact with authority to execute bonds, policies, recognizances, stipulations, undertakings, or other like instruments on behalf of the Company, and may authorize any officer or any such attomey-in-fact to affix the corporate seal thereto; and may with or without cause modify of revoke any such appointment or authority at any time.,. CERTIFICATE I, the undersigned, Vice President of the ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, the COLONIAL AMERICAN CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, and the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, do hereby certify that the foregoing Power of Attorney is still in full force and effect on the date of this certificate; and I do further certify that Article V, Section 8, of the By -Laws of the Companies is still in force. This Power of Attorney and Certificate may be signed by facsimile under and by authority of the following resolution of the Board of Directors of the ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY at a meeting duly called and held on the 15th day of December 1998. RESOLVED: "That the signature of the President or a Vice President and the attesting signature of a Secretary or an Assistant Secretary and the Seal of the Company may be affixed by facsimile on any Power of Attorney ... Any such Power or any certificate thereof bearing such facsimile signature and seal shall be valid and binding on the Company." This Power of Attorney and Certificate may be signed by facsimile under and by authority of the following resolution of the Board of Directors of the COLONIAL AMERICAN CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY at a meeting duly called and held on the 5th day of May, 1994, and the following resolution of the Board of Directors of the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND at a meeting duly called and held on the loth day of May, 1990. RESOLVED: "That the facsimile or mechanically reproduced seal of the company and facsimile or mechanically reproduced signature of any Vice -President, Secretary, or Assistant Secretary of the Company, whether made heretofore or hereafter, wherever appearing upon a certified copy of any power of attorney issued by the Company, shall be valid and binding upon the Company with the same force and effect as though manually affixed. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the corporate seals of the said Companies, this 7th day of September , 2022. So otio � esiw By: Brian M. Hodges Vice President TO REPORT A CLAIM WITH REGARD TO A SURETY BOND, PLEASE SUBMIT A COMPLETE DESCRIPTION OF THE CLAIM INCLUDING THE PRINCIPAL ON THE BOND, THE BOND NUMBER, AND YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION TO: Zurich Surety Claims 1299 Zurich Way Schaumburg, IL 60196-1056 www.rgportsfclaims&zurichna.com 800-626-4577 Authenticity of this bond can be confirmed at bondvalidator.zurichna.com or 410-559-8790 2021-320 CITY OF TEMECULA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE for PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL EQUIPMENT UPGRADE- CITYWIDE PROJECT NO. PW19-10 FEDERAL PROJECT NO. HSIPL-5459(029) This is to certify that Baker Electric (hereinafter the "Contractor") declares 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 its Contract with the City of Temecula, with regard to the building, erection, construction, or repair of that certain work of improvement known as PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL EQUIPMENT UPGRADE- CITYWIDE, PROJECT NO. PW19-10, FEDERAL PROJECT NO. HSIPL-5459(029) situated in the City of Temecula, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Various signalized intersection citywide 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 Section 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 and all claims, debts, demands, or cause of action which exist or might exist in favor of the Contractor by reason of payment by the City of Temecula of any contract amount which the Contractor has not disputed above. CONTRACTOR: Dated: 09/02/2022 By: Z�)a4z,- Signature Dara Hetzel, AR Specialist Print Name and Title Item No. 9 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: October 25, 2022 SUBJECT: Reject All Construction Bids Received for the I-15 / French Valley Parkway Improvements — Phase II, PW 16-01, and Authorize the Construction Contract to be Rebid PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Engineering Manager Avlin R. Odviar, Principal Civil Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Reject all construction bids received for the I-15 / French Valley Parkway Improvements — Phase II, P W 16-01; and 2. Authorize the Department of Public Works to re -advertise construction contract for the I-15 / French Valley Parkway Improvements — Phase II, PW 16-01. BACKGROUND: On July 26, 2022, the City Council approved the plans and specifications and authorized the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the I-15 / French Valley Parkway Improvements — Phase II, PW16-01 (Project). The construction contract was publicly advertised between August 29, 2022 and October 6, 2022. Five (5) bids were received and publicly opened on Thursday, October 6, 2022. On October 14, 2022, the City received a letter with subject "Notice of Protest that Any Award of Bid Solicitation would be Illegal" from counsel representing MCM Construction, Inc. Staff recommends that all bids be rejected, and that the construction contract be re -bid after careful analysis of the project Notice Inviting Bids, in particular the wording which defines the deadline for submittal of bids. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to rejecting all bids. ATTACHMENTS: Letter from Murphy Auston Attorneys, dated October 14, 2022 MurphAustin D. MICHAEL SCHOENFELD DIRECT: (916) 329-3089 mschoenfeld@murphyaustin.com October 14, 2022 VIA E-MAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL ONLY B. Tilden Kim Richards Watson Gershon 350 South Grand Avenue, 37th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Email: tkim@rwglaw.com Re: Notice of Protest and Notice that Any Award of Bid Solicitation would be Illegal Dear Mr. Kim: This letter is being sent to you in your capacity as the outside City Attorney for the City of Temecula relating to public works projects. Our client, MCM Construction, Inc. ("MCM"), is concurrently receiving this letter and its attachments as well, and MCM will be sharing them with your client's Public Works department to ensure that the City of Temecula receives this content as soon as possible. I personally request that you direct your response on behalf of the City of Temecula to my personal attention via email, but if you wish to speak you can reach me on my cell phone at 916-320-4868. I have already sent you two emails alerting you to this matter earlier today and inviting you to reply but have not received any reply. As to the substance I share the following: On behalf of MCM, this letter is sent to advise the City of Temecula ("City") that because the actual bid day conduct implemented by the City was materially flawed, resulting in several bidders being denied their due process and other rights to submit timely bids to the City, the procurement process used by the City for the below -referenced project was in violation of the City's own published rules and the competitive bidding laws of the State of California, and rendered the bidding process illegal. Any award of the proposed contract by the City, and any performance thereof by an awardee, would be illegal, result in a void contract, and trigger litigation. The City is therefore requested to reject all bids received, and re -advertise the solicitation of new bids to avoid any of these consequences. The details supporting these assertions and legal outcomes are set forth below and in the attachments to this letter. MCM was a plan holder for the project known as I — 15 / French Valley Parkway Improvements — Phase II (Project No. PW16-01) (the "Project") which was the subject of an invitation for bids published by the City of Temecula ("City") for bids to be received `up to' 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, October 6, 2022. (The use of the bold lettering in the prior sentence is intentional as it is the key verbiage which triggers this letter.) Murphy Austin Adams Schoenfeld LLP // 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 850, Sacramento, CA 95814 P: 916.446.2300 F: 916.503.4000 // www.murphyaustin.com 1280.003-7860090.3 B. Tilden Kim October 14, 2022 Page 2 As detailed below, the City impermissibly refused to receive through the mandatory electronic bidding process tendered bids by MCM and other bidders on October 61h when the clock was at 10:00 a.m. because the software system and bid agent used by the City elected to refuse tendered bids after 9:59:59 a.m. and this was improper. The call for bids, documented below, expressly represented that bids could be received `up to 10:00 A.M.' and by law, as well as the common use of the English language, the use of the phrase `up to 10:00 A.M.' means `up to 10:00 A.M. plus 59 seconds'. Because the City refused to accept bids sought to be submitted after 9:59:59 a.m., the City failed to follow its own bidding rules and tainted its own bidding process rendering the bidding process subject to this notice of legal challenge. The only viable option for the City to address this misconduct is the rejection of all bids. We have been made aware of the following irregularities relating to the bidding process: three (3) separate, independent general contractors which each sought to follow the published bid submission rules were denied the opportunity to timely do so. As noted in the attached exhibits, each of these three bidders (all of which are very experienced bidding contractors) tried to submit their bids when the clock read 10:00 a.m. on bid day and each were improperly and illegally denied the right to submit a timely bid in accordance with the published call for bids. Attached to this letter are three declarations under penalty of perjury, labeled Exhibits 1, 2 and 3, each of which are signed by the lead persons, respectively, at MCM, the Walsh Group and Security Paving who were in charge of submitting their company's respective bids for this Project. Each of them detail the same independent experience: that the bidding software used by the City denied each of them the ability to submit their timely bids as the software used (and/or the personnel using the same) improperly and impermissibly closed off the bidding process before 10:00:59 a.m. In addition, attached as Exhibit 4 is a copy of a written decision issued by a California Court of Appeal on virtually identical facts in the 2003 case known as Solpac, Inc. v. City of Fresno. You are urged to please carefully review the attached decision because the City of Temecula's conduct on this project, failing to accept bids which were sought to be timely tendered, mirrors the conduct of the City of Fresno in the attached decision which the Court of Appeal determined was improper and illegal. As detailed in the attached decision, the resulting contract award and issuance was held to be illegal. To place all of this in context, the following facts related to the City of Temecula's bid solicitation are substantiated: • Attached as Exhibit 5 to this letter is the City's Notice Inviting Bids for this Project. MURPHY AUSTIN ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP 1280.003-7860090.3 B. Tilden Kim October 14, 2022 Page 3 • The Invitation for Bids states, in its first sentence, the following: "NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, will receive ELECTRONIC BIDS ONLY up to 10:00 A.M., on Thursday, the 6` of October, 2022." (Emphasis in original.) • The Invitation for Bids later provides in the first sentence of its second paragraph the following: "Bids must be submitted electronically via the on-line bidding service PlanetBids." • MCM, Security Paving and Walsh Group were each plan holders for the Project and had each logged on to submit a bid for the Project using the online bidding service of PlanetBids. • When the clock used by PlanetBids to receive bids for the Project turned to 10:00 am on October 6, 2022, the planned bids to be submitted by MCM, Security Paving and Walsh Group had not yet been received by PlanetBids' software. • As documented in the attached declarations from MCM, Walsh Group and Security Paving, each of these entities, using a precise bid clock, were registered online using the required bidding software system. Both Walsh Group and Security Paving pushed `send' on their respective computers to submit their bids for the Project, independent of and from each other at 10:00 a.m. on October 6, 2022 but their bids were not accepted. As to MCM, it received a message that it could not send its bid because the time to do so was closed even though the clock read 10:00. • Each of MCM, Walsh Group and Security Paving received a computer -generated message indicating that their bids were not timely submitted (or denied the right to submit) but each of them attempted to submit their respective bids before the clock turned to 10:01 a.m. and thus timely sought to submit bids "up to 10:00 A.M." as required by the call for bids published by the City. • The call forbids used the wording "up to 10:00 A.M." as contrasted with "before 10:00 A.M." or "no later than 9:59:59 A.M.". • As set forth in the attached decision of the California Court of Appeal, the use of the term `up to 10:00 A.M.' by the City of Temecula is the equivalent of what the City of Fresno's invitation stated. Fresno's bid call asked for bids `no later than 3:00 p.m.' which is the same as `by 10:00 A.M.' which means prior to 10:01 a.m. MURPHY AUSTIN ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP 1280.003-7860090.3 B. Tilden Kim October 14, 2022 Page 4 • Applying the same logic and proper use of the English language as evaluated and commented upon by the Solpac court, the only plausible conclusion and realistic interpretation of the City of Temecula's bid call is that every bid received up to 10:00:59 a.m. using the PlanetBids software system, would be a timely submitted bid on October 6, 2022. • Following the bidding process, MCM's Vice President, Harry McGovern, has attempted to have the City realize its mistaken conduct and throw out the bids and re- bid the Project. The email exchanges between Mr. McGovern and Mr. Odviar of the City are attached as Exhibit 6 to this letter. The email chain details that MCM's attempt to submit its bid at 10:00 a.m. was rejected as being too late. MCM's position has been, and remains, that such a refusal to receive the MCM bid was improper and in violation of the bidding rules and the call for bids, and it violates the competitive bidding laws and rules that the City is required to follow. • The declaration of Ron Burch, the lead estimator for MCM, submitted as Exhibit 1, affirms, under oath, that MCM's bid was completed and was sought to be submitted to the City, using the PlanetBids website and software, at 10:00 a.m. on October 6, 2022, and thus prior to the clock turning 10:01 a.m. It was not allowed to be received even though the clock had not yet reached 10:01 a.m. • The declarations from the Walsh Group and Security Paving submitted as Exhibits 2 and 3 affirm that the bids prepared by them experienced the same challenges and improper rejections. • Mr. Odviar's email dated October 12, 2022, at 7:46 a.m., included in Exhibit 6, incorporates a report from the bidding agent PlanetBids. The content confirms that PlanetBid impermissibly denied the opportunity for a bidder to submit a timely bid prior to 10:01 a.m., as it provides: "The bid closed exactly at 10:00 a.m. PDT." This confirms that the software was programmed to deny the receipt of bids between 10:00:01 and 10:00:59 impermissibly. • Within Exhibit 6, Mr. McGovern, on October 12, 2022 at 2:11 p.m., wrote: "Our contention is that we were closed out right at 10:00 from submitting the bid at 10:00 and 15 seconds and, according to Caltrans, anything before 10:01 is 10:00 so we are saying that Planet Bids closed us out too early! MURPHY AUSTIN ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP 1280.003-7860090.3 B. Tilden Kim October 14, 2022 Page 5 Please consider throwing out all bids and rebidding in order to receive bids from all Contractors interested in bidding in order for the City to realize the lowest price available for the project." • In response, Mr. Odviar's email to Mr. McGovern on October 12, 2022, at 6:05 p.m. (also part of Exhibit 6) confirms that the bidding process used by PlanetBids impermissibly cut off the receipt of bids after 9:59:59 a.m. on October 6, 2022. Mr. Odviar wrote: "It is peculiar that two of the larger bidding sites (Caltrans and PlanetBids) would implement slightly different cut-off times for the same stated deadline. And it is unfortunate that this one -minute differential interpretation affected MCM's, and others', ability to bid this project. However, after some 10+ years of use the City believes the PlanetBids system to be a solid and fair bidding system, including the cut-off time. We do not intend to throw out all bids and rebid the contract as MCM has requested." California law governs this matter and California is very strict on requiring that public agencies, subject to the requirements of the competitive bidding laws, such as the City of Temecula, are bound to follow the law and further must follow their own published rules. The case ofPozar v. Department of Transportation (CalTrans) (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 269 is crystal clear on this point. Because the term "up to 10:00 A.M." means at any time up to 10:00:59 a.m., and the City of Temecula admittedly cut of the receipt of bids at 60 seconds too early, the implementation of the City's bidding process was impermissibly flawed. The term "up to 10:00 A.M." used by the City of Temecula is neither ambiguous, unintelligible nor uncertain. When this occurs the public agency is required by law to follow its own rules. The City did not follow its own rules and impermissibly, using its agent PlanetBids, cut off the time the computer would accept bids sought to be submitted once the clock turned from 9:59:59 a.m. on October 6t' to 10:00 a.m. This conduct was improper and cut off bids 60 seconds before it should have, and resulted in at least three bids not being received which were sought to be timely submitted. The Solpac court published in its decision (Exhibit 4) that when such an occurrence arises the outcome is clear: the resulting contract award was and is illegal and subject to legal challenge. When such conduct occurs and the eventual contract awarded is challenged, the bidder awarded an illegal contract will be required to pay back to the City 100% of all funds it is paid as the City, as a matter of law, cannot award an illegal contract. Placing any contractor in such a position is unreasonable and improper. See the long-standing decision from the California Supreme Court in Miller v. McKinnon (1942) 20 Cal.2d 83, which holds that contracts issued in excess of authority are void and illegal. MURPHY AUSTIN ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP 1280.003-7860090.3 B. Tilden Kim October 14, 2022 Page 6 While the decision in the Solpac case was issued after the underlying contract had been performed to such an extent that stopping it would have benefitted no one, that is not the circumstance presented in this procurement. No contract has been awarded, no work has been started and no illegal payments have been made. The City is urged to avoid such an outcome and recognize that a very serious and unfortunate mistake was made. The City is further urged to rectify the error by tossing out all bids due to the mistakes made and avoid perpetuating the mistake and placing a contractor which is awarded the project in jeopardy of having the choose to perform an illegal contract and risk forfeiture of all payments received. DMS/jc Enclosures cc: Harry McGovern Ron Burch Very truly yours, MURPHY AU TIN ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP D. M EL SCHOENFELD MURPHY AUSTIN ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP 1280.003-7860090.3 EXHIBIT 1 Main Office P.O. Box 620 / 6413 32nd St. Ste A / North Highlands / CA 95660 (916) 334-1221 Estimating / Engineering FAX (916) 334-5384 Accounting FAX (916) 334-8355 Southern California Regional Office P.O. Box 1239 / 16249 Adelanto Rd. / Adelanto / CA 92301 (909) 875-0533 Engineering / Accounting FAX (909) 875-2243 Dated: October 14, 2022 Declaration of Ronald Burch I, Ronald Burch, declare: 1. 1 am an individual over 18 years of age. I have personal knowledge of the following and if called to testify I could and would competently testify thereto. 2. 1 am employed by MCM Construction, Inc. ("MCM") in the capacity of Chief Estimator and have held such a position for 21 years. I report to business in the MCM main office located in North Highlands, California. My responsibilities in my employment include the management of bidding and bids which MCM elects to submit for prospective construction projects. 3. MCM determined that it was interested in the advertised project by the City of Temecula known as I —15 / French Valley Parkway Improvements — Phase II (Project No. PW16- 01) (the "Project") which was the subject of an invitation for bids published by the City of Temecula ("City") for bids to be received by 10:00 am on Thursday, October 6, 2022. 4. We obtained the invitation for bids, all addenda and all contract documents, registered to submit our bid electronically as required, submitted numerous bidder questions, and prepared our bid for submission. 5. On bid day, I, along with my staff, prepared the MCM bid for the Project in my office. 6. In order to ensure that we timely submit our bids for jobs we want to bid, we confirm our clock with the owner's clock. 7. The bid required a considerable number of additional hand generated (paper) informationtforms be prepared, scanned and submitted with the electronic bid items/price schedule. 8. As the clock turned exactly 10:00.00 am on October 6, 2022, the "Place ebid" button on the owner's PlanetBids website disappeared and the bid read "closed" thus not allowing MCM to submit our bid. I was ready, willing and able to timely submit MCM's bid but was denied the opportunity to do so as the bid submission opportunity was apparently closed 60 seconds earlier than it was advertised to be available to submit bids. 9. When I reviewed the Invitation for Bid I observed that it called for bids to be received 'up to 10:00 am'. A copy of the first page of the Invitation for Bids is attached to this declaration as Exhibit A. 10. In my 21 years of experience, bidding to well over a hundred different owners, including many Caltrans projects, I have always understood and learned that the words and phrase 'up to 10:00 am' means up to the designated time (in this case 10:00 am) plus 59 seconds. If the owner elected to stop its receipt of timely bids once the clock turned to 10:00 am and not up to 10:00:59, the owner needed to change the wording to read 'prior to 10:00 am' or'no later than 9:59:59'. Because the invitation for bids did not use the latter phrases I understood, consistent with the convention used by all other owners that I have experience with, that bids submitted up to 10:00:59 on this Project would be timely. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER / STATE CONTRACTORS LIC. NO. 286430 11. I personally believe that the bid of MCM would have been timely submitted and the failure of the City to accept our bid was improper. I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 141 day of October, 2022 at North Highlands, California. Ronald Burch EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS NOTICE INVITING BIDS for 1-15 / FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE II PROJECT NO. PW16-01 FEDERAL PROJECT NO. INFRALUL-5459(031) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, will receive ELECTRONIC BIDS ONLY up to 10:00 A.M., on Thursday, the 6th day of October, 2022. The City of Temecula utilizes PlanetBids as its online bid management provider and location for public bid openings. Bids will be opened and the results of submitted ELECTRONIC bids for the subject project will be immediately available to the public at the stated date and time on the City's PlanetBids portal at: https://pbsystem.planetbids.com/portal/l4837/portal-home Bids must be submitted electronically via the on-line bidding service PlanetBids. To download bid documents and to submit an electronic bid, a bidder must be registered with the City of Temecula as vendor. To register as a vendor, go to the following link, then follow the "Register as a Vendor" link: http://temeculaca.gov/314/Purchasing-Contract-Administration Documents must be uploaded in PDF (Portable Document Format). Hard copies submitted to the City, in lieu of electronic copies uploaded onto the system, will not be accepted as a viable bid. Electronic bids must be received no later than the date and time specified above. It is the bidder's responsibility to ensure that their bid documents are properly uploaded onto the City's online bid management system. Bids that are missing pages, cannot be opened, etc., may be considered unresponsive. It is the bidder's sole responsibility to contact the City's online bid management provider (PlanetBids at 818-992-1771) to resolve any technical issues related to electronic bidding, including, but not limited to, registering as a vendor, updating passwords, updating profiles, uploading/downloading documents, submitting an electronic bid, etc. 2. All of said work is to be performed in accordance with Plans and Specifications entitled I- 15 / FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE 11, PROJECT NO. PW16- 01, FEDERAL PROJECT NO. INFRALUL-5459(031). These documents can be downloaded from PlanetBids. The charge for downloading bid documents is $75.00. 3. The classification of Contractor's license required in the performance of this Contract is a Class A. 4. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor code of the State of California, the City has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general prevailing rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification or type of workman needed to execute the contract from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are available from the California Department of Industrial Relations' Internet web site at: http://www.dir.ca.gov. The Federal wage rates for this project as predetermined by the United States Secretary of Labor are set forth in the book issued for bidding purposes entitled "Plans, Specifications, and Contract Documents," and in copies of this book that may be examined at the offices described above where project plans, special provisions, and proposal forms may be seen. EXHIBIT 2 Dated: October 14, 2022 Declaration of Jerrald Titus, Jr. I, Jerrald Titus, Jr., declare: 1. I am in individual over 18 years of age. I have personal knowledge of the following and if called to testify I could and would competently testify thereto. 2. 1 am employed by Walsh Construction Company 11, LLC ("Walsh") in the capacity of Program Manager and have been employed by Walsh for 20 years. I report to business in the office located at 1260 Corona Pointe Court, Corona, California. Part of my responsibilities in my employment include the management of bidding and bids which Walsh elects to submit for prospective construction projects. As part of my day-to-day responsibilities in my job I supervise other Walsh employees tasked with assisting me in the preparation of our company bids. 3. Walsh determined that it was interested in the advertised project by the City of Temecula known as I — 15 / French Valley Parkway Improvements — Phase II (Project No. PW16-01) (the "Project") which was the subject of an invitation for bids published by the City of Temecula ("City") for bids to be received by 10:00 am on Thursday, October 6, 2022. 4. We obtained the Invitation for bids and all addenda, registered to submit our bid electronically as required, and prepared our bid for submission. 5. On bid day, my staff prepared the Walsh bid under my personal and direct supervision in our office. As the time neared 10:00 am Pacific Standard Time I was personally standing immediately behind Walsh employee, Maria Villegas, who was sitting at her desk and who was the person tasked to submit our bid electronically to the City. 6. In order to ensure that we timely submit our bids for jobs we want to bid, we implement a system that maintains an accurate bid clock that we carefully monitor. On October 6th, this bidding clock was within my view and also I was able to observe in real time the computer screen being used by Ms. Villegas to finalize our bid for submission to the City for the Project. 7. Before the clock turned 10:00 am on October 6, 2022 1 directed Ms. Villegas to submit our bid by hitting `send'. I watched her do so. My direction was intended to submit the bid of Walsh to the City as a general contractor to the City for the Project. 8. Ms. Villegas did hit the `send' button but instead of receiving a confirmation that our bid was received we received banner on the screen indicating an error message that could not be deciphered. When Ms. Villegas pressed the button re -send our bid again, we received a second, banner indicating the bid was closed. 9. 1 found out that the City did not accept Walsh's bid when it published the bid results. 1260 Corona Pointe Ct, Ste 201, Corona, CA 92879 1 CSLB 982816 Phone:951.336.7040 Fax:951.336.7041 www.walshgroup.com An Equal Opportunity Employer 10. When I reviewed the Invitation for Bid I observed that it called for bids to be received `up to 10:00 am'. In my 20 years of experience, bidding to well dozens of owners throughout various states, I have never encountered this issue before and generally understand based on industry experience the words and phrase `up to 10:00 am' to mean up to the designated time (in this case 10:00 am) plus 59 seconds. If the owner elected to stop its receipt of timely bids once the clock turned to 10:00 am and not up to 10:00:59, 1 would expect to see the wording to read `prior to 10:00 am' or `no later than 9:59:59'. Because the invitation for bids did not use the latter phrases I understood, consistent with the convention used by other owners that I have experience with, that bids submitted up to 10:00:59 on this Project would be timely. 11.1 personally believe that the bid of Walsh was timely submitted and the failure of the City to accept our bid was improper. I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 14th day of October, 2022 at Corona, California. Jerrald TAs, Jr. 1260 Corona Pointe Ct, Ste 201, Corona, CA 92879 1 CSLB 982816 Phone:951.336.7040 Fax:951.336.7041 www.walshgroup.com An Equal Opportunity Employer EXHIBIT 3 GENERAL CONTRACTOR SECURITY 3075 Townsgate Rd. Ste 20C LICENSE NO. 116307 A C12 PAVING Westlake Village, CA 91361 FAX:818.362.9300 TEL.818.362.9200 COMPANY, INC. DECLARATION OF JOE FERNDINO I, Joe Ferndino, declare as follows: 1. I am in individual over 18 years of age. I have personal knowledge of the following and if called to testify I could and would competently testify thereto. 2. I am a Vice President at Security Paving Company, Inc. and have held that position for over 20 years. My office is located at 3075 Townsgate Road, Suite 200, Westlake Village, California. Part of my responsibilities in my employment include the management of bidding and bids which the Security Paving elects to submit for prospective construction projects. As part of my day-to- day responsibilities in.my job I supervise other Security Paving employees tasked with assisting me in the preparation of our company bids. 1. Security Paving determined that it was interested in the advertised project by the City'of Temecula known as I — 15 / French Valley Parkway Improvements -=-Phase II {Project No. PW 16-01) t4he "Project") which was the subject of an invitation for bids published by the City of Temecula ("City") for bids, to, be received by 10:00 am on Thursday, October 6, 2022. 4. We 'obtained the Invitation for bids and all addenda, registered to submit our bid electronically as required, and prepared our bid for submission. 5. On bid day, my, staff prepared the Security Paving bid under my personal :and direct supervision in our office. As the time neared 10:00 am I was personally standing immediately behind Kylee D �minguez, who was sitting at her desk and who wasthe person tasked to submit our bid electronically to the City. 6. In order to ensure that we timely submit our bids for jobs we want to bid, we implement a.system that maintains an accurate bid clock that we carefully watch. On -October 6", this bidding clock was within my view and I was able to observe in real time the computer screen being used by Ms. GENERAL CONTRACTOR LICENSE NO. 116307.A C12 FAX: 818.362.9300 SECURI'i1' PAVING COMPANY, INC. Dominguez to finalize our bid for submission to the City for the Project. 3075 Townsgate Rd. Ste 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 TEL. 818.362.9200 7. Just prior to the clock turning 10:00 am on October 6, 2022, I directed Ms. Dominguez to submit our bid by hitting `send', which begins the process to upload our bid documents. I watched her hit the `send' button. My direction was intended to submit the bid of Security Paving to the City as a general contractor to the City for the Project. 8. Instead of receiving a confirmation that our bid was received, we received a message telling us that our bid documents were successfully uploaded but the bid submittal process was closed. At the time we received this message, our bid the clock still read "10:00 am" and had not changed to 10.01 am or any later time. 9. -Almost simultaneously with our receiving the message that the bid submittal process was closed, City staff began publishing the bid results. At that point, it was clear the City did not accept our bid. 10. The Invitation for Bids called for bids to be received `up to 10:00 am'. In my 35 years of experience, bidding to well over a hundred different owners, including many CalTrans projects, I have always understood and learned that the phrases `up to 10:00 am' and `by 10:00 am' mean up to the designated time (in this case 10:00 am) plus 59 seconds. If the owner elected to stop its receipt of timely bids once the clock turned to 10:00 am and not up to 10:00:59, the owner needed to change the wording to read `prior to 10:00 am' or `no later than 9:59:59'. Because the invitation for bids did not use the latter phrases I understood, consistent with the convention used by all other owners that I have experience with, that bids submitted up to 10:00:59 on this Project would be timely. 11. I personally believe that Security Paving's bid was timely submitted and the failure of the City to accept our bid was improper. GENERAL CONTRACTOR LICENSE NO. 116307 A C12 FAX: 818.362.9300 SECURI'rry PAVING coMrAvv, Inc. 3075 Townsgate Rd. Ste 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 TEL. 818.362.9200 I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 14`h day of October, 2022 at Westlake Village, California. By`-�L v �✓ Jo rndino, Vice President S curity Paving Company, Inc. EXHIBIT 4 f# LexisNexis User Name: Jeffrey Baird Date and Time: Thursday, October 13, 2022 10:44:00 AM PDT Job Number: 181614138 Document (1) 1. SOLPAC, INC. v. CITY OF FRESNO, 2003 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 614 Client/Matter: 0999.001 Search Terms: SOLPAC, INC. v. CITY OF FRESNO, 2003 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 614 Search Type: Natural Language Narrowed by: Content Type Narrowed by Cases Court: State Courts > California LexisNexis] About LexisNexis I Privacy Policy I Terms & Conditions I Copyright © 2022 LexisNexis Jeffrey Baird 1D Warning As of: October 13, 2022 5:44 PM Z SOLPAC, INC. v. CITY OF FRESNO Court of Appeal of California, Fifth Appellate District January 17, 2003, Filed F038079 Reporter 2003 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 614 *; 2003 WL 139564 SOLPAC, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF FRESNO et al., Defendant and Respondent, MAULDIN- DORFMEIER CONSTRUCTION, INC., Real Party in Interest and Respondents. Notice: [*1] NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 977(a), PROHIBITS COURTS AND PARTIES FROM CITING OR RELYING ON OPINIONS NOT CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION OR ORDERED PUBLISHED, EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED BY RULE 977(B). THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION OR ORDERED PUBLISHED FOR PURPOSES OF RULE 977. Prior History: APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Donald S., Black, Judge. Super. Ct. No. 652953-1. Disposition: Reversed, with directions. Core Terms bid, Purchasing, time stamp, opened, bidder, clock, stamp, documenting, trial court, competitive bidding, cause of action, damages, courts, lowest, notice, extraordinary writ, city charter, advertisement, words, question of law, specified time, time of filing, matter of law, first cause, recommendation, provisions, Municipal, inviting, mandamus, sentence Counsel: Marks & Golia, Davide Golia, Theodore S. Drcar and Jeffrey B. Baird for Plaintiff and Appellant. Livingston & Mattesich and Steven G. Churchwell for Defendant and Respondent. Lang, Richert & Patch, Val W. Saldana and Matthew W. Quall for Real Party in Interest. Judges: Dibiaso, J. WE CONCUR: Ardaiz, P.J., Levy, J. Opinion by: Dibiaso Opinion Appellant Solpac, Inc., doing business as Soltek Pacific (Solpac) appeals from the denial of its petition for a writ of mandate. Solpac sought an order from the trial court directing the City of Fresno (City) to invalidate City's contract with real party in interest Mauldin-Dorfineier Construction, Inc. (MDC) for the construction of the Fresno Yosemite International Airport [*2] Terminal/Concourse Expansion and to award the contract to Solpac. We will reverse, with directions. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY In December 1999, City published a "Notice Inviting Bids" (NIB) for the construction of the Fresno Yosemite International Airport Terminal/Concourse Expansion. According to the NIB, the official deadline for the tender of bids was "no later than 3:00 p.m. on February [29], 2000, at which time the bids [would] be publicly opened and recorded." 1 [*3] (Emphasis added.) In addition, the "Instructions to Bidders" which accompanied the NIB stated that "Bids received after the appointed hour will not be accepted. 2 The time stamp in the Purchasing Division will be the official clock for documenting the time of filing." (Emphasis added.) The clock in the City's Purchasing Division (Purchasing Division) had a time stamp device, but it recorded only the passage of minutes and lacked any mechanism for recording the passage of seconds. The original date for submission of bids was February 3, 2000, but subsequently was extended to February 29, 2000. 2 As used in this opinion, "NIB" includes the "Instructions to Bidders." Jeffrey Baird 2003 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 614, *3 Page 2 of 9 According to the "time stamp in the Purchasing Division," Solpac's bid was received at "3:00 p.m." When all the accepted bids were opened, Solpac's was found to be the lowest, at $ 26,570,000. MDC's was the next lowest, at $ 26,689,000. On April 6, 2000, the City's Purchasing Division declared that Solpac was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder and thus recommended that the City award the contract to Solpac. On April 13, 2000, under City Resolution 98-59, MDC protested the Purchasing Division's recommendation and asserted that Solpac's bid had been late. A retired superior court judge was selected to conduct an evidentiary hearing and make a recommendation to the City. As a part of the hearing process, the city attorney, on behalf of City, filed a brief with the retired judge, in which the city attorney took the position that Solpac's bid was timely according to the "time stamped through the official clock located in the Purchasing Division." On May 11, 2000, the retired judge found in part that Solpac's [*4] bid was "timely filed and thus responsive as documented by the file stamp" and recommended that City "accept the recommendation of staff that the bid of [Solpac] was responsive." On May 23, 2000, the City Council unanimously decided that Solpac's bid was late and directed that the contract be awarded to MDC. Solpac's second amended complaint was filed on September 14, 2000. The first cause of action was a petition for a writ of mandate commanding City to revoke the contract award to MDC and to award the contract to Solpac, and the second cause of action was an alternative claim for damages. The trial court denied Solpac's first cause of action for extraordinary writ relief and stayed its second cause of action for damages. DISCUSSION City and MDC assert that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear Solpac's appeal. According to respondents, the trial court's order was not an appealable judgment because it resolved only the first cause of action for mandamus of Solpac's complaint and did not resolve the still pending second cause of action for damages. (Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 743, 872 P.2d 143 [an appeal cannot [*5] be taken from a judgment that fails to completely dispose of all causes of action pending between the parties].) We have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. The trial court's decision on Solpac's application for a writ of mandate resolved the decisive question -- did City's rejection of Solpac's bid violate City's competitive bidding laws -- at issue under both the first and second counts of Solpac's complaint. 3 Although the trial court stayed further proceedings on the second cause of action, as a practical matter, and as a matter of law, the trial court's decision that Solpac's bid was untimely necessarily also decided that Solpac was not entitled to any damages. In such a situation, because the trial court inadvertently failed to formally dismiss the effectively resolved cause of action for damages, we may enter an amended judgment nunc pro tunc to reflect the legal resolution of the damages claim consistent with the trial court's ruling on the critical issue under the first cause of action. (Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com'n (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 700 (Griset); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2(d)(2).) Specifically, the Court in Griset said: [*6] "When, as here, a trial court's order from which an appeal has been taken disposes of the entire action, the order 'may be amended so as to convert it into a judgment encompassing actual determinations of all remaining issues by the trial court or, if determinable as a matter of law, by the appellate court, and the notice of appeal may then be treated as a premature but valid appeal from the judgment."' (Griset, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 700; see also Sullivan v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 288, 308, 935 P.2d 781.) Our disposition will enter such an amended judgment. Neither City nor MDC will suffer any prejudice by our application [*7] of the Griset rule. Were we to dismiss this appeal, the parties would be required to return to the trial court for the sole purpose of securing a judgment which formally incorporated the necessary disposition of Solpac's second cause of action for damages in favor of City. Solpac would then be in position to file a timely notice of appeal from that judgment and the matter would return to this court for resolution. We see no good reason to compel such a waste of time and resources. 3 MDC's reliance on Bishop Creek Lodge v. Scira (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 631, 634 is unavailing because that case dealt with an entirely different situation -- the dismissal of an appeal from an order denying a permanent injunction -- and held that such an order was not sufficiently definitive to qualify as a final judgment. Jeffrey Baird Page 3 of 9 2003 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 614, *7 The correct standard of review is the substantial evidence test. (Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. San Francisco Airports Com. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 352, 361, 981 P.2d 499.) Under this principle, we must determine whether City's action was "arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary support, or procedurally unfair." (Ibid.) In applying this test, however, we will independently assess pure questions of law, such as issues of statutory and contract construction where there is no relevant factual dispute. (Ibid. [courts will exercise independent judgment in determining whether an instrument is consistent with applicable law, such as the competitive [*8] bidding statutes]; Valley Crest Landscape, Inc. v. City Council (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1432, 1437; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 317, p. 355; see also Pacific Legal Foundation v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 101, 111, 172 Cal. Rptr. 194, 624 P.2d 244 [courts will reject administrative interpretations of governing law where such interpretations are contrary to the statutory intent].) The same is true with respect to written instruments such as the NIB. (CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 892, 906 [interpretation of a written instrument is a question of law subject to de novo appellate review when there is no relevant extrinsic evidence]; Harustak v. Wilkins (2000) 84 Ca1.App.4th 208, 214-215 [same].) And, within the applicable standard of review, our evaluation must be rigorous. (Ghilotti Construction Co. v. City of Richmond (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 897, 907 ["Because of the potential for abuse arising from deviations from strict adherence to standards which promote these public benefits, the letting of public contracts universally [*9] receives close judicial scrutiny and contracts awarded without strict compliance with bidding requirements will be set aside. This preventative approach is applied even where it is certain there was in fact no corruption or adverse effect upon the bidding process, and the deviations would save the entity money"].) 4 4 We would come to the same result on this appeal if we accepted MDC's assertion that the proper test is the most deferential "abuse of discretion" standard. (See Bright Development v. City of Tracy (1993) 20 Ca1.App.4th 783, 795 [mandamus lies to control abuse of discretion by a local agency; discretion is abused when the agency "acts without power or refuses to obey the plain mandate of the law"].) A. Solpac contends the award of the contract to MDC was erroneous because it violated California's competitive bidding laws, City's bidding ordinances, and the terms of the NIB. According to Solpac, its bid was timely, responsible and responsive, [*10] and, thus, because its bid was also the lowest, the City had no discretion to award the contract to MDC. On the other hand, City and MDC contend the evidence presented to City demonstrated that Solpac's bid was tendered after the time specified in the NIB and therefore City acted lawfully in awarding the contract to MDC. According to City and MDC, the evidence demonstrated that the "time stamp" on Solpac's bid was "affixed after 3:00 p.m." but before 3:01 p.m."' Among the evidence relied upon by City and MDC is testimony that, sometime before Solpac submitted its bid, the face of the Purchasing Division clock read 3:00 p.m. and the mechanism was heard to "click" or "clunk" the turn of the hour of 3:00 p.m. A public contract subject to competitive bidding must be awarded to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. (See Kaiima/Ray Wilson v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transa Authority (2000) 23 Cal.4th 305, 313 (Kajima); Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. San Francisco Airports Com., supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 365-366.) The purpose of requiring governmental entities to open the contracts process to public bidding is to eliminate [*11] favoritism, fraud and corruption; avoid misuse of public funds; and stimulate advantageous market place competition." (Ghilotti Construction Co. v. City of Richmond, supra, 45 Cal.Ap,o.4th at p. 907.) The competitive bidding law for Fresno, a home rule city (Cal. Const., art. XI, $ 5) is found in the Fresno City Charter. (See Domar Electric, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1994) 9 Cal.4th 161, 170- 171, 885 P.2d 934 [a charter operates as an "instrument of limitation and restriction on the exercise of power over all municipal affairs which the city is assumed to possess ...."].) The relevant provisions are Fresno City Charter sections 1208 (a) and 1208 (d). Section 1208 (a) states in relevant part: "Every contract involving an expenditure of city moneys of more than twenty-seven thousand dollars ($ 27,000) for ... public works construction, shall be let to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder ...." Section 1208 (d) states: "All bids shall be submitted in a sealed envelope and shall be filed with the officer in charge of the purchasing function no later than the opening time specified in the notice Jeffrey Baird 2003 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 614, *11 Page 4 of 9 inviting bids, who shall receive and be custodian [*12] of such bids and keep the same confidential until they are opened and declared." (Emphasis added.) B. The only substantive question raised on this appeal is whether Solpac's bid was responsive -- that is, was it timely under the language of the charter and the NIB? 5 If the answer is yes, Solpac was a responsive bidder and the failure to award it the contract was inconsistent with the competitive bidding laws applicable to City. (Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. San Francisco Airports Com., supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 361 [question whether competitive bidding laws have been violated presents pure question of law where the evidentiary facts are undisputed]; Ghilotti Construction Co. v. City of Richmond, supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 907 [contracts awarded without strict compliance with competitive bidding requirements are improper]; see also Bright Development v. City of Tracy, supra, 20 Ca1.App.4th at P. 795 [public agency's discretion is abused when the agency acts inconsistent with the law].) [*13] We agree with Solpac that the award of the contract to MDC was improper because Solpac's bid, as a matter of law, was timely. The issue is not even close to being close, and turns on the "time stamp" provision in the NIB, read in conjunction with the "time" provision. 6 The language and import of these two sentences could not have been clearer -- bids were required to be filed "no later than" 3:00 p.m., and the official means of documenting the "time" when a bid was filed was the "time stamp" in the Purchasing Division. (National City Police Officers' Assn. v. City of National City (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1274, 1279 [the express language of an instrument must be given effect if it is clear and explicit]; see also People v. Superior Court (Gary) (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 207, 213 [a court must give statutory 6 The issue was framed by the City Attorney at the hearing before the City Council on MDC's bid protest; the City Attorney advised the Council that "Under the charter, the Council can award only to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder.... There was an appeal filed [by MDC] as to the issue of responsiveness only." 6 Virtually no consideration was given to the "time stamp" provision during the hearing before the City Council. language its usual, ordinary meaning; if there is no ambiguity in the language the court will presume the Legislature meant what it said and the plain meaning of the statute governs].) The evidence is uncontested that Solpac's bid was stamped by the "time stamp" in the Purchasing Division with the "time" of "3:00 p.m." [*14] Therefore, Solpac's bid was officially submitted "no later than 3:00 p.m." according to the "time stamp" in the Purchasing Division. 7 (See Hansen v. Bacher (1927) 299 S. W. 225, 227 ["'not later than" ... means 'within' or 'not beyond' and is the equivalent of 'on or before"']; Webster's Third New Internat. Dict. (1986) p. 307 ["not later than" is synonymous with "by" and "at or before"].) The time provisions of the NIB were perfectly consistent with City laws governing bidding. Both Fresno City Charter section 1208, subdivision (d) and Fresno Municipal Code section 3-105, subdivision (d), 8 require that bids be submitted [*15] "no later than" -- that is, "on or before" -- the opening time specified in the notice inviting bids. Obviously, the NIB used the phrase "no later than" in order to comply with the demands of the charter and the ordinance. 9 [*16] According to MDC's supplemental brief, the words "time stamp" in the NIB are "reasonably and practically interpreted as merely describing the actual clock [in the Purchasing Division] than ... to be read and used to identify 3:00 p.m.," and that making the "stamp conclusive proof of timeliness" would be to "significantly rewrite the NIB." In MDC's view, the words "time stamp" served merely to identify the relevant "clock" to be used The opening briefs filed by City and MDC on this appeal fail to acknowledge the provision of the NIB designating the "time stamp" in the Purchasing Division as the official means of documenting the time of filing of bids. 8 Fresno Municipal Code section 3-105 (d) and (e) state, "all bids shall be submitted in a sealed envelope and shall be filed with the purchasing agent no later than the opening time specified in the notice inviting bids, who shall receive and be custodian of such bids and keep the same confidential until they are opened and declared. [P] ... All bids received shall be publicly opened and declared at the time and at the place fixed in the notice inviting bids." (Emphasis added.) 9 Government Code section 53068, also applicable to charter cities, states: "Any local agency [including a charter city] which seeks to enter a contract that requires the letting of bids, shall specify in the public notice the place such bids are to be received and the time by which they shall be received. Any bids received by such local agency after the time specified in the notice shall be returned unopened." Jeffrey Baird 2003 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 614, *16 Page 5 of 9 to time the submission of bids and thus that the provision should be construed as if the NIB had used, for example, the words the gray clock' in the Purchasing Division" instead of the words "the time stamp in the Purchasing Division." This is lawyer legerdemain. The language of the clause, taken in its entirety, simply does not support MDC's proposed construction. If "time stamp" did not have any meaning independent of "clock," "time stamp" would not have been so carefully and specifically inserted into the sentence which dealt with the official "documentation" of the "time" of a bid submission. MDC's position is also unsupported as a matter of pure grammar. The subject of the sentence is not the "clock." The subject of the sentence is the "time [*17] stamp in the Purchasing Division." The "clock," its adjective "official," and the subsequent verb phrase "for documenting the time of filing" together constitute a predicate nominative which follows the linking verb "will be" and more particularly describes the subject of the verb; i.e., the "time stamp in the Purchasing Division." (Webster's Third New Internat. Dict., supra, p. 1786; Van Winkle, Elements of English Grammar (1990) § 3.2, pp. 158-160. ) MDC's bottom line is that "to grant the time stamp on a bid package precedence over the other measurements of time on the official clock (i.e., the movement of the minute hand or the audible click) would require the rewriting of the [NIB] to state, for example, [that] 'the time stamped by the official clock shall document the time of filing [of bids],"' but this "or similar language was not used [in the NIB] here." (Emphasis added.) To this assertion we need only repeat the exact terms of the NIB sentence in issue, which stated: "The time stamp in the Purchasing Division will be the official clock for documenting the time of filing" of bids. The only material divergences we perceive between the NIB provision and MDC's [*18] suggestion is a somewhat different positioning of a few of the same words and the addition in MDC's version of an "ed" to the NIB's "stamp." We have considerable difficulty perceiving, and MDC does not really explain, why the two linguistically comparable formulations are not the least, and at least, similar. C. Because the uncontested evidence established, as a matter of law, that Solpac's bid was timely under the unequivocal provisions of the NIB, we have no reason to consider the other evidence relied upon by City or MDC or the parties' conflicting arguments about asserted past Purchasing Division practices or the doctrine of estoppel. (See Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.4th 1, 7-8, 960 P.2d 1031.) It is immaterial that certain witnesses may have testified Solpac's bid was actually stamped "3:00 p.m." sometime after the face of the clock in the purchasing office registered "3:00 p.m.," or that the mechanism of the clock "clinked" or "clunked" the turn of the precise hour of "3:00 p.m." some moments before Solpac's bid was stamped "3:00 p.m." The NIB did not state that bids must be submitted "no later than" the [*19] moment when, according to whoever may have witnessed the event, the face of the clock in the Purchasing Division registered the hour of "3:00 p.m." or was heard to "clink" or "clunk" the turn of the hour of "3:00 p.m." 10 The NIB instead said that bids must be received "no later than" "3:00 p.m.," and the "time" of receipt would be "documented" by the "time stamp" in the Purchasing Division. To "document" means to use an official paper to evidence or prove something. (Webster's Third New Internat. Dict., supra, p. 1786.) Neither the face of the clock in the Purchasing Division nor the "click" or "clunk" of the clock mechanism is a "paper," but Solpac's written bid with the "time" stamped on it by the "time stamp" in the Purchasing Division surely is. The obvious purpose of the designation of the "time stamp" as the official recorder of the "time" of a bid filing was to insure the fair and uniform application of the bidding laws by avoiding precisely what happened here -- a costly, postbid, testimony -laden, dispute with an extended evidentiary hearing at which a parade of competing witnesses related what they recalled having seen or heard at or around 3:00 p.m. on bid [*20] day. We do not agree with the proposition that, to be timely, bids were required to be submitted at the latest during the nanosecond interval between 2:59.59 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. The NIB did not say that bids must be received "before 3:00 p.m." The NIB said explicitly that bids must be received "no later than 3:00 p.m." -- that is, "on or before" 3:00 p.m. To adopt the proposition advanced by City and MDC would require us to do violence to plain 10 In effect, City and MDC posit a conflict between the two portions of the relevant NIB statement, which peg both the time for the submission of bids and the time for the opening of bids as "3:00 p.m." Based upon this purported conflict, City and MDC assert that the problem must be resolved by construing the NIB as establishing the precise moment the clock moved from 2:59:59 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. as the deadline for bid submission, so that the bids could be opened at exactly 3:00:00 p.m. Jeffrey Baird 2003 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 614, *20 Page 6 of 9 English and nonsensically read the phrase "no later than" to mean "before, [*21] " to invalidate the NIB provision denoting the "time stamp" in the Purchasing Division as the "official" means of "documenting" the "time" of the filing of bids, and to give effect only to that part of the NIB which set the time when bids would be opened. (National City Police Officers' Assn. v. City of National City, supra, 87 Cal.A,np.4th at p. 1279 [if possible, courts must give effect to every provision of an instrument and avoid constructions which nullify a portion of the instrument].) Given the characteristics of the "time stamp" in the Purchasing Division, under the rationale proffered by City and MDC the last timely stamp for the receipt of bids would have been "2:59 p.m.," despite the fact that the NIB unambiguously stated that the last timely stamp for the receipt of bids was "3:00 p.m.," not "2:59 p.m." (Ibid. [if possible, courts must avoid constructions which result in an absurdity].) Even if the "time stamp" provision had not existed, a bid filed precisely on the moment when the clock "clicked" or "clunked" the hour of 3:00 p.m. would not have been late, because it would have been filed "at" 3:00 p.m., as authorized by the "time" provision [*22] of the NIB. (See Hansen v. Bacher, supra, 299 S. W. at P. 227 ["'not later than" ... is the equivalent of 'on or before"' (emphasis added)].) In fact, the two portions of the NIB are not in actual conflict. (See Southern Pacific Land Co. v. Westlake Farms, Inc. (1987) 188 Cal. App. 3d 807, 822, 233 Cal. Rptr. 794 [even when different parts of an instrument appear to be contradictory and inconsistent with each other, the court will, if possible, harmonize the parts and construe the instrument in such a way that all parts may stand and will not strike down any portion unless there is an irreconcilable conflict wherein one part of the instrument destroys in effect another part].) The NIB set a specific hour on or before which bids could be filed, with a specific means of establishing the "time" when each bid was filed -- the "time stamp" in the Purchasing Division. By also referring to the last time when bids could be submitted, the NIB set a time before which bids could not be opened. Thus, these provisions of the NIB can rationally be read together as requiring that all bids which bore a stamp later than "3:00 p.m." be returned unopened [*23] and all bids which bore a stamp of "3:00 p.m." or earlier be opened after the "time stamp" in the Purchasing Division would no longer stamp the time of "3:00 p.m." on a bid; that is, when the "time stamp" could only stamp "3:01 p.m." or later. Moreover, even if there were a conflict between the bid submission time and the bid opening time, we would be compelled to give precedence to the bid submission time. (See Southern Pacific Land Co. v. Westlake Farms, Inc., supra, 188 Cal. App. 3d at P. 822.) As between the time when bids were to be opened and the time when bids were to be submitted, the latter is the critical event for purposes of the competitive bidding laws because the timely submission of bids directly involves the rights of those whose vigorous competition on a level field ensures fairness among bidders and the wise expenditure of public funds. (See Domar Electric, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 9 Cal.4th at o. 173; Holly's Inc. v. County of Greensville (VA 1995) 250 Va. 12, 458 S.E. 2d 4547 457 ["[A] requirement in an invitation to bid that fixes the time within which bids must be received is not a minor defect [*24] or an informality that may be waived but, rather, a material and formal requirement that ... must be fulfilled to the letter of the law"]; 10 McQuillan, Municipal Corporations (3d ed. 1999) § 29.65 [all the terms and conditions of the advertisement become a part of a bid so that competition among bidders may be equal and fair].) It is certainly conceivable that unanticipated events may delay the opening of bids on a particular project, and we find nothing in the law or in the NIB which required City to reject any or all bids not opened precisely at the time specified, at least so long as any delay was not so substantial as to tangibly impact competition among bidders or subvert the purposes of the competitive bidding process. (See 10 McQuillan, Municipal Corporations, supra, § 29.70, p. 476; McCord v. Lauterbach (1904) 91 A.D. 315, 86 N.Y. S. 503, 506- 507 [bid opening time stated in advertisement was directory; no prejudice to any bidder by deferring the opening a short while]; Konica Business Machines U.S.A., Inc. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 449, 454, 253 Cal. Rptr. 591 [if a variance from strict bid [*25] requirements could not have affected the amount of the bid or given a bidder an advantage or benefit not allowed other bidders, the variance is immaterial and may be waived].) 11 We find some further support for our conclusion in City Charter section 1208 (d), which expressly requires that bids be submitted "no later than" the bid opening time specified in a notice inviting bids but does not expressly require that timely bids be opened at such time. To the contrary, the section implicitly contemplates that bids 11 Some evidence was presented at the hearing before the retired judge about the effect on competition when an untimely bid is accepted. However, the subject has not been raised for any purpose by any party on this appeal, and, in any event, we have found Solpac's bid was timely. Jeffrey Baird 2003 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 614, *25 Page 7 of 9 might not be opened at the specified bid opening time, for it states that the City officer in charge of bids "shall receive and be custodian of such bids and keep the same confidential until they are opened [*26] and declared." 12 (Emphasis added.) The case cited by MDC to support its position that timely bids were required to be submitted before "3:00 p.m." is not on point. In Holly's Inc. v. County of Greensville, supra, 458 S.E. 2d 454, the bid notice stated that "On Thursday, March 17, 1994 at 2:00 p.m. all bids received ... will be opened" (id. at p. 455), but the bidder's bid was not received until 2:02 p.m. or 2:03 p.m. (Id. at p. 456.) The Virginia Supreme Court rejected the bidder's argument that its bid was timely and concluded in part that the bid documents required bids to be submitted before 2:00 p.m. because "a bid could not be opened at [*27] 2:00 p.m. unless it was received before 2:00 p.m." (Id. at p. 457.) The situation in Holly is not the situation here because, unlike here, the bid documents involved in Holly contained no express direction concerning the last time when bids were to be submitted; it stated only that bids would be opened at 2:00 p.m. Given the content of the Holly bid documents, the Virginia Supreme Court's decision makes sense, but it has nothing to say about this case, where the NIB expressly permitted bids to be submitted "no later than 3:00 p.m." City's determination that Solpac's bid was not responsive because it was not timely was based upon City's construction of Fresno City Charter section 1208 (d) to mean that all bids must have been submitted before the bid opening time so that the bids could be opened precisely at 3:00 p.m. However, we have found this interpretation to be inconsistent with the plain meaning of the words "no later than" in the charter section and in the NIB. (Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. San Francisco Airports Com., supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 361 [statutory interpretation is a pure question of law]; Domar Electric, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 9 Cal.4th at P. 171 [*28] [home rule city charter provisions interpreted under same principles that 12 We recognize that City Municipal Code section 3-105 (d) and (e) is more specific, but, to the extent the code section conflicts with the charter, the latter prevails. (Domar Electric, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 171 [a charter city cannot act in conflict with its charter].) govern interpretation of statutes]; Kreeft v. City of Oakland (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 46, 53 [appellate court exercises independent judgment with respect to interpretation of statute]; CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 906 [interpretation of a written instrument is a question of law subject to de novo appellate review when there is no relevant or disputed extrinsic evidence]; Burden v. Snowden, supra, 2 CalAth at p. 562 ["plain meaning" of statute must be given effect]; Pacific Legal Foundation v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 111 [courts must reject administrative interpretations of governing law if such interpretations are legally wrong].) In addition, we have concluded that the City's decision failed to give effect to the plain meaning of the provision in the NIB, which was presented to bidders and on which bidders were entitled to rely, that made the "time stamp" in the Purchasing Division the "official clock for documenting the time of filing" of bids. Consequently, [*29] City's decision that Solpac's bid was not timely was erroneous as a matter of law and made the award of the contract to MDC improper under the relevant principles and laws of competitive bidding. (City of Inglewood-L.A. County Civic Center Auth. v. Superior Court (1972) 7 Cal.3d 861, 870, 103 Cal. Rptr. 689, 500 P.2d 601 [a contract awarded against dictates of competitive bidding laws is improper]; 10 McQuillan, Municipal Corporations, supra, § 29.73, p. 490 [contract should be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder who complies with the terms of the advertisement].) IV. Determining the appropriate remedy is considerably more difficult than determining whether Solpac's bid was timely. 13 The parties stipulated at oral argument that the work 13 We asked for and received supplemental briefing on the subject from the parties. Normally, we would have stricken part "A" of MDC's supplemental brief. This part addressed the substantive issues involving the validity of City's award to MDC raised in the parties' initial briefs and argued before the court and therefore exceeded the scope of this court's order for additional briefing. However, because the unauthorized argument for the first time clearly explained MDC's legal position with respect to the "time stamp" provision, we will let it stand. In addition, Solpac did not as a protective measure respond to MDC's improper supplemental argument and has not asked for monetary sanctions against MDC for its Jeffrey Baird 2003 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 614, *29 Page 8 of 9 required of MDC under the contract was more than 90 percent completed. Nevertheless, Solpac contends that its "only adequate remedy" is a reversal of the judgment and an order by this court directing the trial court to issue a writ of mandate compelling City to "set aside its award to [MDC] and to award the contract instead to" Solpac, because this court "may not weigh concerns of disruption [*30] to the project or balance the harm among the parties." City and MDC contend we have authority to deny Solpac the writ relief it seeks and to instead permit it to recover damages from City, measured by Solpac's bid preparation costs (see Kaiima, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 308) under the second cause of action of Solpac's complaint. [*31] First, we have no power to order the trial court to order City to award the contract to Solpac; at the most, all we could do is order the trial court to order City to revoke the award to MDC. (Baldwin -Lima -Hamilton Corp. v. Superior Court (1962) 208 Cal. App. 2d 803, 817, 25 Cal. Rptr. 798 [where public agency has reserved, in its advertisement for bids, the right to reject all bids, the courts have no power to order the agency to award the contract to a particular bidder even though the agency may have improperly awarded the contract to one of the bidders; the courts are limited to directing the public agency to refrain from awarding the contract found to have been let in violation of the competitive bidding laws]; see also Monterey Mechanical Co. v. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation Dist. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1391, 1414; Swinerton & Walberg Co. v. City of Inglewood-L.A. CountV Civic Center Authority (1974) 40 Cal. App. 3d 98, 104, 114 Cal. Rptr. 834; Universal By -Products, Inc. v. City of Modesto (1974) 43 Cal. App. 3d 145, 152, 117 Cal. Rptr. 525.) 14 The reason is the fundamental constitutional concept [*32] of the separation of powers among the three branches of government. (See 8 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Extraordinary Writs, § 92, pp. 880-881 [the courts have jurisdiction to reverse abuses of discretionary power by a legislative agency but the courts have no jurisdiction to direct the manner of exercise of discretionary power by a legislative agency].) Second, the result of a judgment requiring no more than the revocation of the award to MDC would be a pointless farce, subsidized -- as all pointless governmental farces usually are -- by the taxpayers. City would be without a contractor for a project almost deviation from this court's instructions. 