Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
082311 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 II] AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET AUGUST 23, 2011 — 7:00 PM At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 P.M. and may continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 P.M. P Session�in concerning ounciI/Temecu e ;Canyons Conference e following: `matters- nterence hC ' 66 wit 9(a)' with res aintiff . T..ti"e title "o ltz�Construct on,4 UC '6419 Id Town evelo wilt convene; Temecula government Code Sectic ling litigation towh!oh t .."ity of Terries E tenefits, an oncerning anager--N ►ection 549 natters!in glary; com ounce s c y Attorne d toprovide instruction these matters, , omineel esenta'tives Ma or, r�� a gs, o esi r Y glary, cmpensation, a gnated representatives resented osition of ority of Governmen? CALL TO ORDER: Prelude Music: Invocation: Flag Salute: Next in Order: Ordinance: 11-07 Resolution: 11-58 Mayor Ron Roberts Susan Miyamoto Rabbi Barry Ulrych of Congregation B'nai Chaim of Murrieta Council Member Washington 1 ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Washington, Roberts . S PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the City Council on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or ones that are not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the City Council on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form must be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. There is a five-minute time limit for each speaker. 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, 10 minutes will be devoted to these reports. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Action Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the action minutes of August 9, 2011. 3 List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: 2 RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 , Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance. Grant Application for a proposed amount of $14,639. 5 All -Way Stop Control — Old Town Front Street at Third Street and Mercedes Street at Sixth Street RECOMMENDATION:_ 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING ALL -WAY STOP CONTROLS AT THE INTERSECTION OF OLD TOWN FRONT STREET AT THIRD STREET AND MERCEDES STREET AT SIXTH STREET 6 Approval of the Second Amendment to the Professional Engineering Services Agreement with Hall& Foreman, Inc. for the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect — Project No. PW08-04 RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the Second Amendment to the Professional Engineering Services Agreement with Hall & Forman, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $93,250 for additional services necessary to complete the construction plans, specifications, and estimate for the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect — Project No. PW08-04, and to extend the term of the Agreement through June 30, 2012. 7 Temporary Street Closures for September 2011 Special Events RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Receive and file the following proposed action by the City Manager: Temporarily close certain streets for the following September 2011 Special Events: 'COMMUNITY HEALTH & WELLNESS FAIR' 'STEVE MILLER ROCK SYMPHONY CONCERT' 8 City Letter of Support for Legislation concerning proposed Liberty Quarry Project (AB 742) RECOMMENDATION: 8A Receive and file. ************** RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY ************** 4 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: No. CSD 11-01 Resolution: No. CSD 11-09 CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington, Comerchero CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Board of Directors on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or ones that are not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address 'the Board of Directors on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form must be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or District Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five-minute time limit for each speaker. CSD CONSENT CALENDAR 9 Action Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve the action minutes of August 9, 2011. 10 Authorization for payment of the Sewer Connection Fees for the Old Town Gymnasium — Project No. PW07-05 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Authorize the payment of sewer connection fees in the amount of $48,988.15 to Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) to establish sewer service for the Old Town Gymnasium. CSD DEPARTMENTAL REPORT 11 Community Services Department Monthly Report CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT 5 CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, September 13, 2011, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM., City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 6 TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: No. RDA 11-01 Resolution: No. RDA 11-09 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Person Mike Naggar ROLL CALL: AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Edwards, Roberts, Washington, Naggar RDA PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Agency Members on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or ones that are not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the Agency Members on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form must be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Agency Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Agency Members addressing that item. There is a five-minute time limit for each speaker. RDA CONSENT CALENDAR 12 Action Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve the action minutes of August 9, 2011. 13 Resolution and Enforceable Obligations Payment Schedule required under AB X1 26 and AB X1 27 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING AN ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO PART 1.8 OF DIVISION 24 OF THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE AND TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 14 Tenant Relocation Plan for the Portola Terrace Affordable Housing Development located at 28673, 28681, and 28701 Pujol Street RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Approve the Tenant Relocation Plan (Plan) for the Portola Terrace Affordable Housing Development. RDA DEPARTMENTAL REPORT 15 Redevelopment Department Monthly Report RDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS REPORT RDA AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS RDA ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, September 13, 2011, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM., City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 8 TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING - no meeting TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING - 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 the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any of the project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 16 Issuance of Tax -Exempt Private Activity Bonds by the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSDA) for the purpose of constructing a 45 unit multi -family affordable housing development to be located at 28673, 28681, and 28701 Pujol Street RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF TAX-EXEMPT PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS BY THE CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PORTOLA TERRACE APARTMENTS CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS 17. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 11-06 AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 11-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM 17.2 Certify PERS Form CON -5, Certification of Final Action of Governing Body. 10 DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 18 Planning Department Monthly Report 19 City Council Travel/Conference Report — July 2011 20 Public Works Department Monthly Report CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, September 13, 2011, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for viewing at the Main Reception at City Hall (41000 Main Street, Temecula) or at the Temecula Library (30600 Pauba Road, Temecula) after 4:00 PM the Friday before the City Council meeting. At that time, the packet may as well be accessed on the City's website — www.citvoftemecula.orq Supplemental material received after the posting of the Agenda Any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on the Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review at the Main Reception at the Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula — 8:00 — 5:00 PM). In addition, such material will be made available on the City's web — www.citvoftemecula.orq — and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. If you have any questions regarding any item of business on the Agenda for this meeting, please contact City Clerk's Department — 951-694-6444. 11 CONSENT CALENDAR Item No. 1 Item No. 2 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET AUGUST 9, 2011 — 7:00 PM 6:00 P.M. — The City Council/Temecula Redevelopment Agency will convene in Closed Session in the Canyons Conference Room on the third floor of the Temecula City Hall concerning the following matters: 1. Conference with City Council's designated representatives, Mayor, Mayor pro Tem and City Attorney, regarding salary, compensation, and benefits, and to provide instruction to its designated representatives concerning these matters, for the unrepresented position of City Manager --Nominee pursuant to the authority of Government Code Section 54957.6. The City Council will consider and discuss these matters in a public meeting before taking any action on the approval of salary, compensation and benefits for this unrepresented position. Public Information concerning existing litigation between the City and various parties may be acquired by reviewing the public documents held by the City Clerk. At 6:00 P.M., Mayor Roberts called the City Council meeting to order and recessed to Closed Session to consider the matters described on the Closed Session agenda. The City Council meeting convened at 7:03 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Roberts Prelude Music: Jennifer Koong Invocation: Pastor Gary nelson of Calvary Chapel of Temecula Valley Flag Salute: Council Member Naggar ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Washington, Roberts PUBLIC COMMENTS The following individuals addressed the City Council Members: • Wayne Hall • Donald Lambert CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Action Minutes1080911 1 CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure — Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Washington; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Action Minutes — Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Washington; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the action minutes of July 26, 2011. 3 List of Demands — Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Washington; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 11-55 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 City Treasurer's Report as of June 30, 2011 — Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0- 0) — Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Washington; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of June 30, 2011. 5 Third Amendment with Innovative Document Solutions — Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Washington; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve the Third Amendment between the City of Temecula and Innovative Document Solutions and, thereby, increasing the authorized annual expenditure by $4,000 for a total annual expenditure of $69,000 for 2010-11. Action Minutes1080911 2 6 First Amendment to the Agreement with Riverside County for Real Property Services - French Valley Parkway/I-15 Overcrossing and Interchange Project — Project Numbers PW02-11 and PW07-04 — Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Washington; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with the County of Riverside, in an amount of $40,485 for a revised total contract amount of $65,000, to provide additional Real Property Services associated with the French Valley Parkway/I- 15 Overcrossing and Interchange Project — Project Numbers PW02-11/PW07- 04; 6.2 Authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement. 7 Temporary Street Closures for 2011 Autumn Fest Events — Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1) — Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Washington; and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Council Member Edwards who abstained. RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Receive and file the following proposed action by the City Manager: Temporarily close certain streets for the following 2011 Autumn Fest Events: `FALL ROD RUN' RACE FOR THE CURE' 8 Approval of Verizon U.T.A.C. (Underground, Trench, and Conduit) Specifications Agreement and Bill of Sale for Installation of Telecommunications Facilities associated with the Butterfield Stage Road Extension Project — Project No. PW09-02 — Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Washington; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve an agreement with Verizon California Inc. ("Verizon") titled "Verizon California Inc. U.T.A.C. (Underground, Trench, and Conduit) Specifications Agreement" ("Agreement") and Bill of Sale in connection to the Butterfield Stage Road Extension Project — Phase I, Project No PW09-02 and authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement; 8.2 Authorize the City Manager to sign the Bill of Sale, transferring ownership of the City -installed telecommunications facilities to Verizon California, Inc. Action Minutes1080911 3 9 Agreement between NewPath Networks, LLC and the City of Temecula for Right -of -Way Use and Telecommunications Facility Maintenance and Removal — Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Washington made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 11-56 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN FORM OF AGREEMENT ENTITLED "RIGHT- OF-WAY USE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND NEWPATH NETWORKS, LLC" Michael Shumafelt addressed the City Council with regard to this item. 10 Approve the Sponsorship Request for the 2011 Komen Inland Empire Race for the Cure — Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Washington; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Approve the Event Sponsorship Agreement in the amount of $22,500 cash, city - support costs in the amount of approximately $14,981 and promotional services valued at $12,865 for the 2011 Komen Inland Empire Race for the Cure and authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement. 11 City of Temecula Co -Sponsorship Request: March of Dimes March for Babies Fundraiser Walk — Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Washington; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Authorize the City to become a Marketing Sponsor for the March for Babies Fundraiser Walk. 12 City of Temecula Co -Sponsorship Request: California Mounted Officer's Association Trail Trials Equine Event — Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Washington; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Authorize the City of Temecula Police Department to become a Marketing Sponsor for the California Mounted Officer's Association (CMOA) Trail Trials Action Minutes1080911 4 Equine Event at Galway Downs. 13 Approval of the Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau FY2011-12 Marketing Agreement — Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Washington; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Approve that certain agreement entitled "Marketing Agreement Between the City of Temecula and Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau" for publication and distribution of the Temecula Valley Tourism Rack Brochure/Map; 13.2 Authorize the funding for the Agreement in the amount of $40,000 to the Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau (TVCVB) for publication and distribution of the Temecula Valley Tourism Rack Brochure/Map. 14 Approve FY2011-12 Economic Development Operating Agreement with the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce — Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Washington; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Approve the Operating Agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce in the amount of $136,260. 15 First Amendment for DUI Drug and Alcohol Analysis with Bio-Tox Laboratories — Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Washington; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement between City of Temecula and Bio-Tox Laboratories for DUI Drug and Alcohol Screening Services in the amount of $5,000, bringing the total FY2010-11 contract amount to $35,000. 16 Professional Services Agreement for Fehr & Peers to provide consulting services related to the preparation of planning studies for the Caltrans Community-based Transportation Planning Grant - Multi -jurisdictional Transportation Corridor Planning Effort for the Jefferson Avenue Corridor (LR10-0017) — Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Washington; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Approve Professional Services Agreement for Fehr & Peers in the amount of $189,493.00 for professional planning consulting services related to the Action Minutes1080911 5 preparation of a Multimodal Transportation Plan for the Jefferson Avenue Corridor. 17 Appeal of Redevelopment Agency payment amount pursuant to ABX1 27 — Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Washington; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 11-57 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE'S DETERMINATION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 REMITTANCE AMOUNT DETERMINED PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 34194 At 7:30 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District, the Redevelopment Agency, the Temecula Public Financing Authority, and the Temecula Public Financing Authority. At 7:33 P.M., the City Council resumed with regular business. CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS 21 Emerqency Manaqement Program Update — at the request of Council Member Naqqar — received and filed RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 Receive the staff report and provide comments as appropriate. Deputy City Manager Yates, along with representatives of the Police and Fire Departments, presented an overview of the Emergency Management Program. CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT City Attorney Thorson advised that there were no reportable actions. Action Minutes1080911 6 ADJOURNMENT At 8:19 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, August 23, 2011, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. *** In Memory of Eve Craig *** Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] Action Minutes1080911 7 Item No. 3 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance DATE: August 23, 2011 SUBJECT: List of Demands PREPARED BY: Pascale Brown, Accounting Manager Jill Dickey, Accounting Specialist RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 11- 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: Resolution List of Demands RESOLUTION NO. 11- 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 $3,249,628.12 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 23rd day of August, 2011. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 11- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 08/04/2011 TOTAL CHECK RUN $ 2,427,242.38 08/11/2011 TOTAL CHECK RUN 364,382.99 08/04/2011 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 458,002.75 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 08/23/2011 COUNCIL MEETING: $ 3,249,628.12 DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 GENERAL FUND $ 2,111,621.15 130 RECOVERY ACT JAG FUNDING 1,803.89 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 21,643.60 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 357,902.51 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 316.43 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 1,144.32 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 7,973.46 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 4,610.12 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND 77,482.29 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP PROJECT 8,350.62 300 INSURANCE FUND 53,984.84 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 52,035.42 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 15,821.17 340 FACILITIES 45,768.03 375 SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM 261.44 477 CFD- RORIPAUGH 3,140.66 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 234.72 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 231.79 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 2,131.71 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 78.90 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 342.11 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 118.49 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 141.40 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 1,054.23 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 25.07 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 30.54 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 28.78 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 877.22 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 3,374.71 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 178.30 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 37.00 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 176.36 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 24.57 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 261.76 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 631.38 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 451.84 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 4,499.46 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 31.59 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 275.81 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 2,675.84 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 57.22 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 25.84 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 31.42 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 5,166.59 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 25.47 700 CERBT CALIFORNIA EE RETIREE-GASB45 4,545.30 $ 2,791,625.37 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 001 GENERAL FUND $ 236,002.65 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 9,869.10 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 134,962.56 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 380.98 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 1,614.77 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 975.46 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 1,249.78 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP PROJECT 6,446.56 300 INSURANCE FUND 1,332.48 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 22,461.61 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 6,069.94 340 FACILITIES 11,761.49 375 SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM 1,499.61 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 81.78 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 54.75 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 65.03 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 11.89 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 131.97 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 23.97 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 33.83 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 224.08 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 1.73 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 10.14 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 6.19 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 149.46 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 31.84 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 18.30 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 16.10 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 37.33 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 3.03 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 138.51 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 74.14 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 200.79 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 340.00 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 8.41 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 8.93 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 191.24 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 61.75 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 2.75 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 8.93 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 281.94 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 5.06 700 CERBT CALIFORNIA EE RETIREE-GASB45 21,151.89 458,002.75 TOTAL BY FUND: $ 3,249,628.12 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 08/04/2011 4:28:08PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 1752 08/04/2011 000245 PERS- HEALTH INSUR Blue Shield HMO Payment 0.00 PREMIUM PERS Health Admin Cost Payment 79,086.77 79,086.77 1753 08/04/2011 010349 CALIF DEPT OF CHILD Support Payment 738.45 738.45 SUPPORT 1754 08/04/2011 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) Federal Income Taxes Payment 85,302.17 85,302.17 1755 08/04/2011 000389 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT OBRA- Project Retirement Payment 5,438.44 5,438.44 SOLUTION 1756 08/04/2011 001065 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT Nationwide Retirement Payment 15,220.06 15,220.06 SOLUTION 1757 08/04/2011 000642 TEMECULA CITY FLEXIBLE Child Care Reimbursement Payment 8,752.89 Child Care Reimbursement Payment 0.00 8,752.89 1758 08/04/2011 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) State Disability Ins Payment 24,416.84 24,416.84 1759 08/04/2011 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' PERS ER Paid Member Contr Payment 136,069.41 136,06941 RETIREMENT) 146987 08/04/2011 003552 A F L A C AFLAC Cancer Payment 3,137.01 3,137.01 146988 08/04/2011 004973 ABACHERLI, LIN DI TCSD instructor earnings 560.00 560.00 146989 08/04/2011 013367 ACTIVE MICRO INC 54-404 Switch:C. Museum 6.49 6.49 146990 08/04/2011 011137 ADIKES, KIM refund: Air Book 29.98 29.98 146991 08/04/2011 008552 ADKINS DESIGN CONSULTING Graphic design srvcs: Theater 2,439.24 2,439.24 146992 08/04/2011 014360 ALL FROM THE HEART FY2011-12CSF pgrm:support our troops 1,000.00 1,000.00 146993 08/04/2011 006915 ALLIES PARTY EQUIPMENT Rental equip:Street painting fest 6/26 737.06 Misc rental equip: 4th of July 1,015.70 1,752.76 146994 08/04/2011 004422 AMERICAN BATTERY Batteries for PW Traffic Div CORPORATION 12.92 12.92 146995 08/04/2011 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES June DUI & alcohol screening:CHP 903.76 (AFN) June DUI & alcohol screening:TE Tem 1,057.68 1,961.44 Pagel apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 08/04/2011 4:28:08PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 146996 08/04/2011 000936 AMERICAN RED CROSS 146997 08/04/2011 009570 AMERICAN REPROGRAPHICS CO LLC 146998 08/04/2011 014235 AND ALL THAT JAZZ 146999 08/04/2011 014294 ANFINSON, STEVEN 147000 08/04/2011 002187 ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE VALLEYS 147001 08/04/2011 014328 ANTHONY SILVA SOARES 147002 08/04/2011 004623 AQUA SOURCE INC 147003 08/04/2011 014356 ARSENAL FC 147004 08/04/2011 005709 BAMM PROMOTIONAL PRODUCTS 147005 08/04/2011 004040 BIG FOOT GRAPHICS 147006 08/04/2011 013684 BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA 147007 08/04/2011 006536 BOLOWICH, HANS 147008 08/04/2011 014361 BURGESS, BARBARA 147009 08/04/2011 006908 C C & COMPANY INC 147010 08/04/2011 013265 CALIF BUILDING 147011 08/04/2011 000638 CALIF DEPT OF CONSERVATION 147012 08/04/2011 004248 CALIF DEPT OF JUSTICE-ACCTING (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total certification cards:lifeguard pgrm OCE Toner: Central Svcs TCSD Instructor Eamings PERFORMANCE FOR HOT SUMMER N IGHTS— June Animal control services June Sheltering svcs Presentation:history museum camp chemical test reagents: CRC pool refund:balance on acct:overpmt refund:sec dep:tournament T-shirts: summer day camp Promo items: 4th of July TCSD instructor earnings COBRA SUBSIDY MEDICAL PMT 08/11 refund:CPR & trng info materials refund:sec dep:MPSC Entertainment: 4th of July:face painters Entertain.:day camp:face Entertainment: 4th of July:face painters 2011 2nd qtr pmt:SB1743 2011 2nd Qtr pmt:strong motion June blood alcohol analysis:Police 88.00 283.36 1,575.00 600.00 10,000.00 10,625.00 500.00 128.14 542.01 1,000.00 418.69 232.00 1,785.00 978.89 91.56 50.00 1,200.00 975.00 700.00 2,552.00 3,134.50 88.00 283.36 1,575.00 600.00 20,625.00 500.00 128.14 1,542.01 418.69 2,017.00 978.89 91.56 50.00 2,875.00 2,552.00 3,134.50 2,205.00 2,205.00 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 08/04/2011 4:28:08PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 147013 08/04/2011 004228 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY Helium tanks rental/refihl:TCSD 147014 08/04/2011 009640 CERTIFION CORPORATION Online database subscription:Police 147015 08/04/2011 003534 CLOUD PRODUCTIONS ENTERTAINMENT:HOT SUMMER N IGHTS- 147016 08/04/2011 009028 COMMUNICATIONS USA INC Misc tech supplies: Theater Misc technical supplies: Theater 56.50 56.50 176.85 176.85 600.00 600.00 136.58 775.80 912.38 147017 08/04/2011 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH Community Health Charities Payment 62.00 62.00 CHARITIES 147018 08/04/2011 014302 COX, KANAN Entertainment:hot summer nights 7/22 500.00 500.00 147019 08/04/2011 011870 CRIME SCENE STERI-CLEAN, Trauma clean up svc:PD:#TE11199038 500.00 500.00 LLC 147020 08/04/2011 013560 CROWN BUILDING MAINT CO Apr Janitorial svcs: OT Storefront 250.00 INC May Janitorial svcs: OT Storefront 250.00 June Janitorial svcs: OT Storefront 250.00 June Janitorial svcs:citywide facilities 4,077.02 June Janitorial svc:Harveston comm rm 131.84 4,958.86 147021 08/04/2011 008943 DEPT OF GENERAL SERVICES Case Filings/Rpt Svcs:Code Enf 215.00 215.00 (DGS) 147022 08/04/2011 007057 DERN BACH, ESTHER MARIE TCSD instructor earnings 1,596.00 1,596.00 147023 08/04/2011 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS 147024 08/04/2011 014359 D -PREP, LLC 147025 08/04/2011 013804 EC & AM ASSOCIATES portable restrooms:western days 600.88 June portable restrooms:Street painting 244.57 845.45 CPTED Trng: CSO Thomas, J. 8/29-31 393.00 393.00 11/1-5/31/11 Quality of life mstr pin 3,432.50 3,432.50 147026 08/04/2011 011202 EMH SPORTS & FITNESS TCSD instructor earnings INSTITUTE 147027 08/04/2011 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE June Idscp maint:winchester median Apr Irrig maint/repair:Lake Park June Idscp maint/repair:Vail Ranch June Idscp maint/repair:FOC 1,270.50 1,270.50 7,516.00 173.99 170.00 2,707.96 10,567.95 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 08/04/2011 4:28:08PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 147028 08/04/2011 004310 FEDEX GROUND INC June Express Mail Service 147029 08/04/2011 000206 FEDEX KINKOS INC Printing srvcs:csd Idscp maint 791.55 791.55 14.55 14.55 147030 08/04/2011 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER 006714 SHERATON HOTEL RR HtI:SCAG mtg 7/7 125.49 004530 MOVIE EXPERIENCE, THE HP excursion:Smr Day Camp 7/21 1,430.00 006952 PAYPAL HP Verisign Payflow Pro Transaction 327.60 004530 MOVIE EXPERIENCE, THE HP excursion:Teen Smr Day Camp 7/26 126.00 000845 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES JC Regist:NLC Ann'I Cf:11/8-12 Phx, Az 435.00 006952 PAYPAL GR Verisign Payflow Pro Transaction 59.95 000645 SMART& FINAL INC HP recreation supplies:4th of July 2,198.10 4,702.14 147031 08/04/2011 000380 FIRST STUDENT CHARTER Transportation:camp excursion 6/23 481.20 481.20 147032 08/04/2011 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD SUPPORT PMT 241.22 241.22 147033 08/04/2011 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD SUPPORT PMT 50.00 50.00 147034 08/04/2011 010326 G E MOBILE WATER, INC Exchange, DI, mix bed:Fire 64.17 64.17 147035 08/04/2011 013552 GANDS PRODUCTIONS LLC sttlemnt:Country...Merc 7/30 784.50 784.50 147036 08/04/2011 000177 GLENN IES OFFICE PRODUCTS June Misc ofc supplies:Finance 88.70 INC June Misc ofc supplies: B&S 64.88 June Misc ofc supplies:Ping/Code Enf 289.14 June Misc ofc supplies:lnfo Tech 97.54 June Misc ofc supplies: CRC 849.93 June Misc ofc supplies:Comm Svcs 324.96 June Misc ofc supplies:Senior Ctr 26.49 June Misc ofc supplies:Records Mgmt 142.73 June Misc ofc supplies:Museum/Chapel 30.43 June Misc ofc supplies:Library 369.39 June Misc ofc supplies:P.W. 708.76 June Misc ofc supplies:Fire 808.85 147037 08/04/2011 009608 GOLDEN VALLEY MUSIC sttlemnt:Classics...Merc July 2011 SOCIETY 3,801.80 917.00 917.00 Page4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 08/04/2011 4:28:08PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 147038 08/04/2011 005311 H2O CERTIFIED POOL WATER Gum removal/Acid wash pool deck SPCL. 147039 08/04/2011 014355 HAWAII ON THE BEACH INC refund:app withdrawn:PA11-0084 147040 08/04/2011 002109 HD SUPPLY CONSTR. SUPPLY Misc supplies:PW maint div LTD 147041 08/04/2011 001135 HEALTH POINTE MEDICAL GROUP INC 670.00 670.00 2,536.20 2,536.20 168.33 Misc supplies:PW maint div 168.37 Misc supplies:PW maint div 168.35 505.05 Emp industrial care svcs: HR 535.50 Emp industrial care svcs: HR Emp industrial care svcs: HR Emp industrial care svcs: HR Emp industrial care svcs: HR 249.03 287.03 191.71 181.69 1,444.96 147042 08/04/2011 012204 HERITAGE FAMILY MINISTRIES TCSD Instructor Eamings 962.50 TCSD Instructor Eamings 1,312.50 2,275.00 147043 08/04/2011 003106 HERITAGE SECURITY Security officer svcs: City events 7/2-5 2,950.00 2,950.00 SERVICES 147044 08/04/2011 011872 HI HOPES IDENTITY Entertainment:Hi Hopes art fest 5/25 DISCOVERY 147045 08/04/2011 007792 HINTON, BEVERLY L. 147046 08/04/2011 003198 HOME DEPOT, THE TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings Misc supplies:OT Boardwalk:PW Misc supplies:OT Boardwalk:PW Misc supplies: OT Boardwalk Hardware supplies:var park sites 147047 08/04/2011 002701 HUB INT'L INSURANCE July special events premiums SERVCS INC 300.00 300.00 195.00 192.00 165.00 180.00 118.17 302.75 327.62 1,386.28 732.00 2,134.82 1,571.03 1,571.03 147048 08/04/2011 012046 HYDROPOINT DATA SYSTEMS, To prorate 46 controllers until 6/30/12 2,965.38 INC 1 yr subscrip:weather trak:TCSD 240.00 1 yr subscrip:ET Everywhere:TCSD 147049 08/04/2011 000194 IC MA RETIREMENT -PLAN ICMA Retirement Trust 457 Payment 303355 147050 08/04/2011 006914 INNOVATIVE DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS 84.00 3,289.38 5,598.27 5,598.27 June copier maint/usage:Library 1,108.82 June copier maint/usage:Citywide 5,762.46 credit billing adj:copier maint/usage -3,816.17 3,055.11 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 08/04/2011 4:28:08PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 147051 08/04/2011 003266 IRON MOUNTAIN OFFSITE June offsite media storage:Records 147052 08/04/2011 001186 IRWIN, JOHN TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings 147053 08/04/2011 012883 JACOB'S HOUSE INC Jacob's House Charity Payment 147054 08/04/2011 013200 JAROTH INC Aug pay phone:duck pond,libmry,CRC 147055 08/04/2011 001282 KNORR SYSTEMS INC Misc pool parts:CRC & TES 147056 08/04/2011 013660 L & L PRINTERS CARLSBAD, Printing svcs:note slips:Theater LLC 147057 08/04/2011 000945 L P S COMPUTER SERVICE Equip maint/repair: Plotter/printers GROUP 416.94 416.94 294.00 254.80 548.80 160.00 160.00 212.64 212.64 39.10 39.10 401.61 401.61 114.36 Equip maint/repairs: Plotter/printers 106.75 Equip maint/repairs: Plotter/printers 117.62 Equip maint/repairs: Plotter/printers 164.37 503.10 147058 08/04/2011 013717 LAA MUSIC, LLC Entertainment: hot summer nights 7/15 600.00 600.00 147059 08/04/2011 013718 LEE, RICHARD M. Entertainment:hot summer nights 7/22 500.00 500.00 147060 08/04/2011 010598 LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, June Geotech svc:Nicholas rd rehab 699.00 699.00 INC. 147061 08/04/2011 008965 LOWDER, BOB Entertain:hot summer nights 7/22 550.00 550.00 147062 08/04/2011 014228 LSK, LLC FY10-11 Harveston Tenant Improv 28,652.00 28,652.00 147063 08/04/2011 004141 MAINTEX INC Custodial supplies:var. parks 290.93 290.93 147064 08/04/2011 004307 MARINE BIOCHEMISTS Jul water maint srvcs:Harv/Duck Pond 3,900.00 3,900.00 147065 08/04/2011 011179 MC MILLIN REDHAWK LLC TCSD Instructor Eamings 175.00 TCSD Instructor Eamings 308.00 TCSD Instructor Eamings 560.00 TCSD Instructor Eamings 560.00 TCSD Instructor Eamings 735.00 TCSD Instructor Eamings 385.00 2,723.00 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 08/04/2011 4:28:08PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 147066 08/04/2011 003752 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY facility repair: Fire Stn 84 25.41 25.41 COMPANY 147067 08/04/2011 003076 MET LIFE INSURANCE MetLife Dental Insurance Payment 7,279.63 7,279.63 COMPANY 147068 08/04/2011 014047 MICHELI, ANDREW, J. Entertainment:smr concert series 8/11 1,000.00 1,000.00 147069 08/04/2011 012962 MILLER, MISTY TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings 1,053.50 168.00 1,221.50 147070 08/04/2011 013375 MYERS-RUSSO, ERICA TCSD Instructor Eamings 268.80 TCSD Instructor Eamings 168.00 TCSD Instructor Eamings 386.40 TCSD Instructor Eamings 168.00 TCSD Instructor Eamings 44.80 TCSD Instructor Eamings 33.60 1,069.60 147071 08/04/2011 002925 NAPA AUTO PARTS Misc parts & supplies:pw maint 392.54 392.54 147072 08/04/2011 008528 NICHOLS, MELBURG & JUN DSGN: OLD TOWN 3,390.52 3,390.52 ROSETTO INFRASTRUCTURE PH 1 147073 08/04/2011 014305 NOELL, LOUIS Entertainment:hot summer nights 7/15 700.00 700.00 147074 08/04/2011 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS Misc office supplies:pd mall office 211.11 DIV 147075 08/04/2011 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE Misc office supplies:pd old town office Misc office supplies:pd old town office Misc. office supplies:childrens museum Misc. office supplies:childrens museum Printing srvcs:city business cards City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW CIP City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW CIP City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW Maint City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW Maint City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW Maint City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW Maint City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW Maint City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW Maint City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW Maint 147076 08/04/2011 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Maint Svcs:Police CAP 147077 08/04/2011 002734 P V P COMMUNICATIONS INC Communication accessories:police 160.85 5.38 5.38 72.31 93.59 548.62 36.27 36.27 474.14 137.02 613.54 79.37 79.37 36.27 154.37 1,646.62 110.42 110.42 283.23 283.23 Page:7 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 08/04/2011 4:28:08PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 147078 08/04/2011 012833 PC MALL GOV, INC. 147079 08/04/2011 010320 PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES INC 147080 08/04/2011 000249 PETTY CASH 147081 08/04/2011 010338 POOL & ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS INC 147082 08/04/2011 005820 PRE -PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC 147083 08/04/2011 002072 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST-FEES 147084 08/04/2011 000271 RBF CONSULTING 147085 08/04/2011 014357 REDDIG, DONALD 147086 08/04/2011 004584 REGENCY LIGHTING 147087 08/04/2011 002110 RENTAL SERVICE CORPORATION 147088 08/04/2011 013759 RICE, KENNETH 147089 08/04/2011 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSHON 147090 08/04/2011 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEPT 147091 08/04/2011 009196 SACRAMENTO THEATRICAL LIGHTING 147092 08/04/2011 007582 SAFEGUARD DENTAL & VISION 147093 08/04/2011 008529 SHERIFFS CIVIL DIV - CENTRAL Description Amount Paid Check Total Misc supplies:info tech Police K-9 Food & Supplies Petty Cash Reimbursement Pool supplies & chemicals:Aquatics Prgm Pool supplies & chemicals:Aquatics Prgm PrePaid Legal Services Payment Inspection fees:Wnchstr Rd Prjt pw0615 JUN ENG SRVCS: I-15/SR-79 ULT. INTRCHG refund:sec dep:tournament Electrical supplies:library Electrical supplies:t. museum Equip rental & maint:pw maint Equip rental & maint:pw maint Entertainment: Hot Summer Nights 8/5 May 2011 legal services Jun 2011 legal services Jun 11 Jail Access Fee 5/5-6/1:law enforcement Jun booking fees: Police Misc lighting supplies: Theater SafeGuard Vision Plan Payment SUPPORT PAYMENT 242.45 49.36 927.35 41.71 43.89 324.85 115.30 15,501.34 500.00 376.58 64.13 31.55 104.58 600.00 177,573.30 141,898.82 16,992.45 1,468,764.60 4,607.40 3,321.16 732.44 242.45 49.36 927.35 85.60 324.85 115.30 15,501.34 500.00 440.71 136.13 600.00 319,472.12 1,490,364.45 3,321.16 732.44 368.30 368.30 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 08/04/2011 4:28:08PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 147094 08/04/2011 008529 SHERIFFS CIVIL DIV - CENTRAL 147095 08/04/2011 008529 SHERIFFS CIVIL DIV - CENTRAL 147096 08/04/2011 008529 SHERIFFS CIVIL DIV - CENTRAL 147097 08/04/2011 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC 147098 08/04/2011 000645 SMART & FINAL INC 147099 08/04/2011 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 147100 08/04/2011 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY Description Amount Paid Check Total SUPPORT PAYMENT 200.00 200.00 SUPPORT PAYMENT 100.00 100.00 SUPPORT PAYMENT 100.00 100.00 Jazz © the Merc 7/28 283.50 283.50 Misc supplies:tcsd special events 7/23 247.50 Misc supplies:FAM 8/1 151.97 399.47 July 2-30-520-4414:32781 Tem pkwy LS -3 719.00 July 2-29-953-8249:46497 Wolf crk PED 23.46 July 2-29-953-8082:31523 Wolf vly rd 27.95 July 2-29-458-7548:32000 rncho calif 262.83 July 2-31-936-3511:46488 Pechanga 47.31 July 2-29-657-2332:45538 Redwood 23.46 July 2-29-953-8447:31738 Wolf vly rd 23.46 July 2-30-220-8749:45850 N Wolf crk 541.21 July 2-00-397-5042:43200 Bus pk dr #1 1,797.34 July 2-25-393-4681:41951 Moraga rd 936.89 July 2-32-903-8293: Civic Center 22,760.91 July 2-31-404-6020:28771 OT front st 1,595.07 July 2-29-224-0173:Fire Stns 3,168.96 July 2-29-295-3510:32211 Wolfvly rd 1,722.20 July 2-31-536-3226:28690 Mercedes 1,783.03 July 2-00-397-5067:TCSD svc lev C 2,134.22 July 2-20-817-9929:28410 OT front st 32.31 July 101-525-1560-6:27415 Enterprise July 055-461-2483-4:40135 Village Rd July 181-383-8881-6:28314 Mercedes July 129-582-9784-3:43230 Bus pk dr July 091-085-1632-0:TES pool July 021-725-0775-4:Senior Center July 026-671-2909-8:Comm Theater July 091-024-9300-5:30875 rncho vista July 133-040-7373-0:Maint Fac July 101-525-0950-0:Comm Ctr July 129-535-4236-7:Civic Center July 196-025-0344-3:C. Museum 147101 08/04/2011 000293 STADIUM PIZZA INC Refreshments:summer day camp 7/7 79.08 36.06 17.98 75.94 1,382.20 72.23 29.68 370.06 24.87 22.23 544.85 1.07 37,599.61 2,656.25 476.22 476.22 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10 08/04/2011 4:28:08PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 147105 08/04/2011 007762 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY 147106 08/04/2011 012723 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY 147107 08/04/2011 007698 SWANK MOTIONS PICTURES, INC. 147108 08/04/2011 000305 TARGET