14 Under both the City Charter and the NIB, City retained the discretion to reject all bids. complete or perhaps fully complete by the date of this opinion. Under Solpac's rationale, City would be required to re -advertise for the entire project and not just for the small portion of any unperformed work; that is, City would be required to solicit bids for work that City no longer needed [*33] to have done. We suspect even Solpac would agree that City would not be required to first advertise for bids to demolish what has been built so as to be in a position to later re -bid for its reconstruction in order to give Solpac an opportunity to attempt to get what it lost by City's inappropriate award to MDC. And, even if the entire project were rebid, with or without demolition of the existing work, Solpac would not be assured of being the lowest responsible bidder for the project, whatever it was advertised to be, or of making a profit on the work. (See Kaiima, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 316 [whether the lowest bidder would have actually made a profit on the lost contract is speculation].) We need not expend any more time playing this fantasia on the theme by Solpac. Because City would be entitled to reject all the bids for the project, including Solpac's, City would not be required to readvertise for the entire project and could simply let a contract for the work undone as of the time it revoked MDC's contract. How this would make Solpac whole, as Solpac desires to be made, is beyond us. Therefore, the rational solution is to refuse to give Solpac extraordinary [*34] writ relief and instead give it the opportunity to recover its bid preparation costs as damages. (Kaiima, supra, 23 Cal.4th at pp. 315-316.) Happily, this disposition is legally sound. Mandate, though ordinarily classed as a legal remedy, is largely controlled by equitable principles (8 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Extraordinary Writs, § 6, p. 787-788), and the court to which application for mandamus is made is vested with the discretion to determine whether it should be issued. (Irvine v. Gibson (1941) 19 Cal.2d 14, 15, 118 P.2d 812.) A court therefore may refuse mandamus when it is "useless, unenforceable, ... unavailing" or moot. (Roscoe v. Goodale (1951) 105 Cal. App. 2d 271, 273, 232 P.2d 879; Coyne v. Superior Court (1947) 80 Cal. App. 2d 898, 901, 183 P.2d 36; see also Environmental Protection Information Center, Inc. v. State Bd. of ForestrV (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 27, 31-32; Crangle v. City Council of Crescent City (1933) 219 Cal. 239, 242, 26 P.2d 24; see generally 8 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Extraordinary Writs, § 145, p. 939.) In addition, in Kaiima, supra, 23 Cal.4th at a 315, [*35] Jeffrey Baird 2003 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 614, *35 Page 9 of 9 the Supreme Court pointed out that, by the time a bid dispute is finally resolved in the courts, "as a practical matter" setting aside an improper contract award is not an effective remedy because "the underlying contract may already have been substantially or fully performed." (Id. at P. 313, M. 1; see also Swinerton & Walberg Co. v. City of Inglewood-L.A. County Civic Center Authority, supra, 40 Cal. App. 3d at p. 103.) Although both Kajima and Swinerton & Walberg involved injunctive relief rather than writ relief, both forms of relief invoke notions of equity, and therefore the practical considerations addressed in the two cases apply here with equal force. (8 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Extraordinary Writs, § 6, p. 787 [mandate]; 6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Provisional Remedies, § 276, pp. 219-220 [injunction].) We recognize that the court in Monterrey Mechanical Co. v. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation Dist., supra, 44 Cal.App.4th 1391, 1413-1414, distinguished between mandamus relief and injunctive relief, and held that, because there was "no authority for the proposition that denial of a [*36] writ of mandate may be based upon the balance of hardships," a ground upon which denial of an injunction may be based, the only applicable remedy in the mandate action was an order to the trial court "compelling the [public agency] to set aside its award of the contract ...." However, Monterrey Mechanical was decided by the Court of Appeal before the Supreme Court's opinion in Kajima. In addition, we are not entirely persuaded by the limited analysis of the issue reflected in Monterrey Mechanical, given that the competitive bidding statutes protect the public, not the bidders (Universal By -Products, Inc. v. City of Modesto, supra, 43 Cal. App. 3d at p. 152), and given the equitable overtones of mandate. If Monterrey Mechanical has any precedential application here, we decline to follow it. DISPOSITION The trial court's order from which this appeal was taken is amended nunc pro tunc to include a decision adverse to Solpac on its second cause of action for damages, and to state that Solpac's action is dismissed in its entirety. Solpac's notice of appeal is deemed to be a premature but valid notice of appeal from this amended nunc pro tunc [*37] judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2 (d)(2).) The amended nunc pro tunc judgment is reversed. On remand, the trial court is directed to (1) enter a new order dismissing Solpac's first cause of action for mandamus and (2) conduct such further proceedings on Solpac's second cause of action for damages as may be appropriate and not inconsistent with this opinion. Solpac is awarded its appellate costs against both City (Code Civ. Proc., § 1029) and IVIDC, jointly and severally. Dibiaso, J. WE CONCUR: Ardaiz, P.J. Levy, J. End of Document Jeffrey Baird EXHIBIT 5 CITY OF TEMECULA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS NOTICE INVITING BIDS for 1-15 / FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE II PROJECT NO. PW16-01 FEDERAL PROJECT NO. INFRALUL-5459(031) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, will receive ELECTRONIC BIDS ONLY up to 10:00 A.M., on Thursday, the 6th day of October, 2022. The City of Temecula utilizes PlanetBids as its online bid management provider and location for public bid openings. Bids will be opened and the results of submitted ELECTRONIC bids for the subject project will be immediately available to the public at the stated date and time on the City's PlanetBids portal at: https://pbsystem.planetbids.com/portal/l4837/portal-home Bids must be submitted electronically via the on-line bidding service PlanetBids. To download bid documents and to submit an electronic bid, a bidder must be registered with the City of Temecula as vendor. To register as a vendor, go to the following link, then follow the "Register as a Vendor" link: http://temeculaca.gov/314/Purchasing-Contract-Administration Documents must be uploaded in PDF (Portable Document Format). Hard copies submitted to the City, in lieu of electronic copies uploaded onto the system, will not be accepted as a viable bid. Electronic bids must be received no later than the date and time specified above. It is the bidder's responsibility to ensure that their bid documents are properly uploaded onto the City's online bid management system. Bids that are missing pages, cannot be opened, etc., may be considered unresponsive. It is the bidder's sole responsibility to contact the City's online bid management provider (PlanetBids at 818-992-1771) to resolve any technical issues related to electronic bidding, including, but not limited to, registering as a vendor, updating passwords, updating profiles, uploading/downloading documents, submitting an electronic bid, etc. 2. All of said work is to be performed in accordance with Plans and Specifications entitled I- 15 / FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE 11, PROJECT NO. PW16- 01, FEDERAL PROJECT NO. INFRALUL-5459(031). These documents can be downloaded from PlanetBids. The charge for downloading bid documents is $75.00. 3. The classification of Contractor's license required in the performance of this Contract is a Class A. 4. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor code of the State of California, the City has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general prevailing rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification or type of workman needed to execute the contract from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are available from the California Department of Industrial Relations' Internet web site at: http://www.dir.ca.gov. The Federal wage rates for this project as predetermined by the United States Secretary of Labor are set forth in the book issued for bidding purposes entitled "Plans, Specifications, and Contract Documents," and in copies of this book that may be examined at the offices described above where project plans, special provisions, and proposal forms may be seen. EXHIBIT 6 From: Avlin Odviar <Avll n.OdviarAtemeculaca.2ov> Date: October 12, 2022 at 6:05:32 PM PDT To: Harry McGovern <hmcovern(a mcmconstruction.com> Cc: Peter Thorson <pthorson n rwglaw.com>, "Tilden Kim (tkimkrwglaw.com)" <tkim rwglaw.com>, Patrick Thomas <Patrick. Thomasnu,temeculaca.gov>, Amer Attar <amer.attar(?temeculaca.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [EXTERNAL] I-15 French Valley Parkway Improvements - Construction Bid Harry, Thank you for the clarification and additional information. It is peculiar that two of the larger bidding sites (Caltrans and PlanetBids) would implement slightly different cut-off times for the same stated deadline. And it is unfortunate that this one -minute differential interpretation affected MCM's, and others', ability to bid this project. However, after some 10+ years of use the City believes the PlanetBids system to be a solid and fair bidding system, including the cut- :)ff time. We do not intend to throw out all bids and rebid the contract as MCM has requested. Sincerely, Avlin Odviar Principal Civil Engineer City of Temecula (951) 693-3969 Avlin.OdviaraTemeculaCA.gov TemeculaCA.gov Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Harry McGovern <hmc overn a mcmconstruction.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 2:32 PM To: Avlin Odviar <Avlin.Odviar(,temeculaca.gov> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] I-15 French Valley Parkway Improvements - Construction Bid CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Avlin We are now hearing that at least 3 bidders were closed out from turning in their bid Harry On Oct 12, 2022, at 2:11 PM, Harry McGovern <hmc ovg emgmcmconstruction.com> wrote: Avlin: Our contention is that we were closed out right at 10:00 from submitting the bid at 10:00 and 15 seconds and, according to Caltrans, anything before 10:01 is 10:00 so we are saying that Planet Bids closed us out too early! Please consider throwing out all bids and rebidding in order to receive bids from all Contractors interested in bidding in order for the City realize the lowest price available for the project. Harry McGovern Exec. V. P. & G. M. MCM Construction, Inc. On Oct 12, 2022, at 11:57 AM, Harry McGovern <hmc overn ,mcmconstruction.com> wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: Avlin Odviar <Avlin.Odviargtemeculaca.gov> Date: October 12, 2022 at 11:50:01 AM PDT To: Harry McGovern <hmc og_ vem@,,mcmconstruction.com> Cc: Patrick Thomas<Patrick.Thomasgtemeculaca.gov>, Amer Attar <amer.attar4Aemeculaca.gov>, Peter Thorson <pthorson(a)rwglaw.com>, "Tilden Kim (tkim(a�rwglaw.com)" <tkim axwglaw.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] I-15 French Valley Parkway Improvements - Construction Bid Harry McGovern, The City reached out to PlanetBids, based on your communications with me regarding MCM's bid for the subject construction contract. Please see email below from PlanetBids which includes a MCM bidding history report. According to the report, MCM had Saved its bid multiple times but did not Submit it by hitting the Submit button. Please let us know if you have any further questions/comments. We appreciate MCM's interest in this project and those in the future. Sincerely, Avlin Odviar Principal Civil Engineer City of Temecula (951) 693-3969 Avlin.Odviar(cDTemeculaCA.gov TemeculaCA.goV Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: PlanetBids Inc. <support,planetbidsl.zohodesk.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:46 AM To: Tammy Petricka <tammy.petricka cktemeculaca.gov> Subject: Re:[## 35947 ##] RE: French Valley Parkway, PW 16-01 — Bid Due Date 10/6/22 - Vendor Not Able to Submit Bid CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. i—_ Dear Tammy Petricka, PlanetBids has provided the following resolution to the ticket, #35947 10/1 1 /2022 02:36 PM Bid Title: I-15 / FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE II, PROJECT NO. PW16-01, FEDERAL PROJECT NO. INFRALUL-5459(031 Bid ID: 97471 Agency: City of Temecula (14837) Invitation 9: Issue Date: 08/29/2022 2:26 PM (PDT) By Invitation: No Response Format: Electronic Stage: Closed Bid Due Date: 10/06/2022 10:00 AM (PDT) Agent: Tammy Petricka Vendor Name: mcm construction, inc. VBID: 306693 DRAFT bid Enclosed is the bidding history report you requested. If you have additional questions or need further assistance please let us know. REPORT The Vendor Pressed the Place eBid button nine (9) times: 09/13/2022 7:47:10 AM (PDT) 09/13/2022 7:47:31 AM (PDT) 10/03/2022 10:00:52 AM (PDT) 10/03/2022 10:01:11 AM (PDT) 10/06/2022 7:04:19 AM (PDT) 10/06/2022 7:04:35 AM (PDT) 10/06/2022 7:05:59 AM (PDT) 10/06/2022 7:06:55 AM (PDT) 10/06/2022 8:31:19 AM (PDT) If you have additional questions or need further assistance please let us know. Vendor created a Draft on 10/06/2022 at 7:06:46 AM (PDT) Vendor last updated on 10/06/2022 9:49:40 AM (PDT Vendor never pressed the Submit button. Unfortunately, after Saving their draft at 8:48am, the vendor performed no trackable actions for over an hour. Their next activity was at 9:49 a.m., when they pressed Save again. The bid closed at exactly 10:00 a.m. PDT. Right after the bid closed, the vendor checked the Bid Results. Regards, PlanetBids, Inc. Support Team ---- On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 14:36:27 -0700 PlanetBids Inc.<support(aD_planetbids1.zohodesk.com> wrote ---- Dear Tammy Petricka, PlanetBids has left the following comment on your ticket, #35947. Bid Title: I-15 / FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE II, PROJECT NO. PW16-01, FEDERAL PROJECT NO. INFRALUL-5459(031 Bid ID: 97471 Agency: City of Temecula (14837) Invitation #: Issue Date: 08/29/2022 2:26 PM (PDT) By Invitation: No Response Format: Electronic Stage: Closed Bid Due Date: 10/06/2022 10:00 AM (PDT) Agent: Tammy Petricka Vendor Name: mcm construction, inc. VBID: 306693 DRAFT bid We have submitted a request for bidding history and any attempts to Save or submit or any errors. We will respond again as by end of business today with a report through this support ticket. Regards, PlanetBids, Inc. Support Team Item No. 10 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: October 25, 2022 SUBJECT: Receive and File Temporary Street Closures for 2022 Winterfest Events PREPARED BY: Anissa Sharp, Management Assistant Nick Minicilli, Senior Traffic Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the temporary closure of certain streets for the following 2022 Winterfest Events: HOLIDAY DECORATION INSTALLATION PU'ESKA MOUNTAIN DAY EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FAIR SANTA' S ELECTRIC LIGHT PARADE TEMECULA ON ICE NEW YEAR'S EVE GRAPE DROP BACKGROUND: Six special events are scheduled between November 2022 and January 2023 which necessitates the physical closure of all or portions of certain streets within the Old Town area and other streets throughout Temecula. These closures are necessary for event operation as well as to protect participants and viewers. The six events and associated street closures are as follows: 1) HOLIDAY DECORATION INSTALLATION — November 12 The Holiday Decoration Installation will take place Saturday, November 12th in Old Town Temecula with street closures scheduled as follows: Main Street from the easterly driveway edge of 28636 Old Town Front Street at Be Good Restaurant to Mercedes Street 7:00 a.m. on Saturday, November 12' to 7:00 p.m. on Saturday, November 12th Street closures for the Holiday Decoration Installation event are shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. 2) PU'kSKA MOUNTAIN DAY — November 1511 The Pu'6ska Mountain Day event will be held Tuesday, November 15th in the Town Square. This local holiday will be held at 4:30 p.m. to observe the culture of the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians and the Sacred Creation Area of Pu'6ska Mountain. The street closures scheduled are shown below: Main Street from the easterly driveway edge of Tuesday, November 15' 28636 Old Town Front Street 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. at Be Good Restaurant to Mercedes Street Mercedes Street Tuesday, November 15t' Third Street to Fourth Street 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Street closures for the Pu'6ska Mountain Day event are shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. 3) EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FAIR — November 19th The Emergency Preparedness Fair will take place Saturday, November 19th at 9:00 AM in Old Town Temecula with street closures scheduled as follows: Main Street from the easterly driveway edge of Saturday, November 19' 28636 Old Town Front Street 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at Be Good Restaurant to Mercedes Street Mercedes Street Saturday, November 19' Third Street to Fourth Street 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Street closures for the Emergency Preparedness Fair event are shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. 4) SANTA'S ELECTRIC LIGHT PARADE — December 2nd The Santa's Electric Light Parade event will be held Friday, December 2nd at 7:00 p.m. along Old Town Front Street. Traffic will be detoured around the event via Public Works traffic control signage and Police personnel with street closures as follows: 7:00 a.m. on Thursday, December 1st Main Street to Old Town Front Street to Mercedes Street 10:00 p.m. on Friday, December 2nd Main Street Friday, December 2nd Old Town Front Street to Pujol Street 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Second Street, Third Street, Fourth Street, Fifth Street, Sixth Street, Main Friday, December 2nd Street 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Mercedes Street to Murrieta Creek Old Town Front Street Friday, December 2nd Rancho California Road to Santiago Road 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Old Town Front Street Friday, December 2nd Santiago Road to 28964 Old Town Front Street 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. First Street/Santiago Road Friday, December 2nd Pujol Street to C Street 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Friday, December 2nd Del Rio Road 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Friday, December 2nd Las Haciendas Street 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Friday, December 2nd Calle Cortez 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Jefferson Avenue Friday, December 2nd Southbound traffic from Overland Drive to Via 4:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Montezuma Jefferson Avenue Friday, December 2nd Southbound traffic from Via Montezuma to 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Rancho California Road Rancho California Road Friday, December 2nd Old Town Front Street to Diaz Road 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Street closures for Santa's Electric Light Parade event are shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto. 5) TEMECULA ON ICE — December 15th to January 8th (The Annual Holiday Season Ice Skating Rink in Old Town) The annual Temecula On Ice holiday ice skating rink at the Town Square Park will be open for public use from Thursday, December 15, 2022 to Sunday, January 8, 2022. The actual duration of the road closures will be from Monday, December 5, 2022 to Friday, January 13, 2022. These additional days will allow for set-up and take -down of the temporary ice skating rink. It is necessary to close Mercedes Street during this period for the safety and protection of pedestrians crossing Mercedes Street from the parking structure and other parking areas across Mercedes Street. The street closures necessary are as follows: Main Street 8:00 a.m. on Monday, December 5th from the easterly driveway edge of to 28636 Old Town Front Street at Be Good Restaurant to Mercedes Street 4:00 p.m. on Friday, January 13tn 8:00 a.m. on Monday, December 5th Mercedes Street Third Street to Fourth Street to 4:00 p.m. on Friday, January 13th Street closures for the Temecula On Ice event are shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. 6) NEW YEAR'S EVE GRAPE DROP — December 31St The annual New Year's Eve Grape Drop will be held Saturday, December 3I't at 6:00 p.m. at the Civic Center with street closures scheduled as follows: Main Street 3:00 p.m. on Saturday, December 31St, 2022 Old Town Front Street to Mercedes Street to 1:30 a.m. on Sunday, January lst, 2023 Street closures for the New Year's Eve Grape Drop event are shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Street closures are allowed by the California Vehicle Code upon approval by the local governing body for certain conditions. Under Vehicle 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." Chapter 12.12 of the Temecula Municipal Code, Parades and Special Events, provides standards and procedures for special events on public streets, highways, sidewalks, or public right of way and authorizes the City Council or City Manager to temporarily close streets, or portions of streets, for these events. FISCAL IMPACT: The costs of police services, as well as services provided by the City Public Works Maintenance Division (for providing, placing and retrieving of necessary warning and advisory devices), are appropriately budgeted within the City's operating budget. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Exhibit A — Winterfest Road Closures 2022 Holiday Decoration Installation, Pu'eska Mountain Day, Emergency Preparedness Fair, Temecula On Ice and New Year's Eve Grape Drop 2. Exhibit B — Santa's Electric Light Parade 2022 Road Closures Winterfest Road Closures 2022 Exhibit A �i F Mercedes St • Fourth St r __ 1 �IL Winterfest Events Holiday Decoration Installation Main St November 12th �4 Pu'eska Mountain Day November 15th Emergency Preparedness Fair November 19th Temecula on Ice December 15th—January 8th New Year's Eve Grapedrop December 31st --rC Third St X 40 a.r we w r A r4 -T� �r r r . "'�•�= 4-'" 28636 Old Town Front St Old Town Front St f, Santa's Electric Light Parade 2022 Road Closures Exhibit B Page 1 of 2 Santa's Electric Light Parade 2022 Road Closures Exhibit B •Wj \ max# r 4'� +/ RPM Ir Mercedes St JL +'' 4W� ., F L, f jp bllw Em5i ' Road Closure 6 - 10 PM - 12/2 Road Closure 8 AM on 12/2 to 10PMon12/3 Road Closure 7 - 9 PM - 12/2 Road Closure 7 - 11 PM - 12/2 Page 2 of 2 � 5 28964 Old Town Front St Item No. 11 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 11, 2022 CALL TO ORDER at 7:18 PM: Vice President Zak Schwank ROLL CALL: Alexander, Edwards, Rahn, Schwank, Stewart (absent) CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS -None CSD CONSENT CALENDAR Unless otherwise indicated below, the following pertains to all items on the Consent Calendar. Approved the Staff Recommendation (4-0, Stewart absent): Motion by Edwards, Second by Rahn. The vote reflected unanimous approval with Stewart absent. 8. Approve Action Minutes of September 27, 2022 Recommendation: That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of September 27, 2022. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT At 7:20 PM, the Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 4:30 PM for a Closed Session, with a regular session commencing at 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. James Stewart, President ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] Item No. 12 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: John Crater, Division Chief DATE: October 25, 2022 SUBJECT: Conduct Public Hearing, Adopt Resolution Making Certain Findings, and Adopt Ordinance No. 2022-12 Adopting the 2022 California Fire Code (Second Reading) PREPARED BY: Elsa Wigle, Assistant Fire Marshal Wendy Miller, Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution and ordinance entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2022- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA MAKING EXPRESS FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS THAT MODIFICATIONS TO THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, 2022 EDITION, ARE REASONABLY NECESSARY BECAUSE OF LOCAL CLIMATIC, GEOLOGICAL AND/OR TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS ORDINANCE NO. 2022-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE 2022 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE BASED ON THE 2021 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE, IN ITS ENTIRETY, REGULATING AND GOVERNING THE SAFEGUARD OF LIFE AND PROPERTY FROM FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS ARISING FROM THE STORAGE, HANDLING AND USE OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES, MATERIALS AND DEVICES, AND FROM CONDITIONS HAZARDOUS TO LIFE OR PROPERTY IN THE OCCUPANCY OF BUILDINGS AND PREMISES IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, INCLUDING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS, AND PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND THE COLLECTION OF FEES SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE: Code adoption of the new California fire Code, 2022 Edition as well as local amendments to the code. BACKGROUND: In accordance with the requirements of State law, and in order to maintain appropriate standards and regulations pertaining to the protection of life and property from fire and explosion, it is now necessary to incorporate within the Temecula Municipal Code, the 2022 Edition of the California Fire Code, as set forth in Part 9 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, inclusive of all of the inclusions and exclusions set forth in each chapter's matrix. This Code shall constitute the Fire Code of the City of Temecula. The Ordinance adopts regulations dealing with the various aspects of administration of said Fire Code including, but not limited to, its scope of application, alternative materials and methods, applicable standards, enforcement of said Code by designated officials, appeals of determinations by the Fire Chief and permit fees pursuant to said Code. The Code, together with certain amendments, additions and deletions, generally deals with all aspects of safeguarding life and property, establishes fire and panic safety -related building regulations, and specific regulations pertaining to the hazards of fire and explosion arising from the storage, handling and use of hazardous substances, materials and devices. Further, the Fire Code of the City of Temecula, together with the amendments, additions and deletions set forth in the Ordinance, establish regulations to safeguard life and property from hazardous conditions in the use or occupancy of buildings or premises within the City of Temecula. The Ordinance provides that violations of the Ordinance may be enforced pursuant to the enforcement provisions set forth in Title 1 of the Temecula Municipal Code, including the use of civil remedies. A certified copy of the entirety of the text of Ordinance No. 2022-12, together with a copy of the 2022 California Fire Code, shall be maintained in the office of the City Clerk, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California, and shall be made available for public inspection. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Ordinance 3. Notice of Public Hearing RESOLUTION NO.2022- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA MAKING EXPRESS FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS THAT MODIFICATIONS TO THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, 2022 EDITION, ARE REASONABLY NECESSARY BECAUSE OF LOCAL CLIMATIC, GEOLOGICAL AND/OR TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals A. Certain building standards and other related model codes are adopted by the State of California in the California Building Standards Code and become applicable in the City unless amended by the City pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17958. B. Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7 authorizes the City Council to make reasonably necessary changes or modifications to the State adopted building codes, including the California Fire Code, based on certain local conditions. C. The Fire Chief of the City of Temecula has determined and recommended that the modifications to the California Fire Code, 2022 Edition, contained herein, are reasonably necessary due to local conditions. D. Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7 and 18941.5 requires the City Council to make express findings of the necessity for modifications to the building standards contained in the California Fire Code, 2022 Edition. Section 2. Resolution A. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby expressly finds that the amendments and modifications to the Temecula Municipal Code and the California Fire Code, CCR Title 24 Part 9, 2022 edition, contained in Ordinance No. 2022-12 regarding Section 15.16.020 Amendments as follows: Scope and Administration (A), Definitions (B), Open Flames (C), Fire Service Features (D), Building Services and Systems (E), Fire Protection Systems (F), High Piled Combustible Storage (G), Requirements for Wildland-Urban Interface fire Areas (H), and Appendices (I), are reasonably necessary due to consideration of specific local climatic, geological or topographical conditions as follows: 1. Climatic Conditions: Generally Riverside County and the City of Temecula have an and climate. Annual rainfall varies from 3 inches in Blythe to over 33 inches in Pine Cove. Hot, dry Santa Ana winds are common to areas within Riverside County. These winds constitute a contributing factor, which causes small fires originating in high -density development presently being constructed in the County of Riverside and the City of Temecula, which spread quickly and create the need for an increased level of fire protection. This added protection, including, but not limited to on -site protection, will supplement normal fire Department response available in new development, and provide immediate fire protection for life and safety of multiple -occupancy occupants during fire occurrence. 2. Topographical Conditions: Traffic and circulation congested in urban areas often place Fire Department response time to emergencies at risk. This condition makes the need for enhanced on -site protection for property occupants necessary. 3. Geological Conditions: The City of Temecula is located in an area near high seismic activity. Because of the degree of the City's urbanization and close proximity to major fault lines, the risk of structural damage and loss of life due to ground shaking is considerable. During a major earthquake, emergency resources would be extremely taxed, and the ability to respond to such emergencies would be complicated. Local standards in excess of statewide minimums will assist in reducing risks associated with earthquakes and the consequent disruption of traffic flow. Section 3. Specific Amendments and References to Findings A. Local climatic, geographic and topographic conditions impact fire prevention efforts, and the frequency, spread, acceleration, intensity and size of fire involving buildings in this community. Further, they impact potential damage to all structures from earthquake and subsequent fire. Therefore, it is found to be reasonably necessary that provisions of the California Fire Code be modified to mitigate the effects of the above conditions. California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7 requires that the modification or change be expressly marked and identified as to which each finding refers. Therefore, the City Council finds that the following table sets forth 2022 California Fire Code provisions constituting building standards that have been modified pursuant to Ordinance No. 2022-12, and the associated local climatic, geological and topographical conditions described above in Section 2 supporting modification. CFC Section added or amended: Specific Finding -- climatic (C) , topographical (T) and/or geological (G) conditions (Section 2): 2019 CODE SECTION TITLE/SUBJECT FINDINGS: C, T, G 101.4 Severability Administrative 102.5 Application of the residential code C,T & G 103.4 Liability Administrative 104.1.1 Authority of the Fire Chief and Fire Department Administrative 104.13 Authority of the Fire Chief to close hazardous fire areas Administrative 107.2 Schedule of Permit Fees Administrative 107.7 Cost Recovery Administrative 111.1 Board of Appeals Administrative 202 Definitions Administrative 308.1.6.3 Sky lanterns or similar devices C, T & G 503.2.1 Dimensions C, T & G 503.2.2 Authority Administrative 503.2.3 Surface C, T & G 503.2.5 Dead Ends T & G 503.6.1 Automatic opener Administrative 503.7 Loading areas and passenger drop-offs Administrative 505.1 Address Identification Administrative 507.5.7 Fire hydrant size and outlets C & G 507.5.8 Fire hydrant street marker C, T & G 508.1 General C, T & G 508.1.1 Location and access. C, T & G 508.1.3 Exception C, T & G 508.1.6 Exception C, T & G 508.1.8 Fire command center Identification C, T & G 509.2.1 Minimum Clearances C, T & G 509.3 Fire sprinkler system riser room C, T & G 608.11.1.2 Manual operation T & G 901.2.2 As-Built/Revised Documents C, T & G 903.2 Where required (automatic sprinkler systems) C, T & G 903.3.5.3 Hydraulically calculated systems C & T 903.4.3 Floor Control Valves C 904.2.2.1 Extinguishing system monitoring requirements C 907.1.6 Fire Alarm Control Panel (FACP) C 907.1.7 Notification appliance C 907.1.8 Duct detectors C 3204.2.1 Minimum requirements for client leased or occupant C, T & G 4904.2.1 High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps Administrative Appendix B, B 105.2 Buildings other than one and two family dwellings C, T & G C103.1 Hydrant spacing C. T & G Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution and cause a certified copy of the same and Ordinance No. 2022-12 to be forwarded to the California Building Standards Commission. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 25th day of October, 2022. Matt Rahn, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-12 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 25th day of October, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk ORDINANCE NO.2022-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE 2022 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE BASED ON THE 2021 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE, IN ITS ENTIRETY, REGULATING AND GOVERNING THE SAFEGUARD OF LIFE AND PROPERTY FROM FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS ARISING FROM THE STORAGE, HANDLING AND USE OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES, MATERIALS AND DEVICES, AND FROM CONDITIONS HAZARDOUS TO LIFE OR PROPERTY IN THE OCCUPANCY OF BUILDINGS AND PREMISES IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, INCLUDING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS, AND PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND THE COLLECTION OF FEES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 15.16 of Title 15 of the Temecula Municipal Code, including all provisions of all codes adopted by reference therein, is hereby repealed provided, however, that such repeal shall not affect or excuse any violation occurring prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. A new Chapter 15.16 is hereby added to Title 15 of the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows: Chapter 15.16 FIRE CODE 15.16.010 Code adopted. The City of Temecula hereby adopts by reference the California Fire Code, 2022 Edition, as set forth in Part 9 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, except as stated in this Section or as amended below in Section 15.16.020 of this Ordinance, including all provisions and appendices B, BB, C, CC and H and all of the inclusions and exclusions set forth in each chapter's matrix, and the same shall apply to the City of Temecula. In addition, the following provisions that are excluded in the 2022 California Fire Code are hereby adopted: Chapter 1, Division II is hereby adopted, except that Sections 103.2 and 111.3 are not adopted, and Chapters 3, 25, and Sections 403.11, 503, 510.2, and 1103.2 are adopted. 15.16.020 Amendments. The following amendments, additions, and deletions are made to the California Fire Code, 2022 Edition, as adopted by this Chapter: A. CHAPTER 1: SCOPE AND ADMINISTRATION Section 101.4 is added to read as follows: 101.4 Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. Section 102.5 is amended to read as follows: 102.5 Application of Residential Code. Where structures are designed and constructed in accordance with the California Residential Code, the provisions of this code shall apply as follows: 1. Construction and design provisions of this code pertaining to the exterior of the structure shall apply including, but not limited to, premises identification, fire apparatus access and water supplies. Where interior or exterior systems or devices are installed, construction permits required by Section 105.7 of this code shall apply. 2. Administrative, operational and maintenance provisions of this code shall apply. 3. Automatic fire sprinkler system requirements of this code shall apply to detached accessory buildings 3,600 square feet or greater in accordance with Section 903.2. The provisions contained in Section 903.2.18 of the California Fire Code or Section R309.6 of the California Residential Code may be used for the design of the automatic fire sprinkler system for detached private garages. Section 103.4 is amended to read as follows: 103.4 Liability. Any liability against Riverside County or any officer or employee for damages resulting from the discharge of their duties shall be as provided by law. Section 104.1.1 is added to read as follows: 104.1.1 Authority of the Fire Chief and Fire Department. 1. The Fire Chief is authorized and directed to enforce all applicable State fire laws and provisions of this ordinance and to perform such duties as directed by the City Council. 2. The Fire Chief is authorized to administer, interpret and enforce this ordinance. Under the Fire Chief s direction, the Riverside County Fire Department is authorized to enforce ordinances of the City of Temecula pertaining to the following: 2.1. The prevention of fires. 2.2. The suppression or extinguishment of dangerous or hazardous fires. 2.3. The storage, use and handling of hazardous materials. 2.4. The installation and maintenance of automatic, manual and other private fire alarm systems and fire extinguishing equipment. 2.5. The maintenance and regulation of fire escapes. 2.6. The maintenance of fire protection and the elimination of fire hazards on land, in buildings, structures and other property, including those under construction. 2.7. The maintenance of means of egress and occupant loads. 2.8. The investigation of the cause, origin and circumstances of fire and unauthorized releases of hazardous materials. 3. The following persons are hereby authorized to interpret and enforce the provisions of this ordinance and to make arrests and issue citations as authorized by law: 3.1. The Unit Chief, Peace Officers and Public Officers of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 3.2. The Fire Chief, Peace Officers and Public Officers of the Riverside County Fire Department. 3.3. The Riverside County Sheriff and any deputy sheriff. 3.4. The Police Chief and any police officer of any city served by the Riverside County Fire Department. 3.5. Officers of the California Highway Patrol. 3.6. Code Officers of the City of Temecula Code Enforcement Department. 3.7. Peace Officers of the California Department of Parks and Recreation. 3.8. The law enforcement officer of the Federal Bureau of Land Management. 3 Section 104.13 is added to read as follows: 104.13 Authority of the Fire Chief to close hazardous fire areas. Except upon National Forest Land, the Fire Chief is authorized to determine and announce the closure of any hazardous fire area or portion thereof. Any closure by the Fire Chief for a period of more than fifteen (15) calendar days must be approved by the City Council within fifteen (15) calendar days of the Fire Chief s original order of closure. Upon such closure, no person shall go in or be upon any hazardous fire area, except upon the public roadways and inhabited areas. During such closure, the Fire Chief shall erect and maintain at all entrances to the closed area sufficient signs giving notice of closure. This section shall not prohibit residents or owners of private property within any closed area, or their invitees, from going in or being upon their lands. This section shall not apply to any entry, in the course of duty, by a peace officer, duly authorized public officer or fire department personnel. For the purpose of this section, "hazardous fire area" shall mean public or private land that is covered with grass, grain, brush or forest and situated in a location that makes suppression difficult, resulting in great damage. Such areas are designated on Hazardous Fire Area maps filed with the office of the Fire Chief. Section 107.2 of the California Fire Code is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 107.2 Schedule of permit fees. Fees for services and permits shall be as set forth in the City of Temecula fee schedule. Section 107.7 is added to read as follows: 107.7 Cost recovery. Fire suppression, investigation, rescue or emergency medical costs are recoverable in accordance with Health and Safety Code Sections 13009 and 13009.1, as may be amended from time to time. Additionally, any person who negligently, intentionally or in violation of law causes an emergency response, including, but not limited to, a traffic accident, spill of toxic or flammable fluids or chemicals is liable for the costs of securing such emergency, including those costs pursuant to Government Code Section 53150 et seq., as may be amended from time to time. Any expense incurred by the Riverside County Fire Department for securing such emergency shall constitute a debt of such person and shall be collectable by Riverside County in the same manner as in the case of an obligation under contract, express or implied. Section 111.1 is deleted and replaced with the following: 111.1 Board of appeals established. The Board of Appeals shall be the City Manager. If he or she determines an outside board is needed, he or she shall designate an outside hearing officer to hear the appeal. The Fire Chief shall be notified of any appeal and the Fire Chief or designee shall be in attendance at the appeal hearing. Depending on the subject of the appeal, specialized expertise may be solicited, at the expense of the applicant, for the purpose of providing input to the Appeals Board. 4 B. CHAPTER 2: DEFINITIONS SECTION 202 — GENERAL DEFINITIONS is amended by revising the definition of Fire Chief, as follows: FIRE CHIEF. The Fire Chief of Riverside County or the Fire Chief s designee C. CHAPTER 3: OPEN FLAMES Section 308.1.6.3 of the California Fire Code is deleted in its entirely and replaced with the following: 308.1.6.3 Sky lanterns or similar devices. A person shall not release or cause to be released a sky lantern or similar device. D. CHAPTER 5: FIRE SERVICE FEATURES Section 503.2.1 is amended to read as follows: 503.2.1 Dimensions. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24-feet, exclusive of shoulders, for single family dwellings tract homes, multifamily homes, commercial, and industrial development, with an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13-feet 6-inches. Exception: New custom home lot driveway access shall be a minimum of 20-feet in width. Section 503.2.2 deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 503.2.2 Authority. The fire code official shall be the only authority authorized to designate fire apparatus access roads and fire lanes and to modify the minimum fire lane access widths for fire or rescue operations. Section 503.2.3 Surface is amended to read as follows: Section 503.2.3 Surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be of a surface to provide all-weather driving capabilities such as asphalt or cement (AC). Access roads shall have a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. Section 503.2.5 is amended to read as follows: 503.2.5 Dead ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150-feet in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. The maximum length of a dead-end road or cul-de-sac shall not exceed 1320 feet, unless a second access point is provided for fire access. Section 503.6.1 is added to read as follows: 503.6.1 Automatic opener. New motorized gates shall be provided with means to be automatically opened remotely by emergency vehicle in accordance with Riverside County Fire Department Standards and Policies, as may be amended from time to time. Exception: Gates serving individual one- and two-family dwelling parcels. Section 503.7 is added to read as follows: 503.7 Loading areas and passenger drop-off areas. On private properties, where fire apparatus access roads are utilized for loading or unloading or utilized for passenger drop- off or pick-up, an additional eight (8) feet of width shall be added to the minimum required width for the fire apparatus access road. Section 505.1 is amended to read as follows: 505.1 Address identification. New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Commercial, multi -family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum of twelve (12) inch numbers with suite numbers being a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall have a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi -family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. Address numbers shall be maintained. EXCEPTION: Building address numbers within the Tourist Retail Core (TRC) of the Old Town Specific Plan, are permitted to be a minimum of eight (8) inches in size. Sections 507.5.7 is added to read as follows: 507.5.7 Fire hydrant size and outlets. As determined by the fire code official, fire hydrant sizes and outlets shall be based on the following: 1. Super Hydrant Standard — one (1) four (4) inch outlet and two (2) two and one half (2 1/2) inch outlet. 2. Super Hydrant Enhanced — two (2) four (4) inch outlet and one (1) two and one half (2 1/2) inch outlet. Section 507.5.8 is added to read as follows: 507.5.8 Fire hydrant street marker. Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the Installation of reflective markers (blue dots). Any hydrant marker damaged or removed during the course of street construction or repair shall be immediately replaced by the contractor, developer or person responsible for removal or damage. Section 508.1 is amended to read as follows: 508.1 General. Where required by other sections of this code and in all buildings classified as high-rise buildings by the California Building Code, in buildings greater than 300,000 square feet in area and in Group I-2 occupancies having occupied floors located more than 75 feet above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access, a fire command center for fire department operations shall be provided and comply with Sections 508.1.1 through 508.1.8. Section 508.1.1 of the California Fire Code is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 508.1.1 Location and access. The fire command center shall be located adjacent to the main lobby and shall be accessible from fire department vehicular access or as approved by the fire code official. The room shall have direct access from the building exterior at the lowest level of fire department access. Section 508.1.3 is amended by adding the following: Exception: A fire command center solely required because a building is greater than 300,000 square feet in area shall be a minimum of 96 square feet (9 m2) with a minimum dimension of 8 feet (2438mm). Section 508.1.6 is amended by adding the following: Exception: A fire command center solely required because a building is greater than 300,000 square feet in area shall comply with NFPA 72 and contain the features set forth in Section 508.1.6 subsections 5, 8, 10, 12, 13 and 14. The features set forth in Section 508.1.6 subsections 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 shall be required when such building contains systems or functions related to these features. Section 508.1.8 is amended to read as follows: 508.1.8 Fire command center identification. The fire command center shall be identified by a permanent easily visible sign stating "Fire Dept. Command Center," located on the door to the fire command center. Section 509.2.1 is added to read as follows: 509.2.1 Minimum clearances. A 3-foot clear space shall be maintained around the circumference of exterior fire protection system control valves, or any other exterior fire protection system component that may require immediate access, except as otherwise required or approved. Section 509.3 is added to read as follows: 509.3 Fire sprinkler system riser room. Fire sprinkler risers shall not be obstructed in any manner. The fire system riser(s) is to be provided with eighteen (18) inch clearance to each side and to the front of the system riser. Access shall be provided by means of an exterior door with the minimum dimensions two (2) feet six (6) inches wide by six (6) feet eight (8) inches tall. The fire system riser room shall house the fire sprinkler riser(s) and main fire alarm control panel and not share with any other equipment (i.e. mechanical, electrical, etc.). The fire sprinkler riser room will be located on an accessible corner of the structure with easy access for all fire department personnel. E. CHAPTER 6: BUILDING SERVICES AND SYSTEMS Section 608.11.1.2 is amended to read as follows: Section 608.11.1.2 Manual operation. When required by the fire code official, automatic crossover valves shall be capable of manual operation. The manual valve shall be located in an approved location immediately outside of the machinery room in a secure metal box or equivalent and marked as Emergency Controls. F. CHAPTER 9: FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS Section 901.2.2 is added to read as follows: 901.2.2 As-built/Revised documents. Three (3) sets of as-built/revised drawings shall be submitted to the fire department for approval prior to final of any permits. Redlines are not considered as-builts/revised plans. Section 903.2 of the California Fire Code is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 903.2 Where required. In all new buildings and structures which are 3,600 square feet or greater, an approved automatic sprinkler system shall be provided regardless of occupancy classification. Where the Sections 903.2.1 — 903.2.21 of the California Fire Code require more restrictive requirements than those listed below, the more restrictive requirement shall take precedence. In addition the following is required for existing buildings/structures: A. 1. All new tenants and new occupancies hereafter constructed, which exceeds 3,600 square feet shall have an approved automatic fire sprinkler system installed throughout therein. 2. All existing occupancies to which additions are made, where either the addition itself or the building and the addition in total exceeds 3,600 square feet, shall have an approved automatic fire sprinkler system installed throughout therein. 3. Change of use or occupancy that exceeds 3,600 square feet shall have an approved automatic fire sprinkler system installed throughout therein. B. Exception: Unless required elsewhere in this code or the California Building Code, automatic fire sprinkler systems shall not be required for the following: 1. Detached Group U occupancies used for agriculture constructed in accordance with the California Building Code. 2. Detached non-combustible equestrian arena shade canopies that are open on all sides and used for riding only - no commercial, assembly or storage uses. 3. Detached fabric or non-combustible shade structures that are open on all sides and used to shade playground equipment, temporary storage of vehicles and dining areas with no cooking. 4 Where determined by the Fire Chief that no major life safety hazard exists, and the fuel load does not pose a significant threat to firefighter safety or to other structures or property, automatic fire sprinklers may be exempted. C. One- and two-family dwellings shall have an automatic fire sprinkler system regardless of square footage in accordance with the California Residential Code. Fire sprinkler systems shall be installed in mobile homes, manufactured homes and multifamily manufactured homes with two dwelling units in accordance with Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations. The following exceptions in the California Fire Code shall not be allowed: a. Exception in Section 903.2.3 b. Exception in Section 903.2.11.3 Section 903.3.5.3 is added to read as follows: 903.3.5.3 Hydraulically calculated systems. The design of hydraulically calculated fire sprinkler systems shall not exceed 90% of the water supply capacity. Section 903.4.3 is amended to read as follows: 903.4.3 Floor control valves. Approved supervised indication control valves shall be provided at the point of connection to the riser in all buildings. Valve locations will be placed in the fire sprinkler riser room on each riser. Section 904.2.2.1 is added to read as follows: 904.2.2.1 Extinguishing system monitoring requirements. All automatic fire - extinguishing systems will be required to be monitored by a fire alarm/sprinkler monitoring system. If a fire alarm/sprinkler monitoring system is not present, one will be required to be installed to provide monitoring for the automatic fire -extinguishing system. Sections 907.1.6,907.1.7 and 907.1.8 are added to read as follows: 907.1.6 Fire alarm control panel (FACP). The main fire alarm control panel shall be located in the same room as, and sharing the same access as the fire sprinkler riser. The FACP shall have a minimum 36 inches of face clearance and 6 inches side clearance from any other wall or equipment. 907.1.7 Notification appliance. New tenant spaces and new occupancy buildings shall require alarm notification appliances. For multi -tenant buildings, an alarm notification appliance shall be placed in each tenant suite. For existing buildings with new tenants an alarm notification appliance shall be required in each tenant space. For existing buildings that are not equipped with a fire alarm system or sprinkler monitoring system, new tenants or owners shall be required to install the appropriate type of fire alarm system. 907.1.8 Duct Detectors. Duct detectors located in any buildings that have a fire alarm system shall be powered from the main building fire alarm power supply. G. CHAPTER 32: HIGH PILED COMBUSTIBLE STORAGE Section 3204.2.1 is added to read as follows: 3204.2.1 Minimum requirements for client leased or occupant owned warehouses. Designs of an automatic sprinkler system for client leased or occupant owned buildings containing high pile storage shall be based on the requirements of NFPA 13. The responsible designer/consultant shall perform a survey of the building to determine commodity classification, storage configuration, building height and other information related to the development of an appropriate sprinkler system design. The designer/consultant shall also make reasonable efforts to meet with the building owner or operator to understand seasonal or customer related fluctuations to the stored commodities, storage height, and configuration. The sprinkler design shall be based on the most demanding requirements determined through the onsite survey and discussions with the building owner or operator. The technical report shall describe the basis for determining the commodity and sprinkler design selection, how the commodities will be isolated or separated, and include referenced design document(s), including NFPA 13 or the current applicable factory mutual data sheets. If a specific fire test is used as the basis of design, a copy of the fire test report shall be provided at the time of plan review. H. CHAPTER 49: REQUIREMENTS FOR WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE FIRE AREAS. Section 4904.2.1 is added to read as follows: 4904.2.1 High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. In accordance with Government Code Sections 51175 through 51189, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones are designated as 10 shown on a map titled Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, dated December 24, 2009 and retained on file at the office of the Fire Chief, which supersedes other maps previously adopted by Riverside County designating high fire hazard areas. I. APPENDICES Appendix B Table B105.2 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: TABLE B105.2 REQUIRED FIRE -FLOW FOR BUILDINGS OTHER THAN ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS, GROUP R-3 AND R-4 BUILDINGS AND TOWNHOUSES AUTOMATIC MINIMUM FIRE -FLOW FLOW DURATION SPRINKLER SYSTEM (gallons per minute) (hours) (Design Standard) No automatic sprinkler Value in Table B 105.1(2) Duration in Table system B 105.1(2) Section 903.3.1.1 of the 50% of the value in Table Duration in Table California Fire Code B 105.1(2)a B 105.1(2) at the reduced flow rate Section 903.3.1.2 of the 50% of the value in Table Duration in Table California Fire Code B 105.1(2)b B 105.1(2) at the reduced flow rate For SI: 1 gallon per minute = 3.785 L/m. a. The reduced fire -flow shall be not less than 1,000 gallons per minute. b. The reduced fire -flow shall be not less than 1,500 gallons per minute. Appendix C Section C103.1 of the California Fire Code is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: C103.1 Hydrant spacing. Fire apparatus access roads and public streets providing required access to buildings in accordance with Section 503 of the International Fire Code shall be provided with one or more fire hydrants, as determined by Section C102.1. Where more than one fire hydrant is required, the distance between required fire hydrants shall be in accordance with Sections C103.2 and C103.3. Fire hydrants shall be provided at street intersections. J. 15.16.030 Penalties for violation. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or association of persons to violate any provision of this Chapter, or to violate the provisions of any permit granted pursuant IF to this Chapter. Any person, firm, corporation or association of persons violating any provision of this Chapter or the provisions of any permit granted pursuant to this Chapter, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor unless specifically designated as an infraction. Such person or entity shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter or the provisions of any permit granted pursuant to this Chapter, is committed, continued, or permitted. Violations shall be punishable as provided in Chapters 1.20, 1.21, and 1.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Payment of any fine or penalty herein shall not relieve a person or entity from the responsibility for correcting the violation. K. 15.16.040 Civil Remedies Available. The violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter shall constitute a nuisance and may be abated by the City through civil process by means of restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction or in any other manner provided by law for the abatement of such nuisances." Section 2. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. This City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof and intends that the invalid portions should be severed and the balance of the Ordinance be enforced. Section 3. This Ordinance shall become effective upon the later of January 1, 2023, or thirty (30) days after adoption. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law. 12 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 25th day of October, 2022. ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] Matt Rahn, Mayor 13 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2022-12 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 27ffi day of September, 2022, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 25th day of October, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk 14 Notice of Public Hearing THE CITY OF TEMECULA 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Applicant: City of Temecula Location: Citywide Proposal: Adoption and Amendment of the 2022 California Fire Code AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE 2022 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE BASED ON THE 2021 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE, IN ITS ENTIRETY, REGULATING AND GOVERNING THE SAFEGUARD OF LIFE AND PROPERTY FROM FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS ARISING FROM THE STORAGE, HANDLING AND USE OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES, MATERIALS AND DEVICES, AND FROM CONDITIONS HAZARDOUS TO LIFE OR PROPERTY IN THE OCCUPANCY OF BUILDINGS AND PREMISES IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, INCLUDING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS, AND PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND THE COLLECTION OF FEES PLACE OF HEARING: City of Temecula, Council Chambers, 41000 Main St., Temecula, CA DATE OF HEARING: October 25, 2022 TIME OF HEARING: 6:00 PM Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of hearing. Any petition forjudicial review of a decision of the City Council shall be filed within the time required by, and controlled by, Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. In any such action or proceeding seeking judicial review of, which attacks or seeks to set aside, or void any decision of the City Council, shall be limited to those issues raised at the hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing described in this notice. The Code and amendments proposed to be adopted may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula Civic Center, Fire Department, 41000 Main Street, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Elsa Wigle, Assistant Fire Marshal, City of Temecula Fire Department, (951) 240-4221 or elsa.wigle(D-temeculaca.gov. Item No. 13 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Luke Watson, Deputy City Manager DATE: October 25, 2022 SUBJECT: Conduct Public Hearing, Adopt Resolution Making Certain Findings, and Adopt Ordinance No. 2022-13 Adopting the 2022 California Building Codes (Second Reading) PREPARED BY: Brian Clements, Building Official Sophia Lewing, Administrative Assistant RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution and ordinance entitled: RESOLUTION NO.2022- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA MAKING EXPRESS FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS THAT MODIFICATIONS TO THE 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE; CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE; CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE; CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE; AND CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE, AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA, ARE REASONABLY NECESSARY BECAUSE OF LOCAL CLIMATIC, GEOLOGICAL AND/OR TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS ORDINANCE NO. 2022-13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE 2022 EDITIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE; CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE; CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE; CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE; CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE; CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE; CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE; CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE; CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE; CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE; AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCED STANDARDS CODE; TOGETHER WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS AND DELETIONS, AND AMENDING TITLE 15 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE BACKGROUND: The adoption of the most current California Building and Fire Codes is important for the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. The Fire and Building Codes enforced by local jurisdictions in the State of California are reviewed, amended, and adopted by the Building Standards Commission on a three (3) year code adoption cycle. Upon the adoption and publication of the State Codes, each local jurisdiction has a period of 180 days to further modify these codes with more stringent local amendments based upon local geographical, topographical, or climatic conditions, before the State Code provisions become applicable. The ordinances propose very few local amendments. Many of the provisions in the ordinances are substantially the same as previous editions of the current Municipal Code. Ordinance No. 2022-13 was introduced and read at the September 27, 2022, City Council meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Ordinance 3. Notice of Public Hearing RESOLUTION NO. 2022- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA MAKING EXPRESS FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS THAT MODIFICATIONS TO THE 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE; CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE; CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE; CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE; AND CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE, AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA, ARE REASONABLY NECESSARY BECAUSE OF LOCAL CLIMATIC, GEOLOGICAL AND/OR TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. A. Certain building standards and other related model codes are adopted by the State of California in the California Building Standards Code and become applicable in the City unless amended by the City pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17958. B. Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7 authorizes the City Council to make reasonably necessary changes or modifications to the Codes comprising the 2022 California Building Standards Code, based on certain local conditions. C. The Building Official of the City of Temecula has determined that the modifications to the 2022 California Building Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Electrical Code, and California Residential Code, referenced herein, are reasonably necessary due to local conditions. D. Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.7 and 18941.5 require the City Council to make express findings of the necessity for modifications to the building standards contained in the Codes comprising the California Building Standards Code, as referenced herein. Section 2. Resolution. A. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby expressly finds that the amendments and modifications to the Temecula Municipal Code and the California Building Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Electrical Code, and California Residential Code, 2022 edition, contained in Ordinance No. 2022-13, are reasonably necessary due to specific local climatic, geological and/or topographical conditions as follows: 1. Climatic Conditions: Generally Riverside County and the City of Temecula have an and climate. Annual rainfall varies from 3 inches in Blythe to over 33 inches in Pine Cove. Hot, dry Santa Ana winds are common to areas within Riverside County. These winds constitute a contributing factor, which causes small fires originating in high -density development presently being constructed in the County of Riverside and the City of Temecula, which spread quickly and create the need for an increased level of building and fire protection. This added protection, including, but not limited to on -site protection, will supplement normal Fire Department response available in new development, and provide immediate fire protection for life and safety of multiple -occupancy occupants during fire occurrence 2. Topographical Conditions: Traffic and circulation congested in urban areas often place Fire Department response time to emergencies at risk. This condition makes the need for enhanced on -site protection for property occupants necessary. 3. Geological Conditions: The City of Temecula is located in an area near high seismic activity. Because of the degree of the City's urbanization and close proximity to major fault lines, the risk of structural damage and loss of life due to ground shaking is considerable. During a major earthquake, emergency resources would be extremely taxed, and the ability to respond to such emergencies would be complicated. Local standards in excess of statewide minimums will assist in reducing risks associated with earthquakes and the consequent disruption of traffic flow. Section 3. Specific Amendments and References to Findings. A. Based upon the local climatic, geological, and topographical conditions described above, the City Council finds that the modifications to the 2022 California Building Code, 2022 California Residential Code, 2022 California Electrical Code, 2022 California Mechanical Code and 2022 California Plumbing Code, all as contained in Ordinance No. 2022-13, is reasonably necessary in order to protect and preserve the public health, safety, and welfare. California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7 requires that the modification or change be expressly marked and identified as to which each finding refers. Therefore, the City Council finds that the following table sets forth sections of the 2022 California Building Code, 2022 California Residential Code, 2022 California Electrical Code, 2022 California Mechanical Code and 2022 California Plumbing Code constituting building standards that have been modified pursuant to Ordinance No. 2022-13, and the associated local climatic, geological and/or topographical conditions described above in Section 2 supporting modification. N CBC, CRC, CEC, CMC and CPC Section added or amended: Specific Finding -- climatic (C) , topographical (T) and/or geological (G) conditions (Section 2): CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 2022 CODE SECTION TITLE/SUBJECT FINDINGS: C, T, G 105.2 Work exempt from permit Administrative 105.3 Application for permit Administrative 105.5 Expiration Administrative 110.3.8 Fire- and smoke -resistant penetrations C & T 111.1 Change of occupancy Administrative 114.4.1 Civil penalty Administrative 502.1 Address Identification Administrative 901.2.1 As-Built/Revised Documents C, T & G 903.2 Where required (automatic sprinkler systems) C, T & G 903.3.5.3 Hydraulically calculated systems C & T 903.4.3 Floor Control Valves C 904.2.2.1 Extinguishing system monitoring requirements C 907.1.6 Fire Alarm Control Panel (FACP) C 907.1.7 Notification appliance C 907.1.8 Duct detectors C 1505.1 General C & T 1907A.2 Additional Requirements C, T & G Appendices A, B, D, E, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O and P Administrative CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE TITLE/SUBJECT FINDINGS: C, T, G 2022 CODE SECTION Appendices All appendices except AX are deleted Administrative Appendix AX, Section Swimming Pool Safety Act Administrative 115922(a) CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE 2022 CODE SECTION TITLE/SUBJECT FINDINGS: C, T, G 90.4 Enforcement Administration 90.8 Wiring Planning C & G 110.5 Conductors C, T & G Table 300.5 Location of Wiring Method or Circuit C, T & G 334.10 Use Permitted Administration 690.4(A) Photovoltaic Systems C, T & G CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE 2022 CODE SECTION TITLE/SUBJECT FINDINGS: C, T, G 104.5 Fees Administration 106.3 Penalties Administration 504.1 General C & T CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE 2022 CODE SECTION TITLE/SUBJECT FINDINGS: C, T, G 106.3 Penalties Administration 211.0 Indirect Waste Pipe C & G 719.5 Access C, T & G 1213.3.1 Testing C, T & G 1211.8.1 Installation T & G Chapter 13 Adopted in its entirely Administration Appendices A, B, D, H, IAPMO 31-2014 of Appendix I and J Administration Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution and cause a certified copy of the same and Ordinance No. 2022-13 to be forwarded to the California Building Standards Commission. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 25th day of October, 2022. Matt Rahn, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 25th day of October, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk ORDINANCE NO.2022-13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE 2022 EDITIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE; CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE; CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE; CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE; CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE; CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE; CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE; CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE; CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE; CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE; AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCED STANDARDS CODE; TOGETHER WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS AND DELETIONS, AND AMENDING TITLE 15 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Sections 15.04.010 through 15.04.080 of Chapter 15.04 Construction Codes of Title 15 (Building and Construction) of the Temecula Municipal Code are hereby deleted. New Sections 15.04.010 through 15.04.080 are hereby added to Chapter 15.04 to read as follows: "15.04.010 Codes adopted. Except as hereinafter provided in this Chapter, the following codes are adopted by reference as the Building Codes of the City of Temecula: A. California Building Code, 2022 Edition, Volumes 1 and 2 (Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), including Appendix C-Agricultural Buildings, and Appendix F — Rodent Proofing; B. California Historical Building Code, 2022 Edition (Part 8 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations); C. California Existing Building Code, 2022 Edition (Part 10 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations); D. California Electrical Code, 2022 Edition (Part 3 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations); E. California Mechanical Code, 2022 Edition (Part 4 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations); F. California Plumbing Code, 2022 Edition (Part 5 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), including Appendix A, B, D, H, IAPMO 31-2014 of Appendix I, and J. G. California Administrative Code, 2022 Edition (Part 1 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations); H. California Energy Code, 2022 Edition (Part 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), I. California Green Building Standards Code, 2022 Edition (Part 11 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), including Appendix A4 Residential Voluntary Measures and Appendix A5 Non Residential Voluntary Measures. J. California Reference Standards Code, 2022 Edition (Part 12 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), K. California Residential Code, 2022 Edition (Part 2.5 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), including Appendix AX. A copy of each of the above codes shall be maintained in the office of City Clerk and shall be made available for public inspection while such codes are in force." 15.04.020 California Building Code. The following amendments, additions and deletions are made to the California Building Code, 2022 Edition, as adopted by this Chapter. A. Section 105.2 is hereby amended by modifying subsection 4 under Building, to read as follows: 4. Retaining walls that are not over three (3) feet in height unless supporting a sloped surcharge and garden walls not over four (4) feet in height, measured from the top of footing to top of wall or impounding flammable Class I, Class II or III -A liquids. B. Section 105.3 is hereby amended by adding Subsection 8 to read as follows: 8. All contractors and their subcontractors must have current and valid city business licenses. C. Section 105.5 is amended to read as follows: 105.5 Expiration: Every permit issued by the building official under the provisions of this code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 12 months or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is commenced for a period of 180 days or if the permit is revoked. Before such work can be recommenced a new permit shall first be obtained by reinstatement of the permit and the fee therefore shall be one half the amount required for reinstating the permit for such work. A permittee may request an extension of a permit. The Building Official may grant in writing, one or more extensions of time for periods of not more than 180 days per extension. The permittee shall request an extension pursuant to this subdivision in writing and demonstrate justifiable cause for the extension. D. Section 110.3.8 is amended to read as follows: 110.3.8 Fire- and smoke -resistant penetrations. Protection of joints and penetrations in fire resistance -rated assemblies shall not be concealed from view until inspected for all designed fire protection. Required fire seals/fire barriers in fire assemblies at fire-resistant penetrations shall be installed and certified by a third party, state of California licensed fireproofing company and certification of compliance shall be provided for building official's final approval. E. Section 111.1 is hereby amended by adding the following: To ensure appropriate continued use of any occupied space the building official will issue a new Certificate of Occupancy upon any change of tenant at the fee rates established by resolution of the City Council. F. Section 114.4.1 is hereby added to read as follows: 114.4.1 Civil Penalty. Any person, firm or corporation who shall proceed with or commence work for which a permit is required by these building and construction regulations without first having obtained such permit shall, if subsequently permitted to obtain a permit therefor, pay double the fee fixed for such work. The original permit fee shall be for issuance of the permit and the balance shall be a civil penalty. This provision shall not apply to emergency work when it shall be proved to the satisfaction of the building official that such work was urgently necessary and that it was not practical to obtain a permit before commencement of the work. In all such cases a permit must be secured as soon as it is practicable to do so, and if there is an unreasonable delay in securing the required permit, the civil penalty as provided in this section shall be charged. In no event shall such civil penalty exceed the permit fee plus five hundred dollars. The civil penalty provided in this section shall be in addition to any other fines and remedies prescribed elsewhere in this code. The payment of such fees and fine shall not relieve any person from fully complying with the requirements of these building and construction regulations in the execution of the work. Section 502.1 is hereby amended to read as follows: 502.1 Address identification. New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Commercial, multi- family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum of twelve (12) 3 inch numbers with suite numbers being a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall have a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi -family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. Address numbers shall be maintained. H. Section 901.2.1 is added to read as follows: 901.2.1 As-built/Revised documents. Three (3) sets of as-built/revised drawings shall be submitted to the fire department for approval prior to final of any permits. Redlines are not considered as-builts/revised plans. I. Section 903.2 of the California Fire Code is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 903.2 Where required. In all new buildings and structures which are 3,600 square feet or greater, an approved automatic sprinkler system shall be provided regardless of occupancy classification. Where Sections 903.2.1 — 903.2.21 of the California Fire Code require more restrictive requirements than those listed below, the more restrictive requirement shall take precedence. In addition the following is required for existing buildings/structures: A. 1. All new tenants and new occupancies hereafter constructed, which exceed 3,600 square feet shall have an approved automatic fire sprinkler system installed throughout. 2. All existing occupancies to which additions are made, where either the addition itself or the building and the addition in total exceeds 3,600 square feet, shall have an approved automatic fire sprinkler system installed throughout therein. 3. Change of use or occupancy that exceeds 3,600 square feet shall have an approved automatic fire sprinkler system installed throughout therein. B. Exception: Unless required elsewhere in this code or the California Building Code, automatic fire sprinkler systems shall not be required for the following: 1. Detached Group U occupancies used for agricultural Constructed in accordance with the California Building Code. 2. Detached non-combustible equestrian arena shade canopies that are open on all sides and used for riding only - no commercial, assembly or storage uses. 3. Detached fabric or non-combustible shade structures that are open on all sides and used to shade playground equipment, temporary storage of vehicles and dining areas with no cooking. 4. Where determined by the Fire Chief that no major life safety hazard exists, and the fuel load does not pose a significant threat to firefighter safety or to other structures or property, automatic fire sprinklers may be exempted. C. One- and two-family dwellings shall have an automatic fire sprinkler system regardless of square footage in accordance with the California Residential Code. Fire sprinkler systems shall be installed in mobile homes, manufactured homes and multifamily manufactured homes with two dwelling units in accordance with Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations. The following exceptions in the California Fire Code shall not be allowed: a. Exception in Section 903.2.3 b. Exception in Section 903.2.11.3 J. Section 903.3.5.3 is added to read as follows: 903.3.5.3 Hydraulically calculated systems. The design of hydraulically calculated fire sprinkler systems shall not exceed 90% of the water supply capacity. K. Section 903.4.3 is hereby amended to read as follows: 903.4.3 Floor Control Valves. Approved supervised indication control valves shall be provided at the point of connection to the riser in all buildings. Valve locations will be placed in the fire sprinkler riser room on each riser. L. Section 904.2.2.1 is added to read as follows: 904.2.2.1 Extinguishing system monitoring requirements. All automatic fire - extinguishing systems will be required to be monitored by a fire alarm/sprinkler monitoring system. If a fire alarm/sprinkler monitoring system is not present, one will be required to be installed to provide monitoring for the automatic fire - extinguishing system. M. Sections 907.1.6, 907.1.7 and 907.1.8 are added to read as follows: 907.1.6 Fire alarm control panel (FACP). The main fire alarm control panel shall be located in the same room as, and sharing the same access as the fire sprinkler riser. The FACP shall have a minimum 36 inches of face clearance and 6 inches side clearance from any other wall or equipment. 5 907.1.7 Notification appliance. New tenant spaces and new occupancy buildings shall require alarm notification appliances. For multi -tenant buildings, an alarm notification appliance shall be placed in each tenant suite. For existing buildings with new tenants an alarm notification appliance shall be required in each tenant space. For existing buildings that are not equipped with a fire alarm system or sprinkler monitoring system, new tenants or owners shall be required to install the appropriate type of fire alarm system. 907.1.8 Duct Detectors. Duct detectors located in any buildings that have a fire alarm system shall be powered from the main building fire alarm power supply. N. Section 1505.1 is hereby amended to read as follows: 1505.1 General. Roof assemblies shall be divided into the classes defined in this section. Class A, B and C roof assemblies and roof coverings required to be listed by this section shall be tested in accordance with ASTM E108 or UL 790. In addition, fire -retardant wood roof coverings shall be tested in accordance with ASTM D2898. The minimum roof coverings installed on buildings shall comply with Table 105.1 base do the type of construction of the building. The roof covering or roofing assembly on any structure regulated by this Code within the Historical District Overlay, generally known as the Old Town Temecula Historical Preservation District, shall not be less than a Class C roofing assembly. O. Section 1907A.2 is added to read as follows: 1907A.2 Additional requirements. Slab Dowels in all occupancies, slab connection from existing slabs to new construction shall be placed at a minimum twenty-four (24) inches on center with reinforcing steel of one-half inch minimum diameter, eight (18) inches in length. Embedment to existing shall be a minimum of six (6) inches. P. The following Appendices are deleted in their entirety: Appendices A, B, D, E, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O and P Q. Chapter 29 is deleted in its entirety from the California Building Code 15.04.030 California Residential Code. The following amendments, additions and deletions are made to the California Residential Code, 2022 Edition, as adopted by this Chapter. A. All Appendences, except AX are deleted. B. Appendix AX is amended by adding item (8) to Section 115922(a) to read as follows: (8) One (1) of the two (2) required pool safety features of the seven (7) specified above and from the Health and Safety Code 115922, must be an enclosure that meets the requirements of Section 115923 of that code. The second required pool safety feature must be one of the remaining six (6) features listed in Section 115922. 15.04.040 California Electrical Code. The following amendments, additions and deletions are made to the California Electrical Code, 2022 Edition, as adopted by this Chapter. A. Section 90.4 is hereby amended by adding the following to the end of the code section: 90.4 Enforcement. Violations of this Code are subject to the prohibitions set forth in Section 15.02.060 and the penalties set forth in Chapter 1.20, of this Municipal Code. For commercial projects an electrical contractor shall be responsible for obtaining permits for electrical work performed. B. Section 90.8 is hereby amended by adding the following: (C) Connecting Conductors. Accessory uses or other building, or signs, separately located on the same lot or premises shall have connecting conductors run underground. (Agricultural area excepted.) (D) Spare Circuits. Where spare circuit protective devices are provided or space for future circuit protective devices are provided on the bus in any flush or semi -flush mounted panel, then raceways of sufficient capacity to permit utilization of such space or spaces shall be provided to an approved accessible location. (E) Electric Vehicles. Circuits for electric vehicle charging stations shall meet all the requirements of CEC Article 625. Residential garages shall have a minimum one (1) inch metal flex conduit ran from meter box to the garage fire wall and terminated in a metal box at forty-two (42) inches above finished floor for future electric vehicle charging station. All residential electrical applications shall provide two (2) future expansion conduits from the meter box, one each stubbed to an approved, accessible upper and lower location. C. Section 110.5 is hereby amended to read as follows: 110.5 Conductors. Conductors used to carry current shall be of copper, aluminum, or copper -clad aluminum unless otherwise provided in this Code. Where the conductor material is not specified, the sizes given in this Code shall apply to copper conductors. Where other materials are used, the size shall be changed accordingly. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, no aluminum conductors smaller than #6 A.W.G. shall be used. 7 D. Table 300.5, Location of Wiring Method or Circuit is amended by revising `Under a building' to read as follows: Under a building: `Six (6) inches beneath the bottom of slab', in all corresponding columns. E. Section 334.10 is hereby amended to read as follows: 334.10 Uses permitted. Type NM, Type NMC, and Type NMS cables shall be permitted to be used in the following: (1) One and two-family dwellings. O Multi -family dwellings permitted to be types III, IV, and V construction xcept as prohibited in Section 334.12. (3) No type NM, NMC, or NMS, or non-metallic sheathed cable (Romex) shall be used in commercial applications regardless of mixed -use occupancy. F. Section 690.4 (A) is hereby amended to read as follows: (A) Photovoltaic Systems. Solar Photovoltaic Systems shall only be installed by registered California Contractors License Board entities with a valid A, B, C- 10 or C-46 contractor license or the property owner. Valid copies of the contractor's City of Temecula Business License and California Contractors License Board license shall be submitted on the plans. The current carrying conductors of all sources of energy *shall be designed to de -energize, and remain de -energized, from their respective source of energy generation when the utility -supplied service's main breaker is opened (set to the "off' position) on the electrical system being energized by the aforementioned sources of energy. *For purposes of this section, "sources of energy" includes alternating current, solar, wind, battery and fuel cell. The point where the current carrying conductors are to be de -energized and remain de -energized shall be immediately adjacent to the point of energy generation or immediately adjacent to a combiner box, if so equipped. This shall apply to all electrical system installations, regardless of location of conductors inside or outside of any structures. Solar systems not installed on roofs — Foundation and/or footings size plans and substantiating design calculations shall be submitted showing supporting member sizes, dimensions, materials and the loads which will be imposed on the foundation or footings. Where the supporting framework of the modules or arrays is shown as part of the 8 laboratory approved system, design calculations will not be required for the supporting framework of the modules or arrays provided they are included in the approved listing. 15.04.050 California Mechanical Code. The following amendments, additions and deletions are made to the California Mechanical Code, 2022 Edition, as adopted by this Chapter. A. Section 104.5 is hereby deleted in its entirety and superseded by Sections 15.02.010 through 15.02.050 of this Municipal Code, expressly incorporated herein by reference. All references in the California Mechanical Code to fees, fee schedules, or fee tables shall mean the fee schedule as established by Resolution of the City Council in accordance with Section 15.02.010 herein. B. Section 106.3 is hereby amended to read as follows: 106.3 Penalties. Violations of this Code are subject to the prohibitions set forth in Section 15.02.060 and the penalties set forth in Chapter 1.20, of this Municipal Code. C. Section 504.1 is hereby amended by adding the following: 504.1 General. Where not specified in this chapter, exhaust ducts shall be constructed and installed in accordance with Chapter 6 and shall be airtight as approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction. Environmental air ducts that have an alternate function as a part of an approved smoke -control system do not require design as Class I product -conveying ducts. Aluminum flex ducts are not permitted to be installed horizontally n rooms that produce steam. An angle greater than forty- five degrees from the vertical is considered a horizontal run. 15.04.060 California Plumbing Code. The following amendments, additions and deletions are made to the California Plumbing Code, 2022 Edition, as adopted by this Chapter: A. Section 106.3 is amended to read as follows: 106.3 Penalties. Violations of this Code are subject to the prohibitions set forth in Section 15.02.060 and the penalties set forth in Chapter 1.20, of this Municipal Code. B. Section 104.5 is deleted in its entirety and superseded by Sections 15.02.010 through 15.02.050 of this Municipal Code, expressly incorporated herein by reference. All references in the California Plumbing Code to fees, fee schedules, or fee tables shall mean the fee schedule as established by resolution of the City Council in accordance with Section 15.02.010 herein. G1 C. Section 211.0 is amended by revising the definition of `industrial waste pipe' to read as follows: Indirect Waste Pipe. An indirect waste pipe is a pipe that does not connect directly with the drainage system but conveys liquid wastes by discharging through an approved air gap into a plumbing fixture, interceptor or receptacle which is directly connected to the drainage system. D. Section 719.5 is hereby amended to read as follows: 719.5 Access. Cleanouts installed under concrete or asphalt paving shall be made accessible by yard boxes, or by extending flush in paving with a `brass cap' or other approved material for installation where subject to vehicular traffic. E. Section 1213.3.1 is added to read as follows: 1213.3.1 Testing. Testing of gas piping two (2) inches or greater or exceeding twenty (20) feet in length shall require a thirty (30) minute test witnessed by the jurisdiction. Such test shall be sixty (60) p.s.i. All welded pipe shall be graph tested for twenty-four (24) hours at sixty (60) p.s.i. witnessed by the jurisdiction. No gas tests shall be performed at less than ten (10) p.s.i and at not less than fifteen (15) minutes witnessed by the jurisdiction. F. Section 1211.8.1 is added to read as follows: 1211.8.1 Installation. The installation of Seismic Gas Shutoff Valves shall comply with the following requirements: Be installed by a contractor licensed in the appropriate classification by the State of California. Exception: Seismic gas shutoff valves may be installed by a gas utility provided a permit is obtained and the valves are installed and approved in accordance with this section. 2. Be mounted rigidly to the exterior of the building or structure containing the fuel gas piping. Exception: This requirement need not apply if the Building Department determines that the seismic gas shutoff valve has been tested and listed for an alternate method of installation. 3. Be listed by an approved testing laboratory and certified by the Office of the State Architect. 4. Be approved by the Building and Safety Department. 10 5. Have thirty (30) year warranty, which warrants that the valve is free from defects, and will continue to properly operate for thirty (30) years from the date of installation. 6. Where seismic gas shutoff valves are installed as required by this section, they shall be maintained for the life of the building or structure or be replaced with a valve complying with the requirements of this section. H. The following chapter of the 2022 California Plumbing Code IS adopted in its entirety: Chapter 13, Health Care Facilities and Medical Gas and Vacuum Systems. I. The following Appendices of the 2022 California Plumbing Code are adopted in their entirety: Appendix A, B, D, H, IAPMO 31-2014 of Appendix I, and J. 15.04.070 Penalties for violation of Chapter 15.04. Any person, firm, partnership, or corporation violating any provision or to failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter or any of the Codes hereby adopted, shall be subject to the penalties set forth in Chapters 1.20, 1.21 and 1.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Each and every person, firm, partnership, or corporation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or any portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter or the Codes hereby adopted is committed, continued or permitted by such person, firm, partnership or corporation, and shall be deemed punishable therefore as provided in this Chapter. 15.04.080 Civil remedies available. The violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter or any of the Codes hereby adopted shall constitute a nuisance and may be abated by the City through civil process by means of restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction or in any other manner provided by law for the abatement of such nuisances." Section 2. Severability. The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Ordinance or the Codes hereby adopted be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences and words of this Ordinance and the Codes hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect. Section 3. This Ordinance shall become effective upon the later of January 1, 2023, or thirty (30) days after adoption. Section 4. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same or a summary thereof to be published and posted in the manner required by law. M PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 25th day of October, 2022. ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] Matt Rahn, Mayor 12 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2022-13 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 27th day of September, 2022, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 25th day of October, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk 13 Notice of Public Hearing THE CITY OF TEMECULA 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Applicant: City of Temecula Location: Citywide Proposal: Adoption and Amendment of Codes Comprising the 2022 California Building Standards Code AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE 2022 EDITIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE; CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE; CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE; CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE; CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE; CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE; CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE; CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE; CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE; CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE; AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCED STANDARDS CODE; TOGETHER WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS AND DELETIONS, AND AMENDING TITLE 15 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PLACE OF HEARING: City of Temecula, Council Chambers, 41000 Main St., Temecula, CA DATE OF HEARING: October 25, 2022 TIME OF HEARING: 6:00 PM Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of hearing. Any petition forjudicial review of a decision of the City Council shall be filed within the time required by, and controlled by, Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. In any such action or proceeding seeking judicial review of, which attacks or seeks to set aside, or void any decision of the City Council, shall be limited to those issues raised at the hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing described in this notice. The Codes comprising the 2022 California Building Standards Code and proposed amendments may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula Civic Center, Community Development Department, 41000 Main Street, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Brian Clements, Building Official, City of Temecula Building and Safety Department, (951) 506-5176 or brian.clements(a�-temeculaca.gov. Item No. 14 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Luke Watson, Deputy City Manager DATE: October 25, 2022 SUBJECT: Receive and File Update Regarding County of Riverside Winchester Community Plan and Recent Development Applications in the Interstate (I-215) Policy Area Related to the 2003 Settlement Agreement and 2005 Cooperative Agreement Between the City of Temecula and County of Riverside PREPARED BY: Mark Collins, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the update on the County of Riverside's proposed Winchester Community Plan and recent development applications in the I- 215 Policy Area related to an increase of residential density by 33,000 units, traffic impacts, road and freeway mitigation measures, public service infrastructure, compliance with California Environmental Quality Act, and the 2003 Settlement Agreement and the 2005 Cooperative Agreement between the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside, and provide direction to staff. BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula conducts regular external agency reviews of proposed projects, and public meeting agendas from surrounding jurisdictions and governmental agencies to monitor, and comment as necessary. The purpose of these reviews is to ensure that any potential project impacts are addressed. The City has a long history of requiring infrastructure be built before a private development project is constructed. Requiring infrastructure before project construction has been a major contributing factor to the high quality of life in Temecula. During recent external agency reviews, staff identified several large projects in the County of Riverside that have the potential to cause significant and detrimental impacts to residents and businesses within the City of Temecula, as well as surrounding communities, and the entire region. Recently identified projects located in the County of Riverside conflict with Riverside County General Plan policies. These Riverside County General Plan policies, (e.g., I-215 Policy Area) were developed as a result of litigation filed by the City of Temecula against the County of Riverside. That litigation specifically resulted in the 2003 Settlement Agreement and 2005 Cooperative Agreements between the County of Riverside and the City of Temecula. After further analysis City staff discovered that the proposed projects failed to comply with the 2003 Settlement Agreement and 2005 Cooperative Agreement, as well as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). One of the most alarming discoveries was the potential for one of the proposed projects (the Winchester Community Plan) to add approximately 33,000 additional residential units in the unincorporated areas of Riverside County (I-215 Policy Area) in addition to the existing and previously entitled residential units in the geographic region. For comparison purposes, it must be noted that the City of Temecula has approximately 36,000 residential units. When analyzing potential mitigation for the Winchester Community Plan project, the mitigation was found to be missing and/or entirely inadequate. Just as concerning, the proposed project's public notices did not include any clear reference to the potential 33,000 units being proposed. The purpose of this update is to ensure that this crucial information is made available to the public and surrounding communities. HISTORY As development of Southwest Riverside County continued rapidly during the early 2000's, the open lands north of Temecula were still relatively undeveloped. The County of Riverside had been approving new development projects at a rapid pace. The City recognized that the amount of development that was planned in the County area was clearly out of sequence with the infrastructure in place. Without a clear County plan to fund and construct necessary infrastructure the development of the County approved projects would have resulted in severe traffic circulation problems within the City and the surrounding region. The City of Temecula has been engaged in a long-term effort to require private development projects within the City boundary build infrastructure to mitigate projects impacts prior to projects being constructed. The City has also allocated and spent significant sums of public funds on traffic and transportation related capital improvement projects. Because the County of Riverside had not been requiring infrastructure prior to development and was not deploying sufficient public resources to mitigate the volume of development that was underway and approved in the late 1990's and early 2000's, the City concluded that without the County of Riverside appropriately addressing the impacts of development in the County area, all of the efforts of the City to strategically plan for and execute orderly development (specially traffic related improvements) would be for not. It was for this reason that the City initiated litigation against the County of Riverside. The result of the litigation was a Settlement Agreement dated January 14, 2003, and a Cooperative Agreement dated November 14, 2006. Together these agreements required that the County of Riverside construct specific transportation infrastructure projects prior to the issuance building permits within the I-215 Policy Area. The Settlement and Cooperative Agreements also require that the County of Riverside maintain an accounting of all development previously constructed and projects under review as well as the progress of infrastructure projects outlined in the Settlement and Cooperative Agreements. The City has not received a response to repeated written request to County staff, including but not limited to correspondence dated September 6th and 23rd of this year as well as two requests dated October 13, 2022, in which the City requested a full accounting of development activity, residential units constructed, and infrastructure completed. Proposed Winchester Community Plan The Winchester Community Plan Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) was discovered by Staff on August 12, 2022. Staff completed an initial review of the document and found it to be woefully inadequate as an informational document, key information necessary to allow for meaningful analysis of the impacts was excluded or omitted. Staff has a multitude of serious concerns about the PEIR as detailed in Exhibit D. The City's primary concern is the incomplete and undecipherable project description, the project description includes a discussion of existing land uses and land use designations within the proposed Winchester Community Plan, but it does not include any mention of the actual proposed Winchester Community Plan policies or include the proposed land use and circulation plan. This is the most basic project information that must be included as part of the project description for any meaningful environmental analysis to occur. In the absence of this critical information, there is no way to conduct the required environmental analysis. Without a stable, clear and concise project description as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, the City cannot perform meaningful environmental analysis. The project would result in Significant and unavoidable impacts to Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions with the PEIR analysis concluding that "no mitigation measures are required" and appears to circumvent the required mitigation efforts of CEQA by relying on a statement of overriding consideration. Additionally, the PEIR concludes that there will be Significant and Unavoidable Impacts to: Noise and Vibration, Transportation, and Agriculture and Forestry Services all of which the City cannot analyze accurately due to the lacking project description, but again the County is relying on a statement of overriding consideration. Additional County Development Projects In addition to the Winchester Community Plan, the City has noted increased development in the I-215 Policy Area that seemingly violate the Settlement and Cooperative Agreements and CEQA, the City has provided comment letters accordingly. Specifically: • General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 210001, Change of Zone No. 2100002, Tentative Tract Map No. 38034 and Plot Plan No. 210002 o An application to amend the General Plan and change the zoning designation (increase in density) utilizing a "density swap" mechanism to approve a 54-lot residential subdivision • Pre -Application Review No. 220073 o An application for 2 industrial buildings totaling >400,000 square feet just north of Murrieta Hot Springs Road, within the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI) • Pre -Application Review No. 220074 o An application for phase 1 a commercial shopping center totaling approx. 46,000 square feet Conclusion In developing the Winchester Community Plan and Draft PEIR the County has completely ignored its obligations under the Settlement and Cooperative Agreements. The development already approved and contemplated under the proposed Winchester Community Plan and other proposed development projects will directly result in adverse traffic impacts upon the City, the Winchester Community Plan Area and the cities surrounding the Winchester Community Plan Area (Murrieta, Menifee, Wildomar, Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake, Hemet, Perris). There is no plan to finance the remaining Major Arterial Roads described in the Cooperative Agreement that are needed to mitigate the traffic impacts of residential units in the area under the existing General Plan. The County has not conducted a Freeway Study (as required by the Settlement and Cooperative Agreement) nor come up with a traffic mitigation plan for the additional 33,000 residential units in the new Winchester Community Plan. The City of Temecula is seriously concerned that the nature of development and the seemingly blind eye turned toward the requirements of CEQA and the Settlement and Cooperative Agreements will result in dramatic traffic impacts to the City and surrounding communities from which the region may never recover. If development in the I-215 Policy area were allowed to continue unmitigated, the negative impacts to the Quality of Life enjoyed by the residents of Temecula would be forever altered and decades of proactive and strategic transportation planning work and infrastructure construction completed by the City would be entirely undermine. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impacts cannot be easy calculated due to the indecipherable project description, omission of land use tables, outdated assumptions and modeling software. However, the impacts would be substantial in both transportation facility expansion and increased maintenance costs. Currently there is no identified funding for transportation facilty construction or maintenance associated with the inevitable impacts of the proposed County of Riverside development projects. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Exhibit A - Cooperative Agreement 2. Exhibit B - Amendment No. 1 to the Cooperative Agreement 3. Exhibit C - Settlement Agreement 4. Exhibit D - Winchester Community Plan Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Letter dated September 23, 2022 f,-,ontract No. Riverside Co. Transportation AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TO MITIGATE TRAFFIC IMPACTS IN WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY This Amendment is made and entered into as of A rrc.,ql , 204 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City"), and the County of Riverside ("County"), a public subdivision of the State of California ("County"). ARTICLE 1 RECITALS This Agreement is made for the following purposes and with respect to the following facts, which the City and County agree to be true and correct: On April 12, 2005, the City and the County of Riverside entered an agreement entitled: "COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TO MITIGATE TRAFFIC IMPACTS IN WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY" ("COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT'). The COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT calls, among other things, for the City and the County to implement certain measures to mitigate the impact of new housing development on City and County arterial roads and highways within the boundaries of the I-215 Policy Area. ("The Measures"). The Measures call for the County to condition all County Land Use Applications authorizing the construction of residential dwelling units to be part of an appropriately funded financing mechanism (such as a Community Facilities District - CFD) that will build the major arterial road components identified in the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT. The County has been imposing conditions of approval that implement the requirements of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT. Now that the City and the County have been implementing the terms of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT for over a year, they have identified modifications to the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT that will facilitate implementation and enhance the timely delivery of transportation infrastructure. In light of the above, the City and the County hereby wish to amend the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT as follows: I A Al 9 n inn`, —, su, ARTICLE 2 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS Section 1. Exhibit A to the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT, referenced in Section 1.8 thereof, is amended as shown in "Revised Exhibit A", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Revised Exhibit A modifies the boundaries of the original I-215 Policy Area to include the following sub -areas: ■ Newport Road/I-215 Interchange CFD — Sub -area A ■ Scott Road/I-215 Interchange CFD — Sub -area B ■ Clinton Keith Road Extension CFD — Sub -area C ■ Washington Street Construction --- Sub -area D ■ Clinton Keith Road Extension Fee Payment — Sub -area E ■ Newport Road Extension CFD — Sub -area F ■ Newport Road Realignment CFD — Sub -area G The County shall use these sub -areas as a guideline in determining how County Land Use Applications should be conditioned. Section 2. Section 1.9.9 of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT is amended to read as follows: "1.9.9 `County Land Use Applications' is defined in Section 2.3.3 and shall mean any applications on which the County Planning Commission has not taken final action as of the effective date of this Agreement, the approval of which would authorize, or conditionally authorize, the construction of dwelling units within the I-215 Policy Area, including, but not limited to, applications for General Plan amendments, specific plans, specific plan amendments, zone' changes, development agreements, subdivision maps and planned development permits. County Land Use Applications shall not include any applications for parcel maps that would result in the creation of four or fewer parcels, provided that the parcels created could not be further subdivided without a General Plan amendment. County Land Use Applications shall also not include any applications for minor changes to approved tentative tract maps that would add only one residential unit to the maps." Section 3. Section 2.3.3 of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT is amended to read as follows: "2.3.3 As used in this Agreement, County Land Use Applications shall mean any applications on which the County Planning Commission has not taken final action as of the effective date of this Agreement, the approval of which would authorize, or conditionally authorize, the construction of dwelling units within the I-215 Policy Area, including, but not limited to, applications for General Plan amendments, specific plans, specific plan amendments, zone changes, development agreements, subdivision maps and planned development permits. County Land Use Applications shall not include any applications for parcel maps that would result in the creation of four or fewer parcels, provided that the parcels created could not be further subdivided without a General Plan amendment. County Land Use Applications shall also not include any applications for minor changes to approved tentative tract maps that would add only one residential unit to the maps." 2 Section 4. A new Section 1.9.19 is added to the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT to read as follows: "1.9.19 `Subdivision map extension application' shall mean an application to extend the time available to record a final map." Section 5. A new Section 1.9.20 is added to the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT to read as follows: "1.9.20 `TUMF' shall mean the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee adopted by the Western Riverside Council of Governments and its member jurisdictions (including the City and the County), as subsequently amended." Section 6. Existing Section 1.9.19 is renumbered Section 1.9.21. Section 7. A new Section 2.2.1 is added to the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT to read as follows: "2.2.1 To facilitate the formation of financing mechanisms, the County has implemented Section 2.2 of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT such that subdivision maps are required to comply therewith prior to recordation of a final map. Notwithstanding the County's implementation procedure, the City and County recognize that certain subdivision maps were tentatively approved prior to adoption of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT, but have not recorded for a variety of reasons. Recognizing that substantial time and money have been invested in these maps and that their recordation may be further delayed by the requirements of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT as implemented by the County, the County has developed the alternative procedure set forth in Section 2.2.2 that will allow these maps to record while still securing the funding necessary for the needed transportation improvements." Section 8. A new Section 2.2.2 is added to the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT to read as follows: "2.2.2 In considering a subdivision map extension application for any map tentatively approved prior to the effective date of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT (April 12, 2005), the County may, at the request of the subdivider, conditionally approve the application to require the subdivider to pay (a) the applicable TUMF at the earliest date allowed by the TUMF Ordinance and (b) an early recordation fee, which shall be 50% of the TUMF in effect at the time of recordation. The County shall earmark the early recordation fee for use only on the major arterial road that most benefits the subdivision, as deternuned by the County. This alternative procedure is purely voluntary and any subdivider choosing not to request it shall be subject to all other terms of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT as implemented by the County." Section 9. Section 5.2 of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT is amended to read as follows: "5.2 The City shall have the right to refile the Litigation, subject to the provisions of Sections 5.2.1 through 5.2.6, inclusive, in the event that: (1) the County 91 does not, within four (4) months of the effective date of Amendment No. I to the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT, complete the staff work required for the County General Plan Amendment, including necessary environmental documentation, and set a public hearing date before the Planning Commission; (2) the County does not, for any reason, adopt the County General Plan Amendment within eight (8) months of the effective date of Amendment No. 1 to the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT; or (3) the County does not adopt the jointly developed Freeway Action Plan described in Section 4.4 within one (1) year after completion of the Freeway Strategic Study described in Section 4.2." ARTICLE 3 NIISCELLANEOUS The parties hereto represent and warrant to each other that they have full authority to execute this Agreement. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. The effective date of this Agreement is the date the parties sign the Agreement. If the parties sign the Agreement on more than one date, then the last date the Agreement is signed by a party shall be the effective date. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement in the State of California. CITY OF TEMECULA Mayor Ron Roberts Attest: 0 Approved as to Form City Attorney Peter M. Thorson COUNTY OF E RMAN, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Attest: Nancy Romero, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By Deputy Clerk Approved as to Form Joe Rank, County Counsel By: �A L-A� Katherine A. Lind Principal Deputy County Counsel 5 .IAN 3 0 2006 3.34- U Sub -area COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TO MITIGATE TRAFFIC IMPACTS IN WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY This Agreement is made and entered into as of April 1a, 2005 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City"), and the County of Riverside, a public subdivision of the State of California ("County"). In consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, the City and County agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 RECITALS This Agreement is made for the following purposes and with respect to the following facts, which the City and County agree to be true and correct: 1.1 Since 1999, the County has been engaged in a project known as the Riverside County Integrated Project (the "RCIP"), which initially consisted of proposals for the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (the "CETAP"), the Western Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan ("MSHCP"), and an updated general plan to replace the County general plan adopted in 1984. The CETAP has not yet been adopted. The MSHCP has been adopted by the County and the member agencies. The State and Federal agencies have also approved the MSHCP and issued the necessary permits for the MSHCP. 1.2 On October 7, 2003, the County adopted its Resolution No. 2003-487, approving a new General Plan (the "General Plan") to replace the prior general plan approved in 1984 and adopted Resolution No. 2003-488 adopting and certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan ("FEIR" ). The General Plan designates land uses for the unincorporated areas of the County. The General Plan also describes the infrastructure necessary to serve the designated land uses. 1.3 The City is located in southwestern Riverside County. Two major highways traverse the City, State Route 79 North (Winchester Road) and State Route 79 South, and connect to Interstate 15. The City has improved these roads from two lanes to six lanes in order to accommodate the growth within the City. These roads also serve the unincorporated areas of the County surrounding the City. 1.4 During the public hearing process, the City commented extensively on the proposed General Plan. The City contends, among other things, that the General Plan fails to adequately provide for construction of the traffic improvements required to serve the dwelling units proposed by the General Plan and, therefore, fails to mitigate the traffic impacts created by the General Plan; that the General Plan deficiencies are of particular concern to the City because traffic generated in the Southwest area of the County will severely impact the City unless certain 779861.6 April 1, 2005 traffic improvements are built concurrently with the proposed dwelling units; and that no adequate mechanism exists in the General Plan to ensure that traffic mitigation measures identified in the General Plan and the FEIR are in place before the dwelling units creating the need for the mitigation measures are constructed. The County disputes the City's contentions. 1.5 On November 5, 2003, the City filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate in Riverside Superior Court challenging the legality and validity of the General Plan and the FEIR. The action is entitled "City of Temecula v. County of Riverside; Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside," Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 402766 ("Litigation"). The County disputes the City's contention that the General Plan and FEIR are invalid. 1.6 Despite their differences in the Litigation, the City and County desire to cooperatively work together in an effort to improve the highway infrastructure in Western Riverside County for the benefit of all current and future residents of the County. The City and County acknowledge that providing adequate traffic infrastructure for Western Riverside County involves complex engineering, environmental and financial challenges requiring the full cooperation of all federal, state and Iocal governmental agencies, but will provide substantial public benefits for the City, County and the people living and working in the City and the County. 1.7 This Agreement sets forth the framework for a major cooperative effort by the City and the County to provide the traffic infrastructure required for new housing development in Western Riverside County before the creation of actual traffic impacts. 1.8 This Agreement specifically addresses impacts of the General Plan on Major Arterial Roads in Southwest Riverside County in the specific area to be known as the "I-215 Policy Area." This Agreement also specifically addresses impacts of the General Plan on freeways in the "Western Riverside County Area". For the purposes of this Agreement, the "I- 215 Policy Area" shall be the area described in and shown on Exhibit A and the "Western Riverside County Area" shall be the area described in and shown on Exhibit D. 1.9 The terms described below shall have the following meanings unless otherwise noted in the Agreement: 1.9.1 "Appropriately formed and ftilly funded financing mechanism" is defined in Section 2.3.4 and Section 3.3.4 and shall mean a community facilities district, assessment district, or similar infrastructure financing mechanism, which has been formed and which is fully funded to provide for the immediate construction of the Major Arterial Roads required to mitigate project -related traffic impacts. "Appropriately formed financing mechanism" is defined in Section 2.3.4 and Section 3.3.4 and shall mean a community facilities district, assessment district, or similar infrastructure financing mechanism, which has been formed to provide for the construction of the Major Arterial Roads required to mitigate project -related traffic impacts. 1.9.2 "Best efforts" County is defined in Section 2.3.2 and Section 2.3.7. As used in Section 2.3.2, "best efforts" shall mean that the County shall initiate proceedings to amend the General Plan as described in Section 2.1 and shall diligently process the proposed 779861.6 April 1, 2005 2 General Plan Amendment to completion in accordance with all applicable laws, subject to the County's legislative discretion as more particularly described in Section 2.3.5. As used in Section 2.3.7, "best efforts" shall mean that the County shall, at the time an appropriately formed financing mechanism is in place and sufficient funds are available, diligently undertake, without unnecessary delay, all the actions required to enable construction of the Major Arterial Roads, including, but not limited to, preparing and processing the required environmental documentation, design documentation and plans and specifications. As used in Section 2.3.7, "best efforts" shall further mean that the County shall, at the time an appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism is in place, diligently initiate and complete construction of the Major Arterial Roads. 1.9.3 "Best efforts" City is defined in Section 3.3.2, and shall mean that the City shall initiate proceedings to amend the General Plan as described in Section 3.1 and shall diligently process the proposed General Plan Amendment to completion in accordance with all applicable laws, subject to the City's legislative discretion as more particularly described in Section 3.3.6. 1.9.4 "City" shall mean the City of Temecula. 1.9.5 "Cif General Plan Amendment" shall mean the proposed amendment to the Temecula General Plan described in Section 3.1. 19.6 "City Land Use Applications" is defined in Section 3.3.3 and shall mean any applications on which the City Planning Commission has not taken final action as of the effective date of this Agreement, the approval of which, would authorize or conditionally authorize the construction of dwelling units within the City, including, but not limited to, applications for General Plan amendments, specific plans, specific plan amendments, zone changes, development agreements, subdivision maps and planned development permits. 1.9.7 "County" shall mean the County of Riverside. 1.9.8 "County General Plan Amendment" shall mean the proposed amendment to the Riverside County General Plan described in Section 2.1. 1.9.9 "County Land Use Applications" is defined in Section 2.3.3 and shall mean any applications on which the County Planning Commission has not taken final action as of the effective date of this Agreement, the approval of which, would authorize or conditionally authorize the construction of dwelling units within the I-215 Policy Area, including, but not limited to, applications for General Plan amendments, specific plans, specific plan amendments, zone changes, development agreements, subdivision maps and planned development permits. 1.9.10 "Effective date of this Agreement" shall mean the date described in Section 6.11. 779861.6 April 1, 2005 3 1.9.11 "General Plan" shall mean the Riverside County General Plan approved by Resolution No. 2003-487 of the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County on October 7, 2003. 1.9.12 "Freeway" shall mean the I-15 Freeway and the I-215 Freeway within the Western Riverside County Area. 1.9.13 "Freeway Action Plan" shall mean the action plan described in Section 4.4 which shall be negotiated by the City and County following receipt of the Freeway Strategic Study. 1.9.14 "Freeway. Strategic Study_" shall mean the study described in Section 4.1 to set specific goals for the development of the freeway capacity necessary to meet the traffic generated by new housing development in the Western Riverside County Area and to establish the framework for the joint efforts of the City, County, and other federal, state and local agencies to implement the goals and establish the necessary freeway capacity. 1.9.15 "I-215 Policy Area" is defined in Section 1.8 and shall mean the area in Southwest Riverside County described in and shown on Exhibit A. 1.9.16 "Liti ag tion" shall mean the Petition for Writ of Mandate filed by the City on November 5, 2003 in Riverside Superior Court, entitled "City of Temecula v. County of Riverside; Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside," Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 402766, challenging the legality and validity of the General Plan and the FEIR. 1.9.17 "Major Arterial Roads" is defined in Section 2.3.1 and Section 3.3.1 and shall mean those roadway projects identified in Exhibit B. 1.9.18 "Priority Phasing Program" shall mean the program described in Exhibit C. 1.9.19 "Western Riverside County Area" shall mean the area described in and shown on Exhibit D. ARTICLE 2 MEASURES TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON COUNTY ARTERIAL ROADS AND HIGHWAYS 2.1 The County shall use its best efforts to amend the General Plan so that it contains: (1) a policy indicating that the Major Arterial Roads within the I-215 Policy Area shall be constructed and completed concurrently with the construction of the dwelling units creating the demand for the Major Arterial Roads; and (2) a requirement that all land use applications approved by the County within the I-215 Policy Area ("County Land Use Applications") shall contain a condition, in addition to all other appropriate conditions, that building permits shall not 779861.6 April], 2005 be issued until (a) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (b) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project and the property owner pays its full proportionate share of the required improvements to the County in trust for the construction of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (c) the County otherwise funds or constructs the required improvements using money from other sources. The General Plan Amendments described in this section shall be known as the "County General Plan Amendment." 2.2 All County Land Use Applications approved by the County after the effective date of this Agreement shall contain a condition of approval requiring that building permits shall not be issued until (a) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (b) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project and the property owner pays his/lier/its full proportionate share of the required improvements to the County in trust for the construction of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (c) the County otherwise funds or constructs the required improvements using money from other sources. 2.3 The County, to the extent allowed by law, shall facilitate and promote the proceedings necessary to complete processing of the County General Plan Amendment as set forth in Section 2.1 and the County shall diligently process the County General Plan Amendment, including necessary environmental actions without unnecessary delay. 2.3.1 As used in this Agreement, "Major Arterial Roads" shall mean those roadway projects identified in Exhibit B. 2.3.2 As used in Sections 2.1, "best efforts" shall mean that the County shall initiate proceedings to amend the County General Plan as described in Section 2.1 and shall diligently process the proposed Amendment to completion in accordance with all applicable laws, subject to the County's legislative discretion as more particularly described in Section 2.3.5. 2.3.3 As used in this Agreement, County Land Use Applications shall mean any applications on which the County Planning Commission has not taken final action as of the effective date of this Agreement, the approval of which, would authorize or conditionally authorize the construction of dwelling units within the I-215 Policy Area, including, but not limited to, applications for General Plan amendments, specific plans, specific plan amendments, zone changes, development agreements, subdivision maps and planned development permits. 2.3.4 As used in this Agreement, "appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism" shall mean a community facilities district, assessment district, or similar infrastructure financing mechanism, which has been formed and which is fully funded to provide 779861.6 April 1, 2005 5 -0 0 for the immediate construction of the Major Arterial Roads required to mitigate project -related traffic impacts.. As used in this Agreement, "appropriately formed financing mechanism" shall mean a community facilities district, assessment district, or similar infrastructure financing mechanism, which has been formed to provide for the construction of the Major Arterial Roads required to mitigate project -related traffic impacts.. 2.3.5 The Parties understand and acknowledge that, in the context of processing the County General Plan Amendment and the County Land Use Applications, the County cannot guarantee the ultimate outcome of any public hearings before the County Planning Commission or the County Board of Supervisors or other public bodies of the County, nor prevent any opposition thereto by members of the public or other agencies affected by or interested in the County General Plan Amendment and the County Land Use Applications. The Parties further understand and acknowledge that land use regulations involve the exercise of the County's police power and, at the time of executing this Agreement, it is settled California law that government may not contract away its right to exercise its police power in the future. Avco Communitv Developers Inc. v. South Coast Regional Com., 17 Ca1.3d 785, 800 (1976); City of Glendale v. Su erior Court, 18 Cal.AppAth 1768 (1993). The parties further understand and acknowledge that the approval of the County General Plan Amendment and the County Land Use Applications may be subject to procedural or substantive obligations under the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Planning and Zoning Law, or other laws potentially applicable to such approvals. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to constrain the County's consideration of the County General Plan Amendment and the County Land Use Applications in light of the information obtained or developed pursuant to these laws and the County retains the discretion to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the County General Plan Amendment and the County Land Use Applications in light of such information. Subject to the foregoing, the County, to the extent allowed by law, shall facilitate and promote the proceedings necessary to complete processing of the County General Plan Amendment as set forth in this section, and the County shall diligently process the County General Plan Amendment, including all necessary environmental actions without unnecessary delay. 2.3.6 The County shall send to the City a public hearing notice for all County Land Use Applications that require a hearing before the County Planning Commission or the County Board of Supervisors. 2.3.7 The County shall use its best efforts to complete the Major Arterial Roads pursuant to the Priority Phasing Program, attached hereto as Exhibit C. As used in this section, "best efforts" shall mean that County shall, at the time an appropriately formed financing mechanism is in place and sufficient funds are available, diligently undertake, without unnecessary delay, all the actions required to enable construction of the Major Arterial Roads, including, but not limited to, preparing and processing the required enviromnental documentation, design documentation and plans and specifications. As used in this, section "best efforts" shall further mean that the County shall, at the time an appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism is in place, diligently initiate and complete construction of the Major Arterial Roads. 779861.6 April 1, 2005 6 ARTICLE 3 MEASURES TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON CITY ARTERIAL ROADS AND HIGHWAYS 3.1 The City shall use its best efforts to amend the City's General Plan so that it contains: (1) a policy indicating that the Major Arterial Roads within the City shall be constructed and completed concurrently with the construction of the dwelling units creating the demand for the Major Arterial Roads; and (2) a requirement that land use applications approved by the City within the City ("City Land Use Applications") shall contain a condition, in addition to all other appropriate conditions, that building permits shall not be issued until (a) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (b) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project and the property owner pays its full proportionate share of the required improvements to the City in trust for the construction of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (c) the City otherwise funds or constructs the required improvements using money from other sources. The City General Plan Amendments described in this section shall be known as the "City General Plan Amendment." 3.2 All City Land Use Applications approved by the City after the effective date of this Agreement shall contain a condition of approval which requires that building permits shall not be issued until (a) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (b) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project and the property owner pays his/her/its full proportionate share of the required improvements to the City in trust for the construction of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (c) the City otherwise funds or constructs the required improvements using money from other sources. 3.3 The City, to the extent allowed by law, shall facilitate and promote the proceedings necessary to complete processing of the City General Plan Amendment as set forth in Section 3.1, and the City shall diligently process the City General Plan Amendment, including necessary environmental actions without unnecessary delay. 3.3.1 As used in this Agreement, "Major Arterial Roads" shall mean those roadway projects identified in Exhibit B. 3.3.2 As used in Sections 3.1, "best efforts" shall mean that the City shall initiate proceedings to amend the City General Plan as described in Section 3.1 and shall diligently process the proposed Amendment to completion in accordance with all applicable laws, subject to the City's legislative discretion as more particularly described in Section 3.3.5. 779861.6 April 1, 2005 3.3.3 As used in this Agreement, City Land Use Applications shall mean any applications on which the City Planning Commission has not taken final action as of the effective date of this Agreement, the approval of which, would authorize or conditionally authorize the construction of dwelling units within the City, including, but not limited to, applications for General Plan amendments, specific plans, specific plan amendments, zone changes, development agreements, subdivision maps and planned development permits. 3.3.4 As used in this Agreement, "appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism" shall mean a community facilities district, assessment district, or similar infrastructure financing mechanism, which has been formed and which is fully funded to provide for the immediate construction of the Major Arterial Roads required to mitigate project -related traffic impacts. As used in this Agreement, "appropriately formed financing mechanism" shall mean a community facilities district, assessment district, or similar infrastructure financing mechanism, which has been formed to provide for the construction of the Major Arterial Roads required to mitigate project -related traffic impacts.. 3.3.5 The Parties understand and acknowledge that, in the context of processing the City General Plan Amendment and the City Land Use Applications, the City cannot guarantee the ultimate outcome of any public hearings before the City Planning Commission or the City Council or other public bodies of the City, nor prevent any opposition thereto by members of the public or other public agencies affected by or interested in the City General Plan Amendment and the City Land Use Applications. The Parties further understand and acknowledge that land use regulations involve the exercise of the City's police power and, at the time of executing this Agreement, it is settled California law that government may not contract away its right to exercise its police power in the future. Arco Community Developers Inc. v. South Coast Regional Corn., 17 Cal.3d 785, 800 (1976); City of Glendale v. Superior Court, 18 Ca1.App.4th 1768 (1993), The parties further understand and acknowledge that the approval of the City General Plan Amendment and the City Land Use Applications may be subject to procedural or substantive obligations under the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Planning and Zoning Law, or other laws potentially applicable to such approvals. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to constrain the City's consideration of the City General Plan Amendment and the City Land Use Applications in light of the information obtained or developed pursuant to these laws and the City retains the discretion to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the City General Plan Amendment and the City Land Use Applications in light of such information. Subject to the foregoing, the City, to the extent allowed by law, shall facilitate and promote the proceedings necessary to complete processing of the City General Plan Amendment as set forth in this section, and the City shall diligently process the City General Plan Amendment, including all necessary environmental actions without unnecessary delay. 3.3.6 The City shall send to the County a public hearing notice for all City Land Use Applications that require a hearing before the City Planning Commission or the City Council. 779861.6 April 1, 2005 8 ARTICLE 4 MEASURES TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY AREA FREEWAYS 4.1 The City and the County shall jointly request that the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") prepare a Freeway Strategic Study for the Western Riverside County Area which shall examine the freeway capacity, set specific goals for the development of the freeway capacity necessary to accommodate the trips generated by new housing development and establish the framework for the joint efforts of the City, County and other federal, state and local agencies to implement the goals and establish the necessary freeway capacity. The Joint Request for the Freeway Strategic Study shall ask that the Freeway Strategic Study be completed within four (4) months of the date of submittal of the Joint Request. The Joint Request shall be submitted to RCTC within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Agreement. The parties authorize the Mayor of the City and the Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors to execute the Joint Request on behalf of their respective agencies. 4.2 The Freeway Strategic Study shall specifically study and analyze the following issues: (1) the current capacities of the freeways within Western Riverside County Area ("Freeways"); (2) the projected traffic growth projections for the Freeways as of January 1 in the years 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030, based upon assumptions concerning the build -out of new housing as described in Exhibit E; (3) the percentage of traffic growth for the Freeways in those years attributable to new housing development in the Western Riverside County Area; (4) the currently proposed improvements for the Freeways; (5) the current funding options for the currently proposed improvements for the Freeways; and (6) the potential funding sources for improvements necessary to meet the projected traffic growth for the Freeways at build -out of the Western Riverside County Area. 4.3 The City and the County shall share equally in the costs incurred by RCTC in preparing the Freeway Strategic Study. 4.3.1 The County shall invoice the City for the City's share of the RCTC costs and the City shall pay such invoice within thirty (30) days of the date the invoice is deemed given under Section 6.7 of this Agreement. 4.3.2 During the course of RCTC's work on the Freeway Strategic Study, the City, the County and RCTC staff shall meet monthly to discuss the progress of the work and to review any additional work which may need to be undertaken by the consultant. 4.4 Following completion of the Freeway Strategic Study, the City and County shall meet and negotiate in good faith to develop a Freeway Action Plan for funding the freeway improvements necessary to meet the expected demand as determined by the Freeway Strategic Study. As part of the development of the Freeway Action Plan, the City and the County shall also form a Freeway Task Force composed of private and public stakeholders to build consensus 779861.6 April 1, 2005 9 and secure participation of other Western Riverside County Area Cities in the Freeway Action Plan. The Freeway Task Force shall specifically include, but shall not be limited to, a representative from each of the following: the City and the County, RCTC, the Western Riverside Council of Governments ("WRCOG'), the development community and the environmental community. 4.5 In the event a third party files litigation concerning the Freeway Strategic Study or the Freeway Action Plan, or any portion thereof, the City and the County shall share equally in the costs of defending the litigation, provided the City's share shall not exceed the maximum sum of one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000.00). 