BANK BUS CARD SRVCS 147109 08/04/2011 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 147110 08/04/2011 004260 TEMECULA STAMP & GRAPHICS 147111 08/04/2011 010493 TEMECULA TOWNE CENTER ASSOC LP 147112 08/04/2011 011736 TEMECULA TROPHY INC Description Amount Paid Check Total Mandatory Life Insurance Payment Voluntary Supp Life Insurance Payment Movie rentals:movies in park pgrm 7/29 Misc supplies:harveston center 9,072.60 9,072.60 740.80 740.80 396.00 396.00 25.50 Misc supplies:children's museum 80.16 Artist Hospitality: Theater Union Dues Payment Revision stamp: Fire Prev Aug lease payment:pd mall office Name plate: B. Cudey Tropies & awards:4th of July Parade 147113 08/04/2011 000306 TEMECULA VALLEY PIPE & Misc supplies:csd maint SUPPLY 147114 08/04/2011 011090 TEMECULA VALLEY Transportation srvcs: day camp 7/14 TRANSPORTATION 147115 08/04/2011 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE Aug high speed internet: 42081 Main St Aug high speed internet: Library 147116 08/04/2011 000325 UNITED WAY United Way Charities Payment 147117 08/04/2011 000854 URBAN LAND INSTITUTE ann'I mbrshp: R.John son 0004746050 147118 08/04/2011 004794 VALLEYWINDS COMMUNITY ENTERTAINMENT: HOT SUMMER NIGHTS 8/5 147119 08/04/2011 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC Janitorial supplies:civic center credit:janitorial supplies/civic center CLEANING SUPPLIES:CIVIC CNTR/CRC/L CLEANING SUPPLIES:CRC/THTR/FOC CLEANING SUPPLIES:MPSC 55.92 161.58 4,727.00 4,727.00 5.22 5.22 1,458.33 1,458.33 21.75 516.93 538.68 8.10 8.10 3,876.30 3,876.30 58.49 527.27 585.76 63.00 63.00 525.00 525.00 300.00 300.00 159.73 -159.73 96.21 775.72 191.69 1,063.62 Page:10 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 11 08/04/2011 4:28:08PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 147120 08/04/2011 003835 WEST COAST SAFETY SUPPLY Safety equipment:PW Maint CO. 272.61 272.61 Grand total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: 2,427,242.38 Pagel 1 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 12 08/04/2011 4:28:08PM CITY OF TEMECULA 139 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks. 2,427,242.38 Page:12 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 08/11/2011 11:56:10AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 147121 08/11/2011 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES July Stand By Fee: Police 1,248.00 (AFN) Aug Stand By Fee: Police July Phlebotomy svcs: CHP July Phlebotomy svcs: TE - Temecula July Phlebotomy svcs: Police 147122 08/11/2011 004431 AMERICAN PAYROLL 11/12 Mbrship: Jorgenson, Monica INSTITUTE INC 147123 08/11/2011 001323 ARROWHEAD WATER INC Drinking water: FOC Drinking water: CRC Drinking water: MPSC Drinking water: TP Library Drinking water: Theater Drinking water: C. Museum Drinking water: TV Museum Drinking water: TCC 147124 08/11/2011 004040 BIG FOOT GRAPHICS TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings 147125 08/11/2011 014331 BIG TEX TRAILER WORLD, INC. CERT emergency trailer: Citizen Corps 147126 08/11/2011 008605 BONTERRA CONSULTING 6/10-7/8 RRSP desilt basin:PW05-13 1,248.00 580.94 521.66 492.96 219.00 273.71 239.04 219.37 131.15 86.49 59.33 37.27 23.88 4,091.56 219.00 1,070.24 364.00 350.00 714.00 6,581.00 6,581.00 880.04 880.04 147127 08/11/2011 006908 C C & COMPANY INC hot summer nights 7/8, 15, 22, 29 1,100.00 hot summer nights 8/5, 12, 19, 26 1,100.00 Entertainment:face painting 7/21,28 500.00 Entertain:Lake skinner: face painting 500.00 Enteitainment:face painting 8/4 250.00 Entertainment: face painting 8/11 250.00 3,700.00 147128 08/11/2011 014370 CALAS, JIMMY refund:Little learners 2000.20 211.20 211.20 147129 08/11/2011 014372 CALIF MOUNTED Adv skills trng-tactics:S.Stapleton 100.00 100.00 147130 08/11/2011 004618 CALIF NARCOTIC OFFICERS CNOA Trng:Sgt Vance Stolte 9/26-30 365.00 365.00 ASSN 147131 08/11/2011 007980 CANDLE BOUTIQUE & GIFTS Spec event supplies: 9/11 Memorial 453.89 453.89 L LC Page:1 apChkLst 08/11/2011 11:56:10AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 2 Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 147132 08/11/2011 004971 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC 147133 08/11/2011 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DIST. 147134 08/11/2011 009117 DAUER, JULIE 147135 08/11/2011 013655 DAWSON, STEPHANIE 147136 08/11/2011 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELING INC (Continued) 147137 08/11/2011 014369 DUENAS, KEITH 147138 08/11/2011 002981 DYNA MED 147139 08/11/2011 000395 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP 147140 08/11/2011 011202 EMH SPORTS & FITNESS INSTITUTE 147141 08/11/2011 011922 FIRST AMERICAN CORELOGIC INC 147142 08/11/2011 009097 FULL COMPASS SYSTEMS Description July Copier lease: Civic Center Aug Copier lease: Civic Center July Copier lease: Library July Copier Lease: Fire Dept Elect supplies: C. Museum Elect supplies: Senior Center EE computer purchase prgm refund:sec dep:CRC Fuel for City vehicles: TCSD Fuel for City vehicles:PW Maint Fuel for City vehicles:Ping/Code Enf Fuel for City vehicles:PW Traffic Fuel for City vehicles:B&S Fuel for City vehicles:PW Indv/npdes/c Fuel for City vehicles:PW Indv/npdes Fuel for City vehicles: TCSD Fuel for City vehicles:Police Fuel for City vehicles: TCSD refund:sec dep:CRC Paramedic medical supplies:Aquatics Paramedic medical supplies:Aquatics 2011-12 EDC City mbrship TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings Web database subscrp:Code Enf Misc Supplies: Theater Stage Misc Supplies: Theater Stage Misc Supplies: Theater Stage Misc Supplies: Theater Stage Misc Supplies: Theater Stage Amount Paid Check Total 3,004.54 3,004.54 2,836.52 182.55 449.12 43.85 1,448.11 150.00 2,228.78 976.59 519.36 509.59 487.03 257.33 145.67 100.37 98.19 68.80 150.00 48.79 29.35 6,500.00 731.50 15.40 36.00 2,252.47 411.22 403.95 270.09 189.17 9,028.15 492.97 1,448.11 150.00 5,391.71 150.00 78.14 6,500.00 746.90 36.00 3,526.90 147143 08/11/2011 013552 GANDS PRODUCTIONS LLC sttlemnt:Country...Merc 8/6 785.25 785.25 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 08/11/2011 11:56:10AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 147144 08/11/2011 014234 GEARS 2 ROBOTS, LLC Description TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings 147145 08/11/2011 014368 GUDETTI, YOHAN refund:sec dep:MPSC Amount Paid Check Total 1,771 00 1,771.00 15.40 3,557.40 150.00 150.00 147146 08/11/2011 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC Hardware supplies: PW Maint 1,915.05 Hardware supplies: Parks & open spac 885.84 Hardware supplies: Sports pgrm 710.76 Hardware supplies:Fire 692.83 Hardware supplies: Civic Center 544.98 Hardware supplies: Aquatics 457.75 Hardware supplies: C. Museum 452.77 Hardware supplies: CRC 436.05 Hardware supplies: Civic Ctr Prkg 337.31 Hardware supplies: Theater 240.92 Hardware supplies: Library 150.07 Hardware supplies: Info Tech 34.32 Hardware supplies: Town Square 17.35 credit memo:Hardware supplies: B&S -7.57 6,868.43 147147 08/11/2011 003299 HAYES, BARNEY Entertainment:hot summer nights 7/29 400.00 400.00 147148 08/11/2011 011342 I A C ENGINEERING INC. Rel. Ret.:redhawk prk improv:PW06-06 10,000.00 Apr Redhawk park improv:PW06-06 1,600.00 11,600.00 147149 08/11/2011 001123 INDUSTRIAL DISTRIBUTION Maint supplies: PW Maint div 121.14 121.14 GROUP 147150 08/11/2011 014373 KENAVAN, TERRY reimb:keys for CAP Volunteer area:OT 77.76 77.76 147151 08/11/2011 004546 KING, JAMES N. ENTERTAINMENT: HOT SUMMER 1,250.00 1,250.00 NIGHTS 147152 08/11/2011 008965 LOWDER, BOB Entertainment:hot summer nights 8/12 550.00 550.00 147153 08/11/2011 014228 LSK, LLC Aug '11 Rent: Harveston Center 4,714.00 4,714.00 147154 08/11/2011 008716 MAGEE, BILL Performance - Hot Summer Nights 8/12 650.00 650.00 147155 08/11/2011 012580 MINUTEMAN PRESS Business cards:temecula police 108.27 108.27 147156 08/11/2011 013319 NEW TANGRAM LLC furniture & install: civic center 12,315.36 12,315.36 Page:3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 08/11/2011 11:56:10AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 147157 08/11/2011 014305 NOELL, LOUIS 147158 08/11/2011 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES 147159 08/11/2011 010167 ODYSSEY POWER CORPORATION Description Entertainment: Hot Summer Nights 8/12 Jul legal ads: PW/Planning/City Clerk Jul advertising:hot summer nights Equip maint srvc agreement:Civic Cntr Equip maint srvc agreement:library Equip maint sivc agreement:Theater Equip maint sivc agreement:FOC Equip maint srvc agreement:PD Mall S 147160 08/11/2011 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS Printing srvcs:city business cards DIV Misc office supplies: Fire Prev 147161 08/11/2011 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Maint Svcs:TCSD City Vehicle Maint Svcs:TCSD City Vehicle Maint Svcs:TCSD 147162 08/11/2011 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Maint Svcs:B&S Dept 147163 08/11/2011 001 171 ORIENTAL TRADING COMPANY Activities & rec supplies:TCSD INC 147164 08/11/2011 000249 PETTY CASH Petty Cash Reimbursement Amount Paid Check Total 700.00 700.00 1,671.84 1,209.60 10,731.00 2,881.44 6,734.00 1,450.00 1,265.88 984.00 21,164.88 143.09 18.08 161.17 152.89 70.28 36.59 259.76 36.27 36.27 654.36 654.36 680.19 680.19 147165 08/11/2011 010338 POOL & ELECTRICAL Pool supplies & chemicals:Aquatics Prgm 254.50 PRODUCTS INC Pool supplies & chemicals:Aquatics Pr, 233.97 488.47 147166 08/11/2011 012904 PRO ACTIVE FIRE DESIGN Jul plan check srvcs:fire Prev 4,315.30 4,315.30 147167 08/11/2011 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DISTRICT 147168 08/11/2011 000907 RANCHO TEMECULA CAR WASH 147169 08/11/2011 009725 RAZAVI, MANDIS 147170 08/11/2011 004584 REGENCY LIGHTING July var water meters:TCSD 53,154.74 July var water meters:TCSD 3,207.23 July var water meters:TCSD & PW 2,314.05 July Floating meter - com:PW 767.89 July var water meters:Fire Stns 742.12 July water meter-comm:28640 Pujol St 7.88 60,193.91 Jul veh. detailing srvcs:var depts 84.00 84.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 579.60 579.60 Electrical supplies:T.Museum 153.00 Electrical supplies:Library 21.66 174.66 Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 08/11/2011 11:56:10AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 147171 08/11/2011 003591 RENES COMMERCIAL Weed abatement:var channels 8,050.00 MANAGEMENT Weed/debris eradication:F.V. Pkwy 7,500.00 15,550.00 147172 08/11/2011 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS Extra duty patrol srvcs: 4th of July 16,223.14 16,223.14 DEPT 147173 08/11/2011 003544 ROBERT SHEA PERDUE REAL Property appraisal srvcs: RDA 2,400.00 2,400.00 ESTATE 147174 08/11/2011 014367 ROJAS, LOURDES refund:sec dep:TCC 400.00 400.00 147175 08/11/2011 014153 SHERRER, TERESA, L. Jun -Jul square dance caller:High Hopes 500.00 500.00 147176 08/11/2011 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC Jazz @ the Merc 8/4 388.50 388.50 147177 08/11/2011 009746 SIGNS BY TOMORROW Misc signage:var special events 924.23 Misc signage:var special events 80.04 1,004.27 147178 08/11/2011 000645 SMART & FINAL INC Misc supplies:mpsc 182.21 182.21 147179 08/11/2011 000537 SO CALIF EDISON JuIy2-02-351-5281: CRC 9,830.09 July 2-05-791-8807:31587 Tem pkwy L 9,589.14 July 2-27-805-3194:42051 Main St 7,380.36 July 2-20-798-3248:C. Museum 2,404.57 June 2-10-331-2153:28816 Pujol St 1,648.01 July 2-29-657-2563:42902 Butterfield 186.28 July 2-31-031-2590:28301 rncho cal LE 35.96 July 2-25-350-5119:45602 redhark pkw 23.26 July 2-30-066-2889:30051 rncho vista 21.26 Closing bill:2-20-817-9929:28410 OT 15.40 31,134.33 147180 08/11/2011 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST Jul pest control srvcs:citywide fac's 777.00 777.00 CONTROL INC 147181 08/11/2011 012652 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Aug gen usage:0141,0839,2593,9306 509.77 509.77 147182 08/11/2011 007698 SWANK MOTIONS PICTURES, Movie rentals:movies in park pgrm 8/5 371.00 371.00 INC. 147183 08/11/2011 000305 TARGET BANK BUS CARD Misc supplies: summer day camp 113.62 SRVCS 147184 08/11/2011 012265 TEMECULA ACE HARDWARE 0/0 Misc supplies: summer day camp Misc supplies:children's museum 64.37 58.48 236.47 Hardware supplies: Sta 92 6.45 6.45 Page:5 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 08/11/2011 11:56:10AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 147185 08/11/2011 003677 TEMECULA MOTORSPORTS Veh repair & maint:police 492.76 492.76 LLC 147186 08/11/2011 010046 TEMECULA VALLEY Jun '11 Bus. Imply District Asmnts 104,946.13 104,946.13 CONVENTION & 147187 08/11/2011 007340 TEMECULA VALLEY FIRE Fire Extinguisher Maint Svc:Fire 38.90 38.90 EQUIP. CO 147188 08/11/2011 003031 TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE Misc supplies:pw traffic 273.47 273.47 INC 147189 08/11/2011 012725 TRZOP, NICHELLE TCSD Instructor Earnings 2,099.21 TCSD Instructor Earnings 1,478.40 TCSD Instructor Earnings 1,478.40 5,056.01 147190 08/11/2011 007766 UNDERGROUND SERVICE Jul undrgrnd svcs alert tickets:PW 223.50 223.50 ALERT 147191 08/11/2011 004261 VERIZON Aug xxx-7530 general usage: Library July xxx-3979 gen usage:PD mall fax li Aug xxx-0590 gen usage:TCC alarm Aug xxx-5180 gen usage:79S Irrig ctr Aug xxx-3910 gen usage:lst St Irrig July xxx-0049 gen usage:Comerchero, 147192 08/11/2011 004789 VERIZON ONLINE Aug SW DSL:PD:Jones, C. 147193 08/11/2011 013647 VICAR OPERATING, INC. Veterinary srvcs:police K-9 unit Veterinary srvcs:police K-9 unit Veterinary srvcs:police K-9 unit 147194 08/11/2011 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC Vacuum: Civic Center 488.34 84.60 82.35 40.48 40.44 36.93 39.95 753.66 60.60 25.00 773.14 39.95 839.26 560.30 560.30 Grand total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: 364, 382.99 Page:6 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 08/11/2011 11:56:10AM CITY OF TEMECULA 74 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 364,382.99 Page:7 Item No. 4 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Andre O'Harra, Chief of Police DATE: August 23, 2011 SUBJECT: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant PREPARED BY: Heidi Schrader, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Application for a proposed amount of $14,639. BACKGROUND: The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG) is awarded by Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). This grant is generally awarded annually and allows local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime. Requirements for submission of the JAG grant proposal to the BJA include: 1. 30 day review period by the community with an opportunity to comment. 2. Approval of the application by the City Council. A notice was published in the local papers on Tuesday July 19th outlining the grant application. The notice invited the public to review a copy of the grant application posted at the Finance public information counter at City Hall and to submit written comments or to make verbal comments in person on the date of action. The 2011 JAG proposal requests funds for the Temecula Police Department to purchase law enforcement technology in order to streamline traffic enforcement operations. It is anticipated that purchase of this equipment will increase our Officers' traffic enforcement efforts. The JAG grant is a non-competitive grant with funds allocated for the City of Temecula based on crime statistics and population. Submission of the grant package is a requirement for funding the grant. It is anticipated that the grant will be awarded and funds will be made available by September 2011. FISCAL IMPACT: Appropriation of funds in the amount of $14,639 for the grant will be made upon notification of the final award amount for the programs noted above at midyear. ATTACHMENTS: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant. Program Narrative Proposal to Utilize Technology to Streamline Temecula Police Department Traffic Officer Processes Program Challenges As one of the fastest-growing cities in Riverside County, Temecula faces a significant challenge to keep pace with rapid population growth. Between 1990 and 2011, Temecula grew in population from 27,099 to 101,098, a 273% growth rate. As new homes were built and many new businesses located within the City, traffic congestion and associated traffic collisions have become a major concern. In addition, as of 2000, 42.6% of Temecula's households were reported to have children under the age of 18. As these children mature and reach driving age we encounter additional traffic challenges such as speed related accidents associated with a lack of experience. The City of Temecula has maintained a proactive traffic enforcement program. Our traffic enforcement division is comprised of twelve motorcycle Officers which includes one Sergeant, and five automobile Officers. As the City continues to grow, however, we must continue work smarter to maintain the quality of life our residents have come to expect. Utilizing JAG funds from a previous year as well as a grant from the Office of Traffic Safety, we have outfitted our traffic division with handheld citation devices which greatly reduce the time it takes to process citations and gather statistics. With rapid growth and limited resources, it is a constant challenge for our Officers to keep up with the resulting traffic issues. The City of Temecula is therefore requesting funds to purchase proven law enforcement technology which will allow our Officers to work smarter and safer, while increasing their ability to document evidence. Program Solutions Electronic Data Assistants As technology has advanced, the ability to receive information "live" from Police and DMV databases is now possible. Through the use of handheld computers utilizing cellular and wireless transmission, called Electronic Data Assistants, Motorcycle Officers can receive information in real time that was previously only available in patrol cars through a Mobile Data Computer (MDC). As technology has evolved, the current handheld computers utilized by the traffic team to write citations, DUI reports and traffic collision reports has been wearing out due to extensive daily use. Over 12,000 citations are written by our traffic team each year. As the City replaces these handheld systems, we plan to purchase the Electronic Data Assistants. This will allow Motorcycle Officers to continue to utilize the same software system to write citations, while also being able to query the DMV database to obtain the registration and driver information of a vehicle from their handheld unit. Current practice is for the Officer to query dispatch over his radio, which is a burden on operators and radio air time. Funds from this year's JAG allocation will be used to purchase the first six systems for use by the motorcycle team. City of Temecula Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Proposal Program Narrative Page 2 of 6 Budget Narrative E. Supplies — List items by type (office supplies, postage, training materials, copying paper and expendable equipment items costing less than $5,000, such as books, hand held tape recorders) and show the basis for computation. (Note: Organization's own capitalization policy may be used for items costing less than $5,000). Generally, supplies include any materials that are expendable or consumed during the course of the project. Purpose Area — Law Enforcement Programs This project will purchase 6 Electronic Data Assistants which will be used by Motorcycle Officers to write and print traffic citations, DUI reports and Traffic Collision reports in the field. The Assistants will also allow the Officers to download information from Police and DMV databases as well, ensuring a more rapid and informed response in the field. Supply Items Computation Cost Electronic Data Assistants ($2670.00/each x 6) $16,022.00 TOTAL $16,022.00 City of Temecula Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Proposal Program Narrative Page 3 of 6 Budget Summary - When you have completed the budget worksheet, transfer the totals for each category to the spaces below. Compute the total direct costs and the total project costs. Indicate the amount of Federal requested and the amount of non -Federal funds that will support the project. Budget Category Amount A. Personnel $0 B. Fringe Benefits $0 C. Travel $0 D. Equipment $0 E. Supplies $16,022 F. Construction $0 G. Consultants/Contracts $0 H. Other $0 Total Direct Costs $16,022 I. Indirect Costs $0 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $16,022 Federal Request $14,639 Non -Federal Amount $1,383 City of Temecula Edward Byrne Ivlemorial Justice Assistance Grant Proposal Program Narrative Page 4 of 6 Review Narrative On Friday, 7/22/11 the following notice will be published in the local media, on the City of Temecula. website at City Hall, and at two additional locations within City limits. 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. Case No: Grant Application — Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Applicant: City of Temecula Police Department Location: Citywide Proposal: The City of Temecula Police Department is applying for grant funds in order to utilize technology to streamline Temecula Police Department Traffic Enforcement processes. Environmental Action: N/A 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 for judicial 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 proposed project application may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula Civic Center, Finance 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 Heidi Schrader, City of Temecula Finance Department, (951) 693-3923. PLACE OF HEARING DATE OF HEARING TIME OF HEARING City Council Chambers 41000 Main Street Temecula, California August 23, 2011 7:00 PM City of Temecula Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Proposal Program Narrative Page 5 of 6 On the date of 8/23/11, the following agenda report will be sent to the Temecula City Council for consent and approval by the local governing body. TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Andre O'Harra, Chief of Police DATE: August 23, 2011 SUBJECT: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant PREPARED BY: Heidi Schrader, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Application for a proposed amount of $14,639. BACKGROUND: The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG) is awarded by Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). This grant is generally awarded annually and allows local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime. Requirements for submission of the JAG grant proposal to the BJA include: 1. 