4.6 Ad hoe subcommittees of the City Council and the County Board of Supervisors, along with their staffs, shall meet monthly to review the progress of the proposed General Plan Amendment (Section 2.1), the conditions of approval for the County and City Land Use Applications (Section 2.2 and Section 3.2) and the Freeway Strategic Study (Section 4.1). ARTICLE 5 SETTLEMENT OF LITIGATION 5.1 The City shall dismiss without prejudice the Litigation within twenty- five (25) days of the effective date of this Agreement, subject to the City's right to refile the Litigation as provided in this Agreement. 5.2 The City shall have the right to refile the Litigation, subject to the provisions of Sections 5.2.1 through 5.2.6, inclusive, in the event that: (1) the County does not, within three (3) months of the effective date of this Agreement, complete the staff work required for the County General Plan Amendment, including necessary environmental documentation, and set a public hearing date before the Planning Commission; (2) the County does not, for any reason, adopt the County General Plan Amendment within nine (9) months of the effective date of this Agreement; or (3) the County does not adopt the jointly developed Freeway Action Plan described in Section 4.4 within one (1) year after completion of the Freeway Strategic Study described in Section 4.2. 5.2.1 The City's right to refile the Litigation shall expire one (1) year and thirty (30) days after completion of the Freeway Strategic Study. As used in this Agreement, "completion of the Freeway Strategic Study" shall mean the date RCTC transmits the final version of the Freeway Strategic Study to the City Council and the County Board of Supervisors. 5.2.2 In the event the City exercises its right to refile the Litigation, the refiled lawsuit shall not challenge the General Plan except with respect to the analysis of traffic impacts, including mitigation measures associated with such impacts, within the Third Supervisorial District of the County, as that District was configured on the effective date of this Agreement. 5.2.3 The prayer clause in the refiled Litigation shall request relief only with respect to the General Plan as it applies and relates to traffic impacts within the Third 779861.6 April 1, 2005 10 Supervisorial District. The prayer clause shall specifically state that the City does not request that the Court set aside the General Plan in its entirety. All pleadings, briefs, arguments and proposed orders filed by the City addressing the scope of relief, including proceedings pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21168.9, shall be consistent with this provision. 5.2.4 The County specifically agrees that the City shall have the right to refile the Litigation pursuant to the terms of this Agreement notwithstanding the applicable statute of limitations governing legal challenges to the General Plan and agrees to toll the statute of limitations for a legal challenge to the General Plan so as to enable the City to exercise its rights under this Agreement. Pursuant to this Agreement, the County does not toll or waive the defense of the statute of limitations as to any persons, agencies or entities other than the City. 5.2.5 The County further agrees, on behalf of itself and any successors or assigns, that in the event the Litigation is refiled the County will not raise any applicable statute of limitations as a defense to the refiled Litigation and will allow the City to proceed with prosecution of the refiled Litigation subject to the restrictions set forth in this Agreement. 5.2.6 Subject to the restrictions set forth in Section 5.2.2 and Section 5.2.3, nothing herein is intended to, nor shall it be construed to, prohibit the City from challenging a project approved by the County on the grounds that the project fails to comply with the California Environment Quality Act, or other laws. 5.3 If the County adopts the jointly developed Freeway Action Plan, then, and only then, shall Sections 5.3.1 through 5.3.6 become operative. As used in this Agreement, "adopts the jointly developed Freeway Action Plan" shall mean the County adopts a resolution approving the Freeway Action Plan. The County is -not required to adopt or otherwise implement the specific measures described in the Freeway Action Plan in order to obtain the benefits conferred by Sections 5.3.1 through 5.3.6. 5.3.1 Within twenty (20) days after the County adopts the jointly developed Freeway Action Plan, the City shall file with the Court a request for dismissal, with prejudice, of the Litigation. 5.3.2 Each party shall bear its own attorney fees and expenses in the Litigation. 5.3.3 In consideration of the promises of the parties specified in this Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions for settlement, the parties shall fully and forever release, acquit, and discharge each other, their officers, elected officials, attorneys, sureties, agents, servants, representatives, employees, subsidiaries, affiliates, partners, predecessors, successors - in -interest, assigns, and all persons acting by, through, under or in concert with them of and from any and all past, present, or future claims, demands, obligations, actions, causes of action, including those for damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, or for relief by way of writ of mandate, for costs, losses of service, expenses, liability, suits, and compensation of any nature whatsoever, whether based on tort, contract, or other theory of recovery, known or unknown, that they now have, have had, asserted or could have asserted in the Litigation or otherwise relate to the alleged actions or inactions of the County with respect to the Litigation. Nothing contained 779861.6 April 1, 2005 11 herein shall relieve any party hereto of its continuing obligations imposed by law or by the provisions of this Agreement, including, without limitation, the Judgment in the case of Endangered Habitats League v. County of Riverside (Domenigoni-Barton Properties), Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 369801, consolidated with City of Temecula v. County of Riverside (Domenigoni-Barton Properties) Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 369989. 5.3.4 The parties hereto acknowledge that they are familiar with Section 1542 of the California Civil Code which provides: "A general release does not extend to claims which a creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor." The parties being aware of the aforesaid code section, each hereby expressly waives any rights they might have hereunder. This release shall not operate to release any claims the parties may later have for the enforcement of the obligations created by this Agreement. 5.3.5 The City warrants and represents to the County that it has not assigned, conveyed or otherwise transferred any of its rights to the claims described in or arising out of the Litigation to any other person, entity, firm or corporation not a party to this Agreement, in any manner, including by way of subrogation or operation of law or otherwise. In the event that any claim, demand or suit is made or instituted against the County because City made an actual assignment or transfer, City agrees to indemnify and hold the County harmless against such claim, and to pay and satisfy any such claim, including necessary expenses of investigation, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. 5.3.6 The County warrants and represents to the City that the execution and delivery of this Agreement by County will not (i) violate any judgment, order, injunction, decree, regulation or ruling of any court or governmental entity or (ii) conflict with, result in a breach of, or constitute a default under any material agreement or instrument to which the County is a party or by which the County may be bound. ARTICLE 6 MISCELLANEOUS 6.1 This Agreement contains the complete expression of the whole agreement between the parties hereto, and there are no promises, representations, agreements, warranties or inducements, either expressed verbally or implied, except as are fully set forth herein. This Agreement cannot be enlarged, modified, or changed in any respect except by written agreement between the parties. 6.2 Each and all of the covenants, conditions and restrictions in this Agreement shall 779861.6 April 1, 2005 12 inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the parties, their successors -in -interest, agents, representatives, assignees, transferees. 6.3 No person or entity shall be deemed to be a third party beneficiary hereof, and nothing in this Agreement (either expressed or implied) is intended nor shall it be construed to confer upon any person or entity, other than the City and the County, any rights, remedies, obligations or liabilities under or by reason of this Agreement. 6.4 In entering into this Agreement, the parties represent that they have relied upon the legal advice of their attorneys, who are the attorneys of their own choice, and that these terms are fully undertaken and voluntarily accepted by them. The parties further represent that they have no question with regard to the legal import of any term, word, phrase, or portion of this Agreement, or the Agreement in its entirety, and accept the terms of this Agreement as written. 6.5 The parties hereto represent and warrant to each other that they have full authority to execute this Agreement. 6.6 The headings employed to identify the provisions contained herein are solely for the convenience of the parties to this Agreement. If any ambiguity appears in either the headings or the provisions attendant thereto, such ambiguity shall not be construed against any party to this Agreement on the grounds that such party drafted this Agreement. 6.7 Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, any and all notices or other communications required or permitted by this Agreement or by law to be served on or given to either party to this Agreement by the other party shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly served and given when personally delivered to the party to whom it is directed or to any officer of that party, or, in lieu of personal service, on the third business day following deposit in the United States mail, certified, postage prepaid, addressed to: County of Riverside County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, California 92501 Attention: Transportation Land Management Agency Director City of Temecula Post Office Box 9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92589-9033 Attention: City Manager 6.8 If any litigation is commenced between the parties to this Agreement concerning the rights and duties of either in relation to this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to, in addition to any other relief that may be granted in the litigation, reasonable attorneys fees as determined by the court presiding over the dispute. 779861.6 April 1, 2005 13 • 6.9 The following Exhibits to this Agreement are incorporated herein as though set forth in full: Exhibit A I-215 Policy Area Exhibit B Major Arterial Roads Exhibit C Priority Phasing Program Exhibit D Western Riverside County Area Exhibit E Assumptions of Build -Out of 1-215 Policy Area 6.10 This Agreement maybe executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 6.11 The effective date of this Agreement is the date the parties sign the Agreement. If the parties sign the Agreement on more than one date, then the last date the Agreement is signed by a party shall be the effective date. 779861.6 April 1, 2005 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement in the State of California. CITY OF TEMECULA Attest: Mike Naggar Mayor Pro Tempore l� J' V / Approved as to Form Peter M. Thorson City Attorney 779861.6 April 1, 2005 15 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE on Ashley Chairman, Board of Supervisors Attest: Nancy Romero, Clerk to Board of Supervisors _ By. _ Deputy Clerk Approved as to Form William C. Katzenstein, County Counsel By: _ atherine Lind Deputy County Counsel 779861.6 April 1, 2005 16 ��, h3l Jjj�® �l•" 1-215 Policy Area N Highways Specific Plans -� Waterbodies 5000 0 No 10000 Feet TMPTemap vmna eMe by,M ary d TMm mGM MphM mr Spl M. *M map M de rmm base dMa woduoM by 1MRb . County m"MWS eepeN d Ne Tran%p Mbn eM LmWM Og~Ap d NHereMe County. The Clyol Tenntvlaeeeumesno wenenry wropd nepwmm�nr rn me mmmnnen mn,.MM do pds m.w o+,a sa ro,wmenan rewesadee an,Ma m.p we wyadroupd.,..ne momnaaM. me oepnr.v,dc Mrwmel,w� 9plvn eMdMr swm MmM Ce puerbd M nro mwicwrtnl Y,lernmtlm. Thh mapbrM la rep,Mareaeb. Map prepared Me A 2005. ryhWepa�gelwwMaorgedsWNlMmpea.ee_� nnll.ew - OS Exhibit A I 1-215 Policy Area it EJ EXHIBIT "B" MAJOR ARTERIAL ROADS Newport Road, including Interchange at 1-215 and roadway improvements from Goetz Road to Winchester Road (SR 79S). Scott Road, including Interchange at 1-215 and roadway improvements from 1-15 to Winchester Road (SR 79N). Clinton Keith Road, including Interchange at 1-15 and roadway improvements from 1-15 to Winchester Road (SR 79N). Winchester Road Phase 1, from MurrietaIHot Springs Road to Domenigoni Parkway to 4 lanes. Winchester Road Phase II, 4 to 6 lanes. Winchester Road Phase Ili, 6 to 8 lanes. RApy1e120051Hrteria1 Roads Exhibit Exhibit "C" Southwest Riverside County Transportation Strategic Plan Priority Anticipated Estimated Transportation Improvement Cost of Improvement Funding Sources Permits Year of ($Millions) 2,000 Completion Highway Interchange Total du's/yr Newport Road, including Interchange at 1-215 and roadway improvements from 1-215 to 19.8 14.5 34.3 CFD Formed Winchester Road (SR 79S). Scott Road, including Interchange at 1-215 and roadway improvements from 1-15 to Winchester 27.9 14.0 41.9 Proposed CFD 1 2009 Road SR 79N . Clinton Keith Road, including Interchange at I- 15 and roadway improvements from 1-15 to 32.6 13.0 45.6 Proposed CFD Winchester Road SR 79N . Winchester Road Phase I, from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Domenigoni Parkway to 4 38.6 38.6 Proposed CFD lanes. French Valley Interchange at 1-15, including 6 2 2012 lanes from 1-15 to Winchester Road (SR 79N). 100.0 100.0 Measure A, TUMF Eastern By -Pass, construct 4 lanes to a new TUMF, Measure A, 3 2015 interchange on the 1-15 south of SR 79S. 111.2 29.0 140.2 CFD Proposed 4 2012 Freeway Widening Phase IA,1-215, 4 to 6 250 250 Measure A, State, FED lanes, CETAP Corridor 5 2016 Winchester Road Phase II, 4 to 6 lanes. 70 70 Measure A, TUMF 6 2025 Winchester Road Phase III, 6 to 8 lanes. 100 100 Measure A, TUMF 7 2020 Freeway Widening Phase 111, I-15, 8 to 10 lanes 200 200 Measure A, State, FED 8 2025 Freeway Widening Phase 11, I-215 from 6 to 8 400 400 Measure A, State, FED lanes, l-15, from 10 to 12 lanes 9 2030 Freeway Widening Phase 111,1-215 from 8 to TBD 10 lanes, I-15, from 12 to 14 lanes Note: The Freeway Widening Projects will be refined with the completion of the Freeway Strategic Study and Implementation Plan ,' Exhibit "D" Iona:+ . , ♦ -i.,;P E ;�9 .a.. i " lei wF. .' N r�0 - I 4 cmnnMr ! ri 4 sOuiM ` •o-,,•� �r� t � r� � _ i MINA ..,........ a o 1 s + e a C7 • Exhibit "E" Assumptions of Build -out of I-215 Policy Area Dwelling Units Study Area Outside CFDs Total (County Study CFDs Area) Areas in Acres 78,314 (72% of Area) 31,003 (28% of 109,317 Area Build -Out 72,066 (64% of Units) 39,934 (36% of 112,000 Units) Built Units 19,929 (71 % of Built 8,185 (29% of Built 28,114 (Includes un-Built Units) Units) Recorded and Large Lots for CFDs Units Remaining 52,137 (62% of 31,749 (38% of 83,886 to be Built Remaining Units) Remaining Units) County unincorporated area SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement is entered into by and among NNP-Spencer's Crossing, LLC ("Developer"), the City of Temecula ("City"), and the County of Riverside ("County,,) effective as of January -L4:., 2003 RECITALS A. On July 6, 2001, the City of Temecula fled a Petition for Writ of Mandate against the County of Riverside ("County"), as Case No. 360766 (the "Lawsuit"), contesting the County's certification of Final EIR No. 411 (the "EIR") and adoption of (1) Resolution No. 2001-135 approving infer alia General Plan Amendment No. 472, (2) Resolution No. 2001-111 approving Specific Plan No. 3I2 (French Valley), and (3) Ordinance No. 348.3996 approving Zone Change No. 6383 (collectively the "Approvals"). The Approvals authorize development of the real property depicted on Exhibit A hereto ("French Valley") with 1,793 residential dwelling units and 1.7 acres of commercial uses. Developer is the successor in interest to the original French Valley Association) and is applicant for the Approvals (Tucaiotta Hills Associates and now fee owner of French Valley and a real party in interest in the Lawsuit. B. The City contends, infer alia, that the County violated CEQA and the Planni rig and Zoning Law in connection with the Approvals and that the significant adverse traffic impacts of the Approvals must be mitigated by the construction of roadway construction and improvements identified in the EIR. Developer and County dispute the City's claims, but Developer recognizes that certain roadway improvements are necessary to provide adequate circulation to the development of the. 1.793 residential dwelling units allowed in French Valley by the Approvals. C. As directed by the California Environmental Quality Act, City and L andowner have met to discuss the issues raised in the Lawsuit, and explore potential for settlement of those issues. D. Through settlement discussions, the City expressed concerns that French Valley will develop without the completion of improvements to Clinton Keith Road connecting SR 79 to 1-215 ("Clinton Keith Road"). Without the completion of Clinton Keith Road, traffic from unincorporated areas in the County north of the City will adversely burden SR 79 (Winchester Road) through the City to 1-15. At the same time, Developer recognizes that Clinton Keith Road is needed to provide an adequate circulation system to serve the 1=rench Valley development. E. Clinton Keith Road is an important regional circulation system improvement with or without development of French Valley_ Finding a way to cause Clinton Keith Road to be built expeditiously is a transcendent goal for the City and French Valley. F. Successfully designing, funding, constructing and opening Clinton Keith Road requires dedicated and determined participation by motivated property owners, and support by governmental entities, including the City, the County, and the City of Murrietax Developer has RWG version 718894.2 January 17, 2003 t, taken the lead in pursuing private landowner and political support for Clinton Kcith Road, and is best situated to provide the continued private landowner leadership required to successfully complete Clinton Keith Road. G. The cost of designing and constructing Clinton Keith Road is such that it cannot be privately funded and completed, even in substantial part, prior to any development proceeding. Revenues from development are a critical element of successfully funding Clinton Keith Road. However, City believes development should be linked in phase with discrete milestone events in the accomplishment of Clinton Keith Road, so that development is at least coincident with reasonable certainty of the completion of Clinton Keith Road on a reasonable timetable. H. The more private and public funds invested in completing Clinton Keith Road, the more likely it is that Clinton Keith Road will be built. 1. As a resuIt of the settlement discussions between City and Developer, and in light Of the Foregoing recitals, the parties have agreed upon a schedule of milestone events and corresponding residential unit phasing plan, which will avoid the necessity of bringing the Lawsuit to a hearing, and instead result in its dismissal. Accordingly, the patties now wish to resolve the dispute embodied in the Lawsuit without further litigation and without admission of the merits of the contentions of any party by any other party on the terms set forth below, AGREE1VMNT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the mutual promises and agreements contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, it is agreed as follows: 1. Uni as' w'th " c Iation ste meet . In consideration for City's dismissal of the Lawsuit with prejudice, Developer agrees that it will phase residential unit development in French Valley in accordance with the milestone schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B. As depicted on Exhibit B, as each milestone event or set of events is satisfied, building permits may be issued for one hundred (lpp) dwelling units. The parties understand that while the milestone events are identified on Exhibit B in the order it is anticipated they will occur, the order in which they are listed on Exhibit B is not material to this Agreement; provided, however, that building permits for (1) the first I00 units will not be issued until a park and ride facility is completed as described in milestone "A," and (2) not more than 500 units will be released prior to accomplishment of milestone "F': securing funding for Clinton Keith Road. "Clinton Keith Road" as used in this Agreement means a road with a minimum of four traffic V/ lanes between tha French Valley Project and 1-215 and the improvements, or interim improvements, to the 1-215 and Clinton Keith Interchange necessary to accommodate traffic from the French Valley Project, The park and ride described in milestone "A" shall be open and available to the public and maintained by Developer, its successors, or by an assignee of Developer approved by the City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld provided the assignee is capable of maintaining the facility, 2 RWG version 719894.2 January 11. 2003 2. French Valle Devel went A reement. In order to jUsti fythe up -front costs Developer will be incurring for Clinton Keith Road and other improvements and the risks inherent in the Exhibit B phasing program and milestone schedule, and to implement the Exhibit B phasing program and milestone schedule, Developer will apply to the County for approval of a Development Agreement for French Valley that will incorporate the Exhibit B phasing program and milestone schedule as a project requirement, and provide a process for verifying the accomplishment of each milestone event(s). City agrees to support Developer's application for such a development agreement so Iong as the development agreement contains the phasing plan described in Exhibit B to this Agreement, provides a reasonable method for monitoring development and determination of accomplishment of the milestones, and does not increase overall the density and intensity of development in French Valley allowed by the Approvals, The County shall use its best efforts to expeditiously process and consider approval of the development agreement. The portion of the development agreement conditioning the issuance of building permits on the accomplishment of the milestones described in Exhibit B of this Agreement shall be enforceable by the City against the County, Developer and then -current owners of the affected portions of French Valley, In the event the County declines to approve. the Development Agreement application, or attaches conditions to the Development Agreement that are unacceptable to Developer, Developer agrees that it will nonetheless provide evidence reasonably satisfactory to City of the accomplishment of each milestone event or package of events prior to obtaining the corresponding allocation of building permits, and that any dispute concerning the accomplishment of one or more milestone events shall be subject to non -binding, expedited arbitration by a mutually acceptable member of JAMS, 3. ontinued Su orf r C 'n n eith Road/French Valle Develo ent. City agrees that SO long as the overall intensity and density of development of French Valley is not greater than as allowed pursuant to the Approvals, and is pleased in accordance with this Agreement, City shall notI Oppose future development of French Valley. City agrees to support County's expedited processingv/ of Clinton Keitli Road as an important regional circulation system improvement, and in so doing to use reasonable efforts to enlist the support of the City of Murrieta for improvements to Clinton Keith Road within its jurisdiction. 4. ❑isMi53a1, Release and Enforcement. Concurrently with the execution of this Agrcement, City agrees to execute for filing and file a dismissal of the Lawsuit with prejudice. Upon execution Of this agreement and dismissal of the Iawsuit, City shall have the right to enforce the terms and provisions of this Agreement against French Valley as contractual obligations of the Developer. Developer agrees to advise any subsequent buyer of all or any portion of French Valley of the existence and obligations of this Agreement, which obligation will be satisfied upon execution and recordation of a Development Agreement as provided in Paragraph 2 above„ in the event Developer applies for approval of a subdivision map for ail or any portion of French Valley prior to County action on the Development Agreement, or thereafter if no Development Agreement is executed and recorded for French Valley, Developer shall immediately notify the City of the filing of the application for the subdivision map, and Developer and County agree that the subdivision map shall be conditioned to comply with the milestones and phasing established by Exhibit S to this Agreement, and shall recite that the condition shall be enforceable by the City as a contractual right flowing from the settlement of the Lawsuit. County will place a copy of this Agreement in the Specific plan file for French Valley. RWG version 718894.2 January 11, 2003 34 5. General Provisio s, a. If any dispute arises out of or concerning this Settlement Agreement and/or the Mutual Release, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover, in addition to any damages and/or equitable relief, its reasonable attorneys fees in that dispute. b. This Agreement and the exhibits hereto contain the entire agreement and understanding between the parties concerning the subject matter of this settlement and supersede and replace all prior negotiations, proposed agreements and agreements, written or oral, C. This Agreement and the exhibits hereto may be amended or modified only by a written instrument signed by all parties or their successors in interest. d, This Agreement and the exhibits hereto shall be interpreted, enforced and governed by the laws of the state of California, e. This Agreement and the exhibits hereto shall be construed as if the parties jointly Prepared them and any uncertainty or ambiguity shall not be interpreted against any one party. f. If any provision of this Agreement or the exhibits hereto shall be dee~rned unenforceable for any reason, the remaining provisions will be given full force and effect. g. This Agreement and the exhibits hereto may be executed in counterparts which when taken together constitute the entire agreement among the parties hereto. h. The persons) signing ibis Agreement on behalf of any specified party represents that he or she has full authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of such party. 1. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the heirs, successors in interest, and assignees of the respective panics. All heirs, successors and assignees shall be bound by the duties of the parties arising under this Agreement, j. in the event that Clinton Keith Road is significantly delayed. City and Developer agree to meet and confer in good faith on possible additional circulation system improvements that may be feasible, and provide similar congestion relief to City, as a potential substitute to the milestone events listed on Exhibit B. k. The waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be invalid unless evidenced by a writing signed by the party to be charged therewith. The waiver of, or failure to enforce, any Provision of this Agreement shall not be. a waiver of any further breach of such provision or of any other provision hereof_ The waiver by any party of the tithe for performing any act shall not be a waiver of the time for performing any other act or acts required under this Agreement. RWG version 718894.21anuary 11, 2W3 4 u IV IN wTTNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first above written, "CITY" City of Temecula t Susan lonfs, City APPROVED AS TO FORM: "COUNTY" County of Riverside M ATTEST: M. APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: By: Peter Thorson, City Attorney "DEVELOPER" NNP-Spencer's Crossing, LLC a Delaware lirWted liability pay By. Its:_ntns cons Its: DEREK G. 'iMMAS RWG version 718894.2 January 11, 2003 M EXHIBIT A DEPICTION OF FRENCH VALLEY RWG version 718894.2 J=uary 11, 2003 Q� m Ss3 �A,-EW C�'ZS C C A m LAND US IC SUMMARY .LAND Ysz AC71ES D"UrX [)u'q medlu. FaId-til - 0,wo.J. 74.4 )b 224 WdW. R.Id-tW -1=sl 216,4 to 071 Mdium Reid-0.1 - 6,Wo..h 154E 4.5 698 R.Ld.);.J 5"wW 449.4 40 1.793 Nrks I&D 24.0 OP-SP—IFXP-.kd puk..Y, bu ram"'Oj 1.7 M-j-, Ro-ds 40 P./,d 7.wL. 6071 23 3.773 P.L. 39- 10 k3w ORL. ,.K PA. 32 NOW. PA. 30 HIMIN PJL 21 PA. 17 P.A. 29 Aloqw -m.2x PAL .18 PA. 20/31 KUXL'm 11714, pl-_ is . I - momw M 13 7� VE k —ILL 1 LAND USE PLAN Aremc Valley, FIGURE III.A-2 rdmi T(JCA,LOTA HILLS ASSOCIATES LLC M 1 9300 HACARTRUR BLVD. 5UTTE 7D0 u(NINE, CA 92612 -PAGE 1II.A-5 EXHIBIT B CLINTON KEITH ROAD MILESTONE SCHEDULE Building permits for 100 units will be released upon the accomplishment of each of the following milestone events for the completion of Clinton Keith Road CCU"). "Clinton Keith Road" as used in this Agreement means a road with a minimum of four traffic lanes between the French Valley Project and 1-215 and the improvements, or interim improvements, to the 1-215 and Clinton Keith Interchange necessary to accommodate traffic from the French Valley Project. A. 100 units at; 11 . execution of an agreement for preliminary design and environmental clearances for CKR; and • approval by the Board of Supervisors of the expanded boundaries and the funding levels of the Southwest Area Road and Bridge Benefit District ("RBBD") for CKR B. 100 units at: • completion of a 250-space park -and -ride facility either on -site of off -site north of 11 the Temecula City limits open and available for public use. C. 100 units at: • circulation to the public of the draft environmental document for CKR D. 100 units at: . execution of the "at Risk." final design contract for CKR E. 100 units at: ® Certification of the final environmental document by lead agency pursuant to CEQA and, if applicable, NEPA for CKR; and award of the CKR bridge structural design contract; and • identification of CKR right-of-way ("ROW) requirements (i.e., completion of 35% of CKR roadway design) F. 100 units at:. funds for the completion of CKR are available pursuant to the financing plan :G:.100.finalization of ROW requirements and completion of ROW appraisals for CKR H. 100 units at: 95% completion of the CKR roadway and bridge design ® completion of ROW acquisition for CKR 1. 100 units at: a completion of final roadway design, including final structural design of the CKR bridge; and • receipt of all environmental clearances; and • award of contracts for construction of CKR J. Remaining CKR completed and open for public use units at: RWG version 718894.2 January 11, 2003 8 M. City of Temecula City Managed Office 41000 Main Street • Temecula, CA 92590 Phone (951 ) 694-6400 • Fax (951 ) 694-6477 • TemeculaCA.gov September 23, 2022 Ms. Kecia Harper Riverside County Clerk of the Board 4080 Lemon Street, 12'h Floor, Suite 127 Riverside, CA 92502-1629 Subject Winchester Community Plan Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Comment Letter Dear Ms. Harper: On behalf of the City of Temecula (City), we submit the following comments on the County of Riverside's Winchester Community Plan Draft Program EIR (PEIR), dated July 2022. The comments are based on the PEIR, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code sections 21000-21189), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 — 15387), and recent CEQA court decisions. As outlined in detail below, the City has significant concerns regarding the County's lack of outreach to the City — including as required by law — related to the CEQA process, as well as concerns with the PEIR and its failure as an informational document. The City is equally concerned with the County's attempt to unilaterally terminate the 2005 "Cooperative Agreement Between the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside to Mitigate Traffic Impacts in Western Riverside County" (Cooperative Agreement) by virtue of proposals in the Winchester Community Plan and PEIR. Specifically, the Cooperative Agreement calls for the County to mitigate the impact of new housing development on City and County arterial roads and highways within the I-215 Policy Area; the proposed General Plan Amendment amends the boundary and therefore purports to change and invalidate the Cooperative Agreement.' 'The City separately is requesting a full accounting and status of units and density by acreage in the I-215 Policy Area. The City is also requesting a status on the completion and funding of all infrastructure as identified in Exhibit C of the Cooperative Agreement. Ms. Harper September 23, 2022 Page 2 For all of the reasons set forth below, the City strongly urges the County to cease further work on this project until such time as the County can consult with the City on the Cooperative Agreement, and until proper environmental review is conducted. FAILURE OF THE COUNTY TO FULFILL ITS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF TEMECULA On April 12, 2005 the City and County entered into the Cooperative Agreement that imposes upon the County very specific and profound obligations for the mitigation of traffic impacts in the Western Riverside County. In developing the Winchester Community Plan and the Draft PEIR the County has completely ignored its obligations under the Cooperative Agreement that will directly result in adverse traffic impacts upon the City, the Winchester Community Plan Area and the cities surrounding the Winchester Community Plan Area. There is no plan to finance the remaining Major Arterial Roads described in the Cooperative Agreement that are needed to mitigate the traffic impacts of residential units in the area under the existing General Plan. The County has not conducted a Freeway Study nor come up with a traffic mitigation plan for the additional 33,000 residential units in the new Winchester Community Plan in violation of the Cooperative Agreement. Amendment No. 1 to the Cooperative Agreement was approved on January 30, 2007. Copies of the Cooperative Agreement and Amendment No. 1 are attached as Exhibits A and B. The County Failed to Fulfill its Obligation Under the Cooperative Agreement to Work Cooperatively with the City to Improve the Highway Infrastructure and Traffic Impacts of Existing and Future Development in Western Riverside County On November 5, 2003, the City filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate in Riverside Superior Court challenging the legality and validity of the County's General Plan and the DEIR. The action is entitled "City of Temecula v. County of Riverside; Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside, " Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 402766 ("Litigation"). Sections 1.6 and 1.7 of the Cooperative Agreement express in clear and unequivocal terms the obligations of the County and the City to cooperate in the development of infrastructure in Western Riverside County: "1.6 Despite their differences in the Litigation, the City and County desire to cooperatively work together in an effort to improve the highway infrastructure in Western Riverside County for the benefit of all current and future residents of the County. The City and County acknowledge that providing adequate traffic infrastructure for Western Riverside County involves complex engineering, environmental and financial challenges requiring the full cooperation of all federal, state and local governmental agencies, but will provide substantial public benefits for the City, County and the people living and working in the City and the County." "1.7 This Agreement sets forth the framework for a major cooperative effort by the City and the County to provide the traffic infrastructure required for new housing development in Western Riverside County before the creation of actual traffic impacts." Ms. Harper September 23, 2022 Page 3 Despite its legal commitment to cooperate with the City in the development of traffic infrastructure in Western Riverside County, the County has completely ignored the cities in Western Riverside County in its development of the Winchester Community Plan or the traffic infrastructure necessary to support the Winchester Community Plan. The County has failed to consult and cooperate with the City in developing the Winchester Community Plan as required by Section 15086 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 2.3.6 of the Cooperative Agreement. The County failed to provide even the most minimal notice of its proposal in violation Section 15086 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 2.3.6 of the Cooperative Agreement. Despite three years of work on the Winchester Community Plan, the County never solicited input or comments from the City on traffic impact or invited the City to participate in the development of the Winchester Community Plan. Section 1.7 of the Cooperative Agreement clearly requires the provision of traffic infrastructure before the traffic impacts are created. This has not been done. The County is now required to start the process over and provide meaningful opportunities in good faith for the City and the other cities to comment on the Winchester Community Plan and develop traffic mitigation for the Winchester Community Plan's proposed 33,000 additional residential units. The Cooperative Agreement Provides that the County May Not Issue Building Permits Under the Proposed_ Winchester Community Plan Until Such Time as it has Identified Road and Freeway Improvements to Mitigate the Traffic Impacts Resulting from the Additional 36,000 Residential Units Within the Winchester Community Plan Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3.3 of the Cooperative Agreement require the County to amend its General Plan to condition all Land Use Applications, including General Plan Amendments, to prohibit the issuance of building permits until such time as there is in place an appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism to build the Major Arterial Roads : "2.1 The County shall use its best efforts to amend the General Plan so that it contains: (1) a policy indicating that the Major Arterial Roads within the 1-215 Policy Area shall be constructed and completed concurrently with the construction of the dwelling units creating the demand for the Major Arterial Roads; and (2) a requirement that all land use applications approved by the County within the 1-215 Policy Area ("County Land Use Applications") shall contain a condition, in addition to all other appropriate conditions, that building permits shall not be issued until (a) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (b) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project and the property owner pays its full proportionate share of the required improvements to the County in trust for the construction of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (c) the County otherwise funds or constructs Ms. Harper September 23, 2022 Page 4 the required improvements using money from other sources. The General Plan Amendments described in this section shall be known as the "County General Plan Amendment."" "2.2 All County Land Use Applications approved by the County after the effective date of this Agreement shall contain a condition of approval requiring that building permits shall not be issued until (a) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (b) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project and the property owner pays his/her/its full proportionate share of the required improvements to the County in trust for the construction of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (c) the County otherwise funds or constructs the required improvements using money from other sources. "2.3.3 As used in this Agreement, County Land Use Applications shall mean any applications on which the County Planning Commission has not taken final action as of the effective date of this Agreement, the approval of which would authorize, or conditionally authorize, the construction of dwelling units within the 1-215 Policy Area, including, but not limited to, applications for General Plan amendments, specific plans, specific plan amendments, zone changes, development agreements, subdivision maps and planned development permits. County Land Use Applications shall not include any applications for parcel maps that would result in the creation of four or fewer parcels, provided that the parcels created could not be further subdivided without a General Plan amendment. County Land Use Applications shall also not include any applications for minor changes to approved tentative tract maps that would add only one residential unit to the maps." The County does not have a fully funded financing mechanism to fund the construction of Major Arterial Roads within the 1-215 Policy Area. In developing the Winchester Community Plan and the Draft PEIR, the County has completely ignored its obligations under the Cooperative Agreement that will directly result in adverse traffic impacts upon the City, the Winchester Community Plan Area and the cities surrounding the Winchester Community Plan Area as the County has not planned for, or financed, the Major Arterial Roads that will need to be constructed and/or widened to move the significant number of new residents that are expected to live in the Winchester Community Plan Area in and out of the Winchester Community Plan Area. The County Failed to Initiate and Fulfill its Obligation to Develop the Freeway Strategic Study and Action Plan The County has failed to fulfill its obligation under the Cooperative Agreement to cooperate with the City, other Western Riverside County Cities and private and public stakeholders to request the preparation of a Freeway Strategic Study and develop a Freeway Action Plan. Sections 4.1 to 4.4 of the Cooperative Agreement provide: Ms. Harper September 23, 2022 Page 5 "4.1 The City and the County shall jointly request that the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") prepare a Freeway Strategic Study for the Western Riverside County Area which shall examine the freeway capacity, set specific goals for the development of the freeway capacity necessary to accommodate the trips generated by new housing development and establish the framework for the joint efforts of the City, County and other federal, state and local agencies to implement the goals and establish the necessary freeway capacity. The Joint Request for the Freeway Strategic Study shall ask that the Freeway Strategic Study be completed within four (4) months of the date of submittal of the Joint Request. The Joint Request shall be submitted to RCTC within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Agreement. The parties authorize the Mayor of the City and the Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors to execute the Joint Request on behalf of their respective agencies." "4.2 The Freeway Strategic Study shall specifically study and analyze the following issues: (1) the current capacities of the freeways within Western Riverside County Area ("Freeways"); (2) the projected traffic growth projections for the Freeways as of January 1 in the years 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030, based upon assumptions concerning the build -out of new housing as described in Exhibit E; (3) the percentage of traffic growth for the Freeways in those years attributable to new housing development in the Western Riverside County Area; (4) the currently proposed improvements for the Freeways; (5) the current funding options for the currently proposed improvements for the Freeways; and (6) the potential funding sources for improvements necessary to meet the projected traffic growth for the Freeways at build -out of the Western Riverside County Area." "4.3 The City and the County shall share equally in the costs incurred by RCTC in preparing the Freeway Strategic Study. 4.3.1 The County shall invoice the City for the City's share of the RCTC costs and the City shall pay such invoice within thirty (30) days of the date the invoice is deemed given under Section 6.7 of this. Agreement. 4.3.2 During the course of RCTC's work on the Freeway Strategic Study, the City, the County and RCTC staff shall meet monthly to discuss the progress of the work and to review any additional work which may need to be undertaken by the consultant." - "4.4 Following completion of the Freeway Strategic Study, the City and County shall meet and negotiate in good faith to develop a Freeway Action Plan for funding the freeway improvements necessary to meet the expected demand as determined by the Freeway Strategic Study. As part of the development of the Freeway Action Plan, the City and the County shall also form a Freeway Task Force composed of private and public stakeholders to build consensus and secure participation of other Western Riverside County Area Cities in the Freeway Action Plan. The Freeway Task Force shall specifically include, but shall not be limited to, a representative from each of the following: the City and the County, RCTC, the Western Riverside Council of Governments ("WRCOG"), the development community and the environmental community." Ms. Harper September 23, 2022 Page 6 In these sections, the County committed itself, with the assistance of the City, to initiate a Freeway Strategic Study to evaluate expected freeway traffic demands through 2030. Significantly, in Section 4.4 the County agreed to: "... meet and negotiate in good faith to develop a Freeway Action Plan for funding the freeway improvements necessary to meet the expected demand as determined by the Freeway Strategic Study. As part of the development of the Freeway Action Plan, the City and the County shall also form a Freeway Task Force composed of private and public stakeholders to build consensus and secure participation of other Western Riverside County Area Cities in the Freeway Action Plan." Once again, the County has failed to fulfill its obligation under the Cooperative Agreement to cooperate with the City, other Western Riverside County Cities and private and public stakeholders for the Freeway Strategic Study and the development of the Freeway Action Plan. Despite having over seventeen years to undertake the Freeway Strategic Study and the Freeway Action Plan, the County failed to undertake any study, let alone cooperate with Temecula and the other cities. Moreover, the County did not even undertake a study to determine the traffic impacts upon the freeways in Western Riverside County resulting from the Winchester Community Plan's addition of 33,000 residential units. The DEIR simply does not analyze the significant and severe traffic impacts resulting from the addition of 33,000 new residential units in the Winchester Community Plan Area upon the roads and freeways in Western Riverside County. The County's failure to fulfill these obligations will directly result in adverse traffic impacts upon the City, the Winchester Community Plan Area and the cities surrounding the Winchester Community Plan Area. CEQA Noticing Failure • The City of Temecula has only recently been made aware of the Draft PEIR for the Winchester Community Plan, and has not received any of the required CEQA notices (such as Notice of Preparation (NOP) or Notice of Availability (NOA)/Notice of Completion (NOC)), nor any notices for the scoping meetings. Section 15086(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the lead agency consult with local municipalities adjacent to the proposed project area. The Draft PEIR acknowledges the fact that the City is immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the proposed community plan. Yet, there is no evidence that the County even attempted to comply in any respect with its obligations to include the City in this process. Executive Summary/Introduction Project Objectives • Page 1-3: The PEIR lists a variety of project objectives for the Winchester Community Plan. Most of the objectives are noble, but lack enough specificity to allow the reader to Ms. Harper September 23, 2022 Page 7 understand what the actual objectives entail. Much more specificity is needed. The project objectives are repeated again in Section 3.0. • Page 1-3: The project objectives do not explain why the Winchester Community Plan is being proposed now when there are several existing area plans and specialized policy area overlays covering the entire proposed plan area that would achieve the same planning outcome. There is no mention in the PEIR objectives of consolidating aging planning documents into a comprehensive and cohesive community plan, which should be the primary objective of the Community Plan. Please add a description of this objective. ■ Page 1-3: Several of the project objectives are irrelevant, and do not relate to the creation of a Riverside County Area or Community Plan. This is particularly true given that there is no land use plan provided against which the objectives can be reviewed. For example, it is unclear, and there is no explanation, as to how the objective of "providing better access to fresh healthy foods" relates to the formulation of community plan policies and land use designations. Please clarify. Project Description Page 1-3: The project description includes a discussion of existing land uses and land use designations within the proposed Winchester Community Plan, but it does not include any mention of the actual proposed Winchester Community Plan policies, or include the proposed land use and circulation plan. This is the most basic project information that must be included as part of the project description for any meaningful environmental analysis to occur. In the absence of this critical information, there is no way to conduct the required environmental analysis. Please revise the project description and associated environmental analysis to include this critical base information. Project Alternatives • Page 1-3: The PEIR proposes four alternatives to the proposed project. CEQA requires a reasonable range of alternatives that meet most of the basic project objectives be proposed to reduce or eliminate identified environmental impacts. No explanation is provided for how the number of residents, dwelling units and non-residential square footages are calculated for each alternative. It is difficult to understand how each alternative's anticipated number of residents, dwelling units and non-residential square footages were determined since the Winchester Community Plan project description itself does not contain a proposed land use plan or a proposed land use summary table. As a result, it is impossible to determine if an alternative would reduce environmental impacts as compared to the proposed project and/or the other alternatives. Ms. Harper September 23, 2022 Page 8 Project Description • Page 3-1: CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 requires a stable, clear, and concise project description, upon which the environmental impact analysis, required mitigation measures, and project alternatives are based. The project description is neither stable, clear, nor concise, and as a result needs to be revised to accurately reflect the proposed project. There is no way to determine the actual proposed land use distribution based upon the confusing information provided in the PEIR. ■ Page 3-1: The Riverside County General Plan is apportioned into land use Foundation designations and individual Area Plans. It is unclear why the proposed plan is referred to as a "Community Plan" instead of matching the exiting county Area Plan nomenclature. Please explain. • The project description is unclear. There are numerous existing planning documents that are located within the proposed Community Plan area. These include: o Southwest Area Plan o Harvest Valley/Winchester Area Plan o Highway 79 Policy Area o Interstate 15 Policy Area o Interstate 215 Policy Area o Winchester Policy Area o Winchester Land Use Study o Winchester Policy Area Design Guidelines o Riverside County Housing Element (2021-2029) o Caltrans Record of Decision — Highway 79 Realignment EIS o Cooperative Agreement and Settlement Agreement between the County of Riverside and the City of Temecula The PEIR makes no effort to synthesize the relationships and overlapping planning policies between the above documents that all apparently factor into the development of the proposed Winchester Community Plan. The project description needs to be rewritten to clarify how the above documents relate to the proposed Community Plan. There appears to be substantial confusion between the Winchester Policy Area and the Winchester Community Plan, which is the actual proposed project. • Page 3-1: The project description includes a discussion of existing land uses and land use designations within the proposed Winchester Community Plan, but it does not include any mention of the actual proposed Winchester Community Plan policies, or include the proposed land use and circulation plan. This is the most basic project information that must be included as part of the project description for any meaningful environmental analysis to occur. In the absence of this critical information, there is no way to conduct the required environmental analysis. Please revise the project description and associated environmental analysis to include this critical base information. Ms. Harper September 23, 2022 Page 9 • Page 3-2: The PEIR uses both "project site", "project area" and "PA" to describe the area within the boundary of the proposed Winchester Community Plan, which creates confusion. There are several figures with differing planning area boundaries, which need to be consolidated into one understandable proposed land use plan. • Page 3-2: The PEIR indicates that "most of the Winchester PA" is comprised of agricultural and undeveloped lands, without defining the actual acreage or what is meant by "most". Please clarify. • Page 3-4: The project characteristics section indicates that the existing Winchester Policy Area will be expanded from 287 acres to 23,153 acres within the Harvest Valley/Winchester Area Plan, without any reasoning provided for why this massive change is proposed. To implement this change, the boundaries and land uses of the surrounding Area Plans (Sun City/Menifee and Southwest Area Plan) are proposed to be modified, although acreage statistics and graphic depictions of these changes are not provided. The project description does not document the requirements or schedule for amending the surrounding Area Plans required to create the proposed Winchester Community Plan. Please include this information. • Page 3-4: The PEIR describes 227 parcels (1,480 acres) that are proposed for General Plan Foundation Component amendments from Rural and Rural Community to Community Development without any explanation of why the change is proposed that will result in additional development intensity. The section goes on to state that 921 parcels will require future zone changes as a result of the foundation component changes, and that these future unknown zone changes are somehow evaluated in the PEIR. This analysis is not actually included in the PEIR, nor is there any commitment for future environmental review as would be required if the environmental review is not occurring at this time. • Page 3-4, #4: The PEIR now inserts a new Area plan (San Jacinto Valley Area Plan ) and the Highway 79 Policy Area into the mix, but these were not previously mentioned as requiring amendment to accommodate the proposed Winchester Community Plan. The PEIR goes on to state that the revisions to the Highway 79 Policy Area include removing the "9% density reduction for residential projects", without any context for why that is proposed or justified, and what that means in terms of the proposed Winchester Community Plan land use plan. Please explain where this 9% reduction came from and why is it required to accommodate the proposed Winchester Area Plan. In addition, the 9% residential intensity reduction is part of the Cooperative Agreement, which was a settlement agreement between the City and the County to mitigate environmental impacts associated with future residential development within the Highway 79 Policy Area, and it cannot be unilaterally removed from the Highway 79 Policy Area. The County is in violation of the Cooperative Agreement by proposing to remove the 9% residential intensity reduction from the Policy Area document. Ms. Harper September 23, 2022 Page 10 The PEIR claims that the removal of the 9% reduction requirement from the Highway 79 Policy Area will be replaced by a new "fee" on newly entitled dwelling units to mitigate Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) impacts and fund mobility improvements within the downtown Winchester core area. A proposed fee for improvements within the downtown Winchester area has nothing to do with the basis of the Cooperative Agreement, and was not what either the County or the City agreed to in order to mitigate impacts to the City. The entire discussion regarding the 9% reduction in residential density in the Highway 79 Policy Area needs to be removed from the PEIR and must be factored into the ultimate Winchester Area Plan land use plan densities and unit totals. Without the consideration of the 9% reduction in the formulation of the Winchester Community Plan land use plan, the entire land use plan must be revised. The PEIR goes on to state that the Highway 79 Policy Area is 50,061 acres, without any explanation of how that acreage relates to the other Area Plan and Policy acreages, or its relevance. • Page 3-5: The PEIR now introduces several new components of General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 1207, including design guidelines, an amended General Plan Circulation Element, and "administrative and implementation programs" without defining what those programs are or how they fit in with the proposed Winchester Community Plan. Please revise and clarify. ■ The County proposes to expand the existing Winchester Policy Area to include 23,143 acres. Page 3-4 indicates that the Policy Area is 23,153 acres. Please provide the correct acreage and make consistent throughout the PEIR. In addition, please confirm which number was used throughout the PEIR's analysis. • Page 3-6: The PEIR attempts to explain the required acreage and land use changes to the individual surrounding Area Plans required to create the new Winchester Community Plan, and this information is purportedly summarized in Tables 3-1 and 3-2, and shown in Exhibits 3-1 through 3-11. Table 3-1 lists the General Plan Foundation changes without any reference to where the changes are located or with which of the four Area Plans the acreages are being exchanged. As a result, it is impossible to understand the location of the proposed land use changes. Table 3-2 summarizes the land use acreage changes to the Winchester Policy Area and the Highway 79 Policy area, and totals both, but does not quantify any of the underlying Area Plan land use acreage changes. As a result, it is again impossible to tell what the ultimate proposed Winchester Area Plan land use acreages, density or units (increases or decreases) are and how they will be used to determine environmental impacts and required mitigation measures. • Page 3-8: The description of the General Plan Circulation Element amendment is lacking a description of what is being proposed, and also contains incorrect information. Revising the Highway 79 Policy Area language (which is incorrect) does not in and of itself result in an amendment to the Circulation Element. The Circulation Element amendment should describe the proposed changes to the existing circulation system and policies as a result of Ms. Harper September 23, 2022 Page 11 the proposed Winchester Community Plan, including (for example) the realignment of Highway 79, as approved by Caltrans. The PEIR text states that the 9% residential density reduction requirement contained within the Highway 79 Policy area would be amended to allow for full development within the policy area and the proposed Winchester Community Plan. This statement is incorrect and the 9% reduction in residential density has no relationship to the realignment of Highway 79. The residential reduction included in the Highway 79 policy area was required to ensure that a variety of transportation and circulation facilities were constructed in a timely manner to accommodate the growth associated within the policy area. These facilities have not been constructed to date. • Page 3-8: The text goes on to state that "No land use designation changes are proposed and the amendment is limited to removing the development restrictions on residential uses." This is false. There are numerous General Plan Foundation and Area Plan land use changes proposed as part of the Winchester Community Plan, and removal of the 9% reduction in residential development intensity is not applicable to the Circulation Element amendment, as it is part of the Cooperation Agreement. • Page 3-10: The PEIR lists a variety of project objectives for the Winchester Community Plan, but fails to explain why the Winchester Community Plan is being proposed now. Most of the objectives are noble, but lack enough specificity to allow the reader to understand what the actual objectives entail. Much more specificity is needed. Please revise. • The objective to promote higher density housing to achieve the County's 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goal and to eliminate the 9% residential unit intensity reduction is in direct opposition to the Cooperative Agreement which mandates a 9% reduction in residential densities. • Page 3-11: The Discretionary Approvals section includes the adoption of GPA No. 1207, but fails to mention the Circulation Element amendment. Please include and explain what the required Circulation Element amendment includes. • Exhibit 3-1 and 3-2: Why does the proposed Community Plan boundary cut through Lake Skinner? ■ Exhibit 3-3: The graphic line work/legend is difficult to understand and it is impossible to tell which boundary line applies to which Area Plan or Policy Area. There is nothing in the legend to explain what the red numbers signify. Please revise. ■ Exhibit 3-1 through 3-11: None of the figures show the proposed Winchester Community Plan land use plan. The proposed Community Plan land uses are the most basic component of the Community Plan and PEIR project description and they are missing from the PEIR project description. Ms. Harper September 23, 2022 Page 12 • The PEIR references a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Nexus Study and fee. It is unclear if the 33,000 + residential units are included in the RIVTAM model. The Nexus Study includes $11 million for a transit center and Park & Ride facility with no analysis of the mandated reduced VMT or trips. The VMT Nexus Study should be included in the PEIR Appendix and revised to reflect the actual number of units proposed in the Community Plan. PEIR Section 4.0 Topical Environmental Issue Areas • The PEIR includes an evaluation of 20 topical environmental issue areas including: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise and Vibration, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems and Wildfire. Detailed comments are provided below. ■ The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in Section 4.0 of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. ■ Much of the analysis in PEIR Section 4.0 avoids the evaluation of all feasible mitigation measures and jumps to the conclusion that the impacts are either less than significant without mitigation or are significant and unavoidable without the application of feasible mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines Section 15041(a) requires that a lead agency for a project require feasible changes in the project, or impose feasible mitigation, to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment, consistent with applicable constitutional requirements such as the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards established by case law. The PEIR has not done this. Aesthetics ■ The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in the aesthetics section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of aesthetic impacts cannot be completed without and accurate project description. Please revise the project description. Air Quality ■ The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon Ms. Harper September 23, 2022 Page 13 an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in air quality section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of air quality impacts cannot be completed without and accurate project description. Please revise the project description. • Impact Statement AQ-1: The Project Would Conflict With or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan (PEIR pp. 4.3-22 to 4.3-24) The PEIR analysis of consistency with the 2016 AQMP is inadequate, and should be revised in the following ways: (1) To determine whether proposed project construction would result in increases in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or new violations or delays in timely attainment of air quality standards, the County should perform modeling of daily construction emissions based on buildout of the proposed project's development potential and compare those emissions to SCAQMD's construction thresholds (presented in PEIR Table 4.3-4). (2) Similarly, the determination of whether proposed project operations would result in increases in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or new violations or delays in timely attainment of air quality standards should be based on modeled operational emissions presented under Impact Statement AQ-2 (PEIR Table 4.3-6) compared to SCAQMD operational thresholds. (3) The County's contradictory statements that the proposed project would exceed the SCAG population projections used in the 2016 AQMP by 35,139 persons, and yet would be "within SCAG's forecasted population for the County" need to be clarified and corrected. The County's assertion later in this section that the increase in population and housing growth "is not considered substantial in the context of the County overall" (p. 4.3-24) needs to be supported with substantial evidence, and connected to the consistency criterion of the SCAQMD's CEQA Handbook to analyze "(w)hether a project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP." (4) Several assertions need to be revised to be supported with substantial evidence, including claims of proposed project consistency with RTP/SCS goals to reduce VMT and air pollution, and that "implementation of all SCAQMD rules, regulations, and control measures may not be feasible for future developments." (PEIR p. 4.3-24) Which rules, regulations, and control measures may not be feasible, and why? (5) CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures be identified for significant environmental impacts. The PEIR's conclusion that "(n)o mitigation measures are required" for this "significant and unavoidable" impact violates CEQA because the Ms. Harper September 23, 2022 Page 14 County has not even attempted to determine what mitigation is feasible or enforceable for an impact that exists, as discussed above. • Impact Statement AQ-2: Project Implementation Result in a Cumulative Considerable Net Increase of Any Criteria Pollutant for Which the Project Region is Non -Attainment Under an Applicable Federal or State Ambient Air Quality Standard The PEIR's claim that it is infeasible to estimate construction emissions of the proposed project is not supported by substantial evidence. Modeling of construction air pollutant emissions is routinely included in programmatic CEQA analysis for plans similar to the proposed project, such as general plans, regional plans, area plans, and community plans. The PEIR should be revised to estimate future daily construction emissions under buildout of the proposed project's development potential. This analysis should be based on reasonably foreseeable estimates for the rate of future development and timing of ultimate buildout under the proposed project. This additional information is needed so that the PEIR discloses the potential magnitude of pollutant emissions relative to SCAQMD thresholds under the proposed project and the associated health effects, which in turn will inform the development of mitigation measures and project alternatives to avoid or substantially lessen the impacts. The PEIR's unsupported assertions about how General Plan policies affect proposed project air emissions need to be supported by substantial evidence explaining the effects of the policies on emissions -generating activities of the proposed project. The PEIR should be revised to provide an explanation of the assumptions and inputs used to model the proposed project's operational emissions, which are shown in Table 4.3-6. The PEIR should also be revised to provide additional detail correlating the proposed project's emissions, which would greatly exceed SCAQMD thresholds, with potential health effects. For example, the PEIR shows that PM 10 emissions would be 85 times higher than the threshold amount; PM2.5 emissions would be over 100 times higher than the threshold. An adequate air quality analysis requires a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project's air quality impacts to likely health consequences, or a meaningful detailed explanation of why it is not feasible to provide such an analysis. (See Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502.) • Air Quality Mitigation Measures Do Not Meet CEQA Requirements The PEIR air quality mitigation measures violate CEQA requirements by improperly deferring important details until a future time, without providing sufficient benchmark standards. To meet CEQA's requirements for adequate mitigation, the PEIR air quality mitigation measures need to be revised to include: o A commitment to the mitigation. Ms. Harper September 23, 2022 Page 15 o Adopted performance standards for what the mitigation must achieve. o A menu of potential actions that can feasibly achieve the performance standard and that will be considered, analyzed, and potentially incorporated in the mitigation measures. Biological Resources The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in the biological resources section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of biological resources impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description. Cultural Resources • The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in cultural resources section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of cultural resources impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description. Energy The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in the energy section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of energy impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description. Geology and Soils ■ The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in geology and soils section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of geology and soils impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description. Ms. Harper September 23, 2022 Page 16 Greenhouse Gas Emissions • The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in greenhouse gas emissions section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of greenhouse gas impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description. • Section 4.8.3 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria On page 4.8-25, the PEIR references the Environmental Checklist form provided in Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines, and states that, "a project may create a significant adverse environmental impact if it would: (g)enerate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment (refer to Impact Statement GHG-1); and (c)onflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gas (refer to Impact Statement GHG-2)" • Impact Statement GHG-1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Generated by the Project Could Have a Significant Impact on Global Climate Change The analysis provided for Impact Statement GHG-1 is inadequate on several fronts. For one, the PEIR fails to clearly explain how it uses the GHG-1 "impact statement" to determine the significance of the proposed project's GHG emissions impacts. It only offers that "the effects of the proposed project have been categorized as either a `less than significant impact' or `potentially significant impact"' based on the language of Impact Statement GHG-1 (PEIR page 4.8-25). At a minimum, the PEIR should be revised to clearly describe the criteria used by the County to measure compliance with this impact statement and determine the significance of the proposed project's GHG emissions impacts. The PEIR should be revised to provide a clear, internally consistent description of the thresholds of significance for GHG emissions impacts. The PEIR should also explain how compliance with the threshold(s) used means that the proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b)(2). As part of this explanation, the PEIR should clarify its statement that, "the impact analysis for this project relies on guidelines, analyses, policy, and plans for reducing GHG emissions established by the California Air Resources Board (CARE)." (PEIR pp. 4.8-1 to 4.8-2). Which guidelines, analyses, policies and plans? Please explan. Without understanding the County's criteria for determining significance, it is not possible for the reader to understand the nature or severity of the significant GHG emissions impacts identified for the proposed project, and therefore, also not possible to evaluate the adequacy of the mitigation measures identified in the PEIR for avoiding or substantially