30 day review period by the community with an opportunity to comment. 2. Approval of the application by the City Council. A notice was published in the local papers on Tuesday July 19th outlining the grant application. The notice invited the public to review a copy of the grant application posted at the Finance public information counter at City Hall and to submit written comments or to make verbal comments in person on the date of action. The 2011 JAG proposal requests funds for the Temecula Police Department to purchase law enforcement technology in order to streamline traffic enforcement operations. It is anticipated that purchase of this equipment will increase our Officers' traffic enforcement efforts. The JAG grant is a non-competitive grant with funds allocated for the City of Temecula based on crime statistics and population. Submission of the grant package is a requirement for funding the grant. It is anticipated that the grant will be awarded and funds will be made available by September 2011. FISCAL IMPACT: Appropriation of funds in the amount of $14,639 for the grant will be made upon notification of the final award amount for the programs noted above at midyear. ATTACHMENTS: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant. City of Temecula Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Proposal Program Narrative Page 6 of 6 Abstract Applicant Name: City of Temecula Project Title: Proposal to Utilize Technology to Streamline Temecula Police Department Processes Project Goals: 1. To improve Officer and motorist safety and reduce traffic collisions through the use of Electronic Data Assistants. Strategies to Be Used: This proposal identifies equipment to be used by the City of Temecula Traffic Bureau in order for them to work more efficiently and safely. This project will purchase 6 Electronic Data Assistants which will be used by Motorcycle Officers to write and print traffic citations, DUI reports and Traffic Collision reports in the field. The Assistants will also allow the Officers to download information from Police and DMV databases as well, ensuring a more rapid and informed response in the field. Item No. 5 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: August 23, 2011 SUBJECT: All -Way Stop Control - Old Town Front Street at Third Street and Mercedes Street at Sixth Street PREPARED BY: Jerry Gonzalez, Associate Engineer - Traffic RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING ALL -WAY STOP CONTROLS AT THE INTERSECTION OF OLD TOWN FRONT STREET AT THIRD STREET AND MERCEDES STREET AT SIXTH STREET BACKGROUND: A request was received to consider the feasibility of installing multi -way stop signs on Old Town Front Street at Third Street, Fourth Street, and Fifth Street, and Mercedes Street at Sixth Street, to provide right-of-way control and enhance pedestrian crossing. The California MUTCD's Multi -Way Stop warrant criteria was used to evaluate the three (3) intersections along Old Town Front Street. The analysis performed found that existing volumes are lower than the applicable criteria at all locations and multi -way stop signs would not be justified. However, the California MUTCD does provide the flexibility to consider multi -way stop signs at locations where a combination of 80% of the minimum values are satisfied and where there is a need to control left -turn conflicts and conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. Based on these circumstances Staff found that the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Third Street satisfies the minimum criteria and an all -way stop control is justified. Since Mercedes Street functions as a commercial/residential collector street and it does not appear on the City's Circulation Plan, the Multi -Way Stop Sign Installation Policy for Residential Streets warrant criteria was used to determine if conditions justified the need for all -way stop controls at the intersection of Mercedes Street and Sixth Street. Although the analysis indicates that the existing traffic volumes are lower than the required minimum criteria, an all -way stop control is justified based limited visibility, which falls below acceptable standards for the posted speed limit, and there is a need to control conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles at locations that generate high pedestrian volumes, such as the Farmers Market and the Mary Phillips Senior Center. The Old Town Specific Plan identifies a stop control on Old Town Front Street at Second Street to enhance pedestrian crossing and improve vehicular circulation between Mercedes Street and Old Town Front Street. The installation of an all -way stop control at Third Street maintains the integrity of the specific plan while minimizing impacts to the traffic signal operation at Santiago Road/First Street. The all -way stop control also provides an additional controlled crossing on Old Town Front Street for pedestrians and vehicles utilizing the parking structure. Staff presented the results of the evaluation to the Old Town Local Review Board and RDA/Old Town Steering Committee for their consideration. Both committees concurred with the recommendation to establish Multi -Way Stop signs at the two locations. At their meeting of July 28, 2011, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission considered the request and approved (5-0) the staff recommendation to establish an All -Way Stop Control at the intersection of Old Town Front Street at Third Street and Mercedes Street at Sixth Street. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available in the Traffic Division's Fiscal Year 2011-2012 operating budget to install signs and associated pavement markings. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 11- 2. Exhibit "A" — Location Map 3. Exhibit "B" — Public/Traffic Safety Commission Agenda Report — July 28, 2011 RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING ALL -WAY STOP CONTROLS AT THE INTERSECTION OF OLD TOWN FRONT STREET AT THIRD STREET AND MERCEDES STREET AT SIXTH STREET THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council has considered the facts justifying the need for stop signs proposed for the locations described in this Resolution. A. The City Council hereby finds and determines that installation of stop signs pursuant to this Resolution will enhance the public health, safety, and general welfare at this location, and B. The City Council hereby finds the proposed stop signs will not create any adverse conditions in this area. Section 2. Pursuant to Section 10.12.100 of the Temecula Municipal Code, the following All -Way Stop intersections are hereby established in the City of Temecula. Old Town Front Street at Third Street Mercedes Street at Sixth Street A. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 23rd day of August, 2011. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 11- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk AGENDA REPORT TO: Public/Traffic Safety Commission FROM: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: July 28, 2011 SUBJECT: Item 2 Multi -Way Stop Signs — Various Locations on Old Town Front Street and Mercedes Street Prepared By: Jerry Gonzalez, Associate Engineer — Traffic RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission: 1. Recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution establishing Multi -Way Stop signs at the intersection of Old Town Front Street at Third Street, and Mercedes Street at Sixth Street; and 2. Direct Staff to maintain the present level of control on Old Town Front Street at Fourth Street and Fifth Street. BACKGROUND: A request was received to consider the feasibility of installing multi -way stop signs at three (3) intersections on Old Town Front Street and the Mercedes Street at Sixth Street intersection. The public has been notified of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission's consideration of this issue through the agenda notification process and by mail. Old Town Front Street is designated as a forty (40) foot wide Collector roadway on the City's Circulation Plan. Old Town Front Street is striped for one travel lane in each direction with parking on both sides of the roadway. Old Town Front Street carries 14,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) south of Rancho California Road, 9,700 ADT south of Main Street, and 9,100 ADT north of Temecula Parkway. The speed limit is posted at 25 MPH on Old Town Front Street between Rancho California Road and Santiago Road/First Street and 40 MPH between Santiago Road/First Street and Temecula Parkway. Mercedes Street is a forty (40) foot wide local roadway, which functions as a collector roadway by providing access to the arterial roadway network for commercial and residential units. Mercedes Street is striped for one travel lane in each direction with parking on both sides of the roadway. Mercedes Street carries 2,100 ADT. The speed limit is posted at 25 MPH on Mercedes Street. Third Street is a forty (40) foot wide local roadway, which provides access to Old Town Front Street and Mercedes Street for numerous commercial units and the Old Town Garage parking 1 structure. Third Street provides one travel lane in each direction with parking on both sides of the street. Third Street carries 600 ADT. The Business District prima facie speed limit is 25 MPH on Third Street. Fourth Street is a forty (40) foot wide local roadway, which provides access to Old Town Front Street and Mercedes Street for commercial and residential units. Fourth Street provides one travel lane in each direction with parking on both sides of the street. Fourth Street carries 470 ADT. The Business District prima facie speed limit is 25 MPH on Fourth Street. Fifth Street is a forty (40) foot wide local roadway, which provides access to Old Town Front Street and Mercedes Street for commercial and residential units. Fifth Street provides one travel lane in each direction with parking on both sides of the street. Fifth Street carries 530 ADT. The Business District prima facie speed limit is 25 MPH on Fifth Street. Sixth Street is a forty (40) foot wide local roadway, which provides access to Old Town Front Street and Mercedes Street for numerous commercial and residential units. Sixth Street provides one travel lane in each direction with parking on both sides of the street. Sixth Street carries 590 ADT. The Business District prima facie speed limit is 25 MPH on Fourth Street. In April 2011, a review of conditions was performed on Old Town Front Street and Mercedes Street at the four (4) intersections which included an evaluation of sight distance, accident history and multi -way stop warrant analysis. The sight distance evaluation revealed the following: • Old Town Front Street at Third Street, Fourth Street and Fifth Street The evaluation determined the visibility at the three (3) intersections on Old Town Front Street is obstructed by on -street parking and does not satisfy the minimum sight distance requirements for prevailing speeds. The sight distance improves to acceptable standards when motorists "edge -out" beyond the limit line before entering Old Town Front Street. An unobstructed sight distance of approximately 155 feet is required for the posted speed limit of 25 MPH on Old Town Front Street. • Mercedes Street at Sixth Street The evaluation determined the visibility looking north and south from the west leg of Sixth Street is obstructed by on -street parking, vegetation, and the horizontal alignment of the north leg of Mercedes Street. The evaluation determined the sight distance at this intersection is approximately 80 feet looking north and 75 feet looking south from Sixth Street. The evaluation further revealed that the visibility looking north from the east leg is unobstructed and exceeds the minimum sight distance required for prevailing speeds. However, looking south, from the east leg, the visibility is obstructed by on -street parking, vegetation and a block wall. The sight distance at the obstructed locations does not improve when motorists "edge -out" beyond the limit line. An unobstructed sight distance of approximately 155 feet is required for the posted speed limit of 25 MPH on Mercedes Street. A review of the accident history for the twelve (12) month period from May 1, 2010 to April 30, 2011, indicates there was only one reported collision. The collision occurred at the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Third Street. This favorable record can be attributed to the low vehicular travel speeds and motorists exercising due care when entering each intersection. The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (California MUTCD) indicates that a Multi -Way Stop installation may be useful at locations where the volume of traffic on intersecting roads is approximately equal and/or where a combination of high speed, restricted sight 2 distance and an accident history indicates that assignment of right-of-way is necessary. There are four (4) criteria that the MUTCD has established for the evaluation of Multi -Way Stop signs. These criteria are as follows: A. Where traffic signal controls are justified, the multi -way stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal. B. An accident problem, as indicated by five (5) or more reported accidents in a twelve (12) month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi -way stop installation. Such accidents include right and left -turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. C. Minimum Volumes 1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any eight (8) hours of an average day, and 2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same eight (8) hours, with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the maximum hour, but 3. If the 85 -percentile approach speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 miles per hour, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the above values. D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values, Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition. Other criteria that may be considered when evaluating the need for multi -way stops include: E. The need to control left -turn conflicts; F. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes; G. Locations where a motorist, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to reasonably safely negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and H. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector streets of similar design and operating characteristics where multi -way stop controls would improve the traffic operational characteristics of the intersection. The Multi -Way Stop warrant criteria shown above, was used to evaluate the three (3) intersections along Old Town Front Street. The analysis performed found that existing volumes are lower than the applicable criteria and multi -way stop signs would not be justified. However, criteria D of the MUTCD provides the flexibility to consider multi -way stop signs at locations where a combination of 80% of the minimum values are satisfied and where there is a need to control left -turn conflicts and conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. Based on these special circumstances Staff found that the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Third Street satisfies the minimum criteria and there is a need to provide multi -way stop controls at this intersection. More importantly, the Old Town Specific Plan identifies a stop control along the Old Town Front Street corridor between Santiago Road and Main Street to enhance pedestrian crossing and improve vehicular circulation between Mercedes Street and Old Town Front Street. The specific plan identifies Second Street as a potential location for stop controls. However, the close 3 proximity of Second Street to the signalized intersection of Santiago Road/First Street could affect the signal's operation. It is Staff's opinion that installing stop controls at Third Street maintains the integrity of the specific plan while minimizing impacts to the signalized intersection. 4 Since Mercedes Street functions as a commercial/residential collector street and it does riot appear on the City's Circulation Plan, the Multi -Way Stop Sign Installation Policy for Residential Streets warrant criteria was used to evaluate the need for multi -way stop signs at the intersection of Mercedes Street and Sixth Street. The warrants allow for the installation of multi - way stop signs when the following conditions are satisfied: 1. Minimum Traffic Volumes a) The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches is equal to or greater than three -hundred (300) vehicles per hour for any eight (8) hours of an average day and b) The combined vehicular volume and pedestrian volume from the minor street is equal to or greater than one -hundred (100) per hour for the same eight (8) hours. 2. Collision History a) Three (3) or more reported collisions within a twelve (12) month period of a type susceptible to correction by a multi -way stop installation. Such accidents include right and left -turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. 3. Roadway Characteristics a) The traffic volume on the uncontrolled street exceeds two thousand (2,000) vehicles per day, b) The intersection has four (4) legs, with the streets extending 600 feet or more away from the intersection on at least three (3) of the legs; c) The vehicular volumes on both streets are nearly equal to a forty/sixty percent (40/60%) split, and d) Both streets are 44 feet wide or narrower. WARRANTS 1, 2, and 3 MUST BE SATISFIED Other criteria that may be considered when evaluating the need for multi -way stop signs include: 4. Visibility a) The intersections sight distance is less than: • 155 feet for 25 MPH • 200 feet for 30 MPH • 250 feet for 35 MPH 5. The need to control left -turn conflicts. 6. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes such as schools, parks and activity centers. 7. The roadways and intersection appear on a Suggested Route to School plan. 8. There are no traffic signal or all -way stop controls located within 600 feet of the intersection. 9. The installation of multi -way stop signs is compatible with overall traffic circulation needs for the residential area. The Multi -Way Stop warrant analysis performed indicates that Warrants 1 and 2 are riot satisfied but all aspects of the Roadway Characteristics warrant are satisfied. Since all three combined warrants are not satisfied, multi -way stop signs would riot be justified. However, the Optional warrant criteria does provide the flexibility to consider multi -way stop signs at locations where the intersection sight distance falls below acceptable standards for the posted speed limit and where there is a need to control conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles at locations that 5 generate high pedestrian volumes. Based on these special circumstances, it is Staff's opinion that there is a compelling need to provide stop controls at this intersection. 6 Based on the results of both multi -way stop warrant analyses, staff recommends the Commission approve a recommendation that the City Council adopt a resolution establishing Multi -Way Stop signs at the intersection of Old Town Front Street at Third Street and Mercedes Street at Sixth Street, and direct staff to maintain the present level of control on Old Town Front Street at Fourth Street and Fifth Street. Staff presented the results of the evaluation to the Old Town Local Review Board and RDA/Old Town Steering Committee for their consideration. Both committees concurred with the recommendation to establish Multi -Way Stop signs at the two locations. FISCAL IMPACT: Minor cost associated with relocating and installing signs and associated pavement markings. Adequate funds are available in the Traffic Division operating budget. Attachment: 1. Exhibit "A" — Location Map 2. Exhibit "B" — Multi -Way Stop Warrants EXHIBIT "A" LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT "B" MULTI -WAY STOP WARRANTS rnet.I IYntr "TEMECULA — 'M1T.s4sw.k r„mwu.. 0 450 900 ft. Map center: 6287931, 2124397 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for general reference only. Date 'ayers that accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION. Legend ® City ,�. Streets Parcels Aerial 2010 Scale: 1:8,094 appear on this map rnay or may not be Item No. 6 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: August 23, 2011 SUBJECT: Approval of the Second Amendment to the Professional Engineering Services Agreement with Hall & Foreman, Inc. for the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect, Project No. PW08-04 PREPARED BY: Avlin Odviar, Senior Engineer — CIP Kendra Hannah-Meistrell, Associate Engineer — CIP RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Second Amendment to the Professional Engineering Services Agreement with Hall & Forman, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $93,250.00 for additional services necessary to complete the construction plans, specifications, and estimate for the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect, Project No. PW08-04, and to extend the term of the Agreement through June 30, 2012. BACKGROUND: The Santa Gertrudis Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect Project will extend the existing Class I Bike Lane/Multipurpose Trail within Santa Gertrudis Creek from Ynez Road to Diaz Road, thereby closing a 5,500' gap in the City's bike/trail system. In December 2005, the Public Works Department applied for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) grant funds to perform planning and preliminary engineering of the Santa Gertrudis Creek Bicycle/Trail Extension and Interconnect Project. On July 31, 2006, the City's application was approved in the amount of $395,000 with a City contribution of $75,000 (15.96%). On September 12, 2006, the City Council adopted resolution no. 06-79 entitled, "Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula approving the Local Agency -State Agreement for the 2006/2007 Bicycle Transportation Account project known as the Santa Gertrudis Creek Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect." On November 25, 2008, the City Council approved a Professional Engineering Services Agreement with Hall & Foreman, Inc. for an alignment study and design for the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect, Project No. PW08-04, in the amount of $271,551.50. The agreement, as amended, expired on June 30, 2011. The Second Amendment includes additional consultant services to provide an impact evaluation on the Ynez Road and Jefferson Avenue bridge structures at the trail under crossings, design retaining walls under the 1-15 bridge structures at the trail under crossings, coordinate the design of the retaining walls with Caltrans, and incorporate the retaining wall design in the plans, specifications and estimate. It also extends the term of the agreement through June 30, 2012. FISCAL IMPACT: The Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect, Project No. PW08-04, is a Capital Improvement Project funded with a Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) grant, Assembly Bill 2766 funds and Capital Project Reserves. Adequate funds are available in the project account to cover the amount of the Second Amendment. The Bicyle Transportation Account grant will cover $78,367.30 (84.04%) of the Second Amendment amount. The total Agreement amount will be $364,801.50, which includes the Agreement amount of $271,551.50 and the Second Amendment amount of $93,250.00. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Second Amendment 2. Location Map 3. Project Description SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND HALL & FOREMAN, INC. SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE TRAIL EXTENSION AND INTERCONNECT, PW08-04 THIS SECOND AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of August 23, 2011 by and between the City of Temecula , a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Hall & Foreman, Inc., a Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes: a. On November 25, 2008, the City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Professional Engineering Services, Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect, PW08-04", in the amount of $246,865.00, plus contingency in the amount of $24,686.50. b. On August 24, 2010, the City and Consultant entered into the First Amendment to that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Professional Engineering Services, Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect, PW08- 04," to extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2011, as well as, revise the Notices section to notify Consultant for the Temecula City Hall address change effective date, and amend the Agreement. c. The parties now desire to add scope of work, extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2012, increase the payment in the amount of $93,250.00, and to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. follows: 2. Section 1 of the Agreement entitled "TERM" is hereby amended to read as "This Agreement shall remain and continue in effect until tasks herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2012 unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 3. Section 5 of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "a" is hereby amended to read as follows: The City agrees to pay Consultant 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 Second Amendment amount shall not exceed Ninety Three Thousand, Two Hundred Fifty Dollars and No Cents ($93,250.00), for additional consultant services to provide an impact evaluation on the Ynez Road and Jefferson Avenue bridge structures at the trail under crossings, design retaining walls under the 1-15 bridge structures at the trail under crossings, coordinate the design of the retaining walls with Caltrans, and incorporate the retaining wall design in the plans, specifications and estimate for a total 1 Agreement amount of Three Hundred Forty Thousand One Hundred Fifteen Dollars and No Cents ($340,115.00), plus Contingency in the amount of Twenty Four Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Six Dollars and Fifty Cents ($24,686.50), for a total of Three Hundred Sixty Four Thousand Eight Hundred One Dollars and Fifty Cents ($364,801.50). 4. Exhibit A and B to the Agreement is hereby amended by adding thereto the items set forth on Attachment "A" to this Amendment, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 5. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA HALL & FOREMAN, INC. (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Ron Roberts, Mayor Anthony J. Terich, P.E., Division President / Principal ATTEST: By: By: Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk Jon E. Bourgeois, P.E., Executive Vice President / Principal APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Hall & Foreman, Inc. Gavin Powell 41951 Remington Avenue, Suite 130 Temecula, CA 92590-2553 951-294-9346 951-294-9301 fax GPowell@hfinc.com 3 SM DInitials Date: ATTACHMENT A Attached hereto and incorporated herein is the additional scope of work and associated cost as provided by the Consultant. 4 To: HALL & FOREMAN, INC. 41951 Remington Avenue, Suite 130 Temecula, CA 92590 (951) 294-9300 ADDITIONAL SERVICES AUTHORIZATION (ASA) NO. 001 City of Temecula Department of Public Works 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Exhibit A I IPI Project Code: TT.090085.0001 City Project Code: PW08-04 ASA Description: Wall Design and Bridge Impact Analysis Attn: Kendra Hannah-Meistrell Date: August 0], 201 I Project: Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect, PW'08-04 Wall Design and Bridge Impact Analysis Upon your written authorization (below), Hall & Foreman, Inc. (HPI), and our team of sub - consultants will provide the following specified "Additional Services". Additional Sentices: Unless otherwise noted, the tasks identified below are specific to the pedestrian/bicycle trail locations that cross beneath the 1-15 Freeway. This includes the on and off ramps, southbound, and northbound travel ways. Phasing of the project is not anticipated, nor are provisions for phasing included in these scope of services. Analysis of existing bridge structures during the "exposed" condition; when the surrounding soils are removed from the bridge foundations and piles during construction, is also not anticipated, nor included in these scope of services. TASK 1: BIKE TRAIL IMPACT EVALUATION ON JEFFERSON AVENUE AND YNEZ ROAD BRIDGE STRUCTURES Review the vertical and horizontal alignments of the bike trail against the as -built plans and all other available documents for the Jefferson Avenue and Ynez Road bridge structures. Evaluate the impact of the proposed trail on the structural integrity of the affected abutments. Write a letter report describing findings and any recommendations as a result of this evaluation. The scope of this evaluation does not include preparation of plans and calculations for any structures should they he required for either or both bridge structures at these locations. 15090085 IlniiZCon 090095 - ASA 001 - revic; d 0801 11.doe TASK 2: TYPE SELECTION REPORT Prepare a general plan and type selection report of the tie -back wall and conventional retaining wall structures proposed for the Project, for review and approval by Caltrans. Because a tie -back wall and not another type of earth retaining system will clearly be required for the Project, it is anticipated that a type selection meeting with Caltrans in Sacramento will not be required to be conducted for the Project, and is therefore not included in these scope of services. "TASK 3: SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL TII;-BACK WALL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT Prepare the necessary geotechnical calculations and analysis necessary to support the structural design of the proposed tie -back walls for the Project. A supplement to the Geotechnical Report titled "Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail from Ynez Road to Diaz Road, Temecula. California", dated March 3, 2010, will be prepared summarizing the geotechnical recommendations for the tie -back wall designs. 'TASK 4: TIh-BACK WALL AND RETAINING WALL DESIGN STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS Prepare tie -back wall and conventional retaining wall structural calculations for the Project and provide four copies of the same to the City. Structural calculations will be prepared, sealed and signed by a licensed civil or structural engineer for submittal to Caltrans. TASK 5: TIE -BACK WALL AND RETAINING WALL- STRUCTURAL PLANS Prepare tie -back wa11 and conventional retaining wall structural plans coordinated with the civil plans prepared for the Project. The tie -back wall plans will be prepared in AutoCAD platform, in accordance with Caltrans plan format criteria. Five sets of prints will be provided, signed and sealed by a licensed structural engineer, for submittal to Caltrans. It is anticipated the following plan sheets will be required and provided as they relate to the tie -back and conventional retaining wall designs: 1. General Plan 2. Index to Plans & General Notes 3. Foundation Plan No. 1 4. Foundation Plan No. 2 5. Tie -back Wall Details No. 1 6. Tie -back Wall Details No. 2 7. Tie -back Wall Details No. 3 8. Retaining Wall Profile 9. Retaining Wall Details 10. Log of Test Borings 1 (to be provided by Geotechnical Engineer) lAdmir,:Con rao>:090085 - ASA 001 -mascd 080111 doe 11. Log of Test Borings 2 (to he provided by Geotechnical Engineer) In addition to preparing the above plans, Caltrans Standard Plans will be incorporated by reference for structural excavation and backfill limits, cable railing, drainage details. etc. TASK 6: TIE -BACK WALL AND RETAINING WALL INDEPENDENT CHECK CALCULATIONS Prepare bridge independent check structural calculations required by Caltrans for the Project and provide fbur copies of the same to the City. Independent check structural calculations will be prepared, sealed and signed by a licensed civil or structural engineer for submittal to Caltrans. TASK 7: TIE -BACK WALL AND RETAINING WALL. MATERIAL QUANTITY SURVEY AND MARGINAL. ESTIMATE Prepare tie -back wall and retaining wall material quantity calculations and marginal engineer's estimate for the Project. Independent check tie -back wall and retaining wall material quantity calculations are not expected to be required for the Project and are not included with these scope of services. TASK 8: TIE -BACK WALL STRUCTURAL SPECIFICATIONS Prepare tie -back wall and retaining wall Engineering Specifications in Caltrans format, for incorporation into the Projects overall specifications and special provisions. 'TASK 9: AGENCY REVIEW Attend one local meeting with Caltrans and respond to Caltrans and city review comments related to the structural design of the tie -back and conventional retaining walls. TASK 10: COORDINATION MEETINGS / CALTRANS PROCESSING Attend coordination meetings during the development of the Project, with the City, Caltrans, and other consultants. One kick-off meeting and three additional meetings with the City, Caltrans, or other consultants are budgeted under this task. Additional coordination meetings may be performed as requested as an Additional Service. This task also includes the additional Caltrans processing anticipated to obtain approval of the additional designs presented as part of the tie -back wall and retaining wall designs. .1,'090085 )vd li (_ S . ASA 00i - revised 080111.dou Exhibit B Associated Fee: The aforementioned "Additional Services" will be provided to the City for the fixed fee amount of $93.250. Fees provide for an allowance for a reasonable number of project team meetings, conferences,coordination, and project management associated with these Additional Services. Also included are costs for revisions/alterations to the civil plans due to incorporation of the wall plans into the overall Projects plan set. The following table provides an itemized fee schedule for each task listed above. TASK DESCRIPTION FEE Task 1: Impact Evaluation on Jefferson Avenue and Ynez Road Bridge Structures $1,300 Task 2: Type Selection Report $7,700 Task 3: Supplemental Geotechnical Tie -Back Wall Recommendations Report $3,600 Task 4: Tie -Back Wall and Retaining Wall Design Structural Calculations $23,400 Task 5: Tie -Back Wall and Retaining Wall Structural Plans 523,150 Task 6: Tie -Back Wall and Retaining Wall Independent Check Calculations $11,900 Task 7: Tie -Back Wall and Retaining Wall Material Quantity Survey and Estimate 53,900 Task 8: 'lie -Back Wall Structural Specifications 54,750 Task 9: Agency Review 54,250 Task 10: Coordination Meetings / Caltrans Processing 56,500 Direct Costs / Reimbursables 52,800 TOTAL $93,250 fhe above services will be invoiced separately, referenced by Hall & Foreman, lnc.'s Job Number TT.090085.0001, the signifying mark being the 4 -digit - 0001 sub -code. The original Agreement terms are made a part hereof. CONSULTANT: HALL & FOREMAN, INC. By: Anthony J. Terich, P.E. Division President/ Principal AUTHORIZATION: The above specified Additional Services and related Fee are satisfactory and hereby accepted and authorized. CLIENT: CITY OF TEMECULA Date By: I-490US?'vldmi,iCry090035-ASA001-revNed Ufi01 iA Date 4 V 4 SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE TRAIL EXTENSION AND INTERCONNECT Infrastructure / Other Project Location Q�0 00 'Pror Aerial Data - March 2010 Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 ienade all 108 2015-16 N/A 2013-14 N/A 2011-12 CITY OF TEMECULA SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE TRAIL EXTENSION AND INTERCONNECT Infrastructure I Other Project Project Description: To implement project planning and preliminary engineering for the extension and interconnect of the existing Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail from Ynez Road to the Murrieta Creek Multi -Purpose Trail. The extension and interconnect will provide access and under -crossings at Ynez Road, Interstate -15, and Jefferson Avenue, and a continuous paved trail along the Santa Gertrudis Creek to interconnect with the Murrieta Creek Multi -Purpose Trail. Benefit: Project will provide additional pedestrian and bicycle trails for the community. Project Status: The alignment study to design the trail is complete. This project will be constructed in future years when funding is available. Department: Public Works—Account No. 210.165.739 Priority: Ill Project Cost: Actuals to Date 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Future Total Years Project Cost Administration $ 57,785 $ 45,000 $ 378,000 $ 480,785 Construction $6,000,000 $ 6,000,000 Construction $ 96,612 $126,425 $ 223,037 Engineering $ 33,000 $ 33,000 Design $121,162 $250,410 $ 371,572 Environmental $ 360,000 $ 360,000 MSHCP $ 178,947 $295,410 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Totals $ 178,947 $295,410 $ - $ - $ - $ - $7,071,000 $ 7,545,357 Source of Funds: Actuals to Date 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Future Years Total Project Cost AB 2766 $ 3,415 $168,985 $ 172,400 Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) $ 96,612 $126,425 $ 223,037 Capital Project Reserves $ 78,920 $ 78,920 Unspecified* $ 7,071,000 $ 7,071,000 Total Funding: $ 178,947 $295,410 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7,071,000 $ 7,545,357 Future Operation & Maintenance Casts: 2012-13 N/A *Project cannot be constructed until a funding source is identified. 109 2014-15 N/A N/A Item No. 7 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: August 23, 2011 SUBJECT: Temporary Street Closures for September 2011 Special Events PREPARED BY: Mayra De La Torre, Senior Engineer Steve Charette, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the following proposed action by the City Manager: Temporarily close certain streets for the following September 2011 Special Events: `COMMUNITY HEALTH & WELLNESS FAIR' `STEVE MILLER ROCK SYMPHONY CONCERT' BACKGROUND: Two special events are scheduled during the month of September 2011 which necessitate the physical closure of all or portions of certain streets within the Old Town Square area. The closures are necessary to facilitate the events and to protect participants and viewers. The two events and the associated street closures are as follows (see attached Location Maps): 1 COMMUNITY HEALTH & WELLNESS FAIR — September 17, 2011 The Health & Wellness Fair will be held in the Old Town Square on Saturday, September 171h, 2011. The event will require street closures hours from 7:00 am to 4:00 pm. The street closures are follows: 1. Mercedes Street — between Main Street (westerly 'Y') and Third Street. Mercedes Street traffic will be detoured around the event via Main Street (westerly 'Y') and Third Street. Event Description: The Health & Wellness Fair is a health awareness outreach to the general public and will include 30 vendors, a mobile hospital and a mobile memory lab. 2. STEVE MILLER ROCK SYMPHONY CONCERT - September 18, 2011 The Steve Miller Rock Symphony Concert will be held in the Old Town Square on Sunday, September 18th, 2011. The event will require street closures from 4:00 pm Saturday, September 17th to 1:00 am Monday morning, September 19th The street closures are as follows: 1. Main Street — the easterly driveway edge of 28636 Old Town Front Street (Rosa's Cantina) to Mercedes Street; 2. Mercedes Street — Fourth Street to Third Street. Mercedes Street traffic will be detoured around the event via Third and Fourth Street. Event Description: Classic Rock meets Classical Music when Steve Miller joins the Pacific Symphony Youth to perform a Rock Symphony at the Old Town Square, September 18th 2011. Steve Miller's performance at this special musical cross-over concert is in support of the new Kids Rock Free School (KRF) opening this fall in Temecula. Free parking will be provided within the Civic Center parking structure and public parking lots located on Sixth Street, the Community Theater parking lot, and south Front Street parking lot (behind the Stampede). Additional parking will be available on the vacant lot located on the corner of Front and Second Streets, which will be striped and managed by the Boy Scouts. On -street parking throughout Old Town is also permitted. 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 special events. FISCAL IMPACT: Provision, placement, and retrieval of necessary warning and advisory devices by the City Maintenance Department, are included in budgetary items. The costs of police services for the Steve Miller Concert will be paid by the event organizers. There are no anticipated police costs for the Health Fair event. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map: Steve Miller Rock Symphony Street Closures 2. Location Map: Health & Wellness Fair Street Closures HEALTH & WELLNESS FA IR STREET CLOSURE (MERCEDES STREET) STREET CLOSURESEPTEMBER 17, 2011 ------• HEALTH & WELLNESS FA IR STREET CLOSURE (MERCEDES STREET) SEPTEMBER /7, 201/ STREET CLOSURE Item No. 8 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Bob Johnson, Assistant City Manager DATE: August 23, 2011 SUBJECT: City Letter of Support for Legislation Concerning Proposed Liberty Quarry Project (AB 742) RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. DISCUSSION: Granite Construction is proposing Liberty Quarry, one of the largest open -pit hard rock aggregate mines in the United States, on a 414 -acre site that shares a jurisdictional boundary along its northern and eastern property lines with the City of Temecula, and is only 500 yards from the Pechanga Indian Reservation. If allowed to proceed, Liberty Quarry would include a variety of heavy industrial facilities and would excavate and permanently hollow out the heart of the mountain of the Pechanga Tribe's sacred area of creation to a depth of 1,000 feet. The City and the Tribe, the two most proximate governmental entities to the proposed quarry, would suffer by far the greatest impact of a mining operation at this site and thus, from a local government perspective, have the greatest interest in what occurs on the project site. The City Council vigorously opposes the Liberty Quarry Project. The City Council authorized numerous experts to study the Project. These experts found that Liberty Quarry would result in many adverse impacts to the people and businesses in the City of Temecula and the surrounding areas. The experts found that Liberty Quarry will result in a loss of jobs and an overall economic loss to the area. The experts also found extensive and substantial defects in the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Project prepared by Granite Construction. The City communicated these concerns and experts' opinions to the County of Riverside in written letters dated November 23, 2009, April 26, 2011, and July 18, 2011, among other PowerPoint and supplementary submissions throughout five Riverside County Planning Commission hearings. On March 8, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-25 formally opposing the proposed Liberty Quarry Project and authorized the Mayor, City Council, and City staff to communicate the City's opposition to the proposed Liberty Quarry Project and EIR to all interested or concerned parties or persons. City Council Members, City staff, and the experts retained by the City have extensively testified against Liberty Quarry in the on-going public hearings on the Project before the Riverside County Planning Commission. AB 742 is legislation introduced in Sacramento to protect the sacred sites and cultural resources of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians on and around the proposed Liberty Quarry site. The legislation is specific to "aggregate products operations" in the area of the proposed Liberty Quarry site. This specific legislation does not apply to residential, commercial, or industrial projects although the potential impact of such projects on Native American sacred sites and cultural resources is addressed by other laws, such as the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the Native American Historic Resource Preservation Act (Public Resources Code Sections 5097.993 et seq.) and the general plan consultation statutes (Government Code Sections 65352.3 to 65352.4). The legislation amends existing Section 2773.3 of the Public Resources Code by adding the emphasized language to prohibit the approval of a reclamation plan for the proposed Liberty Quarry site (that is required of all quarries) unless the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (the Tribe whose reservation is closest to the Liberty Quarry site) consents to the quarry operation: "2273.3 (a) In addition to other reclamation plan requirements of this chapter and regulations adopted by the board pursuant to this chapter, a lead agency may not approve a reclamation plan for a surface mining operation for gold, silver, copper, or other metallic minerals or financial assurances for the operation, if the operation is located on, or within one mile of, any Native American sacred site and is located in an area of special concern, unless both of the following criteria are met: (1) The reclamation plan requires that all excavations be backfilled and graded to do both of the following: (A) Achieve the approximate original contours of the mined lands prior to mining. (B) Grade all mined materials that are in excess of the materials that can be placed back into excavated areas, including, but not limited to, all overburden, spoil piles and heap leach piles, over the project site to achieve the approximate original contours of the mined lands prior to mining. (2) The financial assurances are sufficient in amount to provide for the backfilling and grading required by paragraph (1). (b) In addition to other reclamation plan requirements of this chapter and regulations adopted by the board pursuant to this chapter, a lead agency may not approve a reclamation plan for an aggregate products operation if the operation is located on or within 2,000 yards of the external boundaries of an Indian reservation and is on or within 5,000 yards of a site that is a Native American sacred site and is on or within 4,000 yards of the Santa Margarita River or an aquifer that is hydrologically connected to that river, unless the Tribe whose reservation is nearest the operation consents to the operation. (b)(c) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following nieaningmeanings: (1) "Native American sacred site" means a specific area that is identified by a federally recognized Indian Tribe, Rancheria or Mission Band of Indians, or by the Native American Heritage Commission, as sacred by virtue of its established historical or cultural significance to, or ceremonial use by, a Native American group, including, but not limited to,ony an area containing a prayer circle, shrine, petroglyph, or spirit break, or a path or area linking the circle, shrine, petroglyph, or spirit break with another circle, shrine, petroglyph, or spirit break. (2) "Area of special concern" means an area in the California desert that is designated as Class C or Class L lands or as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern under the California Desert Conservation Area Plan of 1980, as amended, by the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, pursuant to Section 1781 of Title 43 of the United States Code." The attached letter of support for the bill is based on the Council's previous actions opposing Liberty Quarry. It supports the adoption of the legislation and summarizes the City's position on Liberty Quarry. It has been sent to all members of the California Senate and Assembly. FISCAL IMPACT: The bill itself would have no fiscal impact on the City. The termination of the proposed Liberty Quarry project would be economically beneficial to the City. ATTACHMENTS: AB 742 City Letter of Support for AB 742 City Council Resolution No. 11-25 AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 16, 2011 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2011 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE -2011-12 REGULAR SESSION ASSEMBLY BILL No. 742 Introduced by Assembly Membei Nwtand. Bonnie Lowenthal (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Roger Hernandez) (Principal coauthor: Senator Wyland) (Coauthors: Assembly Members Allen, Atkins, Beall, Block, Bonilla, Bradford Brownley, Butler, Carter, Davis, Eng, Beth Gaines, Gatto, Hagman, Hill, Hueso, Lara, Ma, Mitchell, V. Manuel Perez, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Torres, Wieckowski, Williams, and Yamada) (Coauthors: Senators Harman, Lieu, Padilla, Price, Runner, Strickland, Vargas, and Wolk) February 17, 2011 An act to amend Section 12715 of the Govcrnmcnt Codc, relating to toning. An act to amend Section 2773.3 of the Public Resources Code, relating to mining, and declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 742, as amended, Nestande Bonnie Lowenthal. Toning: local agencies. Surface mining: Indian reservations andNativeAmerican sacred sites. (1) The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 prohibits a person, with exceptions, from conducting surface mining operations unless a permit is obtained from, a reclamation plan is submitted to and approved by, and financial assurances for reclamation have been 97 AB 742 —2— approved by, the lead agency for the operation. Existing law prohibits a lead agency from approving a reclamation plan for a surface mining operation for gold, silver, copper, or other metallic minerals or financial assurances for the operation if the operation is located on, or within one mile of a Native American sacred site and is located in an area of special concern, unless certain criteria are met. This bill would also prohibit a lead agency from approving a reclamation plan for an aggregate products operation if the operation is located on or within 2,000 yards of the external boundaries of an Indian reservation and is on or within 5, 000 yards of a Native American sacred site, and is on or within 4,000 yards of the Santa Margarita River or an aquifer that is hydrologically connected to the river, unless the tribe whose reservation is nearest the operation consents to the operation. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Distribution Fund for the receipt and deposit of moneys received by the state from certain Indian tribes pursuant to the terms of gaming compacts entered into with the state. Existing law authorizes moneys in that fund to be used for spccificd purposes, including for grants for Existing law, until January 1, 2021, creates a County Tribal Casino Account in the treasury of each county that contains a tribal casino. Account for each county that has gaming devices that are subject to an obligation to make contributions to the Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund into a separate account, known as an Individual Tribal Casino Account, for each tribe that operates a casino within the county. proportion to the amount that each individual tribe paid in the prior .. .4•41•4111 for grants to local agencies impacted by tribal casinos, as spccificd. Existing law establishes an Indian Gaining Local Co.mnunity Benefit Committee in each county in which gaming is conducted, specifics the composition and responsibilities of that committee, and requires that committee to make the selection of grants from the casino accounts. Among other things, the committee is responsible for establishing all application policies and procedures for grants from the casino accounts. 97 -3— AB 742 This bill would rcquirc each grant application to clearly show how the grant will mitigate the impact f the casino on the grant applicant. Existing law requires every state agency and local govcrnmcnt agency to adopt and promulgate a Conflict of Interest Codc applicable to enumerated positions within the agency and designated employees, as specified. This bill would rcquirc each Indian Caning Local Co.mnunity Benefit Committee to adopt and approve a Conflict of Interest Codc pursuant to these provisions. The bill would rcquirc any existing Conflict of Interest Codc to be reviewed and amended as necessary to bring it into compliance with these requirements. By increasing the duties of local government entities, this bill would i.. ,osc a state inandated local progi .. n. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions. Vote: majority 'A. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State -mandated local program: yes -no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 SECTION 1. Section 2773.3 of the Public Resources Code is 2 amended to read: 3 2773.3. (a) In addition to other reclamation plan requirements 4 of this chapter and regulations adopted by the board pursuant to 5 this chapter, a lead agency may not approve a reclamation plan 6 for a surface mining operation for gold, silver, copper, or other 7 metallic minerals or financial assurances for the operation; if the 8 operation is located on, or within one mile of, any Native American 9 sacred site and is located in an area of special concern, unless both 10 of the following criteria are met: 11 (1) The reclamation plan requires that all excavations be 12 backfilled and graded to do both of the following: 13 (A) Achieve the approximate original contours of the mined 14 lands prior to mining. 97 AB 742 —4- 1 (B) Grade all mined materials that are in excess ofthe materials 2 that can be placed back into excavated areas, including, but not 3 limited to, all overburden, spoil piles, and heap leach piles, over 4 the project site to achieve the approximate original contours ofthe 5 mined lands prior to mining. 6 (2) The financial assurances are sufficient in amount to provide 7 for the backfilling and grading required by paragraph (1). 8 (b) In addition to other reclamation plan requirements of this 9 chapter and regulations adopted by the board pursuant to this 10 chapter, a lead agency may not approve a reclamation plan for 11 an aggregate products operation if the operation is located on or 12 within 2,000 yards of the external boundaries of an Indian 13 reservation and is on or within 5, 000 yards of a site that is a Native 14 American sacred site and is on or within 4,000 yards of the Santa 15 Margarita River or an aquifer that is hydrologically connected to 16 that river, unless the tribe whose reservation is nearest the 17 operation consents to the operation. 18 (b) 19 (c) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the 20 following ..n;at.iii5 meanings: 21 (1) "Native American sacred site" means a specific area that is 22 identified by a federally recognized Indian Tribe, Rancheria or 23 Mission Band of Indians, or by the Native American Heritage 24 Commission, as sacred by virtue of its established historical or 25 cultural significance to, or ceremonial use by, a Native American 26 group, including, but not limited to, any an area containing a prayer 27 circle, shrine, petroglyph, or spirit break, or a path or area linking 28 the circle, shrine, petroglyph, or spirit break with another circle, 29 shrine, petroglyph, or spirit break. 30 (2) "Area of special concern" means any an area in the 31 California desert that is designated as Class C or Class L lands or 32 as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern under the California 33 Desert Conservation Area Plan of 1980, as amended, by the United 34 States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 35 pursuant to Section 1781 of Title 43 ofthe United States Code. 36 SEC. 2. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the 37 immediate preservation ofthe public peace, health, or safety within 38 the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into 39 immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are: 97 -5— AB 742 1 To protect from imminent destruction Native American 2 reservations and sacred sites threatened by proposed aggregate 3 products mining operations, it is necessary for this measure to 4 take effective immediately. 5 6 7 8 9 10 All matter omitted in this version of the bill appears in the bill as amended in the Assembly, March 31, 2011. (JR11) 0 97 Ronald H. Roberts Mayor Chuck Washington Mayor Pro -Tem Jeff Comerchero Council Member Maryann Edwards Council Member Michael S. Naggar Council Member 951-506-5100 FAX 951-694-6499 ® Printed on Recycled Paper City of Temecula 41000 Main Street • Temecula, CA 92590 • Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 • Temecula, CA 92589-9033 (951) 694-6416 • Fax (951) 694-6499 • www.cityoftemecula.org August 12, 2011 California State Legislature State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: AB 742 (B. Lowenthal) - SUPPORT Dear Members of the State Legislature: The City of Temecula — the closest city to the proposed Liberty Quarry - is pleased to strongly support AB 742 (B. Lowenthal). AB 742 would strengthen the Public Resources Code by restricting harmful mining activities on and near specific Native American sacred sites. The City of Temecula supports this bill for the protection it offers against the destruction of the sacred area of creation of our neighbors, the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, a federally recognized Indian tribe that is a cultural centerpiece and vital member of the Temecula community. As an ancillary benefit, the Legislation would protect the City's residents and visitors from the negative impacts of a massive mine proposed in a wholly inappropriate location. The Proposed Quarry Granite Construction (the applicant) is proposing Liberty Quarry, one of the largest open -pit hard rock aggregate mines in the United States, on a 414 -acre site that shares a jurisdictional boundary along its northern and eastern property lines with the City of Temecula, and is only 500 yards from the Pechanga Indian Reservation. If allowed to proceed, Liberty Quarry would include a variety of additional heavy industrial facilities (concrete ready mix plant, asphalt plants, rubber plants, water tanks, fueling tanks and pump stations, truck scales and washes, administrative buildings, parking lot, etc.) and would excavate and permanently hollow out the heart of the mountain of the Pechanga Tribe's sacred area of creation to a depth of 1,000 feet. The City and the Tribe, the two most proximate governmental entities to the proposed quarry, would suffer by far the greatest impact of a mining operation at California State Legislature August 12, 2011 Page 2 this site and thus, from a local government perspective, have the greatest interest in what occurs on the project site. Quarry Would Destroy Luiseno Place of Creation The Pechanga Tribe has determined that a quarry in this area would cause irreparable. harm and immitigable destruction of the Luiseno place of creation. Scholars say that the site, Kaamalam Pomki, is analogous to the Garden of Eden as the location of creation or to the Wailing Wall or Sistine Chapel in terms of spiritual significance. Even the 2009 Ethnography Study commissioned by Granite Construction found that it was "clear" that the proposed quarry included an area that could be designated a Traditional Cultural Property district (TCP) and eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. In the face of the compelling evidence and direct testimony by Tribal experts, the staff of Riverside County, the agency processing the Liberty Quarry mining proposal, inexplicably maintain an utterly indefensible position that a quarry on this site would have- a less than significant impact on this irreplaceable cultural place. Quarry Would Harm Regional Economy The applicant has attempted to justify the permanent desecration of the Luise() place of creation by claiming that a quarry would result in an economic boon to the region. Nothing is further from the truth. The alleged economic benefits are illusory, as shown by an analysis completed by the Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College. The Rose Institute's analysis, The Estimated Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Liberty Quarry, commissioned by the City of Temecula and dated June 2011, is attached for your review. The main conclusion of the Rose Institute's study is that the modest benefits of a quarry at this location would be "more than offset by job losses in tourism, real estate, construction, and agriculture." The Rose Institute analyzed the economic impacts of Liberty Quarry and, based upon its conservative review of some of the costs to the region associated with the mine, reported that Liberty Quarry would not reap economic dividends for the region, but instead would cause a net loss of $3.6 billion to the region in the first 50 years. l Rose Institute, June 2011, The Estimated Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Liberty Quarry, p. 1 California State Legislature August 12, 2011 Page 3 Proposed Legislation is Not a Ban on All California Mining Operations In a recent article2 Liberty Quarry representatives mischaracterize this legislation as enacting "a wide -sweeping ban on all California mining operations." The Legislature should not be fooled by such hyperbole. The narrow scope of the legislation is abundantly clear in its plain language. If enacted, AB 742 would in no way result in a ban on all California mining. Instead, AB 742 would grant the Pechanga Tribe the rightful authority to protect their culturally significant site of origin from exploitation. AB 742 strikes the right balance between competing social interests by granting the Pechanga Tribe the right to approve or deny mining on the Luisefio site of origin. It is most appropriate that the Tribe have the power to protect its unique and irreplaceable cultural properties against desecration for the purpose of providing a short-term source of aggregate. The aggregate materials that could be extracted from the Tribe's site of origin are readily available at other sites throughout the Southern California region —sites that could be mined without incurring immitigable impact to cultural and historic resources. Mining of the Site Would Cause Substantial Environmental Damage The City of Temecula, its attorneys, staff, and environmental and economic experts have thoroughly reviewed the impacts of the proposed quarry. In addition to the immitigable impact to the Luisefio place of creation, the following additional substantial adverse impacts are examples of what would result if mining of this site were to proceed: • Traffic: Increased traffic including 1,600 aggregate truck trips to and from the mine every day. • Ecological Reserve: Adverse impacts to the adjacent San Diego State University Ecological Reserve, an outdoor laboratory for scientific and ecological research for 50 years. • Biological Resources: Blockage and severance of nearly 100% north to south of the "Special Linkage Area" included in the County of Riverside's Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and intended to protect the last remaining wildlife corridor between the inland mountain range and the coastal mountain range. • Water and Wells: Impacts to local ground water and wells, and dewatering of the mountain with 1,000 -foot deep pit. 2See, Temecula Patch article entitled "Granite Construction Fights Back" at http:l/temecula.patch.com/articles/granite-construction-fights-back 3 San Diego Association of Governments, The SANDAG San Diego Region Aggregate Study, January 2011, and the California Geologic Map California State Legislature August 12, 2011 Page 4 • Water consumption: The Quarry will consume 369 -acre feet of potentially potable drinking water from Southern California's limited water supply (approximately 385,000 gallons of water each day). • Water Quality: Potential runoff into the Santa Margarita River, which is the last Southern California free flowing river traversing 27 miles from Riverside County to the Pacific Ocean. • Air Quality: The level of this region's air pollution will at least double from the existing conditions due to Liberty Quarry. These additional adverse impacts simply reinforce the only logical conclusion: the site of the Luiseno place of creation is not appropriate for mining. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the City of Temecula proudly joins with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians in supporting AB 742 and the protection it affords to the irreplaceable cultural areas of the Pechanga Band. The City urges each Legislator to support this proposed legislation. Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions about this important legislation. Bob Johnson, Assistant City Manager, is also available to speak with you at 951-694-6425; email: Bob.Johnson(Cityofl'emecula.org. Sincerely, Ron Roberts Mayor cc: Chuck Washington, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Temecula Mike Naggar, Council Member, City of Temecula Maryann Edwards, Council Member, City of Temecula Jeff Comerchero, Council Member, City of Temecula Tribal Chairman Mark Macarro, Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Enc: The Rose Institute's analysis, The Estimated Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Liberty Quarry 1 1 The Estimated Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Liberty Quarry June 2011 Prepared for City Attorney, City of Temecula Manfred Keil, Ph.D. Gary Smith, Ph.D. ROSE INSTITUTE OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE The Estimated Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Liberty Quarry Executive Summary 1. Granite Construction Company is seeking a permit to construct and operate one of the nation's largest open -pit gravel mines ("Liberty Quarry"), which would be located on approximately 414 acres in an unincorporated part of Riverside County, west of Interstate -15 and Pechanga Tribal Reservation, immediately adjacent to the City of Temecula. 2. In support of this proposal, Granite Construction Company commissioned a report entitled "Economic Impact on Riverside County and its Southwestern Area" ("Granite's Economic Report"). The study was completed in February 2007 towards the end of the housing boom in Riverside County and 10 months before the onset of the Great Recession. As a result, many of its underlying assumptions are overly optimistic. In addition, Granite's Economic Report is one-sided: there are millions of dollars of benefits while costs are ignored. A fair assessment could easily conclude that this report reads more like a Granite press release than a serious, balanced economic analysis. 3. One of the major purported economic benefits is a reduction in truck travel, but the report's assumptions imply that the output from the proposed quarry will not replace production from existing quarries; instead the output will add to total production. Therefore, if there is any effect, it will most likely be increased truck travel in the long run. 4. Standard economic impact analysis only counts money that enters the local community through income from employment or from purchases of local goods and services. However, Granite's Economic Report additionally counts the revenue from the sales of Liberty Quarry products as an economic benefit for local residents even if this revenue does not reach the local community. As a result, the total economic benefits are vastly overstated. 5. The core assumption underlying the analysis is problematic in that it focuses on new money going into Riverside County, while neglecting the economic impact on current economic activity. There will be negative effects on property values, residential and commercial construction, tourism, and agriculture, among other concerns. The quarry will also result in longer commuting times for people living in the area, especially those commuting south, and the quality of life will be harmed by noise and air pollution. Each of these has economic costs which were not factored into Granite's Economic Report. 6. Conservative estimates of the economic costs of the quarry dwarf realistic estimates of the benefits. Calculating all of the benefits and the costs associated with the proposed Liberty Quarry, we estimate that the quarry will reduce property values by $540 million and cost the region an additional $80 million per year. We calculate total cumulative costs, that is, those occurring over the projected 50 -year life span of the quarry, to be $4.6 billion. With cumulative benefits over the same period totaling approximately $1.0 billion, this results in an estimated total cumulative net negative impact of $3.6 billion to the region. 7. In terms of additional employment for the region and revenue for Riverside County, the benefits are modest at best. Direct employment will only create 99 jobs and much of the sales tax revenue may be diverted to San Diego County. These quarry jobs will be more than offset by job losses in tourism, real estate, construction, and agriculture. 1 I. Background Granite Construction Company is a publicly -traded company (NYSE: GVA) headquartered in Watsonville, California that produces construction materials and does civil construction work nationwide. Granite is seeking a permit to construct and operate one of the nation's largest open - pit gravel mines in terms of permitted reserves ("Liberty Quarry"). I The proposed Liberty Quarry would be located on more than 400 acres in an unincorporated part of Riverside County, just west of the I-15 and the Pechanga Tribal Reservation, immediately adjacent to the City of Temecula and five miles south of Murrieta (see Graph 1). 21/2 acres of the mine are located in San Diego County, which, as a result, will also receive various benefits, e.g. traffic fees, from the project as well. Graph 1: Liberty Quarry Location = Liberty Quarry The proposed quarry facilities are projected to have a footprint of approximately 155 acres, plus 9 additional acres of graded access roads and utility pads. The pit itself, as proposed, is approximately one mile long and 1,000 feet deep. Blasts involving 10,000 pounds of explosives would be used to dislodge granite that would then be crushed into aggregate (gravel and sand). In addition to aggregate processing equipment, the site will have two asphalt plants, a concrete plant, a recycle plant (including rubber recycling), administrative buildings, above -ground tanks including a 300,000 gallon water tank and 25,000 gallons of fuel and gasoline tanks, three truck scales, a truck wash, and gas station/fuel islands and pumps. The estimated average number of trucks leaving the site is 54 trucks per hour, or nearly one truck every minute (Liberty Quarry 1 Letter from Granite Construction Company to the City of Temecula, October 29, 2010. 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report)? The total annual volume of production of aggregate, concrete, hot -mixed asphalt, and other products would begin at 500,000 tons in 2012 and then increase by 500,000 tons a year until reaching a maximum production of 5 million tons in 2021. The projected operations are:3 • blasting: twice a day, 10 blasts a week, between morning and sunset; • mining and processing: 20 hours a day, 300 days a year (an average of 6 days a week); • loading, shipping and equipment maintenance: 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. II. Granite Construction's Economic Report on Liberty Quarry In support of this proposal, Granite Construction Company commissioned a report entitled Economic Impact Analysis on Riverside County and Its Southwestern Area ("Granite's Economic Report").4 The report was submitted in February 2007, that is, before the start of the Great Recession in December 2007. At the time, the U.S. unemployment rate stood at 4.5 percent, California's was 5 percent, and for Riverside County it was 5.5 percent. The latest available numbers (May 2011) for the U.S. and California are 9.1 percent and 11.7 percent respectively. Riverside County has been particularly hard hit by the economic downturn and its unemployment rate currently stands at 13.3 percent, a monstrous 7.8 percentage points above the February 2007 level. The latest UCLA Anderson Forecast (June 2011) continues to paint a bleak picture for employment and the housing industry in the Inland Empire. Specifically, the Anderson Forecast states that the Inland Empire will not see a construction boom in the near future to pull itself out of the deep recession. Keil and Weidenmier (2010 forecast that unemployment rates in the Inland Empire will not fall below 10 percent until 2014. It should be clear that as the result of the seriousness of the recession, which was not foreseeable by the authors of Granite's Economic Report at the time, many of the assumptions used to calculate benefits are too optimistic and should be adjusted downwards. These would almost certainly involve the estimated revenue and total spending figures, with their impact on salaries and sales taxes. However, we are not in a position to re -calculate the projected numbers given the currently experienced "Not So Great Recovery," especially for the construction industry. Moreover, such calculations would result in further potential controversies given the assumptions we would have to make. As a result, we feel that we are on firmer ground if we respond here to the numbers as presented in Granite's Economic Report. There are two aspects to Granite's Economic Report that are intriguing. First, and quite different from standard economic analysis, there is no mention of any estimated costs. As a result of excluding costs from "Total Economic Impact," it cannot come as a surprise that the benefits 2 Liberty Quarry Draft Environmental Impact Report, July 2009, page 2-21. 3 Based on Draft EIR. The Final EIR proposes to blast once a day. 4 Husing, J. (2007). "Liberty County: Economic Impact on Riverside County & Its Southwestern Area," February 13. s Keil, M. and M. Weidenmier (2010). "The inland Empire Report: The Great Recession in the Inland Empire." CMC/UCLA Inland Empire Forecast, October, page 29-46. 3 outweigh the costs in this analysis. In addition, the method to calculate benefits is seriously flawed, as we shall detail below. Second, the same author has written a separate report for the City of Temecula6 in which he stresses current attractive attributes to the area and which would be negatively impacted by the quarry. These would be in the areas of tourism, housing, retail trade, and the wineries.7 Yet he fails to consider these in Granite's Economic Report. Table 1 summarizes Granites Economic Report's estimates of the various economic benefits for one specific year, 2021. Table 1: Granite's Economic Report's Estimated Benefits (2021; in $ 2005 Total Economic Impact 2021 Benefits Output impact Direct $21.9 million Outside $149.6 million Household income impact Direct $6.9 million Outside $11.8 million Employment impact 277 jobs Government Revenue impact Riverside County Property taxes $0.7 million Sales tax $1.0 million Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) (one time) $0.1 million Multiple Species Habitat Conservations (MSHC) fee (one time) $1.0 million Riverside County Transportation Commission (additional sales tax) $0.5 million California Sales tax $6.2 million California Royalties (present value) $3.0 million Economic impact of reduced truck travel On air quality $27.3 million On highway maintenance $5.3 million 6 Husing, J. (2008). "Temecula: Demographic, Economic & Quality of Life Data," September 10. ' "Temecula's leadership has worked hard to preserve the quality of the community's environment and to provide its families with a wholesome way of life. This is one reason the city has already been able to attract technology firms." Husing (2008), page i. 4 The corresponding numbers are listed in the summary section of Granite 's Economic Report.8 The year 2021 was chosen by the author of Granite's Economic Report since this is the first year at which the planned quarry is expected to reach full capacity. Hence these are estimates for a single year (2021) and these are not the cumulative benefits from the projected start of the quarry in 2012 through 2021; nor do they take account of subsequent benefits, as standard practice would suggest. The terms shown in the various rows of Table 1, such as "Output impact, Direct" and "Output impact, Outside" correspond to the respective names and items in Granite's Economic Report's summary, and are further clarified in the text following Table 1. In its summary, Granite's Economic Report gives the impression of a total economic impact of $190.2 million for the year 2021 and the creation of 277 jobs. In addition, the total government revenue impact is projected to be $45.1 million dollars. It is not clear to us why the author chooses to list the present value of the California Royalties here when all other calculations are made only for a single year. Adjusting the $3 million of the California Royalties to the $0.2 million payment in 2021 reduces the total government revenue impact to $42.3 million instead of the $45.1 million listed. Again, at this point, we only display a summary of the major results of Granite's Economic Report, adjusting these if necessary to reflect consistency, but without criticizing the methodology. To be fair, Granite 's Economic Report does not total up these benefits; however they are listed one under the other to give the impression that these items are all part of a greater sum. As we will show below, listing "Output impact" and "Household income impact" in this fashion lures the reader into feeling that they are separate and different items, when instead they overlap, so that some double counting is involved here (see below). II.1 Re -Examination of Granite's Economic Report's Estimates of the Economic Impact The core assumption underlying Granite's Economic Report's analysis is problematic: "Fundamentally, an area has an economy because it has a set of activities that bring money to it from the outside world and supports firms and workers that receive it."9 In theory and practice, a geographic area, whether it is an island, a city, county, or even a country could be largely self-sufficient. This assumption then results in two fundamental errors: • All purchases of Liberty Quarry products are counted as an economic benefit for local residents. This clearly is a gross overstatement. Standard economic analysis only counts these as benefits if the money reaches the local community through income from employment or from purchases of local goods and services (we explain and elaborate on this below). • The report completely neglects the negative effects of operating a quarry on existing residents and businesses. 8 Granite's Economic Report, pp. 29-30. 9 Husing (2007; 9) 5 We will follow Granite's Economic Report in calculating all costs and benefits in 2005 dollars and in using a 6% discount rate to calculate the present value of the costs and benefits.10 For comparison purpose, we will also list costs and benefits for both 2012 and 2021, the years for the start of operation and the first year of operation at full capacity, respectively. We assume a 50 -year horizon in our present value calculations since Granite's Economic Report states that "the end of the quarry's life" will be in 2061.11 Much of Granite's Economic Report focuses on southwestern Riverside County, but we will expand the analysis to include all of Riverside County, because the negative economic effects of the project will be felt county wide. II.1.A Benefits The numbers in Table 1 need to be adjusted because some either involve double counting or are benefits for residents elsewhere, but not economic benefits for the residents of Riverside County. Table la: Granite's Economic Report's Estimated Benefits, adjusted (2021; in $ 2005 Total Economic Impact 2021 Benefits Output impact Direct $19.5 million $21.9 -million Outside $149.6 million Direct $6. -million Outside $ 1� illien Employment impact 99 jobs 277 jobs The text below clarifies precisely how Granite's Economic Report overstates the benefits through double counting (for example, Household income impact is already contained in the Output impact) and money flows to residents elsewhere (Output impact, Outside). 1° Present value calculations are commonly used in finance to standardize current and future money flows. Municipalities, for example, use present value calculations to calculate amounts of dollars that have to be set aside for future employee retirement obligations. The present value of a future money flow equals what we would be willing to pay today to receive specified dollar amounts in the future. "Put another way, a dollar received today is worth more than a dollar received at some point in the future, because the dollar received today can be invested to earn interest." Husing (2007; 24). The 6% discount rate is a real discount rate, adjusted for inflation, since the cash flows are in constant dollars. Appendix A gives a few easy -to -follow examples on how to calculate a present value and the advantages in doing so. II Husing (2007; 24). There is some confusion with regard to the end of the quarry's life. The July 2009 Liberty Quarry draft Environmental Impact Report indicates that it is a 75 -year permit commencing in 2012, which would indicate an end of the quarry's life in 2087 instead of 2061. In addition, there would be a 5 -year reclamation period. Since this report is in response to the Husing (2007) report, we will continue with the 2061 date here. Below we will demonstrate that the costs outweigh the benefits for a 50 -year horizon. The gap between costs and benefits would widen if we assumed a 75 -year horizon. Hence continuing with the 50 -year horizon is consistent with our theme to en: on the conservative side with our estimates. 6 II.1.A.i Total Economic Impact According to the Liberty Quarry Draft Environmental Impact Report,12 approximately 30 percent of the truck trips would average approximately 20 miles one way to customers within Riverside County and 70 percent of truck trips would average approximately 30 miles one way to customers in San Diego County. Granite's Economic Report estimates that when the Liberty Quarry is operating at full capacity in 2021, it will sell $160,177,765 worth of products.13 Of this amount, two-thirds ($107,319,103) will be sold in northern San Diego County, while one-third ($52,858,663) will be sold in southwest Riverside County. Of the $52,858,663 sold in southwest Riverside County, 80% will be financed by loans and revenue originating outside of southwest Riverside County. The report calculates the economic benefit to southwest Riverside County as follows: $107,319,103 + ($52,858,663 x 80%) = $149,606,033 or roughly $149.6 million and labels this amount the "outside output impact" (listed as "Output impact, Outside" in Table 1). This is clearly an inappropriate calculation. The fact that Granite Construction Company sells $149.6 million worth of products to buyers who financed their purchases with funds originating from outside Riverside County does not mean that Riverside County will receive $149.6 million worth of benefits. Granite Construction Company's revenue can be used to finance projects elsewhere or acquire land elsewhere or to pay dividends to its stockholders. The dollar figures for 2021 both in Exhibit 8 on page 12, and in Exhibit 10 on page 15 of Granite's Economic Report make it very clear why Granite wants to open this quarry: the company's revenue minus operating expenses in 2021 (in 2005 dollars) are projected to be $160,177,765 - $24,064,278 = $136,113,487. It is due to these profits that the company wants to operate the quarry, not because of the portrayed economic benefits to the region. Sotu,,c (name: C omm.:hots (2C081 12 Liberty Quarry Draft Environmental Impact Report (July 2009), page 2-21 13 Husing (2007; 13), Exhibit 9. This estimate is probably too optimistic since the author assumes that the prices of all quarry products will increase 1.5 percent points faster than the rate of inflation for the next 50 years. Overall, the pretended precision of the estimates in the report down to a single dollar is somewhat annoying to the reader, given the imprecision of the assumptions that underlie the calculations. 7 Exhibit 8. -Estimated Revenue, Liberty Quar y, Start Production to Capacity, 2012-2021 (2005 5) Product 2012 2013 2014 20115 2016 2017 2015 2019 2020 2021 1 Concrete Sand 51,664,767 52,534.608 34,287,712 $6,092839 57,067.694 $8,907,136 59,101,643 511,085,802 513,127,437 315,227.827 Concrete 51 109.1345 53 379478 54,573.560 58,963.245 $9,834.617 510,760,564 512,135,524 313,540,313 315,002,785 $16,498,612 Aegreeates 7 Base 5499,430 51,013,843 51.543,576 52,088,973 52,650,385 63,228,169 54.368,789 55,542,901 38,751.253 37,994609 4 14 outmode 6554 922 51 126.493 51,715,085 32,321.082 32,904,872 53.586,855 54.854,210 $6,158.779 67.501 397 $8,802.899 E1MA4nsidesak $1,664,767 33,379,478 55,716,950 56,963,246 $9,423,591 510,760.564 313.349,077 514.781,069 316,253,017 817,765,798 a Rip -Rap 31,109,845 51,126,493 51.143,390 81.160,541 51,177,949 32,391,236 52.427.109 52.463.611 32.500.464 32.537.971 7 EIbIAC (0 053) 58,430,382 517,113,675 328.950,634 $35,261.072 347,721.067 554,491,494 567599,725 374.851,332 $82305.277 589,965,999 9 At(ni'ot teedal: elate 5998,860 51,029,051 51,060,154 31.092.197 31,125.209 31,159,218 51,194.256 51,230.352 51,287.539 81.305.861 Total 316,032,820 130,703,119 548.991,062 $61,543,995 580,945,385 595,345,235 $115,030,329 5129,663.059 3144,703,165 5160,177,765 Sotu,,c (name: C omm.:hots (2C081 12 Liberty Quarry Draft Environmental Impact Report (July 2009), page 2-21 13 Husing (2007; 13), Exhibit 9. This estimate is probably too optimistic since the author assumes that the prices of all quarry products will increase 1.5 percent points faster than the rate of inflation for the next 50 years. Overall, the pretended precision of the estimates in the report down to a single dollar is somewhat annoying to the reader, given the imprecision of the assumptions that underlie the calculations. 7 Exhibit 10.