lessening the significant impacts. Ms. Harper September 23, 2022 Page 17 The analysis presented under Impact Statement GHG-1 is divided into two sections, one addressing construction -related impacts and the other addressing operational impacts. These two components of the GHG-1 impact analysis are addressed separately below. ■ The Inadequate Analysis of Construction -Related GHG Emissions Impacts Needs to be Revised The analysis of construction impacts provides a high-level description of generic types of construction activities that generate GHG emissions; there is no attempt to qualitatively analyze the timing or magnitude of construction -related GHG emissions that would result from the substantial amount of development allowed to occur under the proposed project. The PEIR goes on to assert, in back-to-back sentences, that quantifying construction related GHG emissions is both "not possible" and that precise quantification is "impractical." It concludes by asserting, without evidence or explanation, that although certain "current policies" and mitigation measures recommended for Impact Statement AQ-2 in PEIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, would minimize construction -related GHG emissions, the proposed project could result in future development that exceeds South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds of significance, which are not named or identified. The PEIR analysis of construction -related GHG emissions impacts must be revised in several ways. First, the County must make a good -faith effort to quantify and disclose estimated construction -related GHG emissions that would result from the proposed project. The PEIR's assertion that "quantifying precisely" is "impractical" is not a basis to exclude this information from the PEIR. Moreover, the PEIR's assertion that is "not possible" to quantify the proposed project's GHG emissions is not supported by substantial evidence. In fact, the County's own Climate Action Plan, with its modeling of off -road equipment GHG emissions for all of the unincorporated County areas for decades into the future, shows that it is possible, and indeed feasible, to prepare a programmatic estimate of GHG emissions from construction equipment without knowing site- or project -specific information (County CAP). In addition, any discussion of current policies that minimize the construction -related GHG emissions of the proposed project must be supported with substantial evidence showing how such policies would reduce emissions. Also, the impact analysis should first determine the significance of the proposed project's GHG emissions under the threshold being used, before analyzing the effect of air quality mitigation measures identified elsewhere in the PEIR on the proposed project's GHG emissions impacts. And finally, if the PEIR is evaluating construction -related GHG emissions against certain "SCAQMD thresholds of significance" as it implies, then the PEIR needs to clearly describe what those thresholds are, explain why they are appropriate to use for the proposed project, and provide an analysis, supported by substantial evidence, that compares the proposed project's GHG emissions to those thresholds. The PEIR also needs to clearly identify feasible mitigation measures that address the construction -related GHG emissions that would be generated by the proposed project. Ms. Harper September 23, 2022 Page 18 • The Inadequate Analysis of Operational GHG Emissions Impacts Needs to be Revised Initially, the PEIR explains that the proposed project's operational GHG emissions are "qualitatively evaluated" based on "compliance with the long-term State reduction targets." (PEIR page 4.8-26) The PEIR does not offer a description of how this qualitative evaluation of target compliance will be performed, and does not identify the State reduction targets used in the analysis. The PEIR also appears to describe an additional method used to evaluate operational GHG emissions, explaining that, "future development that would occur under project buildout (new development) was assessed based on the capacity to effectively reduce GHG emissions sources from project -specific operations within the project area." (PEIR page 4.8-26) The PEIR offers no explanation of what it means for future development to have "capacity to effectively reduces GHG emissions sources from project -specific operations." The impact analysis for GHG-1 presents a comparative analysis of annual GHG emissions under the proposed project as compared to development under the current County General Plan, which shows that the proposed project would increase annual GHG emissions by 68,588 MTCO2e relative to development allowed under the current General Plan (PEIR Table 4.8-1). The PEIR provides no interpretation or analysis of how the annual GHG emissions increase relates to the proposed project's GHG emissions impact being analyzed. It also does not provide any information about the timing of when such annual rates of GHG emissions would be expected to occur. Moreover, on page 4.8-24, the PEIR explains that "this EIR quantifies total annual GHG emissions for informational purposes," although it does not clearly explain what this means, and it does not explain why total annual emissions are included in the impact analysis for GHG-I. This wording suggests that the GHG emissions are not intended to be reliable, thereby undercutting the value of the data for CEQA purposes. The PEIR then provides a high-level description, asserting that certain objectives of the proposed project would generally "reduce GHG emissions" although it is not clear to what the asserted reduction in emissions is being compared. The PEIR also asserts that several County General Plan policies would "minimize GHG impacts" but does not provide substantial evidence explaining how the policies would affect the proposed project's emissions. The analysis then presents two mitigation measures, GHG-1 and GHG-2, and describes their purported effect on the proposed project's GHG emissions. The PEIR presents these mitigation measures without first determining the significance of the proposed project's impacts, thereby skipping a critical step. The analysis concludes by asserting that it is not feasible to analyze future development under the proposed project because timing and project -specific details are unknown, and therefore, the County's thresholds could be exceeded, but it does not identify or describe the "County thresholds" being referenced. Ms. Harper September 23, 2022 Page 19 Moreover, the conclusion that future development cannot be analyzed in any regard is incorrect; even a programmatic EIR still must contain a certain level of information. The PEIR analysis of operational GHG emissions impacts should be revised in several ways. First, it needs to clearly identify the criteria being used to evaluate the proposed project's GHG emissions under Impact Statement GHG-1. Similarly, the PEIR needs to clearly address whether estimates of annual GHG emissions resulting from the proposed project, including comparisons of estimated annual GHG emissions under the current General Plan, are used in the evaluation of the significance of the proposed project's GHG emissions, and if so, how. If the proposed project's total annual GHG emissions are in fact presented only for "informational purposes" as stated in the PEIR, then the PEIR must explain what this means and why the estimates are not used in the impact analysis. Moreover, before any discussion of mitigation measures, the impact analysis must first clearly analyze whether the GHG emission impacts would be potentially significant, i.e., address whether or not the threshold being applied would be exceeded or not. If the threshold would be exceeded and the impact would be potentially significant, then all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impact to less than significant must be identified and proposed to be imposed. Also see below for comments on PEIR Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2. ■ Impact Statement GHG-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project Could Conflict with an Applicable Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, Policy, or Regulation The analysis provided for Impact Statement GHG-2 is inadequate on several fronts. For one, the PEIR does not clearly identify the criteria being used to evaluate the proposed project under this threshold of significance. For example, the PEIR discussion of impact thresholds and significance criteria explains that "The project's GHG impacts are evaluated by assessing the project's consistency with applicable local, regional, and statewide GHG reduction plans and strategies." (PEIR p. 4.8-24) It then identifies the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and the 2017 Scoping Plan as the two GHG reduction plans applicable to the project. The County's Climate Action Plan (CAP) is not identified as an applicable plan, or even referenced in this section. Later, in the impact analysis for GHG-2 (PEIR p. 4.8-30), a discussion of the County's CAP is provided, but the proposed project is not analyzed for potential conflicts with the County's CAP, and the relevance of the discussion provided to the PEIR impact analysis and significance conclusion for Impact Statement GHG-2 is unclear. The PEIR does assert that the proposed project would be "consistent with the emissions reductions targets set by the (County's) CAP" (p. 4.8-36), but offers only unsubstantiated statements that the proposed project would not conflict with growth projections and would reduce VMT and be "consistent with appropriate CAP measures" (which are addressed later in this comment letter). The PEIR must be revised to include an analysis of the proposed project for consistency or conflicts with the County's Climate Action Plan. It must provide the criteria used to evaluate the proposed project for consistency or conflicts with the County's CAP, and Ms. Harper September 23, 2022 Page 20 support its analysis with substantial evidence. In addition, the PEIR needs to assess the significance of the proposed project's GHG emissions impact under Impact Statement GHG-2 before considering the role of mitigation measures in reducing a potentially significant impact. (PEIR p. 4.8-39) As part of this revised analysis, the PEIR should clarify statements, like the one on page 4.8-29, asserting that all future development under the proposed project "would demonstrate compliance with the State's GHG reduction targets." Substantial evidence is needed to support this assertion, including the regulatory requirements and other processes that would achieve this outcome, as well as the specific GHG reduction targets being referenced. Consistency with the Coun 's Climate Action Plan The County's CAP is based on anticipated growth using the County's 2015 General Plan, including the number of residential households and commercial/industrial jobs (County CAP Table 3-3). The PEIR explains that the proposed project would allow development that decreases the number of jobs in the project area by 10,055, and increases the number of residential dwelling units by 12,329, when compared to the existing General Plan Land Use Designations (PEIR Table 3-2). The PEIR fails to directly analyze whether the increase in residential development potential resulting from the proposed project would conflict with the County's ability to meet its GHG reduction targets through the measures set forth in its CAP. Similarly, the PEIR does not explain how it is that future development under the proposed project could be found to be consistent with the County's CAP under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, when the anticipated growth of the proposed project is not accounted for in the County's CAP. As the County admits later in the GHG section, "Project consistency with population growth projections is one of the criteria for determining consistency with GHG reduction plans." (PEIR p. 4.8-36) Consistency with SCAG's Connect SoCal 2020-2045 RTP/SCS The analysis of the proposed project's consistency with the Connect SoCal 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (PEIR pp. 4.8-30 to 4.8-33) must be revised to analyze whether the changes in development potential under the proposed project, including an increase of over 12,000 residential dwellings and reduction of over 10,000 jobs, would adversely affect SCAG's ability to meet its passenger vehicle GHG reduction target for 2035. The analysis should also be revised to provide additional details and evidence supporting assertions that the proposed project would reduce VMT by "facilitating development opportunities for greater housing variety and density" and "facilitat(ing) a sustainable multi -modal transportation network that includes walkable, bicycle -friendly environments with increased accessibility via transit." (PEIR p. 4.8-31) The PEIR contends that, "(T)he County has no control over vehicle emissions," which ignores the many strategies within the County's control and influence to reduce vehicle emissions, including its ability to support conversion of the vehicle fleet to zero emissions vehicles (ZEVs), installation of charging and fueling infrastructure for ZEVs, and its ability to reduce VMT through regulation of land use patterns and circulation improvements. Ms. Harper September 23, 2022 Page 21 In addition, the analysis of proposed project consistency with the five key SCS strategies of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Table 4.8-2, PEIR p. 4.8-31) must be revised to fully evaluate the proposed project's consistency with each of the strategies; the current analysis is incomplete in that it does not address several components of the five key SCS strategies. Moreover, the analysis must be revised to include support and evidence for the conclusions of consistency with SCS strategies. Consistency with Growth Projections In Table 4.8-3: Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures (PEIR p. 4.8-34), the County asserts that development under the proposed project would be "consistent with the growth projections in the RTP/SCS." Given that the PEIR reports elsewhere (e.g., PEIR Table 3-2) that the proposed project would allow development that decreases the number of jobs in the project area by 10,055, and increases the number of residential dwelling units by 12,329 when compared to the existing General Plan Land Use Designations, the County must provide additional information and explanation supporting its conclusion that the growth resulting under the proposed project is consistent with growth projections used in the RTP/SCS, which was adopted in September 2020. As the County itself states in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, "General Plan growth projections form the basis of SCAG's planning and policy documents, including regional growth forecasts." (PEIR p. 4.14-9) The PEIR also references Section 3.14 to conclude that the project would not conflict with County or regional growth projections because "although it would directly increase population through housing development, it would also directly decrease population through development of less -employment generating land uses." (PEIR p. 4.8-36) It is unclear how the County reached the conclusion that the proposed project's increase of 12,329 residential units and decrease of 10,055 jobs, relative to the adopted General Plan, is consistent with the growth projections used in the County's CAP and in SCAG's 2020- 2045 RTP-SCS. PEIR Section 3.14 (p. 4.14-9) attempts several arguments to support this conclusion, which are summarized below, but none of these contentions actually supports the conclusion of proposed project consistency with 2020-2045 RTP/SCS growth projections (which, according to the County, are based on the County General Plan) or the County's CAP (which are based on the County's 2015 General Plan). The GHG analysis includes these flawed assumptions: - The PEIR asserts that the proposed project would not exceed planned growth projections because the rate of population increase between the proposed project and adopted General Plan, 21%, is lower than the 33% rate of population growth that SCAG has projected for Riverside County between 2021 and 2045. - The PEIR references the County -wide residential vacancy rate of 13%. Ms. Harper September 23, 2022 Page 22 - The PEIR asserts that growth under the proposed project "would occur incrementally through 2045," housing under the proposed project would be "dispersed... over approximately 50,000 acres," and that some unspecified amount of population would decrease the proposed project would allow for fewer additional jobs than the adopted General Plan. Please identify the number of units, and projected population. GHG Mitigation Measures • PEIR Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2 would require that new discretionary developments under the proposed project implement CAP measures equivalent to at least 100 points (according to the CAP's Screening Tables). It asserts that the mitigation would "ensure GHG emissions from new development are reduced to levels necessary to meet California State targets." (PEIR p. 4.8-29) This statement is inadequate for the following reasons. First, as described in the above comments, the PEIR does not provide substantial evidence supporting its conclusion that the development potential of the proposed project, which results in substantial changes to development potential of residential and employment land uses under the adopted General Plan, is accounted for in the growth projections of the County's CAP. Because the proposed project's development potential differs substantially from the General Plan growth projections on which the CAP is based, additional analysis is needed to determine whether the County could still meet its CAP targets when requiring development under the proposed project to "garnish at least 100 points" of CAP measures. Moreover, Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2 have been crafted to only apply to new "discretionary development" that results from the proposed project. Additional analysis is needed to understand the degree to which development under the proposed project would be processed through ministerial instead of discretionary processes, and by extension, not required to implement CAP measures that reduce GHG emissions. Disclosure of this information is needed to understand the effectiveness of mitigation measures GHG-1 and GHG-2. In addition, the County must revise the PEIR to reconcile the conflicting statements that the GHG emissions impacts of future development "would be analyzed on a project -by - project basis" (p. 4.8-28) and "would be required to undergo project -specific CEQA review, including analysis of potential operational GHG emissions" (p. 4.8-29), with the language in mitigation measure GHG-2 that projects will be required to implement CAP measures that achieve at least 100 points "in lieu of a project -specific analysis." If future environmental review will is not anticipated, then significantly more detailed review is required at this juncture. Alternately, if the County intends to tier off of this document for future review, then the County must clearly state that future, project -level analysis will occur. Ms. Harper September 23, 2022 Page 23 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ■ The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in hazards and hazardous waste section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of hazard and hazardous material impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description. Hydrology and Water Quality The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in the hydrology and water quality section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description An adequate analysis of hydrology and water quality impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description. Land Use and Planning • The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in land use and planning section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of aesthetic impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description. • Page 4-11-1: The Land Use and Planning Section is entirely inadequate. It does not mention the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) as the regional planning agency for the project area, let alone provide any analysis of regional impact within Western Riverside County, or WRCOGs subregional Climate Action Plan GHG reduction measures. Further, the Land Use and Planning section does not acknowledge the proposed Winchester Community Plan and simply refers to all of the existing Area Plans and overlays that will be modified to create the proposed plan. Mineral Resources The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in mineral resources section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of mineral resource impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description. Ms. Harper September 23, 2022 Page 24 Noise and Vibration ■ The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in noise and vibration section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of noise and vibration impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description. Population and Housing The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in population and housing section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of population and housing impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description. Public Services ■ The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in the public services section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of public services impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description. Recreation • The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in the recreation section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of recreation impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description. Transportation • The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in the transportation section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate Ms. Harper September 23, 2022 Page 25 analysis of transportation impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description. Regulatory Setting ■ Page 4.17-7 and 4.17-8: The regulatory setting includes LOS-based policies and programs. CEQA documents can no longer base a significance determination on an automobile delay — based analysis, such as LOS; it is therefore unclear why this information is included in the regulatory settings. The document is not precluded from including a LOS analysis for disclosure purposes, such as General Plan Circulation Element or Congestion Management Plan consistency, but the analysis cannot be used as a basis for determining a significant environmental impact. Please clarify the County's approach here. Impact Analysis TRA-1 (Construction Impacts): This impact notes that "site -specific Traffic Management Plans (TMPs) would be required to be implemented for each individual implementing project." However, there is no implementation mechanism mentioned or cross-referenced that would ensure implementation of such plans. How does the County intend to ensure that this implementation occurs? ■ TRA-2: TRA-1 (Operational Impacts) notes that the project would result in modifications to Caltrans facilities and other roadways but does not state what those changes would be. If there would be any roadway widening associated with the project, consistent with guidance in the OPR Technical Advisory, induced demandNMT needs to be analyzed within impact TRA-2. ■ TRA-2: The VMT thresholds for retail and other customer land uses shown in Table 4.17- 1 are listed as "net regional change." That is not a threshold, which is a metric. The analysis needs to be revised to state what the threshold is for both of these land uses (e.g., no net increase in regional VMT). • TRA-2: The impact states that "the RIVTAM Model maintains a base year condition of 2012 which, for purposes of this analysis, is considered to be representative of existing conditions." There is no explanation given as to why or how this is representative of existing conditions. Additionally, an updated version of RIVTAM has been released since the completion of this analysis and includes a base year of 2018. Use of the updated and refined model should be considered. The updated RIVTAM model needs to be used for the PEIR traffic analysis, or an explanation included as to why the current version of RIVTAM was not used. ■ TRA-2: The impact analysis shows a very high level VMT evaluation in Tables 4.17-2 and 4.17-3, but there is no discussion or disclosure of what land use assumptions were included for any of the modeling. Please provide this. Ms. Harper September 23, 2022 Page 26 • TRA-2 (Mitigation): The statement that, "Although many of the VMT reducing design principles, policies, and improvements that are described above may ultimately mitigate and/or potentially reduce the VMT impacts outlined..." is speculative and misrepresents the VMT analysis findings. With the level of VMT increases across the board, it is highly unlikely that any of the VMT impacts would be able to be mitigated to a less than significant level. • TRA-2 (Mitigation): VMT-reducing design principles incorporated in the Draft Winchester Design Principles are incorrectly presented as mitigation. If these are part of the proposed project, they should be incorporated into the analysis and not included as mitigation. Generally, it is unclear what portion of that which is presented as mitigation is actually part of the project as opposed to being true mitigation. • TRA-2 (Mitigation): There is no quantification of the proposed VMT mitigation. It is also unclear if all feasible VMT mitigation has been proposed. Please revise and provide the quantification, as well as a more robust discussion of VMT mitigation. • TRA-3 : If there are no existing requirements for construction traffic management, it cannot be assumed that a temporary traffic control plan would be implemented, and associated impacts reduced to a LTS level. Draft VMT Mitigation Fee Ordinance/Nexus Study • The County has indicated that the draft VMT Mitigation Fee Ordinance/Nexus Study has been prepared to mitigate traffic impacts in the Winchester Community Plan Area through the development and implementation of a VMT mitigation fee. The draft Ordinance /nNexus study is purportedly required by PEIR mitigation measure TRA-1. The fee appears to be based upon an assumption that two measures (Park and Ride facility and a Metrolink multi -modal facility) will mitigate all VMT impacts associated with the proposed Winchester Community Plan. A total of $11,000,000 is arbitrarily assigned to the cost of facility construction, without consideration of current and ongoing supply chain issues and inflation. Then, a total of 33,569 residential units is assumed (without any basis or support) to be developed within the proposed Winchester Community Plan area, divided by the unrealistically low cost of $11,000,000 to come up with a per unit VMT mitigation fee of $328/unit. In short, there is no support for the conclusions that are reached. The VMT Mitigation Fee Ordinance and Nexus Study incorrectly assumes that the 9% residential intensity reduction policy can be eliminated and an unsupported and overstated residential unit count is assumed for analysis purposes. The VMT Mitigation Fee Ordinance/Nexus Study is purportedly evaluated in the PEIR, although no mention if it can be found in the body of the PEIR text. In addition, there is no mention of 33,569 residential units anywhere in the PEIR. The conclusion of the VMT Mitigation Fee Ordinance/Nexus Study, namely, that the proposed VMT mitigation fee Ms. Harper September 23, 2022 Page 27 will mitigate all proposed Winchester Community Plan VMT impacts, is not supported by any substantial evidence or analysis in the PEIR. Please provide an adequate analysis of VMT impacts and a realistic mitigation program, supported by evidence, to demonstrate how proposed Winchester Community Plan VMT impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Tribal Cultural Resources • The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in tribal and cultural resources section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of tribal cultural resources impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description. Utilities and Service Systems ■ The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in utilities and service systems section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of utilities and service systems impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description. A Water Supply Assessment is required to evaluate the long term viability of water supplies to serve the proposed community plan, especially as relates to worsening drought conditions. Please provide. Wildfire + The previous comments on the inadequacy of the project description flow through to all of the PEIR Environmental Issue sections, as the environmental analysis must be based upon an adequate project description. As a result, the analysis contained in the wildfire section of the PEIR is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of wildfire impacts cannot be completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description. Mandatory Findings of Significance • Section 4.21 lists 10 environmental issue areas that cannot be reduced to less than significant and remain significant and unavoidable. This section summarizes the findings of the purported "analysis" contained Section 4.0 of the PEIR, which is flawed due to the inadequacy of the project description. An adequate analysis of impacts cannot be Ms. Harper September 23, 2022 Page 28 completed without an accurate project description. Please revise the project description, and address all other comments accordingly. Cumulative Impacts Table 5-1 (Cumulative Projects List) contains a grand total of 10 projects (1,187 residential units and 10,283,987 square feet of non-residential uses that embody the entirety of cumulative projects in the vicinity of the proposed Winchester Community Plan. The cumulative projects map (Exhibit 5-3) in the PEIR is blank. It is incomprehensible that only those 10 projects comprise the entire cumulative project list, given the size of the project area and the fact that the project area is one of the fastest developing areas within Riverside County and the State of California. Throughout the cumulative impact section, level of significance statements are made without any supporting analysis. Other CEQA Considerations The conclusion of the growth inducing impacts section is that the proposed Winchester Community Plan would not induce growth. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the Plan proposes to eliminate the 9% cap on residential units and proposes numerous general plan amendments to increase residential density within the Plan area. The conclusion is not just incorrect, it is contradicted by the Cooperative Agreement to which the County is a party. This discussion and conclusion must be revised to accurately state what the County is attempting to do. Alternatives to the Proposed Project • The PEIR proposes four alternatives to the proposed project. CEQA requires a reasonable range of alternatives that meet most of the basic project objectives be proposed to reduce or eliminate identified environmental impacts. No explanation is provided for how the number of residents, dwelling units and non-residential square footages are calculated for each alternative. It is difficult to understand how each alternative's number of residents, dwelling units and non-residential square footages were determined since the Winchester Community Plan project description does not contain a proposed land use plan or a proposed land use summary table. As a result, it is impossible to determine if an alternative would reduce environmental impacts as compared to the proposed project and/or the other alternatives. Under the existing analysis, it is impossible to identify the environmentally preferred alternative. Again — the project description needs to be adequately prepared to properly understand the formulation of alternatives. Ms. Harper September 23, 2022 Page 29 Conclusion and Written Request for Notices Based on these defects and inadequacies in the Draft PEIR, the City requests that the County suspend any further consideration of the project until a Draft PEIR that fully complies with CEQA is prepared and recirculated for public review and comment. The City objects to any further County action on the project until the necessary environmental review has been completed. The City requests that written responses to each of the following comments be provided in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.2(a), the City intends that this letter serve as a written request for a copy of all notices that may be issued or filed related to this project or any part or component thereof. Please direct all such notices to me at the address on this letter. 4ncer, son Deputy City Manager cc: Chuck Washington, County Supervisor Jeffrey Van Wagenen, Riverside County Administrator Juan Perez, Chief Operating Officer John Hildebrand, Planning Director County of Riverside Evan Langan, Project Planner County of Riverside Aaron Adams, City Manager Kevin Hawkins, Assistant City Manager Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works Matthew Bassi, City of Wildomar Karen Brindley, City of Lake Elsinore Cheryl Kitzerow, City of Menifee Jim Morrissey, City of Canyon Lake Jarrett Ramaiya, City of Murrieta Attachments: Exhibit A, Cooperative Agreement Exhibit B, Amendment No.1 to the Cooperative Agreement Exhibit C, Settlement Agreement Exhibit A: Cooperative Agreement Between the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside to Mitigate Traffic Impacts in Western Riverside County COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TO MITIGATE TRAFFIC IMPACTS IN WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY This Agreement is made and entered into as of April 1a, 2005 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City"), and the County of Riverside, a public subdivision of the State of California ("County"). In consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, the City and County agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 RECITALS This Agreement is made for the following purposes and with respect to the following facts, which the City and County agree to be true and correct: 1.1 Since 1999, the County has been engaged in a project known as the Riverside County Integrated Project (the "RCIP"), which initially consisted of proposals for the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (the "CETAP"), the Western Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan ("MSHCP"), and an updated general plan to replace the County general plan adopted in 1984. The CETAP has not yet been adopted. The MSHCP has been adopted by the County and the member agencies. The State and Federal agencies have also approved the MSHCP and issued the necessary permits for the MSHCP. 1.2 On October 7, 2003, the County adopted its Resolution No. 2003-487, approving a new General Plan (the "General Plan") to replace the prior general plan approved in 1984 and adopted Resolution No. 2003-488 adopting and certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan ('FEW). The General Plan designates land uses for the unincorporated areas of the County. The General Plan also describes the infrastructure necessary to serve the designated land uses. 1.3 The City is located in southwestern Riverside County. Two major highways traverse the City, State Route 79 North (Winchester Road) and State Route 79 South, and connect to Interstate 15. The City has improved these roads from two lanes to six lanes in order to accommodate the growth within the City. These roads also serve the unincorporated areas of the County surrounding the City. 1.4 During the public hearing process, the City commented extensively on the proposed General Plan. The City contends, among other things, that the General Plan fails to adequately provide for construction of the traffic improvements required to serve the dwelling units proposed by the General Plan and, therefore, fails to mitigate the traffic impacts created by the General Plan; that the General Plan deficiencies are of particular concern to the City because traffic generated in the Southwest area of the County will severely impact the City unless certain 779861.6 April 1, 2005 i traffic improvements are built concurrently with the .proposed dwelling units; and that no adequate mechanism exists in the General Plan to ensure that traffic mitigation measures identified in the General Plan and the FEIR are in place before the dwelling units creating the need for the mitigation measures are constructed. The County disputes the City's contentions. 1.5 On November 5, 2003, the City filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate in Riverside Superior Court challenging the legality and validity of the General Plan and the FEIR. The action is entitled "City of Temecula v. County of Riverside; Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside," Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 402766 t"Litigation"). The County disputes the City's contention that the General Plan and FEIR are invalid. 1.6 Despite their differences in the Litigation, the City and County desire to cooperatively work together in an effort to improve the highway infrastructure in Western Riverside County for the benefit of all current and future residents of the County. The City and County acknowledge that providing adequate traffic infrastructure for Western Riverside County involves complex engineering, environmental and financial challenges requiring the full cooperation of all federal, state and local governmental agencies, but will provide substantial public benefits for the City, County and the people living and working in the City and the County. 1.7 This Agreement sets forth the framework for a major cooperative effort by the City and the County to provide the traffic infrastructure required for new housing development in Western Riverside County before the creation of actual traffic impacts. 1.8 This Agreement specifically addresses impacts of the General Plan on Major Arterial Roads in Southwest Riverside County in the specific area to be known as the 1-215 Policy Area." This Agreement also specifically addresses impacts of the General Plan on freeways in the "Western Riverside County Area". For the purposes of this Agreement, the 1- 215 Policy Area" shall be the area described in and shown on Exhibit A and the "Western Riverside County Area" shall be the area described in and shown on Exhibit D. 1.9 The terms described below shall have the following meanings unless otherwise noted in the Agreement: 1.9.1 "Appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism" is defined in Section 2.3.4 and Section 3.3.4 and shall mean a community facilities district, assessment district, or similar infrastructure financing mechanism, which has been formed and which is fully funded to provide for the immediate construction of the Major Arterial Roads required to mitigate project -related traffic impacts. "'ApRroRriately formed financing mechanism" is defined in Section 2.3.4 and Section 3.3.4 and shall mean a community facilities district, assessment district, or similar infrastructure financing mechanism, which has been formed to provide for the construction of the Major Arterial Roads required to mitigate project -related traffic impacts. 1.9.2 "Best efforts" County is defined in Section 2.3.2 and Section 2.3.7. As used in Section 2.3.2, "best efforts" shall mean that the County shall initiate proceedings to amend the General Plan as described in Section 2.1 and shall diligently process the proposed 779861.6 April 1, 2005 2 General Plan Amendment to completion in accordance with all applicable laws, subject to the County's legislative discretion as more particularly described in Section 2.3.5. As used in Section 2.3.7, "best efforts" shall mean that the County shall, at the time an appropriately formed financing mechanism is in place and sufficient funds are available, diligently undertake, without unnecessary delay, all the actions required to enable construction of the Major Arterial Roads, including, but not limited to, preparing and processing the required environmental documentation, design documentation and plans and specifications. As used in Section 2.3.7, "best efforts" shall further mean that the County shall, at the time an appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism is in place, diligently initiate and complete construction of the Major Arterial Roads. 1.9.3 "Best _efforts",.City is defined in Section 3.3.2, and shall mean that the City shall initiate proceedings to amend the General Plan as described in Section 3.1 and shall diligently process the proposed General Plan Amendment to completion in accordance with all applicable laws, subject to the City's legislative discretion as more particularly described in Section 3.3.6. 1.9.4 "City" shall mean the City of Temecula. 1.9.5 "City General Plan Amendment" shall mean the proposed amendment to the Temecula General Plan described in Section 3.1. 1.9.6 "City Land Use Applications" is defined in Section 3.3.3 and shall mean any applications on which the City Planning Commission has not taken final action as of the effective date of this Agreement, the approval of which, would authorize or conditionally authorize the construction of dwelling units within the City, including, but not limited to, applications for General Plan amendments, specific plans, specific plan amendments, zone changes, development agreements, subdivision maps and planned development permits. 1.9.7 "Co_ unto" shall mean the County of Riverside. 1.9.8 "Cou= General Plan Amendment" shall mean the proposed amendment to the Riverside County General Plan described in Section 2.1. 1.9.9 "County Land Use Applications" is defined in Section 2.3.3 and shall mean any applications on which the County Planning Commission has not taken final action as of the effective date of this Agreement, the approval of which, would authorize or conditionally authorize the construction of dwelling units within the I-215 Policy Area, including, but not limited to, applications for General Plan amendments, specific plans, specific plan amendments, zone changes, development agreements, subdivision maps and planned development permits. 1.9.10 "Effective date of this Agreement" shall mean the date described in Section 6.11. 779861.6 April 1, 2005 1.9.11 "General Plan" shall mean the Riverside County General Plan approved by Resolution No. 2003-487 of the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County on October 7, 2003. 1.9.12 "Freeways" shall mean the I-15 Freeway and the I-215 Freeway within the Western Riverside County Area. 1.9.13 "Freeway Action Plan" shall mean the action plan described in Section 4.4 which shall be negotiated by the City and County following receipt of the Freeway Strategic Study. 1.9.14 "Freeway Strategic Study" shall mean the study described in Section 4.1 to set specific goals for the development of the freeway capacity necessary to meet the traffic generated by new housing development in the Western Riverside County Area and to establish the framework for the joint efforts of the City, County, and other federal, state and local agencies to implement the goals and establish the necessary freeway capacity. 1.9.15 " I-215_Polic_y_ Area' is defined in Section 1.8 and shall mean the area in Southwest Riverside County described in and shown on Exhibit A. 1.9.16 "Litigation" shall mean the Petition for Writ of Mandate filed by the City on November 5, 2003 in Riverside Superior Court, entitled "City of Temecula v. County of Riverside; Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside," Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 402766, challenging the legality and validity of the General Plan and the FEIR. 1.9.17 a'or Arterial-R.Qadg7 is defined in Section 2.3.1 and Section 3.3.1 and shall mean those roadway projects identified in Exhibit B. 1.9.18 " PdorityPhasing Program" shall mean the program described in Exhibit C. 1.9.19 "Western Riverside County Area" shall mean the area described in and shown on Exhibit D. ARTICLE 2 MEASURES TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON COUNTY ARTERIAL ROADS AND HIGHWAYS 2.1 The County shall use its best efforts to amend the General Plan so that it contains: (1) a policy indicating that the Major Arterial Roads within the 1-215 Policy Area shall be constructed and completed concurrently with the construction of the dwelling units creating the demand for the Major Arterial Roads; and (2) a requirement that all land use applications approved by the County within the I-215 Policy Area ("County Land Use Applications") shall contain a condition, in addition to all other appropriate conditions, that building permits shall not 779861.6 April 1, 2005 4 be issued until (a) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (b) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project and the property owner pays its full proportionate share of the required improvements to the County in trust for the construction of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (c) the County otherwise funds or constructs the required improvements using money from other sources. The General Plan Amendments described in this section shall be known as the "County General Plan Amendment." 2.2 All County Land Use Applications approved by the County after the effective date of this Agreement shall contain a condition of approval requiring that building permits shall not be issued until (a) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (b) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project and the property owner pays his/her/its full proportionate share of the required improvements to the County in trust for the construction of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (c) the County otherwise funds or constructs the required improvements using money from other sources. 2.3 The County, to the extent allowed by law, shall facilitate and promote the proceedings necessary to complete processing of the County General Plan Amendment as set forth in Section 2.1 and the County shall diligently process the County General Plan Amendment, including necessary environmental actions without unnecessary delay. 2.3.1 As used in this Agreement, "Major Arterial Roads" shall mean those roadway projects identified in Exhibit B. 2.3.2 As used in Sections 2.1, "best efforts" shall mean that the County shall initiate proceedings to amend the County General Plan as described in Section 2.1 and shall diligently process the proposed Amendment to completion in accordance with all applicable laws, subject to the County's legislative discretion as more particularly described in Section 2.3.5. 2.3.3 As used in this Agreement, County Land Use Applications shall mean any applications on which the County Planning Commission has not taken final action as of the effective date of this Agreement, the approval of which, would authorize or conditionally authorize the construction of dwelling units within the I-215 Policy Area, including, but not limited to, applications for General Plan amendments, specific plans, specific plan amendments, zone changes, development agreements, subdivision maps and planned development permits. 2.3.4 As used in this Agreement, "appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism" shall mean a community facilities district, assessment district, or similar infrastructure financing mechanism, which has been formed and which is fully funded to provide 779861.6 April 1, 2005 .6 i for the immediate construction of the Major Arterial Roads required to mitigate project -related traffic impacts.. As used in this Agreement, "appropriately formed financing mechanism" shall mean a community facilities district, assessment district, or similar infrastructure financing mechanism, which has been formed to provide for the construction of the Major Arterial Roads required to mitigate project -related traffic impacts.. 2.3.5 The Parties understand and acknowledge that, in the context of processing the County General Plan Amendment and the County Land Use Applications, the County cannot guarantee the ultimate outcome of any public hearings before the County Planning Commission or the County Board of Supervisors or other public bodies of the County, nor prevent any opposition thereto by members of the public or other agencies affected by or interested in the County General Plan Amendment and the County Land Use Applications. The Parties further understand and acknowledge that land use regulations involve the exercise of the County's police power and, at the time of executing this Agreement, it is settled California law that government may not contract away its right to exercise its police power in the future. Avco Community Develol2ers Inc. v. South Coast Regional Com., 17 Cal.3d 785, 800 (1976); City of Glendale v. Superior Court,, t8 Cal.App.4th 1768 (1993). The parties further understand and acknowledge that the approval of the County General Plan Amendment and the County Land Use Applications may be subject to procedural or substantive obligations under the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Planning and Zoning Law, or other laws potentially applicable to such approvals. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to constrain the County's consideration of the County General Plan Amendment and the County Land Use Applications in light of the information obtained or developed pursuant to these laws and the County retains the discretion to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the County General Plan Amendment and the County Land Use Applications in light of such information. Subject to the foregoing, the County, to the extent allowed by law, shall facilitate and promote the proceedings necessary to complete processing of the County General Plan Amendment as set forth in this section, and the County shall diligently process the County General Plan Amendment, including all necessary environmental actions without unnecessary delay. 2.3.6 The County shall send to the City a public hearing notice for all County Land Use Applications that require a hearing before the County Planning Commission or the County Board of Supervisors. 2.3.7 The County shall use its best efforts to complete the Major Arterial Roads pursuant to the Priority Phasing Program, attached hereto as Exhibit C. As used in this section, "best efforts" shall mean that County shall, at the time an appropriately formed financing mechanism is in place and sufficient funds are available, diligently undertake, without unnecessary delay, all the actions required to enable construction of the Major Arterial Roads, including, but not limited to, preparing and processing the required environmental documentation, design documentation and plans and specifications. As used in this, section "best efforts" shall further mean that the County shall, at the time an appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism is in place, diligently initiate and complete construction of the Major Arterial Roads. 779861.6 April 1, 2005 6 ARTICLE 3 MEASURES TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON CITY ARTERIAL ROADS AND HIGHWAYS 3.1 The City shall use its best efforts to amend the City's General Plan so that it contains: (1) a policy indicating that the Major Arterial Roads within the City shall be constructed and completed concurrently with the construction of the dwelling units creating the demand for the Major Arterial Roads; and (2) a requirement that land use applications approved by the City within the City ("City Land Use Applications") shall contain a condition, in addition to all other appropriate conditions, that building permits shall not be issued until (a) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (b) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project and the property owner pays its full proportionate share of the required improvements to the City in trust for the construction of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (c) the City otherwise funds or constructs the required improvements using money from other sources. The City General Plan Amendments described in this section shall be known as the "City General Plan Amendment." 3.2 All City Land Use Applications approved by the City after the effective date of this Agreement shall contain a condition of approval which requires that building permits shall not be issued until (a) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (b) the subject property is part of an appropriately formed financing mechanism to build the components of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project and the property owner pays his/her/its full proportionate share of the required improvements to the City in trust for the construction of the Major Arterial Roads which will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project or (c) the City otherwise funds or constructs the required improvements using money from other sources. 3.3 The City, to the extent allowed by law, shall facilitate and promote the proceedings necessary to complete processing of the City General Plan Amendment as set forth in Section 3.1, and the City shall diligently process the City General Plan Amendment, including necessary environmental actions without unnecessary delay. 3.3.1 As used in this Agreement, `Major Arterial Roads" shall mean those roadway projects identified in Exhibit B. 3.3.2 As used in Sections 3.1, "best efforts" shall mean that the City shall initiate proceedings to amend the City General Plan as described in Section 3.1 and shall diligently process the proposed Amendment to completion in accordance with all applicable laws, subject to the City's legislative discretion as more particularly described in Section 3.3.5. 779861.6 April 1, 2005 3.3.3 As used in this Agreement, City Land Use Applications shall mean any applications on which the City Planning Commission has not taken final action as of the effective date of this Agreement, the approval of which, would authorize or conditionally authorize the construction of dwelling units within the City, including, but not limited to, applications for General Plan amendments, specific plans, specific plan amendments, zone changes, development agreements, subdivision maps and planned development permits. 3.3.4 As used in this Agreement, "appropriately formed and fully funded financing mechanism" shall mean a community facilities district, assessment district, or similar infrastructure financing mechanism, which has been formed and which is fully funded to provide for the immediate construction of the Major Arterial Roads required to mitigate project -related traffic impacts. As used in this Agreement, "appropriately formed financing mechanism" shall mean a community facilities district, assessment district, or similar infrastructure financing mechanism, which has been formed to provide for the construction of the Major Arterial Roads required to mitigate project -related traffic impacts.. 3.3.5 The Parties understand and acknowledge that, in the context of processing the City General Plan Amendment and the City Land Use Applications, the City cannot guarantee the ultimate outcome of any public hearings before the City Planning Commission or the City Council or other public bodies of the City, nor prevent any opposition thereto by members of the public or other public agencies affected by or interested in the City General Plan Amendment and the City Land Use Applications. The Parties further understand and acknowledge that land use regulations involve the exercise of the City's police power and, at the time of executing this Agreement, it is settled California law that government may not contract away its right to exercise its police power in the future. Arco Community Developers Inc. V. South Coast Regional_Com.. 17 Ca1.3d 785, 800 (1976); City of Glendale v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.App.4th 1768 (1993). The parties further understand and acknowledge that the approval of the City General Plan Amendment and the City Land Use Applications may be subject to procedural or substantive obligations under the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Planning and Zoning Law, or other laws potentially applicable to such approvals. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to constrain the City's consideration of the City General Plan Amendment and the City Land Use Applications in light of the information obtained or developed pursuant to these laws and the City retains the discretion to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the City General Plan Amendment and the City Land Use Applications in light of such information. Subject to the foregoing, the City, to the extent allowed by law, shall facilitate and promote the proceedings necessary to complete processing of the City General PIan Amendment as set forth in this section, and the City shall diligently process the City General Plan Amendment, including all necessary environmental actions without unnecessary delay. 3.3.6 The City shall send to the County a public hearing notice for all City Land Use Applications that require a hearing before the City Planning Commission or the City Council. 779861.6 April 1, 2005 8 ARTICLE 4 MEASURES TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY AREA FREEWAYS 4.1 The City and the County shall jointly request that the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") prepare a Freeway Strategic Study for the Western Riverside County Area which shall examine the freeway capacity, set specific goals for the development of the freeway capacity necessary to accommodate the trips generated by new housing development and establish the framework for the joint efforts of the City, County and other federal, state and local agencies to implement the goals and establish the necessary freeway capacity. The Joint Request for the Freeway Strategic Study shall ask that the Freeway Strategic Study be completed within four (4) months of the date of submittal of the Joint Request. The Joint Request shall be submitted to RCTC within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Agreement. The parties authorize the Mayor of the City and the Chairperson of the Hoard of Supervisors to execute the Joint Request on behalf of their respective agencies. 4.2 The Freeway Strategic Study shall specifically study and analyze the following issues: (1) the current capacities of the freeways within Western Riverside County Area ("Freeways"); (2) the projected traffic growth projections for the Freeways as of January 1 in the years 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030, based upon assumptions concerning the build -out of new housing as described in Exhibit E; (3) the percentage of traffic growth for the Freeways in those years attributable to new housing development in the Western Riverside County Area; (4) the currently proposed improvements for the Freeways; (5) the current funding options for the currently proposed improvements for the Freeways; and (6) the potential funding sources for improvements necessary to meet the projected traffic growth for the Freeways at build -out of the Western Riverside County Area. 4.3 The City and the County shall share equally in the costs incurred by RCTC in preparing the Freeway Strategic Study. 4.3.1 The County shall invoice the City for the City's share of the RCTC costs and the City shall pay such invoice within thirty (30) days of the date the invoice is deemed given under Section 6.7 of this Agreement. 4.3.2 During the course of RCTC's work on the Freeway Strategic Study, the City, the County and RCTC staff shall meet monthly to discuss the progress of the work and to review any additional work which may need to be undertaken by the consultant. 4.4 Following completion of the Freeway Strategic Study, the City and County shall meet and negotiate in good faith to develop a Freeway Action Plan for funding the freeway improvements necessary to meet the expected demand as determined by the Freeway Strategic Study. As part of the development of the Freeway Action Plan, the City and the County shall also form a Freeway Task Force composed of private and public stakeholders to build consensus 779861.6 April 1, 2005 and secure participation of other Western Riverside County Area Cities in the Freeway Action Plan. The Freeway Task Force shall specifically include, but shall not be limited to, a representative from each of the following: the City and the County, RCTC, the Western Riverside Council of Governments C'WRCOG"), the development community and the environmental community. 4.5 In the event a third party files litigation concerning the Freeway Strategic Study or the Freeway Action Plan, or any portion thereof, the City and the County shall share equally in the costs of defending the litigation, provided the City's share shall not exceed the maximum sum of one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000.00). 4.6 Ad hoc subcommittees of the City Council and the County Board of Supervisors, along with their staffs, shall meet monthly to review the progress of the proposed General Plan Amendment (Section 2.1), the conditions of approval for the County and City Land Use Applications (Section 2.2 and Section 3.2) and the Freeway Strategic Study (Section 4.1). ARTICLE 5 SETTLEMENT OF LITIGATION 5.1 The City shall dismiss without prejudice the Litigation within twenty- five (25) days of the effective date of this Agreement, subject to the City's right to refile the Litigation as provided in this Agreement. 5.2 The City shall have the right to refile the Litigation, subject to the provisions of Sections 5.2.1 through 5.2.6, inclusive, in the event that: (1) the County does not, within three (3) months of the effective date of this Agreement, complete the staff work required for the County General Plan Amendment, including necessary environmental documentation, and set a public hearing date before the Planning Commission; (2) the County does not, for any reason, adopt the County General Plan Amendment within nine (9) months of the effective date of this Agreement; or (3) the County does not adopt the jointly developed Freeway Action Plan described in Section 4.4 within one (1) year after completion of the Freeway Strategic Study described in Section 4.2. 5.2.1 The City's right to refile the Litigation shall expire one (1) year and thirty (30) days after completion of the Freeway Strategic Study. As used in this Agreement, "completion of the Freeway Strategic Study" shall mean the date RCTC transmits the final version of the Freeway Strategic Study to the City Council and the County Board of Supervisors. 5.2.2 In the event the City exercises its right to refile the Litigation, the refiled lawsuit shall not challenge the General Plan except with respect to the analysis of traffic impacts, including mitigation measures associated with such impacts, within the Third Supervisorial District of the County, as that District was configured on the effective date of this Agreement. 5.2.3 The prayer clause in the refiled Litigation shall request relief only with respect to the General Plan as it applies and relates to traffic impacts within the Third 779861.6 April 1, 2005 10 Supervisorial District. The prayer clause shall specifically state that the City does not request that the Court set aside the General Plan in its entirety. All pleadings, briefs, arguments and proposed orders Fled by the City addressing the scope of relief, including proceedings pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21168.9, shall be consistent with this provision. 5.2.4 The County specifically agrees that the City shall have the right to refile the Litigation pursuant to the terms of this Agreement notwithstanding the applicable statute of limitations governing legal challenges to the General Plan and agrees to toll the statute of limitations for a legal challenge to the General Plan so as to enable the City to exercise its rights under this Agreement. Pursuant to this Agreement, the County does not toll or waive the defense of the statute of limitations as to any persons, agencies or entities other than the City. 5.2.5 The County further agrees, on behalf of itself and any successors or assigns, that in the event the Litigation is refiled the County will not raise any applicable statute of limitations as a defense to the refiled Litigation and will allow the City to proceed with prosecution of the refiled Litigation subject to the restrictions set forth in this Agreement. 5.2.6 Subject to the restrictions set forth in Section 5.2.2 and Section 5.2.3, nothing herein is intended to, nor shall it be construed to, prohibit the City from challenging a Project approved by the County on the grounds that the project fails to comply with the California Environment Quality Act, or other laws. 5.3 1f the County adopts the jointly developed Freeway Action Plan, then, and only then, shall Sections 5.3.1 through 5.3.6 become operative. As used in this Agreement, "adopts the jointly developed Freeway Action Plan" shall mean the County adopts a resolution approving the Freeway Action Plan. The County is 'not required to adopt or otherwise implement the specific measures described in the Freeway Action Plan in order to obtain the benefits conferred by Sections 5.3.1 through 5.3.6. 5.3.1 Within twenty (20) days after the County adopts the jointly developed Freeway Action Plan, the City shall file with the Court a request for dismissal, with prejudice, of the Litigation. 5.3.2 Each party shall bear its own attorney fees and expenses in the Litigation. 5.3.3 In consideration of the promises of the parties specified in this Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions for settlement, the parties shall fully and forever release, acquit, and discharge each other, their officers, elected officials, attorneys, sureties, agents, servants, representatives, employees, subsidiaries, affiliates, partners, predecessors, successors - in -interest, assigns, and all persons acting by, through, under or in concert with them of and from any and all past, present, or future claims, demands, obligations, actions, causes of action, including those for damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, or for relief by way of writ of mandate, for costs, losses of service, expenses, liability, suits, and compensation of any nature whatsoever, whether based on tort, contract, or other theory of recovery, known or unknown, that they now have, have had, asserted or could have asserted in the Litigation or otherwise relate to the alleged actions or inactions of the County with respect to the Litigation. Nothing contained 779861.6 April 1, 2005 11 herein shall relieve any party hereto of its continuing obligations imposed by law or by the provisions of this Agreement, including, without limitation, the Judgment in the case of Endangered Habitats League v. County of Riverside (Domenigoni-Barton Properties), Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 369801, consolidated with City of Temecula v. County of Riverside (Domenigoni-Barton Properties) Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 369989. 5.3.4 The parties hereto acknowledge that they are familiar with Section 1542 of the California Civil Code which provides: "A general release does not extend to claims which a creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor." The parties being aware of the aforesaid code section, each hereby expressly waives any rights they might have hereunder. This release shall not operate to release any claims the parties may later have for the enforcement of the obligations created by this Agreement. 5.3.5 The City warrants and represents to the County that it has not assigned, conveyed or otherwise transferred any of its rights to the claims described in or arising out of the Litigation to any other person, entity, firm or corporation not a party to this Agreement, in any manner, including by way of subrogation or operation of law or otherwise. In the event that any claim, demand or suit is made or instituted against the County because City made an actual assignment or transfer, City agrees to indemnify and hold the County harmless against such claim, and to pay and satisfy any such claim, including necessary expenses of investigation, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. 5.3.6 The County warrants and represents to the City that the execution and delivery of this Agreement by County will not (i) violate any judgment, order, injunction, decree, regulation or ruling of any court or governmental entity or (ii) conflict with, result in a breach of, or constitute a default under any material agreement or instrument to which the County is a party or by which the County may be bound. ARTICLE 6 MISCELLANEOUS 6.1 This Agreement contains the complete expression of the whole agreement between the parties hereto, and there are no promises, representations, agreements, warranties or inducements, either expressed verbally or implied, except as are fully set forth herein. This Agreement cannot be enlarged, modified, or changed in any respect except by written agreement between the parties. 6.2 Each and all of the covenants, conditions and restrictions in this Agreement shall 779861.6 April 1, 2005 12 inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the parties, their successors -in -interest, agents, representatives, assignees, transferees. 6.3 No person or entity shall be deemed to be a third party beneficiary hereof, and nothing in this Agreement (either expressed or implied) is intended nor shall it be construed to confer upon any person or entity, other than the City and the County, any rights, remedies, obligations or liabilities under or by reason of this Agreement. 6.4 In entering into this Agreement, the parties represent that they have relied upon the legal advice of their attorneys, who are the attorneys of their own choice, and that these terms are fully undertaken and voluntarily accepted by them. The parties further represent that they have no question with regard to the legal import of any term, word, phrase, or portion of this Agreement, or the Agreement in its entirety, and accept the terms of this Agreement as written. 6.5 The parties hereto represent and warrant to each other that they have full authority to execute this Agreement. 6.6 The headings employed to identify the provisions contained herein are solely for the convenience of the parties to this Agreement. If any ambiguity appears in either the headings or the provisions attendant thereto, such ambiguity shall not be construed against any party to this Agreement on the grounds that such party drafted this Agreement. 6.7 Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, any and all notices or other communications required or permitted by this Agreement or by law to be served on or given to either party to this Agreement by the other party shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly served and given when personally delivered to the party to whom it is directed or to any officer of that party, or, in lieu of personal service, on the third business day following deposit in the United States mail, certified, postage prepaid, addressed to: County of Riverside County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, California 92501 Attention: Transportation Land Management Agency Director City of Temecula Post Office Box 9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92589-9033 Attention: City Manager 6.8 If any litigation is commenced between the parties to this Agreement concerning the rights and duties of either in relation to this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to, in addition to any other relief that may be granted in the litigation, reasonable attorneys fees as determined by the court presiding over the dispute. 779861.6 April 1, 2005 13 • • 6.9 The following Exhibits to this Agreement are incorporated herein as though set forth in full: Exhibit A I-215 Policy Area Exhibit B Major Arterial Roads Exhibit C Priority Phasing Program Exhibit D Western Riverside County Area Exhibit E Assumptions of Build -Out of I-215 Policy Area 6.10 This Agreement maybe executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 6.11 The effective date of this Agreement is the date the parties sign the Agreement. If the parties sign the Agreement on more than one date, then the last date the Agreement is signed by a party shall be the effective date. 779861.6 April 1, 2005 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement in the State of California. CITY OF TEMECULA Mike Naggar Mayor Pro Tempore Attest: ,"s s _V �1 Approved as to Form Peter M. Thorson City Attorney 779861.6 April 1, 2005 15 • • COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE on Ashley Chairman, Board of Supervisors Attest: Nancy Romero, Clerk to Board of Supervisors I• � t .i .� f� � �L.J it Approved as to Form William C. Katzenstein, County Counsel By:A-aH L atherine Lind Deputy County Counsel 779861.6 April 1, 2005 16 rr � a� �r •'z/� IL WLo �3r+ I I } I Mimi V 1 t' -j C L J 41 m gig I JUIIL v N i L• 8 IN.� s EXHIBIT "B" MAJOR ARTERIAL ROADS Newport Road, including Interchange at 1-215 and roadway improvements from Goetz Road to Winchester Road (SR 79S). Scott Road, including Interchange at 1-215 and roadway improvements from 1-15 to Winchester Road (SR 79N). Clinton Keith Road, including Interchange at 1-15 and roadway improvements from 1-15 to Winchester Road (SR 79N). Winchester Road Phase I, from Munieta Hot Springs Road to Domenigoni Parkway to 4 lanes. Winchester Road Phase II, 4 to 6 lanes. Winchester Road Phase III, 6 to 8 lanes. RApyle1200SArterial Roads ExhlbR —q A A A A A rn U o H V3 r • �• '� "� � � Q. Q Q Q Q °ram a�. U w a aU [ oc o o a Co o d [� M �t d M NI N It � H QO tQ 0 �--� pi.' � ti lI7 CI O - O N CDV1 �G .. N �s .U+ M o� U u 3 00�O N O O O A �! yb-�a O� hl oo N C) N ( v x V) In o 00 N C 4: .. .. C^ Z C O tl3i a� VIIC w00 O O ri w O N C r O o C W v) C G O m o : L C a P.� Lw O �.3�C w �N N CD co O a 0 CD 14* ■.r � E co C o) —, "- F E Z co m rn cap 2 O cn y ® o FA W N W) Ei 0 m '0 > C U m c y' y e0 ,= G co 0 y w ca es c] aN v` Ln �= .O �:n a a °'' C Uo .b U~ o c E m E daCa E��p c m o c o vi c ,q o� ,d .d.-..d c• �o �> o O.0 �,�n e� c �U o O cc L IX�� ��°'mCUL-Ile boy 0mo O �. Co s o o cc� ca °' c1 c N C y w 0 V �_ w 0� z ca � to 0" cc �_cca=�� a - � s cn � � � ul Lrc r� 9 � � ����o� rx. Pr. tom --• � C -4 •fir � N N N t� O N Co Co N N N N N N W U v b as o1>1 wi •` --+ N M 4 to oo O� G Csr z Exhibit "E" Assumptions of Build -out of 1-215 Policy Area Dwelling Units Study Area Outside CFDs Total (County Study CFDs Area) Areas in Acres 78,314 (72% of Area) 31,003 (28% of 109,317 Area Build -Out 72,066 (64% of Units) 39,934 (36% of 112,000 Units Built Units 19,929 (71 % of Built 8,185 (29% of Built 28,114 (Includes un-Built Units) Units) Recorded and Large Lots for CFDs Units Remaining 52,137 (62% of 31,749 (38% of 83,886 to be Built Remaining Units) Remaining Units county unincorporated area Exhibit B: First Amendment to the Cooperative Agreement Between the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside to Mitigate Traffic Impacts in Western Riverside County ti :;ontract No. Riverside Co. Transportation AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TO MITIGATE TRAFFIC IMPACTS IN WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY This Amendment is made and entered into as of A orc. A..r 14 , 204 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City"), and the County of Riverside ("County"), a public subdivision of the State of California ("County"). ARTICLE 1 RECITALS This Agreement is made for the following purposes and with respect to the following facts, which the City and County agree to be true and correct: On April 12, 2005, the City and the County of Riverside entered an agreement entitled: "COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TO MITIGATE TRAFFIC IMPACTS IN WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY" ("COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT"). The COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT calls, among other things, for the City and the County to implement certain measures to mitigate the impact of new housing development on City and County arterial roads and highways within the boundaries of the I-215 Policy Area. ("The Measures"). The Measures call for the County to condition all County Land Use Applications authorizing the construction of residential dwelling units to be part of an appropriately funded financing mechanism (such as a Community Facilities District - CFD) that will build the major arterial road components identified in the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT. The County has been imposing conditions of approval that implement the requirements of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT. Now that the City and the County have been implementing the terms of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT for over a year, they have identified modifications to the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT that will facilitate implementation and enhance the timely delivery of transportation infrastructure. In light of the above, the City and the County hereby wish to amend the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT as follows: ARTICLE 2 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS Section 1. Exhibit A to the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT, referenced in Section 1.8 thereof, is amended as shown in "Revised Exhibit A", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Revised Exhibit A modifies the boundaries of the original I-215 Policy Area to include the following sub -areas: ■ Newport Road/I-215 Interchange CFD — Sub -area A ■ Scott Road/I-215 Interchange CFD — Sub -area B • Clinton Keith Road Extension CFD — Sub -area C ■ Washington Street Construction — Sub -area D ■ Clinton Keith Road Extension Fee Payment — Sub -area E • Newport Road Extension CFD — Sub -area F • Newport Road Realignment CFD — Sub -area G The County shall use these sub -areas as a guideline in determining how County Land Use Applications should be conditioned. Section 2. Section 1.9.9 of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT is amended to read as follows: "1.9.9 `Cou_n_ty_ Land Use AppIications" is defined in Section 2.3.3 and shall mean any applications on which the County Planning Commission has not taken final action as of the effective date of this Agreement, the approval of which would authorize, or conditionally authorize, the construction of dwelling units within the I-215 Policy Area, including, but not limited to, applications for General Plan amendments, specific plans, specific plan amendments, zone' changes, development agreements, subdivision maps and planned development permits. County Land Use Applications shall not include any applications for parcel maps that would result in the creation of four or fewer parcels, provided that the parcels created could not be further subdivided without a General Plan amendment. County Land Use Applications shall also not include any applications for minor changes to approved tentative tract maps that would add only one residential unit to the maps." Section 3. Section 2.3.3 of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT is amended to read as follows: "2.3.3 As used in this Agreement, County Land Use Applications shall mean any applications on which the County Planning Commission has not taken final action as of the effective date of this Agreement, the approval of which would authorize, or conditionally authorize, the construction of dwelling units within the I-215 Policy Area, including, but not limited to, applications for General Plan amendments, specific plans, specific plan amendments, zone changes, development agreements, subdivision maps and planned development permits. County Land Use Applications shall not include any applications for parcel maps that would result in the creation of four or fewer parcels, provided that the parcels created could not be further subdivided without a General Plan amendment. County Land Use Applications shall also not include any applications for minor changes to approved tentative tract maps that would add only one residential unit to the maps." N Section 4. A new Section 1.9.19 is added to the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT to read as follows: "1.9.19 `Subdivision map extension application' shall mean an application to extend the time available to record a final map." Section 5. A new Section 1.9.20 is added to the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT to read as follows: "1.9.20 `TUMF' shall mean the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee adopted by the Western Riverside Council of Governments and its member jurisdictions (including the City and the County), as subsequently amended." Section 6. Existing Section 1.9.19 is renumbered Section 1.9.21. Section 7. A new Section 2.2.1 is added to the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT to read as follows: "2.2.1 To facilitate the formation of financing mechanisms, the County has implemented Section 2.2 of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT such that subdivision maps are required to comply therewith prior to recordation of a final map. Notwithstanding the County's implementation procedure, the City and County recognize that certain subdivision maps were tentatively approved prior to adoption of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT, but have not recorded for a variety of reasons. Recognizing that substantial time and money have been invested in these maps and that their recordation may be further delayed by the requirements of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT as implemented by the County, the County has developed the alternative procedure set forth in Section 2.2.2 that will allow these maps to record while still securing the funding necessary for the needed transportation improvements." Section 8. A new Section 2.2.2 is added to the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT to read as follows: "2.2.2 In considering a subdivision map extension application for any map tentatively approved prior to the effective date of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT (April 12, 2005), the County may, at the request of the subdivider, conditionally approve the application to require the subdivider to pay (a) the applicable TUMF at the earliest date allowed by the TUMF Ordinance and (b) an early recordation fee, which shall be 50% of the TUMF in effect at the time of recordation. The County shall earmark the early recordation fee for use only on the major arterial road that most benefits the subdivision, as determined by the County. This alternative procedure is purely voluntary and any subdivider choosing not to request it shall be subject to all other terms of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT as implemented by the County." Section 9. Section 5.2 of the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT is amended to read as follows: "5.2 The City shall have the right to refile the Litigation, subject to the provisions of Sections 5.2.1 through 5.2.6, inclusive, in the event that: (1) the County does not, within four (4) months of the effective date of Amendment No. 1 to the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT, complete the staff work required for the County General Plan Amendment, including necessary environmental documentation, and set a public hearing date before the Planning Commission; (2) the County does not, for any reason, adopt the County General Plan Amendment within eight (8) months of the effective date of Amendment No. 1 to the COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT; or (3) the County does not adopt the jointly developed Freeway Action Plan described in Section 4.4 within one (1) year after completion of the Freeway Strategic Study described in Section 4.2." ARTICLE 3 MISCELLANEOUS The parties hereto represent and warrant to each other that they have full authority to execute this Agreement. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. The effective date of this Agreement is the date the parties sign the Agreement. If the parties sign the Agreement on more than one date, then the last date the Agreement is signed by a party shall be the effective date. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement in the State of California. CITY OF TEMECULA Mayor Ron Roberts Attest: 4 Approved as to Form City Attorney Peter M. Thorson COUNTY OF TA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Attest: Nancy Romero, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By� Deputy Clerk Approved as to Form Joe Rank, County Counsel Katherine A. Lind Principal Deputy County Counsel REVISED EXHIBIT A 1-215 Policy Area PRINTED August 3, 2006 w � _ > Al. AN11K,AVF F[ I 1 ll'E 4 . 1i1. 11) C Cr MOUNTAIN AVE v )� p w � c3 - w o MAI.1i :i RD � 11I1 F1A.FES RD � � j U � _Y J W C7 I w �'4�1s , WATSON RD' .vi t,1aA1' rt R o 5 s o A fsfANAC ❑ ETNAiIA ? � sfi-74 •I -�`�, w C. Sti•7-= MCLAUGHI 1 fi)Lu PERRIS W ti ,�• r ROUSE Fill Z I'OWE RD p +S+ • •tea • 5hi!iUEL' R�] � .- i I^' 1 /V + fiidLGA1 L LV aI ; ' Pi GRAND AVFGRAND AVE J it '.3 r�i►RriC'���1 _` t 1 a� t'S AKE- DR 7 x V ` Sub -area A Sub -area A Sub -area G Subhf,�rea'F' CANYC?NcriC�r �� aj LA P1 GFZf=ST DIAMOND ,.., LAKE' m r VALLEY LAk L D.HL NO LAKE;ti OLSINPRE'K ST Sub -area B ..• [3Hi�NGF ST ' ;air f K N r l � �•tu•tr %' SPECILI RD w Sub -area D Su -area J�Aty NICHOLAS RD P r- , lA f:sTREELA sr P arya{'l1 • - � -i'` , •V.fA SF.C-ilvlrl LAKE ,6, . U` p a j''`I' SKINNER �p fr y�pp{� Cr ro HUNTER R' c fs� t, C �s Off• '� 0 �'� � ; � �'r; " Sub -area E r .1 y, MURRIETN z - Buck RD Kati{-I:1rA .g T u `,L1Fp Exhibit C: Settlement Agreement among NNP_Spencer's Crossing, LLC, The City of Temecula, and the County of Riverside SETTLEM1~.!V'l' AGr;Gi:1V17♦,NT This Settlement Agreement is entered into by and among NNP-Spencer's Crossing, LLC ("Developer"), the City of Temecula ("City"), and the County of Riverside ("Coun(y") effective as of January A-. 2003. RECITALS A. Dtr July 6, 2001, the City of Temecula filed a petition for Writ of Mandate against Elie County of Riverside ("County"), as Case No. 360766 (the. "Lawsuit"), contesting the County's certification of Final EIEZ No, 411 (the "EIR") and adoption of(1) Resolution No. 2001-135 approving inreralia General Plan Amendment No. 472, (2) Resolution No, 2001 -111 approving Specific Plan No. 312 (French Valley), and (3) Ordinance No. 348.3996 approving Zone Change No. 6383 (cnllectivcly the "Approvals"). The Approvals authorize development of the real property depicted on Exhibit A Hereto ("French Valley") with 1,793 residential dwelling units and 1.7 acres of commercial uses. Developer is the successor in interest to the original applicant for the Approvals (Tucalotta Hills Associates and French Valley Association) and is now fee owner of French Valley and a real party in interest in the Lawsuit. 13. The City contends, interaliu, that file County violated CEQA and the Planning; and Zoning Law in connection with the Approvals and that the significant adverse traffic impacts of the Approvals must be mitigated by the construction of roadway construction and improvements identified in the EIR. Developer and County dispute the City's claims, but Developer recognizes that certain roadway improvements are necessary to provide adequate circulation to the development of the I.793 residential dwelling units allowed in French Valley by 111e Approvals, C. As directed by the California Environmental Quality Act, City and Landowner have met to discuss ilia issues raised in the Lawsuit, and explore potential For settlement of those issues. D. Through settlement discussions, the City expressed concerns drat French Valley will develop without the completion of improveme to 1nts to Clin[otr Keith Road connecting SR 79 215 ("Clinton Keith Road"). Without the eompletiotr of Clinton Keith Road, traffic from unincorporated areas in the County Borth of the City will adversely burden SR 79 (Winchester Road) through the City to I-15, At the same Elute, Developer recognizes that Clinton Keith Road is needed to provide anadequa[e circulation system to serve: the French Valley development. E. Clinton Keith Road is an important regional circulation system improvement with or without development of french Valley. Findingit. way to cause Clinton Keith Road to be built expeditiously is a transcendent goal for the City and French Valley. F. Successfully designing, funding, constructing and opening, Clinton Keith Road requires dedicated and determined participation by motivated property owners, and support by governmental entities, including the City, the County, and the City of Murrieta. Developer has RWG version 718894,2 Janua ry 17, 2003 taken file lead in pursuing private landowner and political support for Clinton Keith Road, and is best situated IU provide the continued private landowner leadership enquired to successfully complete Clinton Keith Road. G. The cost of designing and constructing Clinton Keith Road is Stich that it cannot be privately funded and completed, even in substantial part, prior to any development proceeding. 1;evenU0S from development are a critical element of successfully funding Clinton Keith Road. However, City believes development should be linked in phase with discrete Milestone events in the ace-Omplishmcnt of Clinton Keith Road, so that development is at least coincident with reasonable certainty of tite completion of Clinton Keith Road on a rcasonahic timetable. H. The more private and public funds invested in completing Clinton Keith Road, the more likely it is that Clinton Keith Road will be built. 1. As a result of the settlement discussions between City and Developer, and in light of the Foregoing recitals, the parties have agreed upon a schedule of milestone events and corresponding residential unit phasing plan, wWch will avoid the necessity of bringing the Lawsuit to a hearing, and instead result in its dismissal. Accordingly, the panics now wish to resolve the dispute embodied in the Lawsuit without further litigation and without admission of the merits of the contentions of any party by any other party on the terms set forth below. AGREEWNT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the mutual promises and agreements contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficicucy of which is hereby acknowledged, it is agreed as follows: I. Unit P a ' t w�th i elation ste n 111 erne ts. Inconsideration for City`s dismussal of the Lawsuit with prejudice, Developer agrees that it will phase residential unit development in French Valley in accordance with the milestone schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B. As depicted on Exhibit B. as each milestone event or set of events is satisfied, building permits may be issued for one hundred U 00) dwelling units. The parties understand that while the milestone events are identified on Exhibit B in the order it is anticipated they will occur, the order in which they are listed on Exhibit B is not material to this Agrcernent, provided, however, that building permits for (1) the first 100 units will not be issued until a park and ride facility is completed as described in milestone "A," and (2) not more than 500 units will be released prior to accomplishment of milestone "F': securing funding for Clinton Keith Road. "Clinton Keith Road" as used in this Agreement means a road with a minimum of four trafFc Vf lanes between the French Valley Project and 1-215 and tite improvements, or interim improvements, to the 1-215 and Clinton Keith Interchange necessary to accommodate traffic from the French Valley Project. The park and ride described in milestone "A" shall be open and available to the public and maintained by Developer, its successors, or by art assignee of Developer approved by the City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld provided the assignee is capable of maintaining the facility, RWG version 718994.2 January 11, 2003 :s� 2. French Valley pevel,QfJnlcnt ,A�reement. In order to justify the upfront costs Developer will be incurring for Clinton Keith Road and other improvements and the risks inherent in the Exhibit B phasing program and milestone sch dulc, and to implement the Exhibil B phasing program and milestone schedule, Developer will apply to the County for approval or a Development Agreement for French Valley that will incorporate the Exhibit B phasing program and milestone schedule as a project requirernew, and provide a process for verifying the accompfishment of each: milestone event(s). City agrees to support Developer's application for such a development agreement so long as the development agreement contains the phasing plan described in Exhibit B to this Agreement, provides a reasonable method for monitoring development and deterrlvnation of accomplishment of the milestones, and dots not increase overall the density and intensity of development in Trench Valley allowed by the Approvals. The County shall use its best efforts to expeditiously process and consider approval of the development agreement. The portion of the development agreement conditioning the issuance of building permits on the accomplishment of the milestones described in Exhibit B of this Agreement shall be enforceable by the City against the County, Developer and then -current owners of the affected portions of French Valley. In the event the County declines to approve the Development Agreement application, or attaches conditions to the Development Agreement that are unacceptable to Developer, Developer agrees that it will nonetheless provide evidence reasonably satisfactory to City of the accomplishment of each milestone event or package of events prior to obtaining the corresponding allocation of building permits, and that any dispute conceming the accomplishment of one or more milestone events shall be subject to non -binding, expl:dited arbitration by a mutually acceptable member of JAMS. 3. CtgntinmL� f r ancon Keith Road -tench Mille I)evc;inp et . City agrees that so long as the overall intensity and density of development of French Valley is not greater than as allowed pursuant to the Approvals. and is phased in accordance with this Agreement, City shall not appose future development of ,French Valley, City agrees to support County`s expedited processing of Clinton Keith Road as an important regional circulation system improvement, and in so doing to use reasonable efforts to enlist the support of the City of Murrieta for improvements to Clinton Keith Road within its jurisdiction. . I]i Missal, Release and Enforcement. Concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, City agrees to execute for filing and file a dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudicc. Upon execution Of this agreement and dismissal of the lawsuit, City shall have tflc right to enforce the terms and Provisions of this Agreement against Drench Valley as contractual obligations of the Developer. Developer agrees to advise any subsequent buyer ofa]I or any portion of French Valley of tite existence and obligations of this Agreement, which obligation will be satisfied uporl execution and recordation of a Development Agreement as provided in Paragraph 2 above.. in the event Developer applies for approval of a subdivision IMP for all or any portion of French Valley prior to County action on the Development Agreement, or thereafter if no Development Agreement is executed and recorded for Drench Valley, Developer shall immediately notify the City of the filing of the Application for the subdivision map, and Developer and County agree that the subdivision reap shall be conditioned to comply with tine milestones and phasing establisher! by Exhibit B to this Agreement, and shall recite that the condition shall be enforceable by the City as a contractual right flowing from the settlement of Ilia lawsuit. County will place a ropy of this Agreement in the Specific Plan file for French Valley. RWG version 718894,2 January 11, 2003 3 5. General Provi ion . a. zf any dispute arises out of orconceming Ihis Settlement Agreement and/or the Mutual Release, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover, in Addition to any damages and/or equitable relief, its reasonable attorneys fees in that dispute. b. This Agreement and the exhibits hereto contain the entire agreement and understanding between the parties concerning the subject matter of this settlement and supersede and replace aU prior negotiations, proposed agreements and agreements, written or oral. C. This Agreement and the exhibits hereto may be amended or modified only by a written instrument signed by all parties or their successors in interest, d, This Agreement and the exhibits hereto shall be interpreted, enforced and govemed by the laws of the State of California. e. This Agreement and theexhibits hereto shall be construed as if the parties jointly prepared them and any uncertainty or ambiguity shall not be interpreted against any one party. f. If any provision of Ihis Agreement or the exhibits hereto shall be deemed unenforceable for any reason, the remaining provisions will be given full force and effect. g, This Agreement and the exhibits hereto may be executed in counterparts which when taken together constitute the entire agreement among Ilse partirs hereto. h. The person(s) signing this Agreement on behalf of any specified party represents that he or she has rull authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of such party. i. This Agreement sliall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the heirs, successors in interest, and assignees of the rxspective parties. All heirs, successors and assignees shall be bound by the duties of the parties arising under this Agreement. j• In the event that Clinton Keith Road is significantly delayed, City and Developer agree to meet and confer in good faith on possible additional circulation system improvements that may be feasible, and provide similar congestion relief to City, as a potential substitute to the Milestone events listed on EWtibit B- k. The waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall) be invalid unless evidenced by a writing signed by the party to be charged themwitli. The waiver of, or failure to enforce, any provision of this Agreement shall not be a waiver of any further breach; of such provision or of any Other provision hereof. Tiie waiver by any party of the time for performing any act shall not be a waiver of the time for performingany other act or acts required under this Agreement. RWG version'i18N94.21anuuy 11, 2W3 4 �+ IN WETNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first above written. "CITY" -- City of Temecula 1 I . •rIM,. ' Susan lono. City APPROVED AS TO FORM: By. Peter Thorson, City Attorney 'IOEYELOPER" NNP-SPencer's Crossing, LLC a Delaware limited liability comps y By• Z Its: 11Ma ans I: maiden B Its: o>rREK c. 'IHGMAs RWG version 718894.2 January 11, 2o09 5 "COUNTY" County of Riverside By:— . - --- -- ATTEST: By:--- - - APPROVED AS TO FORM; B Y: N EXHIBIT A DEPICTION OF (FRENCH VALLEY RWG version 718894.2 January 11, 2003 �{o! rcr C a 7 ❑D rn R a H r�r n 2= . ok S.� briZn tit 1 ?� LAND USE SUMMARY LAhrDivu le AMj_QWHr %CE 74.4 )jD 224 Wdwo, fk.1d.otL.1 . J.]M4, 210.4 ca 871 MIAlm Rald-6.1 - CODU rJ. 15&6 4.5 6% Aeild,.A.A 5.61.W 449.4 11 9ME32OMMTA== cv—sp-MID"C"dor, 131 — — D—wr 20.0 Opm Sp--IEV-dtd P-6..y. 6" ca—Orcl.) 1.7 K-do Su6m-1 iss.4 rmb 601.0 Lf IL17-1 PA, 12 J11%, 2 11 r ' -I,- —E : — = au -elllii l A; P.A. 29 FA. A3 11 tolu" PAL is xurlyy'XTk— PA. 13 mv,U4 � •PA. 12 I AA. 4 1 I "JUDD. KM,fm , M, PA. Is V�Aj 10 wmiUF 11,11. jA-F — W.., 3 w -71 USE PLlsN S4 67reffell, Valley FIGUREIII.A.2 11 w TOCALOTA FULLS ASSOCIATES LLC AI I 9SOO MACAJUIMR BLVD. SUITE 700 IRVINE, CA 91612 PAGE III-A-5 ICXHiB1T B CLINTON KEITH ROAD MILESTONE SCHEDULE Building permits for 100 units will be released upon the accomplishment of each of the following ndlestone events for the completion of Clinton Keith Road ("CKR")"Clinton Keith Road" as used in this Agreement means a road with a minimum of four traffic lanes between the French Valley Project and I-215 and the improvements, or interim imprnvernents, to the I-215 and Clinton Keith Interchange necessary to accommodate traffic from the French Valley project, A. 100 units at: v execution of an agreement for preliminary design and environmental clearances for CKR; and • :approval by the Board of Supervisors of the expanded boundaries and the funding levels of the Solllhwos( Area Road and Bridge Benefit District ("RBBD") for CKR B. 100 units at; .completion of a 250-space park -and -ride facility either on -site of off -site north of the Temecula City limits open and available for public use, C. 100 units at:11 circulation to the public of the draft environmental document for CKR � D. 100 units at: . execution of the "at Risk final design contract for CKR E. 100 units at: . Certification of the final environmental document b lead a to y agency Y Pursuant to CEQA and, if applicable. NEPA for CKR; and award of the CKR bridge structural design contract; and identification of CKR right-of-way ("ROW) requirements (i.e., completion of 35% of CKR roadway design) F, 100 units at; ■ funds for the completion of CKR are available pursuant to the financing planT G. 100 units at: + finalization of ROW requirements and completion of ROW appraisals for CKR H. 100 units at: a 95% completion of the CKR roadway and bridge design Y completion of ROW acquisition for CKR I, 100 units at: 9 completion of final roadway design, including final structural design of the CKR bridge; and ® receipt of all environmental clearances; and f award of contracts for construction of CKR . Remainin units at: g CKR completed and open for.public use u RWG version 718894.2 January 11, 2003 $ 0 Item No. 15 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Aaron Adams, City Manager DATE: October 25, 2022 SUBJECT: City Council Travel/Conference Report PREPARED BY: Luisa Tovar, Executive Assistant RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file report. On September 7 and 8, 2022, Mayor Matt Rahn traveled to Long Beach, CA to attend the League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo. Mayor Rahn was scheduled to stay at the Conference until September 9, 2022; however, returned to Temecula earlier than anticipated, on September 8, 2022, due to the Fairview Fire threatening Temecula Wine Country and the City of Temecula. ATTACHMENT: Itinerary LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE LONG BEACH SEPTEMBER 7, 8, 9, 2022 MATT RAH N WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2022 Hotel: Hyatt Regency Long Beach, 200 South Pine Ave., Long Beach, CA 90802. Phone: 562-491-1234, Confirmation #CFYVESW2, King Bed, $239 + fees and taxes. httos://www.calcities.ora/detail-oaaes/event/2023/09/20/default-calendar/annual-conference-and-expo 8:00am-5:00pm Registration Open 10:00am-12:00pm Understanding Public Service Ethics Laws and Principles (AB 1234) 11:00am-12:00pm Riverside Division Meeting — Beacon B 1:30pm-5:00pm Open General Sessions 5:00pm-7:00 pm Grand Opening Expo Hall Reception Exhibit Hall A/B 7:00pm-10:00pm CitiPac — Aquarium of the Pacific THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2022 7:30am-4:00pm Registration Open 8:30am-5:30pm 9:00am-3:00pm 10:00am-12:00pm 1:00pm-5:30pm Regular Sessions Expo Open General Session Regular Sessions FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2022 7:30am-12:30pm Registration Open 8:00am-11:15am Regular Sessions 11:30am-2:00pm Closing Luncheon & General Assembly— Convention Center, Exhibit Hall C Item No. 16 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development DATE: October 25, 2022 SUBJECT: Community Development Department Monthly Report RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the Community Development Department monthly report. The following are the highlights for Community Development for the month of September 2022. CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITIES Planning processed sixteen (16) new applications (not including Home Occupations) and conducted seven (7) Public Hearings in September 2022. A detailed account of planning activities is attached to this report. Planning Statistics September 2022 Long Range Projects 0 Development Plan 3 Home Occupations 1 Nlodificadons 6 Pre- App Temporary Use Permit 3 Zoning or Planning Letter Tow 17 Paseo Del Sol Tentative Tract Map No. 36483 (PA14-0087): The City is processing a Tentative Tract Map (No. 36483) for 168 single-family homes and 11 open space lots located at the northwest corner of Temecula Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road. (COOPER) Winchester Hills Development Agreement Amendment (PA21-0128): The City is processing a Second Amendment to the Development Agreement by and between the City of Temecula and Lennar Homes, Inc., a California Corporation and Winchester Hills I LLC, a California Limited Liability Company to rescind the First Amendment to the Development Agreement and reinstate the original term of the Development Agreement for the Winchester Property located within portions of Planning Area 12 of the Harveston Specific Plan. (COOPER) Firenze (PA21-1023): The City is processing a Development Plan application for an approximately 498,557 square foot hotel and apartment project. The approximately 148,545 square foot, five story, 224 room hotel includes a conference center, restaurant, wine market multi -tenant space, and outdoor courtyard dining space. The approximately 350,012 square foot, seven story, 121-unit apartment building include a roof top area that contains a pool/spa, cabanas, fire pit, media wall, kitchen, fitness area, and lawn/game area. The parking for the project is located on the interior of the apartment building that is wrapped with the residential units. The project is located approximately 665 feet north of Rancho California Road on the east side of Jefferson Avenue. (COOPER) Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update (PA21-1525): The City is processing a Modification to the previously approved Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan. The updated Master Plan, at buildout will include the existing 237,305 square foot hospital building and 5,180 square foot storage building along with an approximately 130,000 square foot, four story Behavioral Health Building in Phase 2, an approximately 10,000 square foot expansion to the emergency department, a 125,000 square foot, five story second hospital tower, a 80,000 square foot medical office buildings, and a 14,000 square foot utility plant in Phase 3, and an approximately 125,000 square foot, five story third hospital tower, a 80,000 square three story foot medical office building, and a four story parking structure with the existing helipad relocated to the roof of the structure in Phase 4. The project is located at 31700 Temecula Parkway. A public scoping meeting for the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was held on March 23, 2022, at the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library. The Revised Draft SEIR was provided to staff for review. (COOPER) Temecula Resort and Spa (PAs 22-0035, 22-0037): The City is processing a Development Plan and Tentative Parcel Map for an approximately 474,137 square foot, seven (7) story, 90-foot high full service hotel that includes a parking garage, conference facilities/ballrooms, gallery/event space, full service spa, restaurants, bars/lounges, retail outlets, workout facility, outdoor pool area, and a wedding garden located on the east side of Front Street between First Street and Second Street. The project was presented to the Old Town Steering Subcommittee on September 27, 2022. (COOPER) Temecula Hyundai (PA22-0293): The City is processing a Modification to a Development Plan for the addition of approximately 3,824 square feet to the vehicle showroom and service area, a new approximately 674 square foot vehicle delivery canopy area, elevation revisions to adhere to new corporate colors, and a new vehicle display pad at the entry driveway located at 27430 Ynez Road. (COOPER) Sommers Bend SHAWOOD Home Product Review (PAs 22-0494, 0495, 0496): The City is Processing Home Product Reviews for Planning Area's 19, 20B, and 21 of Sommers Bend. There are a total of 57 homes ranging in size from 3,203 square feet to 4,974 square feet with three (3) different architectural styles. Home Product Review for these planning areas was previously approved on June 2, 2021. The applicant is proposing new architectural styles with new construction techniques for these larger homes. The projects are scheduled for Planning Commission on October 19, 2022 (COOPER) Seraphina Tentative Tract Map No. 38267 (PA22-0830): The City is processing a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 38267) for the creation of 39 single family lots and two (2) open space lots on 12.77 acres located on the southwest corner of Joseph Road and Rita Way (APN: 957-080-027). (COOPER) Boutique Luxury Hotel (PAs 22-0929, 0930, 0931): The City is processing a Development Plan for an approximately 54,699 square foot, four-story, 45 room hotel that includes retail spaces, a gym, meeting space, and a rooftop restaurant and pool area. The project is located on the west side of Old Town Front Street approximately 400' south of Santiago Road adjacent to the U-Haul dealership. The application package also includes requests for a Minor Exception for the height of the building to accommodate architectural tower elements and a Variance to allow for parking within the setback due to the narrow width of the project site. (COOPER) Parker Medical Center II (PA22-0987): The City is processing a Development Plan for an approximately 35,601 square -foot, three story, medical office building located on the west side of Avenida De Missiones approximately 425 feet south of Temecula Parkway. (COOPER) Rally's (PA22-1012): The City is processing a Modification to a previously approved Development Plan (PA15-1572) for an approximately 998 square foot drive thru restaurant located on the southwest corner of Temecula Parkway and Mahlon Vail Road. (COOPER) Apollo Storage (PA22-0999): The City is processing a Development Plan for an approximately 113,295 square foot, four story, self -storage facility located on the east side of Madison Ave. approximately 110 feet south of McCabe Court within the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan. (COOPER) LONG RANGE PLANNING General Plan Update The Long Range Planning Division has developed a four -phase, multi -year process to update the General Plan. Phase I is complete and included updates to Housing and Public Safety Elements. Phase I also included an update to the City's Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines to analyze Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Phase II is in process and includes an update to the Quality of Life Master Plan (QLMP), reconciling the City's GIS Maps on a parcel by parcel basis, a baseline EIR analysis of the City's Circulation Element, and developing a Complete Streets Policy document. Phase III will include a Fiscal Land Use Study to analyze the City's remaining development capacity and market absorption potential for residential, commercial, and industrial development. The final phase is to work with a General Plan Advisory Committee to update to the General Plan and EIR over an 18-month timeframe. (PETERS) Quality of Life Master Plan Update: On April 27, 2021, the City Council established a Blue Ribbon Committee (BRC) to update the Quality of Life Master Plan (QLMP). The QLMP identifies the City's six core values, including: 1) Healthy and Livable City; 2) Economic Prosperity; 3) Safe and Prepared Community; 4) Sustainable City; 5) Transportation Mobility and Connectivity; and 6) Accountable and Responsive City Government. Projects and programs proposed in the City's Annual Operating Budget and Capital Improvements Program must be consistent with the City's Core Values. Performance measures (indicators) are measured annually to track progress and the completion of goals and objectives. The last BRC meeting is scheduled for July 21, 2022. The Preliminary Draft document will be presented to the remaining Commissions in October. The Final Draft QLMP will be scheduled for a City Council meeting on November 15th. (PETERS) Permit Ready ADU Program (LR19-1464): The City received an SB 2 Grant from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to prepare, adopt, and implement a Permit Ready Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) program. The ADU program will encourage the construction of ADUs, offering property owners a selection of pre -approved ADU building plans that can be obtained at the Community Development Department, free of charge. On September 16, 2020, the RFP closed on PlanetBids. The City received three detailed proposals from qualified consultants. After detailed review of all the proposals, staff selected checkerboardSTUDIOS Consultant Firm. On March 18, 2021, staff kicked off the project with the Consultant and staff from Planning, Building & Safety, Public Works, and Fire. This will be a joined effort between the internal departments and the consultant. Staff is working with the consultant on the first task (Phase 1: Schematic Design), staff has provided feedback of the Schematic Design taking into consideration the School District and Development Impact Fee (DIF) fees, and appropriate unit type and size. On, October 19, 2021, staff presented at the draft site plan and architecture designs to the Southern Riverside County Association of Realtors (SRCAR). On November 30, 2021, staff held an Open House to solicit feedback from the professional community (i.e., Engineers, Contractors, Architects, etc.), the meeting will be open to the public. Staff is currently reviewing the construction drawings. Plans will be going back into review to update the plans to account for the 2022 Building Code. (RABIDOU) Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Amendment (LR19-1458): An amendment to the Uptown Specific Plan to implement the following changes: modify graphics to reflect consistency with text regarding allowable frontage types, amend street cross sections (graphics), amend plant pallet and silva cell requirements for street trees, implement a street naming convention, amend streetlight spacing and other typographical errors. Staff has reached out to Spurlock Consulting for assistance in updating the Sidewalk and Streetscape Standards and is awaiting a scope if work and timeline. Public Works is drafting new street sections for the Specific Plan anticipated completion in November. (COLLINS) Transportation Discovery and Existing Conditions Analysis (LR20-1071): The City received an SB 2 Grant from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to prepare an internal document for staff to identify potential transportation focused areas as part of Phase 2 of our General Plan Update process and timeline. The City has hired Fehr & Peers (F&P) to document existing transportation conditions in the City, provide benchmarking information on how transportation facilities, transportation use and policies compares to other peer agencies (through benchmarking) and will evaluate how much of the current Circulation Element has been implemented. Staff worked with F&P to identify methodology, thresholds, and mitigation to address VMT for the California Environmental Quality Act evaluation, which the City Council adopted in May 2020. On July 19, 2021, Staff has a scheduled internal meeting with Fehr & Peers, they present to staff the Data Collection Status. Currently, the consultant is developing the three scenario runs to be reviewed by staff prior to conducting a full model run. (PETERS) Mobile Food Trucks (LR20-1472): On February 23, 2021, staff presented to the Economic Development Subcommittee members (ME/JS) on Mobile Food Trucks (MFT). This was a noticed meeting with one public comment in favor of MFT, read by Stuart Fisk. The intent of the meeting was to get the subcommittee's feedback on the potential for MFT to operate in the City. Staff presented the definition of MFTs, existing regulations, standards of operation to consider, and Pros & Cons list. The subcommittee advised staff to create a framework and come back to the committee for discussion. Staff is working on developing the framework. Staff took the draft to Community Development Brainstorming Meeting on May 4, 2022, for review. Revisions necessary. Staff has shelved the Ordinance for the time being in an effort to have a smaller test of food truck operations within the City by allowing food trucks to operate at alcoholic beverage manufacturer (Breweries, wineries, etc.) exclusively serving their customers entirely on private property and under the requirements of Riverside County Ord. No. 580. (COLLINS) Shopping Cart Ordinance (LR21-0909): An ordinance to modify Title 9 Public Peace, Morals and Welfare of the Temecula Municipal Code to regulate shopping carts. Shopping carts continue to be left throughout the City, costing taxpayers and businesses money to retrieve, repair or replace these carts. The ordinance proposes mandatory physical measures for all retailers with shopping carts, exemptions provided for, exemptions are invalid for retailers whose carts are found more than 3 times in a 12-month period. Staff presented the draft ordinance to the City Council Public Safety Subcommittee on January 18, 2022 (Rahn, Edwards), direction to staff was to conduct more outreach to businesses, chamber of commerce as well as to present the ordinance to the Planning Commission Commercial Center Subcommittee. Staff hand delivered 82 letters to all businesses within the City, presented the draft ordinance to the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce on January 11, 2022, and presented to Planning Commission Commercial Center Subcommittee on February 16, 2022 (Turley-Trejo, Watts). Commissioners were supportive of the ordinance, recommended the framing be as a responsibility and not assign blame. Staff was requested to present again to the Subcommittee's to show outreach efforts and report feedback. The Shopping Cart Ordinance was passed and, staff is presently following up with another in person visit to further explain the requirements and timeframes for implementing theft prevention measures, completion is anticipated to be the week of October loth. (COLLINS) Temecula Creek Wildfire Risk Reduction Community Plan (LR21-1331): Temecula applied for and was awarded a $300,000 grant to develop Temecula's first Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). The grant has a $78,000 match (staff time), the remainder is to onboard a consultant to draft the plan. RFP has closed and SWCA Environmental was selected as the winning candidate. Staff is currently working to place the item on the City Council for their consideration. (COLLINS) Municipal Code Update (LR22-0182): An update to the Temecula Municipal Code Title 5 and 17. Updates to Title 5 are limited to clarification for exemptions to the requirements of Chapter 5.22 Massage Establishments specific to chair massage and specifies limits to existing exemptions. Updates to Title 17 include changes to the separate conveyance of Accessory Dwelling Units IAW AB 345. Additionally, ADU's would require all equipment (including window AC units) to be screened from the R-O-W and update the definition of guest house and secondary dwelling unit. Update PDO-4 & PDO-10 to require restaurants that provide live entertainment comply with Chapter 9.10 Live entertainment License. Item is scheduled for the Planning Commission on November 19, 2022, and City Council on January 18, 2023. (COLLINS) WRCOG REAP Agreement (LR22-0664): An agreement between WRCOG and the City to provide consultation services to provide analysis of required municipal code updates as they relate to the new slate of housing laws, such as SB-9, ADU Laws, etc. Additionally, would evaluate changes to the municipal code required after the adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element. The cost is included as a benefit to member agencies of WRCOG. WSP is the consultant selected by WRCOG to assist the city review its Municipal Code in relation to the new housing bills passed. Staff has bi-weekly meetings with the consultant to address the changes and will discuss proposed changes at a future date in consultation with the City Attorney's Office. (COLLINS) Old Town Specific Plan Update (LR21-0279): An amendment to the Old Town Specific Plan to implement the following changes: (1). Revise maximum building height for three and four-story buildings in the Downtown Core District from 50 feet to 55 feet, (2) Add provisions to allow for raised commercial outdoor patios (24-inch height), (3). Revise commercial ground floor fagade standards to prohibit the use of aluminum shop front or spandrel panels, (4) Clarify existing parking structure setback language, (5) Revise architectural guidelines related to varied rooflines and fences, (6) Revise non -conforming use language for single-family homes in the Residential and Limited Mixed -Use Zones for consistency, (7) Revise alley requirements to clarify utility locations, trash services, and delivery requirements, (8) Amendment the Use Matrix to allow beer tasting, escape rooms, entertainment licenses, (9) Revise existing bed and breakfast language to ensure consistency with the Municipal code. The project is anticipated to be heard by the Planning Commission before the end of the year. (JONES) HOUSING Las Haciendas Affordable Housing Project: The City is processing a Development Plan for a 77-unit affordable multi -family housing community consisting of two residential buildings, a community building and tuck -under parking located at 28715 Las Haciendas. The City Council approved a Loan Agreement with Community Housing Works (CHW) for the use of affordable housing tax allocation bond proceeds on May 26, 2020. The developer held a virtual community workshop on July 28, 2020. The item was approved by the Planning Commission on October 7, 2020. An amendment to the Loan Agreement was approved at the April 27, 2021, City Council meeting. A tax allocation application was forwarded to the state in March 2021. The applicant has submitted Building Permits and Grading Permits. CHW was awarded tax credits in June 2021. The project is under construction. (RABIDOU, WATSON) Vine Creek Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA): City Council approved the DDA with Temecula Pacific Associates on June 25, 2019, for the development of 60 affordable units on City -owned property on Pujol Street. The developer is looking to secure financing from the State of California prior to construction. The City and developer will collaborate with the County of Riverside and the State Department of Housing and Community Development for additional funding opportunities through the Permanent Local Housing Allocation grant. The project has received state tax credits as of June 2022. The applicant is moving forward with the project based on this additional funding. (WATSON) Housing Element Update (LR18-1620): The City is working with De Novo Planning Group to update the 2021-29 Housing Element. De Novo will also assist with the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process, community engagement, and California Environmental Quality Act. The current Housing Element was certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in 2013 and serves as the foundation for the update. The Housing Element is a required part of the City's General Plan and is a blueprint for meeting the housing needs of residents, at all economic levels, and addressing segments of the population with special needs. The City Council General Plan Ad Hoc Subcommittee, consisting of Council Member Edwards and Mayor Rahn, and the Planning Commission General Plan Ad Hoc Subcommittee, consisting of Commissioners Watts and Turley-Trejo, will serve as advisory bodies. Running concurrently with the Housing Element Update is the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The RHNA planning cycle is an eight -year cycle and covers October 2021 through October 2029. The Final RHNA allocation was issued in September 2020. Staff is working with the consultant to update data and write draft chapters. A Housing Workshop was held on August 17, 2021, with approximately 12 attendees. The item was recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission at the September 15, 2021, Planning Commission meeting. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection have signed -off on the Housing Element. The item was approved by the City Council on October 12, 2021. The City Council adopted the revised Housing Element on February 8, 2022. Staff has submitted an informal set of changes to HCD. (RABIDOU) BUILDING & SAFETY Building and Safety statistics for September 2022 are highlighted in the following table. wilding &. Safety Statistics September 2M Permits 442 New Single Family -.nits 9 -ex Commercial BuildinE 4) Photovoltaic 191 Tenant Ltnpro cement 12 "on Construction C of O 31 -umber of -kctive Plan Checks 123 'umber of Deny- Plan Checks 119 -umber of Finaled Permits 2551 Inspections 3441 Inspections Per Day. 169_96 Inspections Per Person Per Day 32.77 Stops Per Month 926 Visitors to Counter 733 New Construction Projects Currently in Plan Check ❑ Truax Hotel (161,586 SF) ❑ Parking Structure on 3rd Street (48,907 SF) ❑ Generations at Linfield - memory care/assisted living (59 apartments and 32 condos) ❑ Hotel (38,202 SF) on Jefferson and Winchester ❑ Hotel Curio (72,486 SF with 31,808 SF basement Parking) 41h Street ❑ Solana Way Senior Assisted Living and Memory Care (72,882 SF) ❑ Temecula Hyundai Service Building (5,753 SF) ❑ New Industrial Building (32,792 SF) ❑ New Margarita Recreation Center (8,161 SF) ❑ Nine (9) Industrial Buildings — Mountain View (219,609 SF total) ❑ Longhorn Steakhouse (5,710 SF) (old Marie Callender's location) Non -Construction Certificate of Occupancy ❑ The Urban Island Restaurant (2,600 SF) ❑ Live Well Family Counseling (2,234 SF) Tenant Improvement ❑ Dave's Hot Chicken (1,924 SF) ❑ Boba Time (819 SF) CODE ENFORCEMENT During the month September, Code Enforcement responded to 97 web inquiries. In addition, the division opened 114 code cases, conducted 165 regular inspections, and forwarded 22 referrals. Code Enforcement Statistics September Abandoned or Inoperable vehicle 3 Vacant Home I'Prop- Maintenance "Infestation/ 0 Bus ines or Home Occupation n. o license, CUP 5 Trash and Debris:: Dumping Overgrown e getation . weeds.-` Fire Hazard 16 Green Pool. vector Control . Start water 4 Graffiti Noise Itiuisance•'Animal Central Trailer RV Stored. Scat. Parking T Construction ix Permit: Building Code Encroach Public EWW . Trash Cans 18 Zoning -:Sims Public Safer- & Health 1 Total Number of Cases 114 Foreclosure Tracking: Code Enforcement works with the local real estate community to monitor foreclosures, defaults and real estate owned properties. Foreclosure Statistics September 2022 Residenrtial - Default 39 Residential - Foreclosure 21 Residenrtial - REO 12 Total - Residential 72 Commercial - Default Q Commercial - Foreclosure 1 Commercial - RED Total - Commercial 1 ATTACHMENT: Current Planning Activity Report PLANNING ACTIVITY REPORT Assigned Planner Approval PA Number Project Address APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Owner Plan Type Status PA22-0984 921-020-067 Jaime Cardenas 09/01/2022 Greg Lang STEPHEN PL Zoning or Cancelled Temecula, CA CAVADIAS Planning Letter Case Title / Description: APN 921020067 ZL: a Zoning verification letter for the vacant property with associated Assessor's Parcel Number 921020067. PA22-0985 28120 Jefferson Ave 921-060-032 Eric Jones 09/02/2022 Steve Aquilino Dog n Suds JEAN PL Modifications Out Temecula, CA 92590 DOMENIGONI Case Title / Description: Dog N Suds Modification: A Minor Modification application to allow a rear patio totaling approximately 1,000 square feet to be installed for an existing restaurant. The project is located at 28120 Jefferson Avenue. PA22-0987 961-290-003 Scott Cooper 09/07/2022 Michael Bastian Episcopal PL Development Plan Review Temecula, CA Diocese of San Plan Diego Case Title / Description: Parker Medical Center II DP: A Development Plan for an approximately 35,601 square -foot, three story, medical office building located on the west side of Avenida De Missiones approximately 425 feet south of Temecula Parkway PA22-0990 28225 Heirloom Dr 916-400-035 Scott Cooper 09/12/2022 09/13/2022 Efrem Joelson Meritage Homes PL Modifications Approved Temecula, CA 92591 of California, Inc. Case Title / Description: Heirloom Farms Zipline MOD: A Modification (Planning Review Only) to a previously approved Development Plan (PA18-0661) to remove the zipline manufacturer information from the landscape plans for the Heirloom Farms project. PA22-0992 29363 Rancho California Rd 944-330-011 Scott Cooper 09/14/2022 Nina Raey Land of M&H PL Modifications Out Temecula, CA 92592 Investors, LLC Case Title / Description: LongHorn Steakhouse MOD: A Modification to a previously approved Development Plan (PA21-0793) to revise the corner feature, patio area limits and material, adding an awning to the front elevation and replacing the detention tank with pipes and update storm drain and utility layouts. The project is located at 29363 Rancho California Road. PA22-0994 31130 South General Kearny 953-050-036 Yannin Marquez 09/15/2022 09/19/2022 Rebecca Kelley Carefree PL Zoning or Approved Rd Communities CA Planning Letter Temecula, CA 92591 Case Title / Description: Residential ZL: a Zoning Letter request for 31130 South General Kearney Road (APN 953050036). Page 1 of 3 Assigned Planner Approval PA Number Project Address APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Owner Plan Type Status PA22-0995 41915 4Th St 922-033-017 Eric Jones 09/15/2022 Jessica Steiner Anthony Bennett PL Development Plan Review Temecula, CA 92590 Plan Case Title / Description: Be Good Hotel Development Plan: A Development Plan Application to review a four-story hotel featuring nine rooms, restaurant and basement parking. The project is generally located on the northwest corner of Fourth Street and Mercedes Street. PA22-0996 28580 Pujol St 922-053-047 09/21/2022 Jarrod Short Pacific West Pacific West PL Modifications Plan Review Temecula, CA 92590 Communities Communities Case Title / Description: Vine Creek Apartments Modification: Modification Application to allow for external downspouts to be incorporated and certain conditions of approval to be amended for a previously approved affordable residential project generally located approximately 100 feet north of the Main Street and Pujol Street intersection. PA22-0997 28459 Old Town Front St 922-026-044 Yannin Marquez 09/21/2022 10/06/2022 Melissa Marin RCM Capital PL Temporary Approved Temecula, CA 92590 Partners Use Permit Case Title / Description: StarPups Rescue Animal Adoption Event Pop -Up: A Minor Temporary Use Permit for an adoption booth for Nancy's Furry Feline Rescue for 4 hours on September 24, October 15, November 9 and December 17, 2022 on Starbucks Patio (north side of the building). PA22-0999 910-272-002 Scott Cooper 09/22/2022 Joe Holasek Hoff Investments PL Development Plan Review Temecula, CA Plan Case Title / Description: Apollo Self Storage DP: A Development Plan for an approximately 113,295 square foot, four story, self -storage facility located on the east side of Madison Ave. approximately 110 feet south of McCabe Ct. (APN: 910-272-002) PA22-1001 29581 North General Kearny 921-830-035 Yannin Marquez 09/27/2022 Stephanie Christ the Vine PL Temporary Plan Review Rd Turnbull Lutheran Church Use Permit Temecula, CA 92591 Case Title / Description: Christ the Vine Lutheran Church Fall Festival: A Major Temporary Use permit to allow for a fall festival that consists of games, music, food and bounce houses at 29581 N. General Kearney Road for October 29th, 2022 from 5 pm to 8 pm. PA22-1002 26631 Ynez Rd 921-720-006 Yannin Marquez 09/29/2022 DANIEL FLORES Toyota of PL Modifications Plan Review Temecula, CA 92591 Temecula Case Title / Description: Temecula Valley Toyota Carport and Solar MOD: A Minor modification for the construction and installation of three PV solar carports; carport (1) 270 panels (6,510 sq. ft.), carport (2) 236 panels (5,730 sq. ft.) and carport (3) 190 panels (4,611 sq. ft.) at the parking lot of Temecula Toyota Dealership located at 26631 Ynez Road. Page 2 of 3 Assigned Planner Approval PA Number Project Address APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Owner Plan Type Status PA22-1003 31220 Nicolas Rd 957-090-020 Jaime Cardenas 09/29/2022 Jessica Ramirez Jessica Ramirez PL Temporary Plan Review Temecula, CA 92591 Use Permit Case Title / Description: Ramirez Construction Home TUP: a Temporary Use Permit to allow the existing 1440 square -foot home to remain property until occupancy is obtained for the future manufactured home located at 31220 Nicolas Road. PA22-1005 43513 Ventana St 944-330-046 Scott Cooper 09/30/2022 Kim Berry RTA Rancho PL Modifications Plan Review Temecula, CA 92592 Highlands, LLC Case Title / Description: Arrive @ Rancho Highlands Basin MOD: A Modification to previously approved Development Plan (PA19-1448) to remove the detention basin at the entrance of the project along Ynez Road. The project is located adjacent to the Temecula Duck Pond approximately 775 feet southeast of Rancho California Road on the north side of Ynez Road. PREAPP22-0 28306 Old Town Front St 921-070-019 09/08/2022 Aldric Angelier Eshoppe BULLHEAD PL Plan Review 988 Temecula, CA 92590 Ventures LLC CITY SUNSET Pre -Application RIDGE APARTMENTS Case Title / Description: A Pre -Application to discuss a proposed hookah lounge that serves beer and wine with appetizer type menu. PREAPP22-0 31855 Calle Novelda 955-226-009 Eric Jones 09/22/2022 Garrett Wait PALOMA DEL PL Plan Review 998 Temecula, CA 92592 SOLASSN Pre -Application Case Title / Description: Paloma Del Sol CC&R Revision Pre -Application: A Pre -Application to review proposed revisions to the existing Paloma Del Sol CC&R document related to vehicle and RV storage. The project is located with Paseo Del Sol Specific Plan area. Page 3 of 3 tem No. 17 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: John Crater, Division Chief DATE: October 25, 2022 SUBJECT: Fire Department Monthly Report PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Report Wendy Miller, Management Analyst That the City Council receive and file the Fire Department Monthly City of Temecula Fire Department Temecula Fire Department Service Calls September 2022 � Incident Type Commercial Fire 1 False Alarms 92 Haz Mat 2 Medical 622 Multi -Faro 0 �.�� 1989 o� 0 NV Other Fire 8 Other Misc 10 Public Assist 46 Residential Fire 0 Rescue 3 Ringing Alarm 6 Standby 6 Traffic Collision 62 Wildland/Vehicle Fire 4 Total 862 so City of Temecula Fire Department Temecula Fire Department Plan Review and Inspections September 2022 �116 0481959/y i1 10 Plan Review and Inspections Plan Review Construction Inspections Annual Inspections Counter/Public Inquiries August Year to Date 607 4568 270 3216 27 287 Item No. 18 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: October 25, 2022 SUBJECT: Public Works Department Monthly Report RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the Public Works Department Monthly Report for Capital Improvement Projects, Maintenance Projects, and Land Development Projects. This report may also be viewed on the City's website at: hqp://temeculaca.gov/270/Cgpital-improvement-Projects-CIP City of Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT October 25, 2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CIRCULATION PROJECTS Cherry Street Extension & Murrieta Creek Crossing, PW19-15 Description: Preliminary design of the Extension of Cherry Street from Adams Avenue to Diaz Road, including a new crossing of Murrieta Creek. Cost: $37,248,262 Status: The City received 30% plans for a low flow crossing. Environmental agencies have stated that a low -flow crossing is a non -starter. Design consultant is preparing a bridge planning study, to be completed in Summer 2023. Diaz Road Expansion, PW17-25 Description Improve Diaz Road to meet the roadway classification of Major Arterial (4 Lanes Divided), between Cherry Street and Rancho California Road. The 2.2-mile stretch will be widened, extended, and/or improved to create a contiguous Major Arterial segment. The project will be developed and constructed in two phases. Phase 1 will include improvements on Diaz Road from Winchester Road to Rancho California Road. Phase 2 will include improvements on Diaz Road from Cherry Street to Winchester Road. Cost: $14,255,991 Status: Phase 1 design, Phase 1 & 2 environmental studies, and Phase 1 permitting November 2019 — January 2023. The Initial Study has been approved, Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted, and Notice of Determination filed in May 2022. Design is 90% complete. Regulatory permit applications have been submitted for USACE 404 Nationwide Permit and CDFW Streambed Alteration 1602. Current activities include consultant review of 90% plan check comments, design coordination with utility purveyors (SCE, RCWD, and EMWD) and City project PW16-05 Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive, Riverside County Flood Control review of 90% design plans and Encroachment Permit application, and preparation of regulatory permit applications for SWRCB 401 Water Quality Certification and USACE Section 408. City of Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT October 25, 2022 CIRCULATION PROJECTS (Continued) French Valley Parkway/Interstate 15 Improvements- Phase 11, PW16-01 Description: Design and construction of the two-lane northbound collector/distributer road system beginning north of the Winchester Road interchange on -ramps and ending just north of the Interstate 15/Interstate 215 junction with connection to Interstate 15 and Interstate 215. Cost: $138,736,346 Status: City is evaluating proposals received September 1, 2022 in response to RFP No. 270 for Construction Management / Resident Engineering services. Bids for the Construction Contract were received on October 6, 2022 and they are being evaluated. Target for beginning of construction is December 2022. 1-15 Congestion Relief, PW19-02 Description Design and construction of a single auxiliary lane, northbound Interstate 15 connecting the Temecula Parkway on -ramp to the Rancho California Road off -ramp. Cost: $8,971,710 Status: Design and environmental studies November 2019 — December 2022. Current activities include Caltrans review of 100% Roadway and Structures PSE, Storm Water Data Report, Drainage Report, and Permit Engineering Evaluation Report. Caltrans has tentatively approved the CEQA Categorical Exemption. City is preparing the revalidation of the environmental document. The Notice of Determination will be filed upon project approval under the Permit Engineering Evaluation Report. Target for beginning of construction is Spring 2023. Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive, PW16-05 Description: Design and construction of a new bridge crossing over Murrieta Creek between Rancho California Road and Winchester Road. Cost: $26,073,374 Status: The City applied and was approved to receive Federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP) funds. City Council approved the design agreement with CNS Engineers Inc. at the March 12, 2019, meeting. Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) approved by Caltrans on August 15, 2019. Plans are 30% complete. RCA JPR Conformance is approved. Biological monitoring in Temecula Creek for potential mitigation site is complete as of July 2021. Project has received MSHCP conformance. Staff continues to work with Caltrans to advance HBP Grant Funds to earlier fiscal years. Caltrans HBP Program management had proposed reducing the curb -to -curb width of the bridge that is considered "participating" for grant funding purposes. Staff has been able to address this issue with Caltrans and the majority of the bridge width will remain as a participating cost. 2022 HBP Bridge Update was submitted in August. NEPA approval is anticipated in October of 2022, Caltrans review time has been longer than anticipated. City of Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT October 25, 2022 CIRCULATION PROJECTS (Continued) Overland Drive Widening, PW 20-11 Description This project includes widening Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Commerce Center Drive, to two lanes in each direction, and the completion of missing segments of sidewalk, streetlights, and installation of the traffic signal at Commerce Center Drive and the modification of the traffic signal at Jefferson Avenue. Cost: $2,894,420 Status: 60% plan check submittal package was returned to design consultant for corrections in mid -September. 90% plan check submittal package is anticipated to be submitted in late Fall of 2022. Traffic Signal Installation — Citywide, Rancho California Road and Tee Drive, PW19-19 Description: This project includes the installation of a traffic signal on Rancho California Road at Tee Drive. Cost: $448,045.00 Status: Construction contract was awarded by City Council on August 9, 2022. Contractor is providing the City with project submittals, and construction is anticipated to start in the Fall of 2022. Construction completion is anticipated in December of 2022. Traffic Signal and Park & Ride Access Improvements, PW18-11 Description: This project includes the installation of a traffic signal on Temecula Parkway at Wabash Lane. The project also includes relocating the access to the Park and Ride facility on Temecula Parkway at La Paz Road from Vallejo Avenue to Wabash Lane. Cost: $1,347,674 Status: The traffic signal and the new access road to the Park and Ride are fully operational. Access to Park and Ride from Vallejo Ave. has been closed and a permanent block wall will be constructed. Construction completion is anticipated in December of 2022. City of Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT October 25, 2022 CIRCULATION PROJECTS (Continued) TRAFFIC SIGNAL- SYSTEM UPGRADE (Protective/Permissive Signal Heads), PW 19-09 Description: This project will modify traffic signals at five (5) locations in the City to provide protected/permissive signal operations. The five (5) intersections include Margarita Road/Verdes Lane, Ynez Road/Town Center North, Ynez Road/Town Center South, Redhawk Parkway/Paseo Parallon-Overland Trail, and Winchester Road/Enterprise Circle. Cost: $481,900 Status: Project plans and specifications will be sent to Caltrans for Construction Authorization in the next month Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Ynez Rd, Solana Way, Nicolas Rd and Winchester Rd, PW 21-10 Description: Pavement rehabilitation project on Ynez Road, Solana Way, Nicolas Road and Winchester Road. Pavement rehabilitation includes full width and/or edge grinding of existing asphalt, localized dig outs, preparation of grade, and placement of rubberized asphalt concrete pavement. Work also includes reconstruction of ADA curb ramps, removal and replacement of curb and gutter, adjustment of existing utilities to grade, installation and removal of temporary video detection and restoration of existing striping, and detector loops. Cost: $3,629,219 Status: Construction contract was awarded by City Council on October 11, 2022. Construction is anticipated to start in late October/early November of 2022. Construction completion is anticipated in January of 2023. Pavement Rehabilitation Program- Meadowview/ Paloma Del Sol, PW21-06 Description: Rehabilitation of roads in interior streets in the Meadowview tract, and Paloma Del Sol tract Amarita Way, Montelegro Way, and Santiago Rd. Cost: $4,732,266.70 Status: In construction. Paloma Del Sol access ramp replacements complete. Starting asphalt curb replacements in the Meadowview tract. Anticipated completion of project is end of December 2022 4 City of Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT October 25, 2022 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS Bike and Trail Program — Great Oak Trail Lighting, PW21-16 Description: Project includes the installation of solar lights along the Great Oak Trail adjacent to the northeast side of Pechanga Parkway from Deer Hollow Way to Loma Linda Road. Cost: $400,000 Status: Project is currently in design Citywide Drainage Master Plan, PW19-16 Description: Project will prepare a report that shows all drainage courses within the City. Also includes a master hydrology study showing the anticipated storm flows at build -out. Cost: $600,000 Status: Design consultant is cataloguing all drainage in GIS. Project completion anticipated for Spring 2023. Community Recreation Center (CRC) Renovations, PW19-07 Description: The project facilitates the rehabilitation, improvement, and reconfiguration of the Community Recreation Center. This project includes expansion and reconfiguration of teen center; conversion of office space to accommodate a dedicated police substation; renovation of key components of the building including safety features, flooring, roof, and restroom facility access; ADA compliance; renovation and expansion of existing office space and rec rooms including AV upgrades; expanded storage space and upgraded kitchen equipment. Cost: $10,708,232 Status: Construction contract for Phase 1 was awarded at the 9/27/2022 City council meeting. City of Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT October 25, 2022 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS (Continued) Fiber Optic Communication System Upgrade, PW 18-05 Description: This project will install fiber optic communication system upgrades including conduit, cable, CCTV cameras, traffic signal controllers, and related communication equipment to improve safety and operations with optimized traffic signal timing coordination. Various signalized intersections will be improved along the Winchester Road, Rancho California Road, and Temecula Parkway corridors. Cost: $1,208,200 Status: All communication infrastructure and traffic signal cabinet equipment has been installed. Project is in fiber optic communication testing stage. Fiber Optic Communications Systems- Citywide, PW 22-03 Description: This project will develop a communications masterplan that will provide a strategic plan outlining the approach and buildout design of fiber optic cable and conduit throughout the City. The masterplan document will provide a roadmap to connect all existing and future traffic signals, traffic monitoring devices, surveillance cameras, and City facilities to City -owned fiber communication lines. The ultimate project goal is to enhance the City's existing fiber optic communication system to ensure it can handle the future needs of the City. Cost: $120,150 Status: The project has just commenced, and the consultant is working on an existing systems assessment. Fire Station 84 Renovation, PW19-14 Description: This project includes the design, construction, and renovation to Fire Station 84. The renovations include, adding a Wellness Room, expanding the Storage Room, and upgrading the Training Room. Also, the upgrades include, electrical, windows, flooring, paint, tile, HVAC, cabinets, plumbing fixtures, garage bay doors and any necessary improvements needed to conform to ADA accessibility access. Cost: $1,641,028 Status: Advertisement for construction bids was cancelled. Contract documents are under revision and project will be re -advertised in the Fall of 2022. City of Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT October 25, 2022 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS (Continued) Interstate 15 / State Route 79 South Interchange Enhanced Landscaping, PW17-19 Description: Landscape beautification of the Interstate 15 corridor between French Valley Parkway and Temecula Parkway, including each interchange, in association with Visit Temecula Valley and the Pechanga Tribe. This project includes the design and construction of enhanced landscaping, hardscape, and irrigation between the freeway and ramps on the west side of the Interstate 15 / State Route 79S (Temecula Parkway) interchange. Cost: $3,558,483 Status: Design and environmental studies August 2019 — October 2022Current activities include environmental revalidation and design of new power and irrigation water service. Margarita Recreation Center, PW17-21 Description: Demolition and Reconstruction of New Margarita Recreation Center Building and Pool Cost: $12,601,508 Status: RFP responses were received on August 27, 2020. The project was re -advertised on November 25, 2020, to account for increased project budget and proposals were received on December 23, 2020. The Design - Build Contract was awarded at the March 9, 2021, City Council Meeting to De La Secura Builders, Inc., for a Guaranteed Maximum Price of $8,680,459.00. Major demolition activities commenced mid -March. City Groundbreaking occurred on March 31, 2022. Building footings have been poured. Foundation was completed mid -August and framing is well underway. Pool excavation, placement of steel reinforcement, and concrete for the pool base is complete. Roofing is expected to start end of September 2022.. It is anticipated building construction will be complete in spring 2023 with a grand opening in Summer 2023 after the building is furnished and equipped. Mary Phillips Senior Center Enhancement and Renovation, PW20-13 Description: The project includes the enhancement and renovation of the Mary Phillips Senior Center. Work includes new exterior siding, painting, replacement of perimeter soffits, fascia boards, eaves, and select doors & windows. Cost: $1,262,025 Status: On 9/13/2022, City Council rejected all bids and authorized staff to re -bid the project. City of Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT October 25, 2022 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS (Continued) Mary Phillips Senior Center Outdoor Recreational Area, PW22-08 Description: The project includes the design and construction of a shuffleboard court area adjacent to Mary Phillips Senior Center. In addition, the HVAC units will be replaced. Cost: $650,000 Status: Project in design and estimated to be completed by November 2022. Pedestrian Signal Equipment Upgrade, PW 19-10 Description: The project will install pedestrian countdown signal heads, ADA compliant pedestrian pushbutton equipment, and upgrade traffic signal controllers to improve safety and operations at signalized intersections Citywide including the Butterfield Stage Road, Jefferson Avenue, Margarita Road, Redhawk Parkway, Pechanga Parkway, Rancho California Road, Temecula Parkway, and Ynez Road corridors. Cost: $779,400 Status: Project will be going to City Council for Notice of Completion in October. Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect, PW08-04 Description: Design, environmental document, and construction of the extension of the existing trail from Ynez Road to the Murrieta Creek Trail. The extension includes access and under -crossing at Ynez Road, Interstate 15 and Jefferson Avenue and a continuous paved trail along Santa Gertrudis Creek to connect to Murrieta Creek trail. Cost: $7,173,595 Status: Grand Opening held on October 1, 2022. Construction is complete. Punchlist and project closeout are only items remaining. Santa Gertrudis Creek Phase II — Margarita Under -Crossing, PW19-04 Description: Design, environmental document, and construction of the undercrossing in Santa Gertrudis Creek at Margarita Road to connect to the pedestrian/bicycle trail. The under -crossing at Margarita Road will provide a continuous paved trail along Santa Gertrudis Creek at this location. Cost: $2,716,764 Status: The project is in design. 100% Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PSE) expected in January 2023. City of Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT October 25, 2022 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS (Continued) Sidewalks — Citywide (Ynez Road, Rancho Highland to Tierra Vista Road), PW17-28 Description: New sidewalks on the west side of Ynez Road from Rancho Highland to Tierra Vista Road. Cost: $198,920 Status: ADA Access Ramps have to be revised. The project is scheduled to be advertised for construction bids in the Fall of 2022. Sidewalks — Citywide (Pauba Road, Elinda Road to Showalter Road), PW 19-20 Description: New sidewalks and street widening on the South side of Pauba Road from Elinda Road to Showalter Road. Cost: $467,403 Status: Project is at 95% design stage. Traffic Signal- Promenade Mail Ring Road, PW 21-15 Description: The project includes the installation of a traffic signal on Ring Road at Promenade Mall East. Cost: $412,206 Status: Construction contract was awarded by City Council on September 13, 2022. Citywide Slurry Seal Program Fiscal Year 2021-22, PW22-02 Description: Slurry seal residential streets in Paloma Del Sol, Paseo Del Sol, and Rancho Vista Estates tracts. Cost: $2,451,053.45 Status: In construction. Week four slurry seal started. Anticipated completion of project is end of November 2022. Citywide Concrete Repairs Fiscal Year 2021-22, PW 22-01 Description: Various concrete repairs in the city. Cost: $272,369.97 Status: Project beginning construction October 27, 2022. City of Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT October 25, 2022 PARKS AND RECREATION PROJECTS Community Recreation Center Splash Pad & Shade Structures, PW21-07 Description: This project provides for the conversion of the CRC's wading pool into a splash pad, and the addition of shade structures in the area. Cost: $1,100,000 Status: Project is at 60% design. Park Restroom Renovations, Expansion and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), PW17-06 Description: Renovation of various park site restroom facilities, including Ronald Reagan Sports Park North/South Ball Field (new roof, cabinets, fixtures, and other building improvements), Vail Ranch Park and Long Canyon Creek Park. Cost: $1,127,800 Status: Project is currently in design. Playground Equipment Enhancement and Safety Surfacing Description: Re -design, enhancement of playground equipment, and safety surfacing to comply with current state and federal regulations and enhance the quality of the parks. Cost: $800,000 Status: An RFP is being prepared for the design, purchase & installation for three playground project sites — Redhawk Community Park, Long Canyon Creek Park & Temecula Creek Park. Ronald Reagan Sports Park Restroom Expansion and Renovation, PW18-03 Description: Design and construction of a new restroom building, including additional stalls and urinals, a large snack bar and a dedicated storage case. Cost: $1,120,000 Status: The construction contract was awarded at the April 12, 2022, City Council meeting. Construction began on May 16, 2022. Construction completion is anticipated in October 2022 with a ribbon cutting ceremony scheduled for October 13, 2022, at 3:30pm. 10 City of Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT October 25, 2022 LAND DEVELOPMENT OVERSIGHT PROJECTS American Tire Depot Description: A 7,303 square foot building to be used for tire retail and repair, as well as minor auto repair services, located at the southwest corner of Ynez Road and DLR Drive. Status: Parking lot has been paved. Wet utility tie-in construction has commenced. Arrive @ Rancho Highlands Description: A 270-unit multi -family community built on 12.32 acres that includes 55 affordable units. The project is located adjacent to the Temecula Duck Pond approximately 775 feet southeast of Rancho California Road on the north side of Ynez Road. Status: Grading and onsite storm drain permits were issued in October 2021. Grading and onsite storm drain construction has commenced. Overflow parking lot has been paved. Heirloom Farms Description: A Development Plan for a 321-unit single family residential community built on 27.86 acres consisting of detached homes and attached townhomes located on the southwest corner of Date Street and Ynez Road. Includes the installation of a new Traffic Signal at the intersection of Ynez Rod and Waverly Lane/Temecula Center Drive Status: Rough grading permit has been issued in July 2021, the offsite and private onsite street and storm drain improvements permits were issued in October 2021 and the traffic signal permit was issued in September 2021. Grading, street, and storm drain improvements and the traffic signal installation has commenced. Precise Grading plans are currently being reviewed. Las Haciendas Apartments Description: A Development Plan to construct a 77-unit affordable housing project located at 28715 Las Haciendas Street in Uptown Temecula Status: Precise grading permit was issued in December 2021. Grading has commenced in January 2022 and is ongoing. 11 City of Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT October 25, 2022 LAND DEVELOPMENT OVERSIGHT PROJECTS (Continued) Longhorn Steakhouse Description: 5,708 square foot restaurant with outdoor patio located at 29363 Rancho California Road Status: Precise grading permit is approved. Construction expected to begin soon. Mountain View Description: Thirteen industrial buildings on Avenida Alvarado Status: Eight precise grading permits have been issued and construction has commenced. Improvements on Avenida Alvarado, along with street light installations is in process. Onsite storm drain installation has commenced. Solana Assisted Living Description: A 90,000 square foot, two-story, Senior Assisted Living Facility located on the southeast corner of the Margarita Road and Solana Way. Status: A rough grading permit was issued in January 2022. Grading began on February 7, 2022. Street improvements and precise grading plans have been submitted for review. Sommers Bend Description: Land Development has provided oversight of the following submittals for plan check and inspections: final maps, Community Sports Park, and recreation lots, precise grading; street and storm drain improvements; traffic signals; street lighting; and signing & striping. Status: The mass grading permit was issued in September 2018. Sommers Bend has been paved with streetlights installed. The community sports park, Ranch at Sommers Bend, construction is complete and has been accepted at the February 8, 2022, Council Meeting. The Sommers Bend recreation center construction is complete. Installation of streets, storm drains and streetlights on east end of project is in process. Grading has been completed in the Density Core, currently installing sewer. Installation of Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel improvements northwest end of project is in process. 12 REQUESTS TO SPEAK AND ELECTRONIC COMMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item:b Item Description or Item No. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA Date: Agenda Item: ❑ Future Agenda Item Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk rp for to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. / Name: r� r� / �.`� Phone Number: Address Email address: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA 1989 Date: Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item:[21 Agenda Item: ❑ Future Agenda Item: Item Description or Item No. Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk rp for to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. _ Name: /ry Phone Number: Address Email adc If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. ora.M`. Public Comment REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA i Date: I CE/2J 00�- Non-Agenda Item: E Agenda Item: Future Agenda Item: `_, Item Description or Item No. 'IGsi / ( t rllr Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. d .. r-v w� Name: � �Ll'D� � �P�i�Vp Cu C� Email address: (' If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA 1989 Date: Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: Agenda Item: Future Agenda Item: Item Description or Item No. Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk rp for to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: bun �r6(,t.J✓1 Phone Number: � Address: � Email address: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: --a Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA 1989 Date: _Z1oc'i- Z_ Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: Agenda Item: ❑ Future Agenda Item: ❑ Item Description or Item No. b Cam- &V C Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. Name Address Email address: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Phone Number: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. j REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA r�xy Date: Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: Agenda Item: ❑ Future Agenda Item: El Item Description or Item No. py�lv Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk 2Liaf to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record --, I Name: 6r& La.,,,,7r4-L.j, Phone Number: Address. - Email address: I If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: ] Item Description or Item No. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA Date: Agenda Item: ❑ Future Agenda Item: 0Aoo f Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk rior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: 5 /M "b✓ 1 DwM— Address Phone Number: � Email address: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA 1989 Date: Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item:' Agenda Item: Future Agenda Item: Item Description or Item No. Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk rp for to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. ��iA, /j� � p� 1r ] �% Name: v1 � V\I w u� Phone Number: (��� (\ ' Address: — Email address: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item Agenda Item: ❑ <_r Item Description or Item No. LKIAI I v \ J j Date: I ( ` 2 OZZ Future Agenda Item: b 4 C-LS �, Ct J Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: VG7 S v a g l ee— l G �t/'j Phone Number: Address: If you are representing,an orgagization ypr grjuq, please giveithq name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA G1989 Date: �-�-- Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: IV Agenda Item: ❑ Future Agenda Item: ❑ Item Description or Item No. Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the re�c'ord a . bcc Qr //C / Name: �t�� U • 5(`�Y y Phone Number: Address Email ac If you are representing an organization or group, please gXe the naTe:, Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA 1989 Date: A4-6 'j' - Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: dAgenda Item: ❑ Future Agenda Item: ❑ Item Description or Item No. My—`f- D0,U-4S illy SCfft6j__s YVI C&Z iLf Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. Name:/� �jL►��t;(-�i��r Phone Number: Address. 'Y✓I£ � -/ Chi" 1l 1 you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA 1989 Date. (� 2 2 2. Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: Agenda Item: Future Agenda Item: Item Description or Item No. rOoe i, l lq CC -- Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. ,,,,,IW�,t�1 Name: 1 T ANT Ro U"Uhl Phone Number: Address Email address: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK < CITY OF TEMECULA 1989 Date: Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: Agenda Item: © Future Agenda Item: ❑ Item Description or Item No. Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk priior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk rior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. Name. 01 16� Gl e I 1 D t Phone Number: Address If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. Public Comment REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA Date: Ib _Z� '-2V2�z- Non-Agenda Item: ❑ Agenda Item: d Future Agenda Item: Item Description or Item No. Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. Name Address d-r Phone Number: Email address: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Lie$+ Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. y REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA 1989 Date: Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: ❑ Agenda Item: Er Future Agenda Item: ❑ Item Description or Item No. Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: >''< 4 h r +^ Phone Number: Address: Email address: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: C— \ 4,k ,(oV, w✓S+ 1 1 ., e Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA 1989 Date: 1 v Lo —o Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: Agenda Item: Future Agenda Item: Item Description or Item No. 4-f `1 Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the re�rd. l _Name: �,D�T� li/t �i Z Phone Number: ��� Address Email address: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: ITT GC Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA 19fi9 Date: �-- Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: Agenda Item: Future Agenda Item: Item Description or Item No. Gy ', i%I f � E Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk rp for to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the recordLL 1/Name: M( 6Z Phone Number: -ram Address Email address: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK �_ CITY OF TEMECULA t 'A. 1989 2022 Date: Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: ❑ Agenda Item: Future Agenda Item: L Item Description or Item No. V on Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. ( Name: PO�`,�E r j� OL'6aj — Phone Number: Address: �e� LEA �JZ —I 25"! f Email address: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA ivx9 l� l Date: V' Zs/ 2 Z Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: Agenda Item: ❑ Future Agenda Item Item Description or Item No. 2mo I Request to Speak farms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the reco . ? Address: U h q)1 Email address: � If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomepu lic record. All information provided is optional. Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: ❑ Item Description or Item No REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA Date: Agenda Item: ❑ Future Agenda Item: P� Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk rp for to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: ���►J r� I n 1 7 U Phone Number: Address: Email address: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA ivtt Date: Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: Agenda Item: ❑ Future Agenda Item: Item Description or Item No. o rU SL D M Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk rp for to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: ��0.��� �2�� Phone Number: Address: �- Email address: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA AW 1989 Date: I O ZS 22 Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: El Agenda Item: El Future Agenda Item Item Description or Item No. Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk rp for to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk rior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to spear, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: (,'�-� � �SQ-x� arA'Vqo�--Q' Phone Number: � � ` Address Email address: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA luau Date: / (J Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: ❑ Agenda Item: Future Agenda Item: ` Item Description or Item No.�- Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. �f"a(l n Name: � Phone Number: Address: Email adc If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA 1981) Date: Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: ❑ Agenda Item. ❑ Future Agenda Item: FZ Item Description or Item No. Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk rp for to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk arinr to the City Council! addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the reA cord. Name: \ oogLb�c Phone Number: Address: Email address: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: ❑ Item Description or Item No. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA Date. to ✓ Agenda Item: ❑ Future Agenda Item. Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk rior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: ��"yPhone Number: - ` ✓I� ��(' I address: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA Date: � () //45+ a'a Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: El Agenda Item: A Future Agenda Item: Item Description or Item No N fl oWge-\ ci Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk rp !qf to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. ^, Name: c�� '(Y1a5sa Phone+Number: Address: `�� �Q W1 V'� 0�JC,� Email address: ( If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK t CITY OF TEMECULA 1989 Date: -Z-�— Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: ❑ Agenda Item: W Future Agenda Item: Item Description or Item No. Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk rior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: Addres Email a If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: ❑ 1 Item Description or Item No. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA Date: Agenda Item:El Future Agenda Item: Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk rp for to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. ,, (� � ')0;)? ( Ynecu.1 u 1 (A q Z5q 2 Email address: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: I note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. From: Randi Johl Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 9:01 AM To: ' Subject: FW: Statement of Opposition to the Requested City Council Resolution Opposing Proposition 1 Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda. Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE Legislative Director / City Clerk (951)694-6421 rand i.iohla-temeculaca.gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Date: October 21, 2022 at 4:40:12 PM PDT To: Matt Rahn <matt.rahn@temeculaca.gov>, Zak Schwank <Zak.Schwank@temeculaca.gov>, Maryann Edwards <Maryann.Edwards@temeculaca.gov>, James Stewart <James.Stewart@temeculaca.gov>, Jessica Alexander <Jessica.Alexander@temeculaca.gov> Cc: Council Assistant <council.assistant@temeculaca.gov>, Aaron Adams <aaron.adams@temeculaca.gov>, Kevin Hawkins <kevin.hawkins@temeculaca.gov>, Luke Watson <luke.watson@temeculaca.gov>, Betsy Lowrey <betsy.lowrey@temeculaca.gov>, Luisa Tovar <luisa.tovar@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Statement of Opposition to the Requested City Council Resolution Opposing Proposition 1 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Afternoon Temecula City Council Members & City Officials, This email is intended to communicate our STRONG OPPOSITION to the improper and self- serving request from Councilmember Jessica Alexander for Temecula City Council to support/pass a resolution opposing Proposition 1. As I'm sure you're aware, the United States Supreme Court ruled that reproductive rights should be decided upon by the states. In California, reproductive rights are already protected by law. On Nov 8th, California voters will decide whether to further enshrine reproductive freedom in the California constitution. Quite simply, reproductive rights are outside of Temecula City Government's scope of responsibility. Unfortunately, this resolution request represents yet another effort by Alexander to promote her own religious (412 Church) and business (Birth Choice) interests. Alexander is again attempting to use her Council seat to serve her own personal interests rather than promoting the best interests of the City of Temecula and its residents. In light of Alexander's personal business position as the Director of Birth Choice (an anti -abortion organization), this resolution request represents a conflict of interest. For the reasons documented above, Temecula City Council should reject the resolution requested by Jessica Alexander. Regards, Jeffrey A. & CindySue Wittek Temecula, CA 92591 From: Randi Johl Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 9:02 AM To: Subject: FW: Temecula Sanctuary City For Abortions Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda. Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE Legislative Director / City Clerk (951)694-6421 randi Johl .temeculaca.gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Joan Engel < Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 9:07:10 PM To: Matt Rahn <matt.rahn@TemeculaCA.gov>; James Stewart <James.Stewart@TemeculaCA.gov>; Jessica Alexander <Jessica.Alexander@TemeculaCA.gov>; Maryann Edwards <Maryann.Edwards@TemeculaCA.gov>; Zak Schwank <Zak.Schwank@temeculaca.gov> Cc: Council Assistant <council.assistant@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Temecula Sanctuary City For Abortions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thank you Jessica Alexander for standing up for those who cannot speak for themselves, the innocent babies. I am saddened that other council members do not have the same regard for human life. I strongly oppose the use of my tax dollars being used to pay for the murder of babies. I commend you for standing up for what is right even though others criticize you for it. Thank you! Best regards, Joan Engel From: Randi Johl Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 9:01 AM To: Amber Doesburg Subject: FW: Public_Comment_City_Council_Meeting_10/25 Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda. Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE Legislative Director / City Clerk (951) 694-6421 randi.iohle-temeculaca.gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Amber Doesburg < Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2022 7:01 AM To: Randi Johl <randi.johl@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Public_Comment_City_Council_Meeting_10/25 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, this letter is directed to Jessica Alexander but written for all members. As a member of this city I DO NOT support making Temecula a "sanctuary city'. This is ridiculous and a waste of time. Jessica Alexander is not fit to be on the council and clearly makes the entire town look foolish. She needs to learn to keep her religion to herself and stop before she gets this city in a lawsuit. I also believe this topic is an obvious conflict of interest for her. She works with Birth "Choice", and yet she wants to push a resolution that would ultimately be in favor of this company? It seems like Jessica needs to learn some basic skills on keeping her personal beliefs from her elected position. I urge the rest of this council to shut her down and focus on what's more important for ALL the people that live in Temecula. Thank you, Amber Doesburg zone:92591 From: Randi Johl Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 9:01 AM To: RE: Abortion Rights Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda. Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE Legislative Director / City Clerk (951) 694-6421 randi.johl@temeculaca.gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. -----Original Message ----- From: cmoramarco@earthlink. Saturday, October 22, 2022 9:02 AM To: Matt Rahn <matt.rahn@TemeculaCA.gov>; Zak Schwank <Zak.Schwank@temeculaca.gov>; Maryann Edwards <Maryann.Edwards@TemeculaCA.gov>; James Stewart <James.Stewart@TemeculaCA.gov>; Aaron Adams <aaron.adams@temeculaca.gov>; Randi Johl <randi.johl@temeculaca.gov> Cc: Council Assistant <council.assistant@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Abortion Rights CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mayor Rahn, Mayor Pro Tern Schwank, Council Member Edwards, Council Member Stewart, Mr. Adams, and Ms. Johl, This email is sent with respectful intentions regarding the following that appeared on Temecula Patch late Thursday afternoon, October 20, 2022: "Temecula City Councilmember Is Challenging Abortion Rights, Again. Councilmember is asking her colleagues to pass a resolution opposing Prop 1 which is on the Nov. 8 ballot in California." Although I am sincerely hopeful that "conflict of interest" may prevail and make this email unnecessary, please allow me to first communicate that I am a Temecula resident. My intention is not to convey caustic rhetoric but I strongly object to Temecula Council member Alexander being allowed to explain her self -professed "real dangers" of Proposition 1, make any abortion comments, or discuss a resolution opposing Proposition 1. Council member Alexander's arguments against Proposition 1- including those of her Murrieta church, its members, and those of the nonprofit Life Legal Defense Foundation are very much false, very much misleading, and an extreme fear - mongering effort. *Validation dispelling these false arguments FOLLOWS BELOW. For clarity, I strongly object to Council member Alexander making any comments whatsoever on the dais about abortion, abortion rights, Proposition 1, etc. I am also against the City Council issuing any resolution opposing Proposition 1. On September 27, 2002, Council member Alexander was allowed to spew her crass and divisive, personal opinions - and wave a doll around repeatedly - for far too long. Please do not allow this Council member to run roughshod over, manipulate, and dictate to the City of Temecula. She has been and is using the dais for her own agenda - and now, has the intention to use the dais as a conduit for misinformation about Proposition 1. On October 11, 2022, - as I understood it - it was explained to Council member Alexander that the subject of abortion rights has already caused local controversy (become a controversial subject) at a Temecula City Council meeting (September 27, 2022). Thereby, abortion rights are not open to City Council meeting discussion again for 3 months / 90 days (after December 27, 2022). In respect for and as an obligation to Temecula residents, please stand tall and strong about this. Temecula does not need further chaos. Temecula deserves better. With all due respect to you, it seems it may be time for the City of Temecula to consider implementing new policies and procedures regarding all Council members not speaking about non-agendized items. Also for consideration may be the implementing of timely interventions including the silencing of microphones. For local residents, it is disconcerting to need to follow local media to discover what the Temecula City Council will be discussing at the next Council meeting - rather than relying on the Final Agenda posted on the City website. Such was the case on September 27, 2022. It seems it may also be the case for October 25, 2022. As you may concur, Council member Alexander's ongoing antics create a seemingly never-ending whack -a -mole situation that is taking a tremendous toll on the City and the community. As you may also acknowledge, the distractions this public official instigates continue to draw unfortunate Liz Truss -like attention to Temecula. What a shame and what a pity! Mayor Rahn, Mayor Pro Tern Schwank, Council Member Edwards, Council Member Stewart, Mr. Adams, and Ms. Johl - thank you for your consideration and for all the truly meaningful work you do for the City of Temecula. *VALIDATION explaining and justifying Proposition 1 follows below. Thank you again. Cindy Moramarco *1) PROPOSITION 1 IS WRITTEN PURPOSEFULLY FOR BREVITY. Constitutional law experts explain that amendments speak broadly to rights, while state laws provide the parameters. To that effect, California already has laws around when abortions can be performed. "It's real misinformation to critique a constitutional amendment in this manner," according to Cary Franklin, UCLA constitutional law professor and director of its Center on Reproductive Health, Law and Policy. *2) PROPOSITION 1 INTENTIONALLY DOES NOT MENTION VIABILITY. According to Franklin, this makes sense. California law allows a person to have an abortion until the point that a physician determines "there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus' sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures" or if the procedure is necessary in order to "protect the life or health of the woman." In most cases, doctors have considered a fetus viable at 24 weeks, but that number changes depending on the pregnancy. Viability does not have any constitutional significance. According to Franklin, "Viability varies and moves around according to technology, health, geography, and the age of the pregnant person.... It is not a kind of word that you would put in a document meant to endure through time, because it's a medical term that doctors need to work out with their patients using their medical expertise in each case." *3) PROPOSITION 1 PURPOSEFULLY UTILIZES BROAD LANGUAGE. According to Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley Law, the broad language of Proposition 1 will not supplant state laws around viability. "That's not how it works. The state's Constitution is currently being interpreted as protecting abortion rights and yet there are restrictions after viability, according to Chemerinsky. "There is no reason why this right would not be interpreted the same way. Rights are not absolute even if enumerated. Free speech is an example. The same would be true of abortion rights. I think the opponents' argument is misguided." *4) PROPOSITION 1 ONLY ALLOWS ABORTION WITH THE RESTRICTIONS OF EXISTING LAWS. According to Melissa Murray, a law professor at New York University who teaches constitutional law, opponents have repeated a common falsehood that pregnant people seek late -term abortions outside of medically necessary - and incredibly heartbreaking - circumstances. Murray also recognizes that there will be lawsuits about what the scope and substance are of these protections. *5) CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL ROB BONTA IS PREPARED TO FIGHT FOR PROSITION 1. "We'll defend it in court and we will allow a court to do its constitutional role to interpret and define and clarify so that it's clear, but it's our job to defend the laws of the state of California," Bonta has said, noting that he typically does not take positions on ballot measures as he has with this one. Bonta has also said he understands that there have been questions about the brevity of the language - "It's three lines, it's very short" - but that its intent has been clearly stated. "I think if there needs to be some clarification, it can be clarified by a court without striking it down," according to Bonta. "The court would determine the contours and limits if there are any, and we would make our best arguments to the court and so would anyone who challenges it, and then the court can decide." *This is a private and confidential message. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any attachments are confidential, private, proprietary, and privileged, and are intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended addressee, any retention, disclosure, or duplicating of the original, prior, or subsequent messages or attachments, or any action taken, is unauthorized. Recipients should not file copies of any original, prior, or subsequent messages or any original, prior, or subsequent attachments with publicly From: Randi Johl Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 9:01 AM To: 'Lynn Lambrecht' Subject: RE: Proposition One Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda. Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE Legislative Director / City Clerk (951)694-6421 randi.iohletemeculaca.gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Lynn Lambrecht < Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2022 9:12 AM To: Randi Johl <randi.johl@temeculaca.gov>; Matt Rahn <matt.rahn@TemeculaCA.gov>; Zak Schwank <Zak.Schwank@temeculaca.gov>; Maryann Edwards<Maryann.Edwards@TemeculaCA.gov>; James Stewart <James.Stewart@TemeculaCA.gov>; Jessica Alexander <Jessica.Alexander@TemeculaCA.gov> Cc: Lynn Lambrecht < Subject: Proposition One CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To our City Council, It has come to my attention that once again Councilmember Alexander is using her seat on our City Council to forward her personal opinion against Proposition One for the next council meeting to ask we the people of Temecula to take a stand about Prop One which is legally on the ballot November 8th. We the people will vote and I urge the City Council to dismiss her request. This proposition is before the voters of California, and we the people shall vote. I urge you to remember the separation of church and state under the Constitution and uphold your oath of office. It is exhausting and discouraging that Ms. Alexander refuses to uphold her oath of office by continuing to present personal advocacy on behalf of our city and residents. Her views do not speak for me. If Temecula continues on this path, I fear the impact to residents and economy will be negatively impacted. Why would we choose to live here? Why would we invest here if at every meeting we are discussing church and state issues, asking the city to choose for us how we should think, feel and act? Democracy means something to me. I have lived and worked on six continents and have experienced different forms of government. It is a privilege to live in our county under democracy. Telling any of us how to think, what to believe and beating people into submission is not what democracy is. Ms. Alexander is free to think and practice her beliefs, as are the rest of us. May we please stop this endless cycle of her attempts/ beliefs/ church telling us what to do and keep the separation of church and state in our beautiful city? I have deep appreciation for the other council members who strive to address broader city planning issues representing everyone who chooses to live here. Thank you. I strongly oppose Temecula taking any stance on Prop One (or any proposition) when all California voters have the right to exercise their voice, in their way by voting their conscious. Thank you for hearing my thoughts, Lynn Lambrecht From: Randi Johl Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 9:08 AM To: 'theresefairbanks9@gmail.com' Subject: RE: PLEASE READ MY LETTER BEFORE 10/25/22 Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda. Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE Legislative Director / City Clerk (951) 694-6421 rand i.joh I 6&-temecu laca. gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: therese fairbanks < Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2022 11:26 AM To: Matt Rahn <matt.rahn@TemeculaCA.gov>; Zak Schwank <Zak.Schwank@temeculaca.gov>; Maryann Edwards <Maryann.Edwards@TemeculaCA.gov>; Jessica Alexander <Jessica.Alexander@TemeculaCA.gov>; James Stewart <James.Stewart@TemeculaCA.gov>; Council Assistant <council.assistant@temeculaca.gov> Subject: PLEASE READ MY LETTER BEFORE 10/25/22 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. October 22, 2022 Honorable Mayor and City Council: am writing in support of a Resolution to state that the City of Temecula shall be a sanctuary city for all human beings from conception in the womb to natural death: From the womb to the tomb. 1 You would be on the right side of the issue to resolve to be better than the angry mob who promote a culture of death. Do we really want to import people and businesses that come here to kill innocent lives? In a world gone mad, literally you see the angry men (why so angry?) and women (why? so sad) let us be the voice of reason, upholding the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for which this great nation was founded. Simply resolve to vote in favor of the City of Temecula to be a place of refuge for those seeking life, a family -friendly place with friendly faces filled with compassion, respect, dignity; a helping hand in times of a "crisis pregnancy"...I had what was deemed a crisis pregnancy, but all my pregnancies were difficult. I am without regret, happy to enjoy 2+1 (coming) grandchildren. Thanks goes to the life affirming people 25 years ago that helped me. Please do not allow fear or empty threats to deter you. It is merely a resolution, not a law. We resolve to be for life, a better life, a family -friendly city. Let us show the world the beauty of Temecula. We love this City, the babies, the families that make up this beautiful city. We are the silent majority who are peaceful, quiet souls, but we do vote and vote we must for the preservation and dignity of life. We support and applaud people who stand for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We all inherently know what is good, what is right and just. No matter what our religion or lack thereof. We know. Deep down. Dig if you must. z Remember that Abraham Lincoln was not popular with his resolve to adhere to the Declaration of Independence and end slavery. Just like then, now is the time to stand up for those who are not granted the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Equality begins in the womb. This is our time, make it count. Vote for your life, and the lives of your children and future grandchildren! The value you place on life today, is how children will value their life, and the lives of your grandchildren, or lack thereof. They are watching! Lead by example. With Warm Regards, Therese Fairbanks Wife, Mother, Grandmother, public servant With Faith, Hope, and Love, Therese Fairbanks Matt. 21:22 #Ask+believe+receive James 2:26 #Faith without works is dead. 3 From: Randi Johl Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 9:07 AM To: Subject: RE: My support for a resolution to make Temecula a sanctuary city for life! Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda. Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE Legislative Director / City Clerk (951) 694-6421 randi.iohlatemeculaca.gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the Califomia Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Natalie Mikhail < Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2022 4:09 PM To: Matt Rahn <matt. ra hn@TemeculaCA.gov>; Zak Schwank <Zak.Schwank@temeculaca.gov>; Maryann Edwards <Maryann.Edwards@TemeculaCA.gov>; Jessica Alexander <Jessica.Alexander@TemeculaCA.gov>; James Stewart <James.Stewart@TemeculaCA.gov>; Council Assistant <council.assistant@temeculaca.gov> Subject: My support for a resolution to make Temecula a sanctuary city for life! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Honorable Mayor and City Council: I am writing in support of a Resolution to state that the City of Temecula shall be a sanctuary city for all human beings from conception in the womb to natural death. Imagine a world where a young woman faced with a crisis pregnancy in Temecula is not afraid. She doesn't feel like she needs to go against nature and kill her own child in order to have a future. She knows that she lives in a community where there are resources and people available and willing to help her and her child. This is the type of city we want Temecula to be know as. We want Temecula to be known for its love and support of the unborn, women and families. One that is known to support a culture of life. We are the silent majority but we do vote and we will vote for those that stand for a culture of life. Please do not be afraid to speak up for the unborn and for women. Again, please vote in favor for a resolution to state that the City of Temecula shall be a sanctuary city for all human beings from conception to natural death. Thank you, Natalie Mikhail Sent from my iPhone From: Randi Johl Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 9:06 AM To: mel8roth@hotmail.com' Subject: FW: Prop 1 Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda. Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE Legislative Director / City Clerk (951)694-6421 randi.iohl temeculaca.gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Melanie Roth < Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2022 8:29:40 AM To: Jessica Alexander <Jessica.Alexander@TemeculaCA.gov> Cc: Council Assistant <council.assistant@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Prop 1 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ms. Alexander, I recently read in the Temecula Patch that you have proposed that Temecula city council write a resolution opposing Prop 1. Have you not learned anything from the city council meeting that was filled with Temecula citizens who clearly stated their support of reproductive rights? I was present at that meeting and it was glaringly clear that the majority of the town believes in a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body. Yet, again, you wish to push your agenda on our city. Furthermore, is Temecula to become a "nanny state" and decide for its citizens? Let the peoples' voices be heard and let make their own choice at the ballot box! Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Melanie Roth From: Randi Johl Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 9:05 AM To: 'rickreiss6@aim.com' Subject: RE: October 25 Temecula Community Services District (CSD) Meeting Public Comments Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda. Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE Legislative Director / City Clerk (951)694-6421 randi.iohla-temeculaca.gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 9:00 AM To: Council Comments<CouncilComments@TemeculaCA.gov> Cc: Jessica Alexander <Jessica.Alexander@TemeculaCA.gov>; Maryann Edwards<Maryann.Edwards@TemeculaCA.gov>; Matt Rahn <matt.rahn@TemeculaCA.gov>; Zak Schwank <Zak.Schwank@temeculaca.gov>; James Stewart <James.Stewart@TemeculaCA.gov>; Council Assistant <council.assistant@temeculaca.gov>; Erika Ramirez <erika.ram irez@temeculaca.gov>; Randi Johl <randi.johl@temeculaca.gov>; REDI Commission <REDICommission@TemeculaCA.gov>; Zach Hall <zhall@riversidesheriff.org>; Community Services Commission <CommunityServicesCommission @TemeculaCA.gov>; Erica Russo <erica.russo@temeculaca.gov>; Old Town Board <OldTownBoard @TemeculaCA.gov> Subject: October 25 Temecula Community Services District (CSD) Meeting Public Comments ... CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Temecula CSD; Very recently while in Old Town Temecula I couldn't help but notice the bizarre, psychedelic, Timothy Leary inspired decorated city structures littering Old Town Temecula. And I think that most of us can all agree that "art is in the eye of the beholder," as the adage goes. But I was dismayed by these psychedelic eyesores as they seem to have no place and no historical relevance to Old Town Temecula. Was this hippie -styled 1 decor inspired by the Old West and Frontier history that has always been at the heart of Old Town? I think that all of us can safely conclude that day-glo orange, pink and purple artwork has nothing to do with the ascetic look and history of Old Town. In fact this kind of artwork seems more appropriate for more dysfunctional locales, like the Haight-Ashbury District of the always problematic city of San Francisco. Perhaps such psychedelic artwork would be better suited in some of Temecula's other parks and recreation facilities. But these visibly loud eyesores have little or no connection to Historic Old Town Temecula and they should be re -painted with more suitable designs as soon as possible. I was also dismayed that the city essentially killed the recently_ planned Old Town Temecula Western Days with 11th hour bureaucratic red tape. This was done despite the fact that the Temecula Gunfighters use blank ammunition and have a spotless safety record. I remind you once again that the City Seal of Temecula reads with the motto Old Traditions, New Opportunities. The Temecula Gunfighters have been part of our community's old traditions. The Temecula Gunfighters date back to 1988, before when the city was even incorporated. Yet it seems now that city bureaucrats have taken a new and high-handed opportunity to do away with this old tradition. To me this just smacks of ignorant z bureaucratic excess and more leftwing virtue signaling to promote unconstitutional gun control and the curtailment of 1st Amendment freedoms. Temecula has traditionally had other high and worthy traditions, such as a commitment to impartial justice, the pursuit of objective truth, the safety and protection of innocent life, and reverence and faithful adherence to our Constitution. As Governing Officials of this City, you should all take this opportunity to conscientiously act according to these ideals and standards. OF TE14k vJ'k 1989 �,�1��08 NEW oYQ°�� Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Rick Reiss Temecula, California P.S. I have Cc this to the City Council Members, Staff and Bcc this to various interested parties, 2nd Amendment protection groups, as well as media contacts. Sent from my iPad 3 From: Randi Johl Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:45 PM To: ' Subject: FW: Agreement with the attached Discussion regarding the Sept. 27th Meeting and in support of the Resolution in opposition to Prop 1 Attachments: Sept. 27th City Council Meeting.docx Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda. Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE Legislative Director / City Clerk (951) 694-6421 randi.johlatemeculaca.gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Cindy Greaver < Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 9:59 AM To: Jessica Alexander <Jessica.Alexander@TemeculaCA.Bov>; Matt Rahn <matt.rahn@TemeculaCA.gov>; Maryann Edwards <Maryann.Edwards@TemeculaCA.gov>; Zak Schwank <Zak.Schwank@temeculaca.gov>; James Stewart <James.Stewart@TemeculaCA.gov>; Council Assistant <council.assistant@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Agreement with the attached Discussion regarding the Sept. 27th Meeting and in support of the Resolution in opposition to Prop 1 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council Members, I am writing in agreement with the attached discussion by Greg Langworthy as a representative of the Salt and Light Ministry at Calvary Chapel Bible Fellowship (which I have co -led with him in past years) regarding the September 27th meeting and in support of the Resolution to Oppose Prop 1. We have a responsibility to speak for and protect the rights of Temecula residents who cannot speak for themselves. If you have not done so already, please go to https://www.stoppropi.com and watch the webinar posted where Bob Tyler, General Counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom, gives an excellent legal analysis and likely outcomes if this proposition is passed. It will threaten public health, erode parental rights, encourage human trafficking and exploitation, may thwart existing health regulations that protect women, among other things, and goes far beyond protecting abortion access. Please put fear aside and do the right thing for your constituents by passing a Resolution to Oppose Prop 1 as you have done many times, including passing the George Floyd Resolution. I hope you will ensure the codes of conduct, policies of the Council and standards of behavior for those addressing the Council will be enforced at tomorrow's meeting. Discussion can become very contentious, but there is a core issue here that we need to have a focused, civil discussion about to address the protection and safety of Temecula residents. My husband and I are owners of two small businesses here in Temecula and we love our community. Thank you for your consideration and your commitment to Temecula residents, Cindy Greaver Discussion Highlights of the Temecula City Council Meeting, 9/27/22 (re Council member Jessica Alexander's Proposed Sanctuary City of the Unborn Agenda Item) On September 27th, the Temecula City Council was encouraged by council member Jessica Alexander to create a resolution declaring Temecula to be a "Sanctuary City for the Unborn" in response to Governor Newsom's advertisements declaring California to be a sanctuary state for abortion. The council had the opportunity to affirm that the unborn child in the mother's womb has a right to life, but council members Matt Rahn, Maryann Edwards, Zak Schwank, and Stew Stewart voted to not move forward and consider adopting such a resolution. Opposition from a number of constituents and a threatened lawsuit from the attorney general of California influenced the decisions of the four opposing council members. It was only during the council discussion that many in attendance learned that the proposed resolution was not a ban on abortion as falsely reported in The Los Angeles Times. This false report was the source of many of the angry public comments as well as the attorney general's threatened lawsuit. Mayor Rahn discovered that neither The Times nor the attorney general called council member Alexander to confirm their story. After the initial round of public comments, Temecula's city attorney defined the procedure for considering Alexander's request. Under Resolution 21-54, adopted by the council a year ago, the council had three options: (1)Refer the item to the city manager to put the item on a future agenda or conduct additional research and report back to the council, (2)Refer the item to a council subcommittee, or (3)Take no action and the item would not be placed on a future agenda. After hearing additional public comments and conducting their own discussion, the council voted 4 to 1 for the third option. The central Constitutional argument made by Alexander was that the developing child in his mother's womb is a unique person at the time of conception and therefore civil government has the duty to "secure" or protect his rights. This duty is made clear in our Declaration of Independence. - all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men... " She reinforced her point by showing a video of the stages of a child's development in the mother's womb and asked the council members if this life deserves protection. Her request was to have the city council declare their commitment to protect all lives in Temecula: to be a city which encourages mothers to bear their children rather than end their lives and then be prepared to help with spiritual and physical resources. None of the other members of the council were willing, at this point, to move forward to consider or study her request. They had two main objections. The first was a fear of a threatened lawsuit from the attorney general of California who believed Temecula was proposing a ban on abortion. The second was a concern that by supporting this resolution the council members would be "disenfranchising" those in the community who support abortion. A common point of agreement among all the council members was that each was elected to represent the diverse interests of their constituents. Where the disagreement became clear is that only councilman Alexander was willing to declare that the unborn child growing in his mother's womb is also a Temecula constituent worthy of protection. History has taught us that when human rights are not protected, there are tragic consequences. The brutal practice of slavery was allowed to continue in the South because of the government's declaration that negro slaves were property, not persons created in God's image. The systematic killing of six million Jews during WWII became official policy because the German government declared Jews to be an inferior race and therefore not entitled to "unalienable rights." And in the news today we are witnessing the brutal acts of the Iranian government against the women of Iran because the government has declared that women are not equal to men. Mahsa Amini was recently beaten to death by the Iranian government's morality police for not wearing a headscarf. Here in Temecula, our challenge is to declare our responsibility to do all we can to protect the rights of the unborn children in our city. For now, four of our city council members have chosen to not move forward and create a resolution declaring Temecula to be "A Sanctuary City for the Unborn." For now, only councilman Alexander has taken the position that government officials have a Constitutional duty to protect the lives of the unborn in our city. We, as members of the body of Christ, should continue to pray for our leaders in Temecula and encourage them to Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves (Proverbs 31:8). From: Randi Johl Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:42 PM To: 'Paisley Cato' Subject: RE: agenda item Oct 25 Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda. Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE Legislative Director / City Clerk (951)694-6421 randi.johl temeculaca.gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Paisley Cato < Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 10:51 AM To: Maryann Edwards <Maryann.Edwards@TemeculaCA.gov>; Zak Schwank <Zak.Schwank@temeculaca.gov>; James Stewart <James.Stewart@TemeculaCA.gov>; Matt Rahn <matt.rahn@TemeculaCA.gov>; Jessica Alexander <Jessica.Alexander@TemeculaCA.gov>; Randi Johl <randi.johl@temeculaca.gov> Subject: agenda item Oct 25 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Matt.Rahn@temeculaca.gov Zak.Schwank@temeculaca.gov Marvann.Edwards@temeculaca.gov James.Stewart@temeculaca.gov Jessica.Alexander@temeculaca.gov Randi.iohl@temeculaca.gov RE: Consideration of preparing a resolution opposing Prop1 (At the Request of Council Member Alexander) As a citizen of Temecula for the last 26 years, I strongly oppose any effort by the city council to spend time considering a resolution opposing Prop 1 as requested by Council Member Alexander. This would be a waste of valuable city council time and, it is disappointing that a council member is willing to use her position and council time to pursue a personal agenda. Prop 1 will be decided by voters long before any legitimate process to present a resolution could even be considered. So one has to ask why Council Member Alexander brings this up at this time, and it can only be to use her elected position as a way to promote a personal opinion, rather than an agenda item that benefits the citizens of the city. Is it not a conflict of interest that her agenda directly supports the business for which she is executive director? Even if a legitimate process had been followed to present a resolution for consideration, it would be inappropriate to adopt such a resolution as it does NOT reflect the opinion of the majority of citizens in the city, who instead support the state's status as a reproductive freedom state. I am very much in favor of Prop1 and would oppose a city resolution against this proposition. Respectfully, Paisley Cato [resident in District 3] From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Fyi - Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE Legislative Director / City Clerk (951) 694-6421 randi.lohl temeculaca.gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 Randi Johl Monday, October 24, 2022 2:40 PM Aaron Adams; Kevin Hawkins; Patrick Thomas; Luke Watson; Peter Thorson Public Comment Item #9 2022-10-24 11-37.pdf Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Harry McGovern < Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 11:39 AM To: Council Comments<CouncilComments@TemeculaCA.gov> Subject: [Scan] 2022-10-24 11:37 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Sent with Genius Scan for iOS. https://dI.tglapp.com/penius-scan Main Office P.O. Box 620 / 6413 32�d St. Ste A / North Highlands / CA 95660 (916) 334-1221 Estimating / Engineering FAX (916) 334-5384 Accounting FAX (916) 334-8355 Southern California Regional Office P.O. Box 1239 / 16249 Adelanto Rd. / Adelanto / CA 92301 (909) 875-0533 Engineering / Accounting FAX (909) 875-2243 October 24, 2022 Temecula City Council 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Re: October 25, 2022 City Council Meeting, Item 9 To whom it may concern, This letter is submitted to the City Council regarding item 9 on the consent calendar for the October 25, 2022 City Council meeting relating to the French Valley Parkway project. This letter is submitted by me on behalf of MCM Construction which sought to bid the French Valley Parkway project on October 6". 1 am the Executive VP of MCM Construction and we are a 45 year old very experienced Contractor and we were wrongfully denied the ability to timely submit our proposed bid to the City for the project because the City did not allow bidders to timely submit their proposed bids. As indicated in our Attorney's letter dated October 14, 2022 to the City Attorney, which was also sent to the Public Works staff, we were denied the right to submit our proposed timely bid because the bidding software used by the City to receive the electronic bids was improperly programmed and cut off the time to receive bids one minute early. This fact is documented in writing and supported by two other bidders who also experienced the same thing. We have submitted declarations under penalty of perjury from our company and the other two bidders attesting to this fact. When a public entity advertises a time to receive bids it must act as advertised and in this case the City did not do so. As a result, our attorney has advised us and the City that the entire bid process is therefore tainted and any contract that is issued from the tainted bid process is illegal and void. To avoid the consequences from this conduct MCM requests that the City reject all bids and re -bid the project. Item 9 on the consent calendar proposes to do this because apparently staff and your City Attorney understand that an unfortunate mistake was made. MCM asks that the City correct this mistake and not perpetuate it. MCM reserves all of its legal rights should the City not act as proposed on the consent calendar. Thank yWU.H. . c Executive V.P. & G.M. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER / STATE CONTRACTORS LIC. NO. 286430 From: Randi Johl Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 10:57 AM To: ' Subject: FW: Protecting the Unborn Attachments: Unborn.xwd Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda. Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE Legislative Director / City Clerk (951)694-6421 rand i.johl(�temeculaca.aov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Curt Sorweid < Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 7:42 PM To: Jessica Alexander <Jessica.Alexander@TemeculaCA.gov> Cc: Council Assistant <council.assistant@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Protecting the Unborn CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Jessica Alexander, You don't know me, my name is Curt Sorweid. I was a resident of Temecula for 12 years, and loved living there. My wife and I moved to Saint George, Utah in 2020 do to the California's total liberal agenda regarding covid. We attended Calvary Chapel Bible Fellowship for 11 years. I was a member of their Salt & Light committee. I watched your valiant effort to make Temecula a sanctuary city for the unborn and I was very moved by what you had to say. I was so moved that I prayed about it and the Holy Spirit moved me to bring it up at our city council meeting here in Saint George. I have been working hard to get support for such a resolution here. I did my home work and also contacted the Mayor and every city council member. I ask for a response from each member and I received only two. The mayor made it clear she was not supportive and one member who is amazing, a mom Michelle Tanner was very happy to help. I then tried to call all the council people and I finally got two more maybe supporters. I have reached out to church members, people in our local area I know, also our political action coalition. I am hoping for 20 supporters to show up. I will present this to our next council meeting on November third. I have three minutes to speak. As you already know from your recent experience this will be a uphill battle, but the Lord is on our side! I just wanted you to know you made a difference!!! You are awesome, God knows what you are doing. Pray for our success. I am attaching the rough draft that I plan on presenting. God Bless Curt J Sorweid From: Randi Johl Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 10:55 AM To: ' Subject: FW: The right to life, make Temecula safe for babies Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda. Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE Legislative Director / City Clerk (951) 694-6421 randi. iohl(a�temeculaca.gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Robin & Greg < Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 8:20 PM Subject: The right to life, make Temecula safe for babies CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Honorable Mayor and City Council: I am writing in support of a Resolution to state that the City of Temecula shall be a sanctuary city for all human beings from conception in the womb to natural death. You would be on the right side of the issue to resolve to be better than the angry mob who promote a culture of death. Do we really want to import people and businesses that come here to kill innocent lives? 1 In a world gone mad, literally you see the angry men (why so angry?) and women (why? so sad) let us be the voice of reason, upholding the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for which this great nation was founded. Simply resolve to vote in favor of the City of Temecula to be place of refuge for those seeking life, a family -friendly place with friendly faces filled with compassion, respect, dignity; a helping hand in times of a "crisis pregnancy." Please do not allow fear or empty threats to deter you. It is merely a resolution, not a law. We resolve to be for life, a better life, a family - friendly city. Let us show the world the beauty of Temecula. We love this City, the babies, the families that make up this beautiful city. We are the silent majority who are peaceful, quiet souls, but we do vote and vote we must for the preservation and dignity of life. We support and applaud people who stand for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We all inherently know what is good, what is right and just. No matter what our religion or lack thereof. We know. Deep down. Dig if you must. Remember that Abraham Lincoln was not popular with his resolve to adhere to the Declaration of Independence and end slavery. Just z like then, now is the time to stand up for those who are not granted the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Equality begins in the womb. This is our time, make it count. Vote for your life, and the lives of your children and future grandchildren! The value you place on life today, is how children will value their life, and the lives of your grandchildren, or lack thereof. They are watching! Lead by example. Sincerely, Robin Daniel Wife, Mother, public servant 3 From: Randi Johl Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 10:54 AM To: Christine Massa Subject: FW: Comment for "future agenda items" and a new proposed item Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda. Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE Legislative Director / City Clerk (951) 694-6421 randi. iohle_temeculaca.gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: ctmassa < Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 6:28 AM To: Matt Rahn <matt.rahn@TemeculaCA.gov>; Zak Schwank <Zak.Schwank@temeculaca.gov>; Maryann Edwards <Maryann.Edwards@TemeculaCA.gov>; Council Assistant <council.assistant@temeculaca.gov>; James Stewart <James.Stewart@TemeculaCA.gov>; Jessica Alexander <Jessica.Alexander@TemeculaCA.gov> Subject: Comment for "future agenda items" and a new proposed item CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Temecula City Council members. I'm writing to again express my opposition to wasting any more council time entertaining Jessica Alexander's religious views. I believe it was very clear a few weeks ago, when approximately 84% of the city's respondents asked the city to stay out of matters of women's reproductive choice. Alexander - or the people doing the work for her - believe they've found a loophole in the city's "cooling off' period from discussing declined items, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the representative population doesn't want you all discussing this issue in any way, shape, or form. Instead, I'd like you all to consider a different agenda item. I would like for the city council to request an audit of how much money Jessica Alexander wastes. My money. Our money (except for the large portion of the people who write or speak who come from Murrieta). Those line items can be in the form of: 0 Legal counsel hours from having to protect the city from her reckless statements and propositions. • Staff time wasted having to research her pointless agenda items and any other research she has • them do that don't go anywhere. • Staff time wasted printing out talking points that were written for her by other people - the • way she reads them, it's clear she didn't write them herself because it's very scripted. 0 0 o And let's not forget... she did have the city buy her two printers, so she's clearly doing a lot of o printing. There's waste there too. 0 • • Policing time for her countless "rallies" and "prayer circles." • Lost revenue over the bad rap her antics bring to our fine city. While we're at it, I'd like that audit to also include her HR file and knowledge of how many HR complaints have been filed against her. I'm sure that working with her is not fun; and I'm more sure that working for her must be even worse. Please don't give these religiously -backed proposed agenda items any more air. Instead, let's stop wasting the city's valuable resources - money, time, and people - pursuing activities that we've already told you we don't want. Thank you for your time! Christine T. Massa 2 From: Randi Johl Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 10:53 AM To: Subject: FW: Resolution opposing Proposition 1 Attachments: ADF Legal Analysis - CA Prop 1 Reproductive Freedom[23].pdf Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda. Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE Legislative Director i City Clerk (951) 694-6421 randi. iohlatemeculaca.gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Andrea valenzuela < Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 6:29 AM To: piu@doi.ca.pov; Zak Schwank <Zak.Schwank@temeculaca.gov>; James Stewart <James.Stewart@TemeculaCA.gov>; Matt Rahn <matt.rahn@TemeculaCA.gov>; Maryann Edwards <Maryann.Edwards@TemeculaCA.gov>; Jessica Alexander <Jessica.Alexander@TemeculaCA.gov>; Council Assistant <council.assistant@temeculaca.gov> Cc: staff@oal.ca.gov Subject: Fwd: Resolution opposing Proposition 1 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Attorney General Bonta, I would like to file a complaint regarding a violation of my constitutional right to separation of church and state. Please see the below email chain. I contacted my local city council to express my concern about a conflict of interest. In return I received religious propaganda. This is inappropriate behavior from an elected official. I have filed this request using the Consumer Complaint portal on your website. Please advise if there are any further actions I should take to address this violation. Thank you, Andrea Valenzuela Temecula, CA 92591 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jessica Alexander <Jessica.Alexander@temeculaca.gov> Date: Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 10:43 PM Subject: Re: Resolution opposing Proposition 1 To: Andrea valenzuela < The Right to Life League - America's 1st pro -life organization C VOTE NO on PROP 1 WHAT DOES PROP 1 SAY? "The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual's reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.. WHAT DOES THE LANGUAGE OF PROP 1 MEAN? We don't know how California state courts will interpret Prop I's very broad language that goes far beyond abortion. Its broad grant of "reproductive freedom" - regardless of age or maturity - may be an existential threat to public health and protection of women and children. "Reproductive freedom" as a fundamental constitutional right may override existing laws that protect children and public health. Existing protections could be deemed "state interference." Minors may be able to consent to sex at any age and with anyone. Girls and women may sell eggs and rent their wombs to anyone - including private firms for profit - without state oversight or restrictions. And Prop 1 could override existing public health bans on incest and polygamy because they also interfere with sexual freedom. Even state regulation of abortion clinics and abortionists could be deemed unconstitutional interference with someone's right to choose a type of reproductive care. We just do not know how expansive this "reproductive freedom" could get. WHY VOTE NO ON PROP 1: • MAY THWART EXISTING HEALTH REGULATIONS THAT PROTECT WOMEN • MAY ELIMINATE STATE OVERSIGHT OF ALL REPRODUCTIVE CHOICES INCLUDING SURROGACY, BUYING AND SELLING OF EGGS AND SPERM, AND OTHER REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES • MAY ENABLE CHILD ABUSE AND SEXUAL EXPLOITATION • MAY ENABLE INCEST AND POLYGAMY The Right to Life League is America's first pro -life organization, founded in 1967. We advocate for the protection of life from conception to natural death. RighttoLifeLeague.org (626) 398-6100 The Right to Life League - America's 1st pro -life organization PROP 1 GOES FAR BEYOND PROTECTING ABORTION ACCESS • ABORTION IS ALREADY A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT under California's constitution, according to state supreme court rulings. Prop 1 will affirm those rulings. • LATE -TERM ABORTION IS ALREADY UNRESTRICTED IN CALIFORNIA. Newly passed law (AB 2223) removes all civil and criminal penalties for abortions, and bars investigation into the death of babies born alive "due to causes that occurred in utero" — in other words, botched abortions. AB 2223 effectively permits late -term abortions and the killing of babies born alive after failed abortions. Prop 1 will affirm that law. • ABORTION FUNDING IS ALREADY SET. The California Legislature has already committed over $200 million dollars to paying for abortions. Prop 1 has nothing to do with that funding. Prop 1 will have no effect on where, when, or how California taxpayers fund abortions for out-of-state women. PROP I THREATENS PUBLIC HEALTH. PROP I ERODES PARENTAL RIGHTS TO PROTECT CHILDREN. PROP 1 ENCOURAGES HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND EXPLOITATION. SEE THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS FLYER TO LEARN HOW. The Right to Life League is America's first pro -life organization, founded in 1967. We advocate for the protection of life from conception to natural death. RighttoLifeLeague.org (626) 398-6100 This goes beyond abortion. Please read documents attached and legal documents as well. Blessings, Jessica Alexander City Council City of Temecula From: Andrea valenzuela < Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 10:19:54 PM To: Zak Schwank <Zak.Schwank@temeculaca.gov>; Matt Rahn <matt.rahn@TemeculaCA.gov>; Maryann Edwards <Maryann.Edwards@TemeculaCA.gov>; Jessica Alexander <Jessica.Alexander@TemeculaCA.gov>; James Stewart <James.Stewart@TemeculaCA.gov> Cc: Council Assistant <council.assistant@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Resolution opposing Proposition 1 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Councilmembers, It is very disheartening to continually see this city dragged through the mud by the divisive acts of Councilmember Alexander. Once again, Ms. Alexander is choosing to use her position on city council to promote her own self interests and religious views. When will the council hold its members accountable for clear conflicts of interest? As a voting citizen, I implore you to stop allowing this type of behaviour to continue. Sincerely, Andrea Valenzuela Temecula, CA 92591 5 ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM FOR FAITH. FOR JUSTICE LEGAL MEMORANDUM DATE: October 19, 2022 RE: Legal Analysis of the California's "Reproductive Freedom" Ballot Initiative California's Proposition 1 "Reproductive Freedom" ballot initiative would amend California's constitution to create a complete license to "reproductive freedom" for any "individual." This not only includes procuring abortions at any stage of pregnancy, including the gruesome partial birth abortion procedure, but it could also allow men to avoid child support payments, force the state to procure women to be surrogate mothers, and allow children to remove healthy reproductive organs without parental knowledge or consent. The proposed amendment uses intentionally vague terms that threaten the public health, safety, and general welfare of Californians. The amendment would endanger both mothers and their children by prohibiting common-sense limits and regulations on abortion, and it would undermine the state's ability to protect other fundamental rights, like conscience rights of doctors and nurses to not participate in ending a human life, parental rights to raise and educate children, rights of association for hospitals and care centers to hire mission -oriented employees, the free speech right to advocate for life -affirming care, and the fundamental right to life of every human being. I. "Reproductive freedom" includes more than unregulated abortion. The proposed amendment makes "reproductive freedom" a constitutional right, but unfortunately fails to define this key term. Confronted with this lack of clarity, courts interpreting this broad term could conclude that "reproductive freedom" means far more than just unfettered, unregulated access to abortion, contraceptives, and sterilization. A. Courts have failed to adequately define the term "reproductive freedom." When a law fails to define a term, courts typically defer to the word's ordinary meaning.' Here, the proposed amendment merely states that reproductive freedom "includes the0 fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives." Rather than define the term "reproductive freedom," the proposed amendment provides only broad examples of what the term "includes," leaving the door open for activists to expand the outer limits of "reproductive freedom" and for courts to impose ever more expansive meanings. 1 See FCC v. AT&T Inc., 562 U.S. 397, 403 (2011) ("When a statute does not define a term, we typically `give the phrase its ordinary meaning."') (quoting Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 138 (2010)). To date, the U.S. Supreme Court has not defined the term "reproductive freedom" but has used the term in cases involving regulations on abortion procedures.2 California state courts have likewise not defined "reproductive freedom. At the very least, courts use the term "reproductive freedom" to refer to access to abortion, but the proposed amendment's failure to define the term leaves the issue open to interpretation. B. Academia promotes a broad understanding of "reproductive freedom." Legal scholarship discussing "reproductive freedom" fails to consistently define the term. While scholarly articles tend to discuss the term in the context of abortion, they also explore other connotations of the term, including access to contraceptives, sterilization, mother and child -related healthcare, and paternal rights. Some legal articles state broadly that "reproductive freedom" is "the individual's choice to reproduce or not to reproduce"3 and "the ability to choose whether, when, how, and with whom one will have children."4 Others have a more expansive view. As one author put it, "to adequately ensure that all women in this country have true reproductive choice, the definition of `reproductive freedom' must be expanded to include, `for example, ... decisions about sterilization and medical treatment; it must include access to fertilization technologies and to prenatal and perinatal care."'5 C. `Reproductive freedom"could include any sexual activity. At a more general level, "reproductive freedom" could mean any conduct related to sexual activity because of the relationship between sexual activity and reproduction. Forbidding any state interference of any person's sexual activity in California would mean that any law regulating sexual conduct, including statutory rape laws and incest laws, could be subject to strict scrutiny analysis. California's statutory rape law makes it a crime to engage in sexual acts with a person under 18 years of ages California code also forbids sexual conduct between members of the same family.? These laws forbid sexual activity with certain people, e.g. children and family members, and therefore they impose a limit on the "reproductive 2 See Planned Parenthood of Se. Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 916 (1992) (J. Stevens, concurring), overruled by Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022); see also Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 771, n. 11 (1997) (J. Souter, concurring); and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228, 2318 (2022) (J. Breyer, dissenting). 3 Elizabeth J. Ireland, Do Not Abort the Mission: An Analysis of the European Court of Human Rights Case of R.R. v. Poland, 38 N.C. J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. 651, 695 (2013) (quoting Berta E. Hernandez, To Bear or not to Bear: Reproductive Freedom as a Human Right, 17 Brook. J. Int'l L. 309, 309 (1991)). 4 Dorothy E. Roberts, The Future of Reproductive Choice for Poor Women and Women of Color, 14 Women's Rts. L. Rep. 305, 309 (1992) (quoting Kathryn Kolbert, Developing A Reproductive Rights Agenda, REPRODUCTIvE LAWS FOR THE 1990s: A BRIEFING HANDBOOK 8 (N. Taub & S. Cohen, eds. 1988)). 5 Darci Elaine Burrell, The Norplant Solution: Norplant and the Control of African -American Motherhood, 5 UCLA Women's L. J. 401, 406 (1995) (quoting Roberts, supra n.5). 6 Cal. Penal Code § 261.5. 7 Cal. Penal Code § 285. Legal Analysis of "Reproductive Freedom" California Ballot Initiative Page 2 freedom" of adults and family members who want to exercise their "reproductive freedom" by engaging in sexual activity with minors or members of their own family. While it may sound grotesque to contemplate such activities, enshrining "reproductive freedom" as a fundamental right would give criminals who violate statutory rape and incest laws a defense for their heinous acts. D. `Reproductive freedom" is likely to be interpreted expansively. Although courts will likely take an expansive view of the meaning of "reproductive freedom," even the narrowest definition would create a broad scope of new rights that will conflict with other fundamental rights. For instance, it would interfere with the state's protection of the fundamental right to conscience by requiring nurses and doctors to participate in ending human life through abortion. It would interfere with parents' right to raise and educate their children by cutting parents out of any of their children's medical decisions that fall under "reproductive freedom." It would interfere with hospitals' rights of association to hire mission -oriented employees and forbid them from maintaining policies and procedures that require staff to provide life -affirming services to their clients. It would interfere with the Californians' right to free speech in advocating for the life of the unborn. And, of course, it would forbid policies protecting the most fundamental right, without which no other right can be exercised: the right to life. H. The creation of a right for every "individual" includes not only pregnant adult women, but also minors and men. The proposed amendment stops the state from interfering with the reproductive freedom of any "individual" but does not define the term "individual." As with the term "reproductive freedom," courts defer to the common definition of "individual" to determine its meaning.$ In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has already relied on a dictionary definition of "individual" to determine that it means a "human being, a person."9 In the context of California's proposed amendment, courts will turn to the ordinary definition of the term "individual" and likely conclude that it refers to any human being or person, male or female, adult or child. A. Minors could have dangerous access to abortion and sterilization. The proposed amendment would create an unprecedented right for minors to procure abortions, sterilization, and other medical procedures related to their reproductive capacities, with no ability to the state to provide regulations or rules to protect minors pursuing these procedures. Minors could also argue that the right to reproductive freedom includes the right to sterilization and the right to undergo sterilizing gender transition surgeries that remove healthy reproductive organs. This could allow girls to demand medically 8 Mohamad v. Palestinian Auth., 566 U.S. 449, 454 (2012). 9 Id. at 454 (citing 7 Oxford English Dictionary 880 (2d ed. 1989)). Legal Analysis of "Reproductive Freedom" California Ballot Initiative Page 3 unnecessary hysterectomies and mastectomies; for boys, it could include penectomies and orchidectomies. For both, the proposed amendment could create a right to access puberty blockers and hormones that affect their sexual development. Moreover, giving minors a new right to have these procedures would undermine the fundamental right of parents to raise and educate their children. Not only would parents be cut out of their rights and obligations as parents, but children would also be left vulnerable to industries that profit from children who can be persuaded to pursue these procedures —all while prohibiting the state from protecting the health, safety, and wellbeing of Californian minors. B. The amendment allows men to take advantage of "reproductive freedom." Just as the amendment would create a right for women to decide whether they become a parent, it would also give that same right to men. Giving men a right to "reproductive freedom" could hurt mothers and their children by undermining state laws that require men to provide child support. For example, a man who never intended to father a child despite- engaging in sexual activity could object to his partner's pregnancy, even demanding that she abort the child. If the woman keeps the child and demands child support, the man could appeal to his right to reproductive freedom to avoid paying for such support.10 Creating a new right for infertility care as part of "reproductive freedom" could also compel California to ensure that women are made available to act as surrogates for men who want children. For example, same -sex couples that are naturally infertile could argue that their right to infertility care means that the state must facilitate and require surrogacy options for them to acquire children." These are just some of the real -world implications of adding a new class of rights to California's constitution. III. Creating a "fundamental" right to abortion undermines the state's ability to enforce common-sense health and safety regulations. The proposed amendment stops government officials from enforcing laws and regulations that interfere in any way with a "fundamental right to choose to have an abortion." In doing so, the amendment would forbid the state from protecting the health and safety of women through common-sense health regulations. Courts use the strict scrutiny standard of judicial review to decide if burdens on fundamental rights can survive. The U.S. Supreme Court explains that to satisfy strict scrutiny, government action "must advance interests of the highest order and must be narrowly tailored in pursuit of those interests."12 In other words, the government must 10 See also, Michael J. Higdon, Marginalized Fathers and Demonized Mothers: A Feminist Look at the Reproductive Freedom of Unmarried Men, 66 Ala. L. Rev. 507 (2015). 11 Earlier this year, a gay couple filed a claim against New York City making this exact argument. See Precious Fondren, Gay Couple Was Denied I.V.F. Benefits. They Say That's Discriminatory, THE NEW YORK TIMES (Apr. 12, 2022), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/12/nyregion/nyc-ivf-same-sex-couple.html. 12 Espinoza v. Montana Dept of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2260 (2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). Legal Analysis of "Reproductive Freedom" California Ballot Initiative Page 4 be compelled to enforce the law even though doing so violates a fundamental right, and it must have no alternative but to impose a burden on that right. Unfortunately, many state laws that provided common-sense protections for public health and safety were invalidated because they violated a "right" to abortion. The history of cases reviewing abortion -related laws under strict scrutiny analysis demonstrates that very few regulations on abortion procedures survived challenge under this rigorous test.13 For that reason, protective and popular laws, including California's requirement that abortions be performed by medical professionals who have a valid medical license, clinic safety regulations, and late -term abortion limitations, are all vulnerable to being struck down by a court applying this standard.14 If California adds the proposed amendment to its constitution, activist plaintiffs will seek to compel state courts to use strict scrutiny analysis to invalidate common- sense health and safety laws and regulations that Californians have supported and relied on for years. IV. Conclusion California's proposed "Reproductive Freedom" Amendment would undermine the state's compelling interests in protecting and promoting public health, safety, and the general welfare. The amendment's use of the broad and undefined term "reproductive freedom" paves the way for unregulated abortion, commercial surrogacy, and sterilizing gender transition surgeries. The establishment of a broad, right to "reproductive freedom" could even shield criminal sexual activity, hindering the state from enforcing laws criminalizing incest and statutory rape. The amendment's use of the term "individual" rather than "woman" will provide an untested fundamental right to "reproductive freedom" for men —and a resulting lack of accountability for their sexual actions. And it will provide unprecedented access to abortion and sterilization for minors. The amendment will put healthcare providers who wish to preserve life and "do no harm" at risk of lawsuits for declining to perform procedures, like abortion. It will cast out health care providers who wish to provide life - affirming care and it will forbid aspiring doctors from practicing medicine in California. 13 See Elizabeth R. Kirk, Impact of the Strict Scrutiny Standard of Judicial Review on Abortion Legislation under the Kansas Supreme Court's Decision in Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt, 42 On Point (2020). 14 California Health and Safety Code 123468(a) and California Business and Professions Code 2253(b)(1). Legal Analysis of "Reproductive Freedom" California Ballot Initiative Page 5 From: Randi Johl Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 10:53 AM To: ' Subject: FW: No to Resolution Re Prop 1 Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda. Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE Legislative Director / City Clerk (951)694-6421 randi.johl temeculaca.gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Aaron Cook < Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 7:47 AM To: Matt Rahn <matt.rahn@TemeculaCA.gov>; James Stewart <James.Stewart@TemeculaCA.gov>; Zak Schwank <Zak.Schwank@temeculaca.gov>; Maryann Edwards <Maryann.Edwards@TemeculaCA.gov>; Jessica Alexander <Jessica.Alexander@TemeculaCA.gov> Cc: Council Assistant <council.assistant@temeculaca.gov>; Kirsten Cook < Subject: RE: No to Resolution Re Prop 1 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Morning, Reaching out again just to share my perspective as a constituent since the agenda for tonight's meeting is generating a lot of attention with the proposal for a resolution opposing proposition 1. As I expressed last month, this issue (access to abortion and now contraception) does not seem to be something the City Council should be weighing in on from a perspective of limiting people's choices. I prefer to leave this decision up to individuals and for the city council to focus on city related business. In fact, in this case, I agree with council woman Alexander's position she expressed during the recent August 9th council meeting when she said the following regarding state ballot initiatives: "I just want to be able to take the position just as a council member that because it's going to be on a statewide ballot measure I just don't feel that is my duty to speak out for the people and they're going to be able to speak out either yes or no for it. So as of right now, just for the city council, I just can't support that... I just want to make sure that as it's going to go forth in November that the people get to pick that and not here at the city. Thank you again for all your time and work to serve our city and community. Sincerely, Aaron & Kirsten Cook From: Aaron Cook Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 10:02 PM To: matt.rahn@temeculaca.gov; james.stewart@temeculaca.gov; zak.schwank@temeculaca.gov; maryann.edwards@temeculaca.gov; iessica.alexander@temeculaca.gov Cc: council.assistant@temeculaca.gov Subject: No to Resolution Re Temecula's Unborn Dear Members of the City Council, I'm a resident of Temecula and am concerned about the recent proposal for a resolution declaring Temecula a sanctuary city for Temecula's unborn. Abortion is a polarizing issue with reasonable arguments on both sides. While I'm personally opposed to abortion, I recognize the challenging and nuanced situations others may find themselves in, and believe they should have the right to make decisions based on personalized medical and spiritual advice. I applaud the people who spoke out in support of the birth choice center in the last council meeting and the work they do. However, the leap from offering beneficial services to restricting others choices is an overstep. Regardless of the arguments for or against abortion, I also don't believe it is appropriate for the city to be involved in this issue. I'm concerned it would bring negative attention and expose the city to unnecessary lawsuits that will cost residents money. Please keep the focus on the business of the city. Thank you for your service to our community. I'm sure your time spent on the council is under appreciated. Overall I'm very happy with the quality of services in the city and hope that continues while staying out of partisan culture war issues. Sincerely, Aaron From: Council Comments Sent: Tuesday, October 2S, 2022 3:21 PM To: 'Teri Biancardi' Subject: RE: Potential future agenda item Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda. Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE Legislative Director / City Clerk (951) 694-6421 randi. iohlC@temeculaca.gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefor: may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Teri Biancardi < Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 7:57 AM To: Council Comments<CouncilComments@TemeculaCA.gov>; Jessica Alexander <Jessica.Alexander@TemeculaCA.gov>; James Stewart <James.Stewart@TemeculaCA.gov>; Maryann Edwards <Maryann.Edwards@TemeculaCA.gov>; Zak Schwank <Zak.Schwank@temeculaca.gov>; Matt Rahn <matt.rahn@TemeculaCA.gov> Subject: Potential future agenda item CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Greetings, councillors and staff, I am sending the following in case I do not get the opportunity to speak tonight: My name is Teri Biancardi, and I have lived in Temecula for nearly 22 years. My husband and I moved here from London with our then two daughters, and ultimately raised three here. From the time we arrived, we never looked back, and still pinch ourselves at our good fortune that we live in this special place. One of the bright spots has been the quality of our local governance. That has led to Temecula's ability to attract talented, top drawer staff. Even when we didn't agree with some of the City's positions, we have always felt confident that decisions were taken in good faith, with the best interests of the residents in mind. The care, forethought and planning that has gone into the building of Temecula has led us to where we are today; an innovative, prosperous, caring, and safe home for us residents, and destination for tourists. But that fundamental, the tradition of good governance so essential to our city's success, has come under enormous strain recently. That's down to the actions of just one councillor, who in promoting her own agenda, which has nothing to do with the running of a city, has led to multiple legal threats to our city, to in just the last month alone. Whose antics have repeatedly made national news, embarrassing and shaming our community. Who is associating our town with extremist positions that are not even within its jurisdiction to decide. Our lives and livelihoods are too important to be toyed with this way. I am appealing for an end to the grandstanding that is causing real harm to our community, and is jeopardizing our city's future. Jessica, please stop with the performative politics, and just do your job. From: Randi Johl Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 11:48 AM To: 'Latina Association' Subject: RE: CA Prop 1 Non-Agendized Comment Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda. Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE Legislative Director / City Clerk (951)694-6421 randi.iohl temeculaca.gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Latina Association < Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 11:06 AM To: Randi Johl <randi.johl@temeculaca.gov>; Aaron Adams <aaron.adams@temeculaca.gov>; Maryann Edwards <Maryann.Edwards@TemeculaCA.gov>; Matt Rahn <matt.rahn@TemeculaCA.gov>; James Stewart <James.Stewart@TemeculaCA.gov>; Zak Schwank <Zak.Schwank@temeculaca.gov>; Jessica.Alexander@temeculaca.org Subject: CA Prop 1 Non-Agendized Comment CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. October 25, 2022 I firmly request Opposition to Councilwoman Jessica Alexander requesting the city council vote a resolution opposing Prop 1 California General Election November 8, 2022. Presently, our city is in disarray making headlines on night talk shows and media creating a negative image. She is using the council chair to elicit political gain. The administration, specifically City Manage, City Attorney, and City Clerk must and should clean house. Councilwoman Alexander should have never been allowed to use our community taxes to further her agenda and that of her supporters. She was elected by district, but she is bound to legislate for our city. She can't continue imposing her DOGMA on the Temecula residents. City Manager Aaron Adams and City Attorney Peter Thorson, your legislative leniency, and lack of firm stand is creating a dangerous atmosphere in our city. We must take note of the recent happenings in Los Angeles Council with clear understanding that we, the residents, set the course of your position in the city administration. We will pursue Jessica Alexander's lack of restraint using our funds and time for her personal profit to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. Jessica Alexander will NEVER impose on our daughters and granddaughters' personal decisions about their reproductive rights, and we will never go back to female reproduction neglect. In Unity Respectfully, Martha Angelica Howard Latina Association Riverside County, President 2021 Bosworth Award 75th Assembly District LULAC Council 3190 Member Former Temecula City Council District 5 Candidate Temecula Woman of the Year NAACP-W.I.N. Latina Association Riverside County "To make a difference through engaging in public policy, education, and culture affirmation." https://www.facebook.com/pages/Lati na-Association-of-Riverside-Cou nty/209501775871863 From: Randi Johl Sent: Tuesday, October 2S, 2022 11:48 AM To: 'Eva Smith' Subject: RE: Request to DENY Proposal to Add Proposition 1 to the Agenda Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda. Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE Legislative Director / City Clerk (951) 694-6421 randi.johl temeculaca.gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Eva Smith < Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 11:37 AM To: Maryann Edwards<Maryann.Edwards@TemeculaCA.gov>; Matt Rahn <matt.rahn@TemeculaCA.gov>; Zak Schwank <Zak.Schwank@temeculaca.gov>; Council Assistant <council.assistant@temeculaca.gov>; James Stewart <James.Stewart@TemeculaCA.gov>; Jessica Alexander <Jessica.Alexander@TemeculaCA.gov> Cc: Randi Johl <randi.johl@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Request to DENY Proposal to Add Proposition 1 to the Agenda CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council Members, I am writing you today to join members of our community in expressing our concern with council member Alexander's request to take a stand against California State Proposition 1. I would like to request that you deny council member Alexander's latest stunt to discuss Proposition 1 and request that you follow the California constitution to avoid any lawsuits. I would also like to request that you ban council member Alexander (or any council member) from bringing props that resemble human beings to their presentations, especially if it is a Black plastic baby being used as a prop. Approving her request will give her a platform to continue to spread lies, misinformation and hate under the guise of "pro -life" advocacy. It will also, once again make The City of Temecula a target for travel boycotts, real estate purchase boycotts and lawsuits. Does the City of Temecula want to be subjected to California State lawsuits, AGAIN? Instead of advocating for the quality of life of ALL Temecula residents, Alexander continues to waste precious City time and resources. As a Director of Birth Choice, Jessica Alexander should not be allowed to advocate on any resolutions which her nonprofit for profit organization will benefit from. Why is the council member allowed to waste precious time advocating for personal interests and not the interests of her constituents! Last time I checked, the residents of Temecula are NOT lining the streets of Temecula to try to get abortions. Temecula residents need affordable housing, jobs that are NOT 60 miles plus away and cheap gas!! Temecula residents need food and affordable utility bills. Temecula residents do not want our tax dollars spent fighting the State of California. Temecula is already known as a great community to raise families. We do not need this type of negative attention at our doorsteps. Since being elected Jessica Alexander wastes City has wasted a lot of time trying to pass anti -abortion resolutions. She also tried and failed to get a memorials dedicated to embryos and fetuses. In a recent council meeting she was also unsuccessful in getting council members to sign onboard to take a stand and make Temecula a Sanctuary city for the unborn. During her "Sanctuary City to the unborn" presentation she spent six minutes waving a Black baby as a racists prop. What message about abortion and "pro -life" is she trying to send by waving a Black baby as a prop? The tactic was very unusual to witness since a couple months earlier she was trying to rob George Floyd of his humanity with her anti -Black and anti -Diversity presentation to get rid of the REDI commission. All I could think of when I watched her wave the Black baby as a prop in the air -- was her previous disparaging remarks and disrespect for George Floyd. All I could think of was her disregard for the diverse population in Temecula. I am so sick and tired of the "Pro -Life" movement using Black Babies as Props, especially in the Council Chambers! If Black babies are so precious, where was her concern for human life with regards to George Floyd during her racists presentation attempting to rob George Floyd of his humanity? If Black babies are so precious why did she want to get rid of the REDI commission. I respect Jessica Alexander's stance on "pro -life" and Proposition 1, but she needs to do it on her own time and not use the City Council Chambers as her personal stage. Using the Temecula City council chambers as her personal stage is a conflict of interest and out of line. Please do not allow your colleague to continue to waste precious Cities Resources and time. Please do not give her a platform to spread lies and misinformation. Follow California law and let the voters of California decide. Thank you. Eva Smith 24 year Temecula Resident From: Randi Johl Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 3:04 PM To: 'Tammy Meyer' Subject: RE: Comment for Tonight's Meeting Thank you for your email. It will be read and/or made a part of the record pursuant to the notice on the agenda. Randi Johl, JD, MMC, CDE Legislative Director / City Clerk (951)694-6421 randi.johl temeculaca.gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the Califomia Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Tammy Meyer < Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 3:01 PM To: Randi Johl <randi.johl@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Comment for Tonight's Meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I would like to have this message read to the council for tonight's meeting: If you are getting a large amount of public comments in support of Alexander's agenda item, I hope you realize that this is because her supporters came to city hall and pretty much camped out all day thus preventing anyone else from being able to get in a conflicting opinion. Subject: FW: Temecula "pro -life" city ban? From: Bob < Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 3:57 PM To: Maryann Edwards<Maryann.Edwards@TemeculaCA.gov> Cc: Council Assistant <council.assistant@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Temecula "pro -life" city ban? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council Member, "Councilmember Jessica Alexander recently proposed a resolution that would make Temecula a "pro -life" city that bans abortions... despite her previous position that City Council should not weigh in on any state measures." There are residents that bring in their personal religious beliefs. "It's very important that we support being pro -life, that we're here to show that our church doesn't believe in the murdering of babies, even in the fetus," said Jere Chilton. There are many grey areas concerning abortion, like saving the life of the mother, health of the fetus, rape, incest resulting in child pregnancy (making a female keep a pregnancy from rape and/or incest is another violation to the victim). Temecula council members should not inject its endorsement of a particular religious bias into this debate. This is a personal decision that should be made by the female with the help of her support system. The US has three branches of government and religious beliefs and the bodies of female women and children are not one of them. Roe binds together an entire class of personal freedoms, all part of the Constitution's "liberty doctrine" and a ban would violate the Establishment Clause. Thank you for your time, Mrs. Alvarado From: mincraty mine < Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 4:06 PM To: Council Comments Subject: Jessica Alexander pushing Pro life Agenda (DO NOT SUPPORT) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To whom it may concern, I am a resident of Temecula, CA. Jessica Alexander has been pushing a pro -life agenda that does not reflect my views. I do not support her continuously using valuable agenda time to discuss matters that are bigger than Temecula. I expect city council members to be working on projects and using time to improve the city locally. Proposition 1 will be decided by the voters and I believe that the will of the people will be heard. It is not the city's duty to take a stand on such issues. Please have a vote to end this as soon as possible and stop Jessca Alexander from pushing her agenda into this city. Subject: FW: Right to choose From: Will W. < Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 4:21 PM To: Matt Rahn <matt.rahn@TemeculaCA.gov>; Zak Schwank <Zak.Schwank@temeculaca.gov>; Jessica Alexander <Jessica.Alexander@TemeculaCA.gov>; James Stewart <James.Stewart@TemeculaCA.gov>; Maryann Edwards <Maryann.Edwards@TemeculaCA.gov> Cc: Council Assistant <council.assistant@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Right to choose CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To all concerned, In regards to all proposals and agenda items in regards to women's right to choose, I for one believe in the separation of church and state. The attempt by Mrs Alexander or others to utilize their position to conflate the two is an abomination to both our founding fathers beliefs as well as those of Jesus Christ. Surely by now you have heard the "render unto ceaser" argument, the fact that so many other religions have different views on this subject as well at so many quotes from our founding fathers that you do not need a rehash but I am willing to provide if needed. Do not go down a slippery slope of trying to decide which rights you are going to strip from people based on personal choices. Stop this foolishness. William W. From: Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 4:41 PM To: Council Comments Subject: Letter for today's city meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi there thank you very much for reading this, its very crucial: • Thank you Mayer Rahn, City Council, Staff & every one else for your time, • Hello channel 3 Temecula, hello youtube! • 1 wanted to talk about the most important elections possibly in history because the outcome determines whether we will have this country left or not for most part. • We are under stagflation now which is recession and inflation simultaneously. Fixing one via Keynesians solutions makes the other worse. • Also many places there is no voter ID. Only legal votes count, chain of custody, verifiable, signature verified. Yet many understand, unfortunately, its literally whoever "tries the hardest" makes most impact. • MOST IMPORTANT FOR NOW: Remember USA approved allied weapons shipments to Ukraine ( Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia) and biden adm + dem majority congress sent 180 tons of weapons less than a week before Russia was backed in corner to invade. We all know biden family is compromised with Ukraine as they have made many deals with them when he was VP, and tony bobolinski blew the whistle on Fox in 2020. The biden guy is blackmailed by them and with help of dem led congress keeps sending billions of dollars WHICH EACH PENNY INCREASES % of possible war. Russia has said they have been so damaged that they might have to strike Ukraine using nuclear, and biden adm has said they would get involved, and Russia has said if that happens they will hit USA coasts. Actually the war started on ground 6 months ago, many usa soldiers are there fighting Russians daily. Soros backed Msm wont show but independent media (like Infowars and revolver) do. • Excuse is ethics?! but what about What about other wars in current progress now? Ethopia? yemen? • Excuses led to enrolling green energy changes which mathematically at this point CAN NOT replace traditional sources. The oil & gas leases halted, drilling permits limited, reversing Trump's NEPA regs and natural gas regs, canceling pipelines have all been ignored and excuse is 2/24/22: Russia invades Ukraine. o Besides USA is only responsible for less than 2-3% of Earth's pollution. China, Indonesia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Bangladesh, and India are for the rest. For example China dumps 8.8Million tons of plastic in ocean, USA 0.3Million per year. • MOST IMPORTANT FOR NOW: I am asking for the left who care to vote for MAGA Republicans because your safety and health is WAY more important than beliefs, opinions, and supporting certain agendas. We do not want to start full blown nuclear, biological, or more cyber war with Russia. They can also hit the nuclear plants and release lot of radiation or turn of all of electric grids which would be equally devastating. • There are 2 groups. One is totalitarian globalist ( hybrid of corporate fascism and communism) establishment technocratic elite ( world economic forum brags about their previous, current, and future agendas), since Tulsi Gabbard left, 100% of democrats and about 60% of republicans follow their orders. • Other side is nationalist populist, which in 4 short years brought the best economy on earth, cut red tape and bureaucracies, had most unemployment in all groups in many decades, safest southern border, energy independent , peace through strength, best foreign deals yet the main stream media + entertainment industry + education industry pushed back using mass formation via emotions and Stockholm syndrome. • Please read Eckhart Tolle's book "A New Earth", and make the less selfish decision. We don't have to agree and shouldn't, but in the core, 99.99% of us are on same team, team humanity being attacked by dark forces which can be overcome. Regards, From: ryann kelly < Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 4:45 PM To: Council Comments Subject: The risks of Jessica's plans CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello city council, As a fellow citizen of Temecula, I have growing concern over the overreach being attempted by this council -specifically Jessica Alexander. Her now multiple attempts at overreaching past city level into state level legislation are threatening to our tax dollars and further dividing the community we live in. Beyond agreeing or disagreeing on the ethics of abortion, denying women the right to medical access in a city of California is directly against our state constitution. If a woman orders an abortion pill, will she be arrested for checking her mail? If she's pregnant, will she be arrested seeking care in San Diego? The response may be "of course not!", but these are questions that, per state constitution, we shouldn't have to ask! Each time this subject is addressed, it's adding gasoline to the flames of a fire that could destroy our wonderful community that comes together for so many things. Please keep your personal views out of our city politics and maintain separation of church and state. You have every right to practice your religion. You have no right to force me practice it as well. Thank you, Concerned Temecula citizen who wants anonymity from religious zealots. Erika Ramirez Subject: FW: Thank you From: Lila Montoya < Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 4:48 PM To: Jessica Alexander <Jessica.Alexander@TemeculaCA.gov> Cc: Council Assistant <council.assistant@temeculaca.pov> Subject: Thank you CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Council Member Jessica Alexander, I just want to thank you for your bravery in standing for the fundamental human rights of children in the womb. You are an inspiration, especially in California. Sincerely, Lila Lila Montoya Subject: FW: Make Temecula a safe haven for the unborn From: Robin Daniel < Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 4:53 PM Subject: Make Temecula a safe haven for the unborn CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am writing to you as a 30 year old mother of two daughters, a 2 year old and 8 day old. My husband and I moved to Temecula in 2019 because we thought it was a great place to raise a family and it seemed that the values and morals aligned. I am extremely disheartened that there is an abortion clinic in Temecula that murders the most vulnerable of our population.. I am writing in support of the city counsel moving forward to make Temecula a sanctuary for the unborn especially amid the current vile proposition one in California. Abortion is not about "women's healthcare", that terminology is deceiving, and abortion is the most anti -woman movement there is. * Unfortunately, California's State Constitution already gives women permission to kill their innocent children. Prop 1 Amends the CA constitution to permit abortion up to the moment of childbirth. There are no limits in the amendment. This amendment represents the most radical expression of the pro choice side. You can never do something evil to achieve a good end. It's always evil to intentionally take the life on an innocent human being. And the child in the womb is an innocent human being. They're as much a human being as you and I are and have as much of a right to life as you and I. DENUMANIZATI0N IS . CONSISTENT COMPONENT OF G E N 0 c 10 E tHUMAN COALITION From: Shannon Rampe <shannon.rampe@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 4:58 PM To: Council Comments Subject: I Support a Woman's Right to Choose CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I am a resident of Temecula and an active and registered voter. I support a woman's right to choose and adamantly do not support attempts to ban or outlaw abortion in our city. Sincerely, Shannon Rampe Sent from my iPhone From: Cindy Kennedy < Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 5:08 PM To: Council Comments Subject: public comment for tonights cc meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council, I am not able to attend tonight's meeting because of my work schedule. I want to show my support for Councilwoman Jessica Alexander. I fully support Jessica's efforts and commend her for standing up for the unborn and her constituents. This is why we voted for her and will be voting for any of the true conservative candidates running vs the current liberal and RINOS. It is sad that most of us our not given the opportunity to speak because of your new 30 minute time limit. We all know the the very vocal local minority group is run by mostly educators/indoctrinators. Most likely they have backing by the unions and Sacramento. Looking forward to the mostly silent majority win this Nov. us Ps- We only saw two police cars during the 2+ hours we were at the duck pond last Friday from 4-6. The police seem to be very good at being reactive, but not very proactive. Please bring back neighborhood/shopping center policing. Q Thank you Sent with Proton Mail secure email. From: Jeff Comerchero < Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 5:16 PM To: Council Comments Subject: Prop 1 issue ICAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Comment for item to discuss Prop 1 These Jessica Alexander shenanigans must end and the City get back to the business of doing what City Councils and City Staffs are there to do. Alexander may think it's a glamorous job but I assure you it is not. If my 21 years on the council taught me anything, it's that. State issues are state issues and federal issues are federal issues. The City Council has no jurisdiction in the areas Alexander constantly brings to the dais. She needs to care as passionately about the real business of the City as she does about abortion issues. Maybe God needs to tell her to fix potholes and maintain parks. --Jeff Comerchero Sent from my Wad From: Randi Johl Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 9:42 AM To: Randi Johl Subject: FW: No on Prop 1 From: Megan Thatcher < Date: October 25, 2022 at 5:27:58 PM PDT To: Council Assistant <council.assistant@temeculaca.eov>, James Stewart <James.Stewart@temeculaca.gov>, Jessica Alexander <Jessica.alexander@temeculaca.gov>, Maryann Edwards <Maryann.Edwards@temeculaca.gov>, Matt Rahn <matt.rahn@temeculaca.gov>, Zak Schwank <Zak.Schwank@temeculaca.gov> Subject: No on Prop 1 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am a 34-year-old stay-at-home mother and a 5 year -long resident of the Temecula area. My family and I moved here because it aligned with the family values we cherish deeply in our home. This leads to my reason for writing this letter —to support the City Council moving forward to discuss some kind of resolution opposing Prop 1 in the city of Temecula. While I realize that this city council does not have the authority to outlaw abortion in Temecula, or to do away with Prop 1 I'd it does pass in November, I think that —in the same way that we as a city have pushed back on government overreach in the past — we should be proactive in standing up for the unborn in some way in the city of Temecula. I know many of you have stated that you are personally pro -life, but that you were elected to represent all of Temecula's citizens you can only do so much in your positions as city councils. Now I would argue that you can do much in your position —as much as fulfilling your duty and obligation to represent not only what is the popular demand but what is right. If you can recall, freedom of slavery at one point in history was not a popular view, but it was right for the sake of all humanity. You also were elected to represent the unborn of Temecula whose life depends on your voice. I conclude with the encouragement to act with integrity and to move forward to discuss what we can do as a city to stand against Prop 1. Warmest regards, A concerned woman and mother, Megan Thatcher DENUMANIZATI0N IS . CONSISTENT COMPONENT OF G E N 0 c 10 E tHUMAN COALITION From: Jessica Petri < Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 5:40 PM To: Council Comments Subject: Councilwoman Alexander's personal agenda does not represent this city CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am a homeowner in this city raising my young adult children here. I am appalled at the religious and personal agenda that councilwoman Alexander continues to push upon this city & its people. Its fiscally irresponsible to go against state laws and risk being sued potentially costing taxpayers and wasting councils time. She has a personal conflict of interest due to her position in private sector. She violates separation of church and state. She does not speak for me. She doesn't not speak for this city and has repeatedly dragged Temecula into negative press. Its absurd this is allowed. She has repeated demonstrated homophobic, transphobic and racist views, her agenda matches that. It is time for everyone to stop this divisiveness and celebrate diversity. The leadership of this city must match that. She clearly does not value the citizens nor possess a responsibility to this city, she repeatedly pushes her own religious views onto others. Its unacceptable, it must stop. Sent from my Whone From: Gia Rueda < Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 6:01 PM To: Randi Johl; Maryann Edwards; Jessica Alexander; Matt Rahn; James Stewart; Zak Schwank Subject: Prop 1 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, It's me again. Gia Rueda, 15 year resident of Temecula, Retired LAPD police sergeant, and Desert Storm Veteran. Do you hear that? ..... I don't. To be honest, most of us won't hear it. Only people like Councilmember Jessica Alexander will hear and respond to the fear -mongering dog whistle of 412 pastor Tim Thompson. By now, we all know this little game; Tim blows his dog whistle, and the obedient Jessica, snarls and gnashes her teeth, wasting city time and resources, until the reasonable members of Temecula City Council wisely vote her down. The topic this time? Proposition 1 which amends California Constitution to expressly include an individual's fundamental right to reproductive freedom. Wait a minute. Why are we discussing this at all? Anyone, Bueller, Bueller? Proposition 1 is an amendment to the California STATE Constitution; not the County Constitution, City Constitution, or Old Temecula north of the feed store and south of Gertrudis Creek Constitution. I repeat: Prop 1 is a STATE proposition, something over which Alexander and the rest of this wise Council has no jurisdiction. Ms. Alexander, your hyperbolic assertions that Proposition 1 will "encourage human trafficking" and "enable child sexual exploitation" is ABSURD. You're like Chicken Little screaming, "The sky is falling! Proposition 1 may enable incest and polygamy!" There is a clear conflict of interest with these matters and your position at Birth Choice, making your agenda increasingly problematic. Chicken Little, JUST. DO. YOUR. JOB. Approve a budget, do some homeless outreach, fill some potholes, plan a cultural event, attend a ribbon cutting. Just stop wasting the cities time and resources with a proposition that is clearly outside of your job description and outside the purview of the Temecula City Council. From: Leslie DeMedicis < Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 8:57 PM To: Council Comments Subject: Enough is enough CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Temecula City Council has spent enough time on Jessica Alexander's personal agenda of pushing her religion onto our city. We are not all Christians in this city. I certainly don't agree with Ms. Alexander's desire to continually try to make Temecula follow her religious ideas. For Temecula to pass a resolution against prop 1, makes it seem that our entire city is against it. That's just not true. Stop spending your valuable time and our tax dollars on Jessica Alexander's nonsense. The fact that she has a vested interest in Birth Choice and keeps pushing this pro -birth rhetoric makes me think there's some conflict of interest. Enough is enough with Jessica Alexander. Leslie DeMedicis 15 year Temecula Resident From: A Cox < Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 9:24 PM To: Randi Johl Subject: Public Comment for the Temecula City Council Meeting - Oct. 25 - Please add my letter to the record. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I was unable to attend tonight's Council meeting, but I need to speak up on behalf of the sane and reasonable residents of Temecula after watching it on TV. Please add my letter to the record. Of all the points I could make after Ms. Alexander's position statements, the most wretched is that she is NOT honoring her oath. She is not representing Temecula or respecting the Council. Instead, she is promoting her own extreme views and using her precious position on the Council to feed the ONLY concept she is apparently able to think about. Although she has been asked repeatedly, she has declined to say whether she is a PAID employee of that local organization she so vigorously promotes. This deepens the prospect of her conflict of interest and should be investigated. No councilmember anywhere should use their seat as a bully pulpit. It is unbearable to consider how much true city business is postponed due to her mindless posturing. I commend the other councilmembers for their patience, but I am even more disturbed than before about what I am witnessing. A.L. Cox From: Randi Johl Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 9:41 AM To: Randi Johl Subject: FW: Anti -abortion agenda -----Original Message ----- From: Susan LOng < Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 7:47 AM To: Council Assistant <council.assistant@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Anti -abortion agenda CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am having difficulty sending this message to all city council members. Addresses fail to send. Please forward. Dear city council members, As a 36 yr citizen of Temecula, I implore the city council not to succumb to right-wing, religious pressure against the citizens of Temecula. Women are untitled as a birthright to manage all aspects of their own healthcare. It is no one's business what healthcare decisions are made between a woman and her physician. Shut this down! Susan Long Sent from my iPhone Pb PlanetBids Vendor Portal X + F C Q O pbsystem.planetbids.com/portal/l4837/bo/bo-detail/97471#bidDocs A\ MyFlatiron I\- SupportCenter ® BOX PlanetBids Portals Owner links Caltrans Links DBE Resources SRF Information License and Registr .. o City of Temecula < Back to Bid Search 1-15 / FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE II, PROJECT NO. PW16-01, FEDERAL PROJECT NO. INFRALUL-5459(031 Bid Information Line Items Documents Addenda/Emails O&A Prospective Bidders Title Addendum No 07 - PW16-01 Addendum No 08 - PW16-01 Digital Terrain Model Digital Terrain Model Digital Terrain Model Addendum No 02 - PW16-01 Addendum No 03 - PW16-01 Addendum No 04- PW16-01 Addendum No 05 - PW16-01 Addendum No 06R1 - PW16-01 FVP NOD FVP IS -EA Addendum No 06 - PW16-01 Addendum No 09 - PW16-01 PROJECT PLANS for CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICATIONS EXH A- LAPM Form 12-G SPECIFICATIONS EXH B - Federal Wage Rates SPECI SPECIFICATIONS EXH A- LAPM Form 12-G SPECIFICATIONS EXH B - Federal Wage Rates SPECIFICATIONS EXH C - CAUOSHA COVID-19 Info Your eBid Was last Submitted on October 6, 022 9.54 AM (PDT,-) a 8 it * I] s Flatiron West, Inc. v e:1ea:a2 File Name Size Downloaded Addendum No 07 - PW16-01.pdf 321.5 kb Downloaded ►. .: rC4 Addendum No 08 - PW16-01.pdf 5.3 mb Downloaded ►. .. r 1-1 5-FVP PHII_Finished Surface-Median.dtm 215.8 kb Downloaded ►. •. 1-15-FVPPHII_Original Ground Surface.dtm 35.6 mb Downloaded ►. .. 1-15_FVP PHII Finished Surface.dtm 3.4 mb Downloaded ►. ... Addendum No 02 - PW1601.pdf 676 kb Downloaded ►. ... Addendum No 03 - PW16-01.pdf 334.1 kb Downloaded r. ... Addendum No 04- PW16-01.pdf 3.1 mb Downloaded ►. Addendum No 05 - PW16-01.pdf 230.4 kb Downloaded ►. Addendum No 06R1 - PW16-01.pdf 548.1 kb Downloaded ► • .. SUPP INFO FVP NOD.pdf 395.7 kb Downloaded ►. ... SUPP INFO FVP IS-EA.pdf 233.1 mb Downloaded r. ... Addendum No 06 - PW16-01.pdf 561.8 kb Downloaded ► • .. Addendum No 09 - PW16-01.pdf 4.7 mb Downloaded PLANS 01 EA 432721-15 FVP PHll.pdf 124.3 mb Downloaded ► SPECS 01.pdf 1.3 mb Downloaded ► • • • . SPECS 02 EXH A - LAPM EXH 12-G.pdf 605.9 kb Downloaded ►. SPECS 03 EXH B - FED WAGE RATES.pdf 143.2 kb Downloaded r. ... SPECS 04 EXH C - CAL OSHA COVID-19 Guidan Dark Mode I Privacv Policv I Terms & Conditions ' Your eBid was last Submitted on October 6, 2022 9:54 AM (PDT) • . - • : • Dark Mode I Privacy Policy I Terms & Conditions Flatiron West, Inc. FREMAINING e : 4 PKEC Pierce Kavcioglu Espinosa & Cesar LLP 16055 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200 Encino, California 91436 (818) 728-4999 Construction Counsel Tyler J.Cesar ( tcesar@pkec.law October 24, 2022 VIA EMAIL AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL B. Tilden Kim Richards Watson Gershon 350 South Grand Avenue, 37th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Email: tkim@rwglaw.com Re: Response to Notice of Bid Protest Submitted by MCM Construction, Inc. regarding 1-15 / French Valley Parkway Improvements — Phase II (Project No. PW16-01) Dear Mr. Kim: My firm represents Flatiron West, Inc. ("Flatiron"). Flatiron is the low bidder on the City of Temecula's (the "City") 1-15 / French Valley Parkway Improvements — Phase II Project (No. PW16-01) ("Project"). Flatiron looks forward to working with the City to quickly get this important work of improvement underway and completed. I have been asked to respond and comment on the correspondence by MCM Construction, Inc. ("MCM"), dated October 14, 2022, sent by Mr. D. Michael Schoenfeld, in which MCM purports to protest the award of the contract to Flatiron. In actuality, MCM does not protest the Flatiron bid, but instead goes to the unusual step of simply asking the City to reject all bids and re -advertise the Project. The City should refuse MCM's request. MCM's complaints are misguided. Throwing out all bids because MCM failed timely to submit its bid would be unfair, it would provide MCM an unfair competitive advantage, and it would waste the valuable time and resources of the bidders and the City. As the City is likely aware, the construction industry has been continuously experiencing widespread and unusually high inflation. Therefore, it is likely material suppliers and subcontractors will increase their prices which could significantly increase the cost of the Project for the City. It is unlikely that rebidding this work will be without impact to the City's budget. First, MCM has not demonstrated any harm or prejudice, and therefore, it lacks standing. Had it had more time to submit its bid, there is no evidence that it would have made any difference regarding the award to Flatiron. B. Tilden Kim October 24, 2022 Page 2 of 8 Second, as MCM points out, the City is bound to follow the law and its own published rules. The City has done just that. As demonstrated below, the deadline for the bids was clear: The City provided a universal, published countdown clock for all bidders on the bid page. While the City has the discretion to throw out all bids, doing so here will only create a problem where none currently exists. This will jeopardize a timely award of the contract and start to the Project. We agree with Mr. Odviar's observation and conclusion, in his October 12, 2022 email, that "after some 10+ years of use the City believes the PlanetBids system to be a solid and fair bidding system, including the cut-off time" and that "[the City does] not intend to throw out all bids and rebid the contract as MCM has requested." That is the correct course of action here. MCM LACKS STANDING (AS DO THE OTHER UNTIMELY BIDDERS) MCM does not demonstrate or even argue that it was harmed. There is no prejudice. Specifically, MCM does not claim that it would have been the lowest bidder had it timely submitted its bid. For all we know, even if MCM was given much more time to submit its bid, it would still not have been the lowest bidder. MCM strategically did not disclose or prove what its bid would have been. Instead, with the full benefit of seeing the lowest bid, the bids of four other contractors, and the valuable unit pricing data from all five bidders, MCM requests that the City improperly give it a competitive advantage by re -bidding the Project after it has seen the bids of the five timely bidders. And even worse, it has not had to disclose its own bid. Without proving standing or harm, MCM should not be heard to contend the bidding process was flawed (which it was not). If MCM's bid, and the bids of Walsh and Security Paving Company, were higher than Flatiron's bid, then there was no harm, no prejudice, and therefore there is no benefit to the City or the public by rejecting all bids. It will only cause extra costs and substantial delay. In the event one of those three bidders are eventually awarded the contract, it will also result in an illegal contract tainted by impropriety —bidders standing on the sideline, receiving the benefit of viewing and evaluating the pricing data by the other bidders, and then using that information to their advantage for the subsequent bid. THE CITY SHOULD DENY MCM'S REQUEST BECAUSE IT WOULD SEVERELY PREJUDICE FLATIRON (AND THE OTHER BIDDERS) AND IT WOULD SET BAD PRECEDENT FOR ALL BIDS MOVING FORWARD By rejecting all bids and re -advertising the project to bid on a short timeline while making no material changes to the Project, this would allow other bidders to evaluate and utilize the proprietary bidding strategy that Flatiron used to submit a successful low bid. As it stands the bid spread from highest bidder to lowest bidder ranges over $20M and in a re -bidding scenario, this gap would close for all bidders as they would be able to determine the bidding strategies used by Flatiron to win the bid. This would put Flatiron at a significant disadvantage in a re -bid scenario and give the other bidders (and later bidders) an unfair competitive advantage. B. Tilden Kim October 24, 2022 Page 3 of 8 Throwing out all bids based on MCM's argument would also set terrible precedent. A bidder need only submit a letter saying it was late in order to scuttle an award of a contract to its competitor. The City and other agencies would see a certain uptick in such protests, claiming that the bidder tried pressing the "Submit" button but that it didn't work in time, when it did work for other bidders. In the age of electronic bid submissions, the number of excuses a bidder could come up with regarding computer submission software would only exacerbate the problem. THE SOLPAC, INC. V. CITY OFFRESNO CASE IS UNPUBLISHED, NOT PRECEDENT, AND DECIDED UNDER DIFFERENT TIMES (20 YEARS AGO) AND CIRCUMSTANCES MCM argues that the term used in the Notice Inviting Bids —"up to 10:00 A.M."—means up to 10:00:59 A.M. The argument is absurd and illogical. From a commonsense standpoint, for example, when someone says you have "up to midnight" to submit a filing, if the filing is submitted at 12:00:01, it is no longer midnight. Midnight is 12:00:00. The next nanosecond is now after midnight. When someone says you have up to 10 minutes to complete a task, if you complete the task at 10 minutes, and 1 second, you are late. The phrase "up to 10 minutes" does not mean "up to 10 minutes and 59 seconds." As another example, an employee that is expected to work "up to 5:00 pm" is not expected to work a second later. And there are more examples. MCM relies on Solpac, Inc. v. City of Fresno. Do not be misguided. The case is unpublished and not precedent. Although not highlighted by MCM in its protest, the unpublished status means that the case may not be cited as precedent in any California court. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115.) That is worth stating again since MCM did not state it at all: the single case relied on by MCM is not California law because it failed to meet the standards for publication. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.1105.) Were a lawyer to rely on and cite the unpublished decision to a California judge, that lawyer could be sanctioned. MCM not only relied on the case, but —like the countdown clock described below —failed to disclose to the City Council the unpublished and un-citable status of the case. More importantly, the case is 20 years old and does not address the circumstances here. The bidding process in that case used the antiquated means of mechanically putting a time stamp on a bid package as it was submitted in person. The time stamp only showed hours and minutes meaning it could only show, in that case, 3:00 or 3:01 and could not distinguish between the two. The Court noted that the time stamp device "recorded only the passage of minutes and lacked any mechanism for recording the passage of seconds." Solpac, at *3. In addition, the bid documents focused on the "... time stamp in the Purchasing Division [as the] official clock for documenting the time of filing." This meant that a bid time stamped 3:00 was to be deemed timely under the terms of the "Notice Inviting Bids (NIB)." r B. Tilden Kim October 24, 2022 Page 4 of 8 The situation here was much different. The term "up to 10:00 A.M." means and can be measured to mean up to 10:00:00. In fact, the PlanetBids software had a countdown timer, in a red box on the submission screen that told bidders that bids needed to be submitted within a certain amount of time. The counter showed bids would close at 10:00:00. The technology used by the City properly left no ambiguity. ALL BIDDERS HAD CLEAR DIRECTIONS THAT BIDS WOULD CLOSE AT 10:00:00 A.M. Below is a screenshot of the PlanetBids portal for the Project at 9:59 A.M. on the day of the Bid, October 6, 2022. As you, and ALL BIDDERS, could see, the countdown clock clearly indicated the exact second that the bid would close, which was not 10:00:59 A.M., as MCM urges. k C O wnA•nP..k:a. runr:vy w•+tGvwuo[.G YiIYiaY:L �Y of Tetnxvls I-15 / FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS- PHASE It, PROJECT NO. PW16.O1, FEDERAL PROJECTNO INFRALUL-5459(031 rre. cdx�xxm \0 08-Plr1y01 o:aaa r..rb.. rsPia Dipaal TerrNn f,toEN apn:l rrriyn uow Ahk:Mvm n�0� PNItr01 AGpenp�m S, 0] Pwl6-0t Ama'kum,,oa. Prrle.L I vst..,n�m �,ns-Pwto-al am.rorm w!tr-Pvnw� �'A Np0 yo ryca adio-tn:m uOE•Pw�b-0t Adh. Lrno 09-PM6Jt KiC."_=:4\Sfx�FLST-JCfCti P.. I ' I'. S�FLGIGr:�IG Faw A.4PIA G:m' 1-U YEflt'LATDYi _Y� 3. GexvA wo9G' aYef si"e�: r 'i"" -I", `i: Exf 9-EMxtl Wpa aYM i I .:.:, £XY: - CALC�NA [MIJ •.o Inlo 0:00:42 Fi Nww 4n Dvx�I�cMc Grv.^n.n.Sa;:•. Wn60�Vtl" `Ct san P,r::. k] �� Lltwo.mi no:R.•Pw160'nn! 5]PD fr..,. ..fir �m i.i a.cvn�+p:-M Y'iJ Surtary-kM CP^ •t!:P4b t I �® I I5.NP%!-LY — Ground ^aFfoa.ctn 3S6 m2 C< 4tiPia ryP,-.nx'rsl,iw lPca:rF^ ?anp f:. I-. m� 3Jlk'b✓+n+C2PA'16t�1 o0` F.)E nb (r.. i �® lbEe:tbsn •�>:3PWi69',ytl1 33a'. kp [:... t., �� Reewt^.xa v>La-R'OIM'. [:T 31rrp t G �� .m.ro..vw,s.w:mrc rm ;cub AaaP�e.n v><a' • ptvi �n a« SaC � Fa t...: r-. ir�+�' 91Po rAG..)c•s M..iA p]r :3?'mb [ -Hr iW C!�M StiPsl:r•Na.A-PVnt.O•o:x ✓10Fb t... .r-. t�i1W (+UEra.n N:C9-Pw1G0',.e Alr C.a:: P_A•:i JI EAa]Z!CI tSFlAPWI xI IN3- C>..... ..�__..:: FxYAJ.P'.'E%•t :2GF'F EJ591m C..� �.� Q® ... a�rf. _n_C�• h.-.Ae�nr�s the .... �I �® •w uBa.n r�s: Sb4nikY .r ty .. _1229— ril F s & Conditions B. Tilden Kim October 24, 2022 Page 5 of 8 Moreover, this countdown clocks appears as soon as the job is advertised. For example, here is screen shot of a PlanetBids countdown clock for a bid on a different project that is due in 14 days": 14 days Once the countdown clock is down to 24 hours, it then indicates hours, minutes, and seconds. MCM, Walsh, and Security Paving cannot credibly claim that they thought they would have an extra 59 seconds after the countdown clock reached zero. The assertion is entirely disingenuous. It is also worth noting that there appeared to be no ambiguity until after the bid closed, since no bidder submitted a question during the bidding process to determine if up to 10:00 A.M. meant up to 10:00:00 or if it meant up to 10:00:59. It is also highly relevant that the City has used this same bidding process for 10 years without issues. Presumably, if contractors actually thought that up to 10:00 A.M. meant up to 59 seconds after 10:00 A.M., this issue would have been raised regularly by bidders submitting their bids within the 59 second period after 10:00. Presumably that has not happened. It is unclear why the three bidders waited until the very last seconds to submit their bids. While it is understood that a bid submission always comes close to the deadline, the three bidders were apparently pushing the limits and ignoring the countdown timer on the PlanetBids software. These are all sophisticated bidders and presumably they did not truly plan to thread the needle by submitting their bids in a 59 second window between 10:00:00 and 10:00:59. More likely, they were having difficulties completing their bid and simply waited too long or neglected to "submit" their bid before the counter hit 00:00:00. They should not be given a second chance to rework their bids with the knowledge of the amounts submitted in five other timely bids. Furthermore, PlanetBids requires all potential bidders register with the City and PlanetBids. PlanetBids requires all users accept terms and conditions and acknowledge them with the following screen: B. Tilden Kim October 24, 2022 Page 6 of 8 Welcome to PlanetBids eBidding If you have any questions or need instructions regarding the bid preparation and submittal process, please consult the Help files (See the "Help' icon in the upper right- hand comer of your screen). A confirmation with a date/time stamp and confirmation number will be issued upon completion of the bid submittal process. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE A CONFIRMATION, YOUR BID HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED Only one session per username may be open at any given time_ Multiple sessions under the same username may result in critical data loss. IMPORTANT - BE SURE YOU ALLOW ADEQUATE TIME FOR THE BID SUBMITTAL PROCESS to ensure receipt of the complete bid prior to the closing date and time. Under most circumstances (i e., standard file sizes (less than 10 mb total file size) and a reasonably current uploading capability at your site), submittal should take less than 10 min Additional time is required, however. if (1) you are using older equipment with slower upload capability, (2) your bid has large file attachments or a large number of line items (e.g. more than 100), or (3) you have reliability issues with your internet service provider Remember to save your bid periodically in case of internet connection or power loss. Saving attached files early (i e. to a draft) can help reduce the time needed for submittal. You may edit a submitted bid at any time prior to bid closing Use of the PB System- process is subject to the PlanetBids terms and conditions Decline r All bidders had to accept these terms which says it could take up to 10 minutes for standard files to transfer and potentially longer if your bid has large file attachments or a large number of line items. The bid here required more information and data than is typical. The City required all bidders submit the Construction Contract DBE Commitment and supporting documents at bid closing. This is unusual and more time consuming than typical bids. B. Tilden Kim October 24, 2022 Page 7 of 8 All bidders were aware of these additional requirements. Prior to the bid, several bidders, including Flatiron, asked that the City reconsider these extra requirements as it would put an undue burden on all bidders. The City denied this request. Therefore, Flatiron, used extra resources (twice the staff as usual) the day before and the morning of the bid close to ensure it submitted a responsive bid on time. Flatiron also recognized that it would take up to 5 minutes for them to submit the final package given all the required documents and data. Flatiron started to complete the remaining item pricing and upload the final submission with approximately 11 minutes left on the countdown timer to ensure it had a second chance to submit if there was an issue with the first submittal. This is evidenced by Flatiron's successful final data transmission at 9:54:53 A.M. By rejecting all bids, the City would be punishing those bidders who followed the City's clear direction and rewarding those who were underprepared. CONCLUSION: THE CITY SHOULD REJECT MCM'S REQUEST, AND IT SHOULD PROCEED WITH AWARDING THE CONTRACT TO FLATIRON In conclusion, re -bidding this Project will only invite further protests from those that followed the clear directions and unambiguous countdown clock provided by the City. It will only delay the work for this important project and cost the City and the public extra time and money. Moreover, if one of the three late bidders becomes the lowest bidder in a re -bid, there is likely to be a protest submitted at that point and resultant litigation tying the contract award up for weeks or months. Flatiron is fully qualified to build your Project, and it looks forward to working with the City. Flatiron has previous positive experience with the City constructing Phase 1 of the French Valley Parkway. Flatiron anticipates a similar experience in building this Project. Flatiron asks that the City reject MCM's meritless protest of the bidding process. No time is a good time to waste time and money, and the present economy and rising inflation makes this a particularly bad time to do so. For these reasons, Flatiron respectfully requests the City to not re -bid the Project, to place the award of the Project to Flatiron on the agenda for the next City Council Meeting, and to award the contract to Flatiron. B. Tilden Kim October 24, 2022 Page 8 of 8 Should you have any additional questions or need any additional information, feel free to contact me. Thank you for your consideration of the points raised in this letter. Sincerely, �J Ty J. C sar, Esq. PIERCE KAVCIOGLU ESPINOSA & CESAR LLP cc: Mayor Matt Rahn at matt. rahn(cDtemeculaca.gov Mayor Pro Tern Zak Schwank at zak.schwa nk(aD-temeculaca.gov Council Member Jessica Alexander at iessica.alexander(a-)temeculaca.gov Council Member James Stewart at james.stewart(cD-temeculaca.gov Council Member MaryAnn Edwards at marvann.edwards(aD-temeculaca.gov City Council Assistant at Council.Assistant(a)TemeculaCA.gov Avlin Odviar, Principal Civil Engineer at Avlin.Odviar(a-temecularca.gov Timothy L. Pierce, Esq. at tpierce(aD-pkec.law Mario Martinez, VP, District Manager, Flatiron West, Inc. at mmartineza-flatironcorp.com Sean Ashburn, Corporate Counsel, Flatiron West, Inc. at sash burn(aD-flatironcorp.com