•Total Spending, Typical Facility, Start Production to Capacity, Begin 2021 (2005 S) Pwaoer Thru 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Capita Lime 5116,735,795 *6.301,180 11,405,800 $1,000,000 *2,000,000 $1,545.000 56,772,500 13,977,300 52452.300 51,195,000 52,74300 Cnet Woibes 1,357.360 2,095,360 2,645,360 3,195,360 4,185.360 4,955,360 5,745,520 5.515,520 7,065.520 7.635,680 Musgewat 2,500,000 1.000,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 1,000,000 500,000 500,000 500.000 1,000,000 S.nxe: 2,957,526 4.111,963 4.861,889 5.893,369 8221.392 9,261,275 10,407,147 11,040,438 11,123,242 11.206,66E Coa:om.bks 2,002.075 2.017,091 1,590,063 1.413,519 1,424,120 1.434,801 1,445,562 1.456,404 1,467,321 1,478,332 op./1154g Eq. 58,816,962 *9224,414 19,597.311111.002,248 814,338,872 516,651,437 $18,098,229 $19,512.382 520,156,089 $21.320,678 TetsI Sp.... 1116,735395 815,118,142 110.630.214 810.597,311 513.002,248815.675.812 523.423.937 521,975,52912t.954,682 521.351,080124,084.278 Soave Econonucs dt Poluics Inc tJstng Inxttsny Average DaI2 Estwuted by PatvaoNtine Inc According to standard economic analysis, all that matters for the Riverside County economy is how many local people are hired and paid, and how much the company spends on local goods and services. This is the $21.9 million that the author reports as the "direct output impact" and which we listed in Table 1 as "Output impact, Direct". The "outside output impact" in Table 1 should not be included in the list of benefits since these funds flow to residents elsewhere. The author of Granite's Economic Report obtained his $21.9 million figure as follows:14 the estimates that Granite Construction Company's capital spending and operating expenses (including employee compensation) will be $19,491,772 in 2021, of which $18,301,166 will be paid for by funds coming from outside of Riverside County. He reduces the $18,301,166 figure to $14,622,799 to reflect the fact that some of the worker compensation is benefits and then applies the standard IMPLAN multiplier of 1.5 on the assumption that, on average, a dollar received by local residents creates 1.5 dollars of local economic activity: 1.5 x $14,622,799 = $21,934,199 or roughly $21.9 million. For measuring the local impact of the operation of the Liberty Quarry, there is no reason to distinguish between funds raised locally and elsewhere. What matters is that a company hires local workers since salaries affect the local community directly. Other than for sales tax purposes, it does not matter whether the company sells its products m Riverside County or in San Diego County. To use an analogy, the Hilton Corporation has several properties in Las Vegas, of which one (The Flamingo) is also a casino. Most of the money revenue generated is from visitors who do not reside in Las Vegas. However, the Hilton corporation transfers profits back to its headquarters in McLean, Virginia, as it sees fit and only the amount it spends on wages and salaries, and purchases from local suppliers should count as output impact, not the money that flows into the Hilton accounts from funds originating from outside of Las Vegas or Nevada. Similarly, and perhaps more relevant for the current quarry consideration at hand, the U.S. State of Wyoming traditionally has occupied one of the top ranks in per capita output among U.S. states, due to its mining industry, which is capital intensive. However, it is far from being one of the richest U.S. states in terms of per capita income, since few of the important mining companies have their headquarters in Wyoming. Instead, the state with the highest per capita income in the U.S. has typically been Connecticut, probably because of its proximity to New York City and workers from there residing 14 Husing (2007; 15-18) 8 in Connecticut. It is not standard economic practice to count the flows of money back to company headquarters as part of the economic impact that the company has on the Local area where production occurs. The gist of this argument is that Granite's Economic Report includes figures as benefits that are not in any way an economic benefit to Riverside County. As a result, the "Output impact, Outside" has to be completely deleted. This reduces the "Output impact" by a staggering $149.6 million in 2021. To make matters worse, the "household income impact" and "employment impact" numbers in Table 1 are components of the "output impact," not an addition to this amount ($149.6 million + $21.9 million), and they should not be included in a compilation of the benefits, since this would involve double counting.'5 In Granite's Economic Report, we are therefore left with the "Employment impact" of 277 jobs and the "Output impact, Direct" of $21.9 million instead of the apparent total of $190.2 million from "Total Economic Impact." We adjust the "Output impact, Direct" as follows for our calculations. First, we use the last row of Exhibit 11 of Granite's Economic Report (shown below) to estimate the expenditures on local workers, goods and services.16 Exhib t 11. -Local Spending. Liberty Quarry, Start Production to Capacity, Begin 2021 (2 05 5) Praha TAW 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Capitallarat 590.887.943 51226.873 5416.182 5950.000 51.700.009 5457.464 84.728,732 81,787,973 81.380.016 51.007.738 81.452,297 CultWorker: 51,029,240 51,439,120 51,661,001 51,882,881 52,544,761 52,986,841 53,448,681 53,890,562 54,112,442 54,354,482 Nimae.ment 52.500.000 51.000,000 $500,000 3500,000 5500.000 51.000,000 $500,000 5500.000 5500.00E 51.000,006 Seterar. 82,957,526 54111,963 $4,861,889 55.893.369 58,221,392 59.261,275 510,407,147 511.040,438 511,123242 811206,666 C ocamabks 52,002,075 52.017,091 51,590,063 51,413,519 51,424,120 51.434,801 51,445.562 51,456,404 51,467,327 51.478,337 t)perstiay Ell, 58.488,842 $8,568,175 $8,612,952 $9,689,769 512,690,273 514,612,718 815,801,390 516.887,404 517,203,010 518,039.480 rant Spent 890.887.943 510.315.715 18.984,357 89,562,952 511,389,769 513,147,737 519.411,449 117.589.363 518.267,420 818,210,749 519.491,777 Solute Econoum: • 1 Polt i '. tDc Lw.e 1 upon e,ruu!ed leainge, by type of spending discussed above Second, while we list the numbers for 2021 for completeness ($19.5 million), we prefer to focus on the year 2012 ($10.3 million), which is the first year of operation of the quarry. In addition, we list the present value of all future expenditures over the lifetime of the quarry. This allows for a more complete analysis, since it lets us compare all future expenditures with all future costs, irrespective of when they occur, and hence, while it may be slightly more difficult to understand conceptually, is the proper way to compare costs and benefits. Present value calculations are standard in economic and fmancial analysis. City and county administrators use this type of calculation to figure out, for example, future liabilities resulting from pension obligations. Granite's Economic Report uses present value calculations in various places and we explain these calculations in Appendix A. The primary advantage of present value calculations is that it allows us to take into account all future benefits and costs instead of those of just a single year, whether it is 2012, 2021, or any other year. 1s Husing (2007; 29) gives the appearance of double counting. We give the author the benefit of the doubt and assume that he simply intended to look at the benefits from different angles (output, income, employment). 16 Husing (2007; 16). The author inexplicably ignores the $90.9 million projected spending on site preparation, but we include this in our present value calculations. We assume that spending (in constant dollars) will be constant after 2021, when the quarry reached full production levels. 9 The present value of all future expenditures is $357.7 million, and the value for 2012 only is $13.3 million. To simplify calculations, we do not use IMPLAN multipliers in our calculations because these are not applied to any of the other benefits in Granite's Economic Report. For consistency, IMPLAN multipliers should either be used for all costs and all benefits, or for none of them, and Granite 's Economic Report does not provide enough information to apply IMPLAN multipliers to all of the costs and benefits. In Table 1, this would reduce the employment impact from 277 jobs to 99 jobs. Either way, the economic costs enumerated later in this report would surely cause job losses from reduced employment caused by the negative impacts on the tourist industry, wineries, and construction far larger than the relatively small number of jobs created by the operation of the quarry. II.1.A. ii Government Revenue Impact Property Taxes Granite's Economic Report estimates the increased property taxes that would be paid on this property by applying a 1.0648% property tax rate to the difference between the property's current assessed valuation and the quarry's estimated market value, which is calculated from the discounted present value of its operations.17 There is no assurance that this is a reasonable prediction of the property's future assessed value. In any case, the estimated additional $0.7 million per year in property taxes on the improved property are dwarfed by the negative effects on residential property values that are estimated later in this report and which are not even considered by Granite's Economic Report. The costs discussed in section II.1.B. below also imply that there will be less demand for new homes in the area and that the homes that are built will be less likely to be large, upscale homes (we assume that more affluent home owners are less likely to build homes when a large quarry is the neighbor). It seems clear that the reduced value of existing homes and the negative effects on the construction of new homes will reduce property taxes by more than $0.7 million. Sales Taxes For sales taxes, the author of Granite's Economic Report uses Granite Construction Company's estimate that 67% of its sales volume (estimated by Granite's Economic Report to be $102.6 million in 2021) will be transactions subject to sales taxes.18 This estimate is "based upon their experience at other facilities." The author does not elaborate if the other facilities resemble the special location of the planned quarry, which is in one county (here Riverside County) while the majority of the aggregate usage is in another county (here San Diego County). If not, then referring to the experience at other facilities is misleading. 17 Husing (2007; 22); Exhibit 17, which does some of the calculations, appears later in the report, on page 25. 18 Exhibit 16 in Husing (2007; 23) 10 Let us elaborate on how geography may play a special role here. Granite Construction Company is a multi -use company and will not pay a sales tax or use tax on Liberty products used in its own construction activities. In addition, products delivered to San Diego County may be subject to a sales tax paid to the County of San Diego rather than a sales tax paid to Riverside County. To clarify: • Granite Construction Company will pay neither sales tax nor use tax on its aggregate for its own construction contracts. This is also true for joint venture companies. • If the aggregate is picked up by an independent customer at Liberty Quarry (and the order was taken at the quarry), then the point of sale is at the quarry and therefore sales taxes will be paid to Riverside County. • Sales tax derived from all sales of aggregate as part of a construction contract will generally be paid to the county where the project site is located. How much, if any, sales tax revenue Riverside County would receive in other scenarios depends on the location that is legally considered to be the place where the order is taken or sale negotiated and whether the contract requires installation or laying of material in its final resting place. Of the 8.75% sales tax levied in Riverside County, 7.25% goes to the State of California, 1.5% to the County government, of which 0.5% goes to the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). The payments to the state of California will not directly benefit residents of Riverside County and should not be included among the local benefits. Even the approximately $1 million of sales taxes for Riverside County listed in Granite's Economic Report will be outweighed by the loss of sales taxes for the following reason: the operation of the quarry will surely have a negative effect on migration to the area, the construction of businesses to service the local population, and reduced tourism, as discussed below. The Granite's Economic Report author's calculations of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fces (TUMF), Multiple Species Habitat Plan (MSHCP) fees, and royalty payments to the state of California seem straightforward. It should be noted that the royalty payments to the State Teachers Retirement Fund has not yet been negotiated by the State Lands Commission, whether is it the $3 million reported by the author of the report or the $300 million mentioned elsewhere. Regardless, the royalty payments will not directly benefit residents of Riverside County and should not be included among the local benefits. No local retired teacher's pension contract will be boosted due to the potential Liberty Quarry contribution. In addition, the MSHCP fees have a very restrictive use and cannot be transferred to the general fund. In other words, it would be better to list them as an environmental, rather than a financial benefit. Again, to err on the conservative side, we left the item in our calculations as a financial benefit. Economic Impact of Reduced Truck Travel The author of Granite's Economic Report assumes that production at the Liberty Quarry will replace production at more distant quarries and thereby reduce the distances trucks travel to deliver 11 quarry products to construction sites. He then estimates the economic effects of reduced travel distances on air quality and highway maintenance. However, some users have long-term contracts or have their own quarry sites that they will continue to use. More importantly, Granite's Economic Report argues that the Liberty Quarry is needed to increase total quarry production because Southern California's demand for quarry products far exceeds the supply.19 However, in the Report's shipping -distance calculations, the Report assumes that production from Liberty Quarry will cause production from other quarries to fall by an equal amount, so that there is no net increase in total production. If Granite's Economic Report is correct in its assumption that the Liberty Quarry will increase total quarry production, then the total miles traveled to deliver products will actually increase. Not only will Liberty Quarry's products have to be shipped, but products from other quarries will continue to be shipped and may well be shipped longer distances if some construction sites are closer to Liberty Quarry than to other quarries. The relevant question is whether total shipping distances will increase if the Liberty Quarry is opened at the proposed site or at an alternative site. Since Granite's Economic Report does not address that question, the estimated negative economic impact of increased truck travel is unknown. Suppose, on the other hand, that the Report's shipping -distance assumption is correct and that the opening of the Liberty Quarry causes production at other quarries to fall by an equal amount, so that there is no net increase in total production. If this were true, there would be no net gain in tax receipts or employment for Riverside County. The tax revenue and employment from Liberty Quarry would be offset by losses elsewhere, for example, in Western Riverside County (Lake Elsinore/Temescal area). In addition, if there were fewer trucks on the road, this would have a negative impact on the trucking industry and jobs for truck operators. The conclusion is that either Granite takes business away from other quarries or Granite increases truck traffic; likely it will be both. The Report's presumptions that Granite reduces truck traffic and simultaneously does not take business away from other quarries are illogical and nearly impossible. II.1.A.iv Total Benefits Table 2 summarizes our estimates of the benefits for Riverside County and should therefore replace Table 1 above. The numbers in this table represent the dollar figures which we forecast as the likely outcomes in terms of benefits that the operation of Liberty Quarry will bring to Temecula and the County of Riverside. When comparing the numbers here to those in Table 1, it becomes immediately clear that they are not nearly as large as the vastly inflated estimated benefits in Granite's Economic Report. This is true regardless of whether you use 2021 or 2012 as a year 19 The argument that there is limited supply of aggregate is incorrect. There is abundant supply of natural aggregate available as demonstrated in the Geologic Maps of San Diego County and Riverside County. In addition, there is further documentation on this in the January 2011 SANBAG Aggregate Resources Report. Finally, supply in terms of permitted reserves may not exceed demand at any time, based upon renewal of existing permitted mines, permitting of new mines in appropriate Locations, or a decrease in demand for aggregate based on lower development activities. 12 for calculation. While Granite's Economic Report did not use present value calculation, we have added a column here to reflect all future benefits/costs over the life span of the quarry. Table 2: Revised Estimated Benefits, millions of 2005 dollars Category Local employment and purchases of goods and services Riverside Conn : overnment revenue Property taxes 1% Sales Tax TUMF, one-time MSHCP fee, one-time Economic im act of truck travel On air quality On hi hwa and road maintenance Total II.1.B Estimated Costs 2012 2021 Present Value $10.3 $19.5 $357.7 negative negative $0.120 $1.0 negative negative $0.0 $0.0 $0.1 $1.0 negative negative negative negative $11.4 $19.5 $358.8 Granite's Economic Report report does not include any negative economic impacts from the operations of the proposed Liberty Quarry. This is a particularly startling omission since there clearly will be negative effects including increased driving costs, reduced property values, reduced tourist activity, damaged agricultural crops, increased health costs, public emergency services, and a diminished quality of life. Road maintenance costs and inadequate lane capacity to accommodate more than 1,600 additional daily heavy duty aggregate truck trips will become a financial burden to governmental entities, including the City of Temecula (and CALTRANS) and the County of Riverside. II.1.B.i Driving Costs The proposed quarry will be loading and shipping materials in large trucks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The Traffic Study estimates that 1,600 daily truck trips will be required to transport 5 million tons of aggregate per year. The Liberty Quarry Draft Environmental Impact Report (page 2-21) estimates that there will be an average of 54 trucks an hour leaving the site. Travel times for local residents, especially those commuting south to San Diego County, will be affected by these heavy, slow-moving trucks, a faster deterioration in the quality of the roads, and an increase in road repair activity. In addition, any aggregate that falls off the trucks may slow traffic and damage cars. The California Department of Transportation estimated that the average daily traffic on the I-15 at the San Diego/Riverside County line was 129,000 vehicles northbound and 129,000 vehicles 20 TUMF fees could be as high as $0.3 according to the Liberty Quarry Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2009. 13 southbound in 2008 21 To be conservative, we will assume that there is only one person per vehicle, whose time is worth $10/hour, which would only be $2 above California minimum wages; and that travel time increases by one minute. These conservative assumptions imply increased driving costs of $15,695,000 per year. A 2000 analysis of the Soledad Canyon Project near Santa Clarity estimated that 1,164 daily truck trips would increase travel time on the Antelope Valley and Golden State Freeways by between 0.75 and 1.5 minutes 22 For the Liberty Quarry's proposed 1,600 daily truck trips (37% more than in the Soledad Project), we use a 1 -minute average increase in travel time, which is the lower part of the 0.75 -minute to 1.5 -minute range. Assuming conservatively that traffic does not increase over the 50 -year horizon (50 years based on the Husing Economic Impact Analysis) or over the 75 -year horizon (75 years based on the Liberty Quarry Draft Environment Impact Report) of this proposed quarry, and that the dollar value of an individual's time increases at the rate of inflation, the present value is $247.4 million. With less conservative assumptions, the loss could be far higher. II.1.B.ii Property Values Temecula and Murrieta both have populations of more than 100,000 with respective 2007 estimated median family incomes of $80,000 and $90,000. In a 2008 economic report of the City of Temecula, John Husing observed that, and that, "Temecula is one of Southern California's nicest locations"23 "the residents of southwestern Riverside County want to create a suburban community largely composed of upscale detached single-family homes."24 • Yet, he has also noted that aggregate mining "is not an activity that residents are excited about having located near them. In fact, aggregate mining operations almost always meet with opposition."25 If people are largely opposed to such mining operation, then such operations will have costs for the local population, including a negative effect on local property values. If people do not want to live close to a quarry, they will not be willing to pay as much to do so. This should be especially true in the Temecula Valley where residents have been attracted by an upscale living standard. John Husing, the author of Granite's Economic Report notes that an ocean sea breeze reaches Temecula due to a gap in the mountains. This adds to Temecula's attractiveness. However, this 21 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/saferesr/trafdata/2008a11/r012-15i.htm 22 Brown, W. and S. Frates (2000). "The Economic Impact of the Transit Mixed Concrete Company's Soledad Canyon Project on the Surrounding Community and Los Angeles County." Rose Institute, December 10. 23 Husing (2008; 1) 24 Husing (2008; 1) 25 Husing (2008; 8) 14 mountain gap is directly over the proposed quarry location, so that the sea breeze that makes Temecula special will carry dust, noise, the odor of asphalt and rubber recycling, as well as pollutants and emissions to Temecula. The people who have chosen to live in the Temecula Valley may value the environment highly. Several empirical studies have found that property values are affected by air quality, water quality, and the location of hazardous waste, although the specific magnitudes depend on the nature of the city and its residents.26 An economic analysis of the proposed Soledad Canyon Project near Santa Clarita is instructive.27 That project would have produced 56.1 million tons of aggregate over a 20 - year period, as compared to Liberty Quarry's production of 227.5 million tons over a 50 -year period 28 For the much smaller Soledad project, it was assumed by the authors of the study that the prices of homes within two miles of the proposed mine would decline by 6% to 10% and that the prices of homes between two and five miles of the site would decline by 2% to 6%. To put the relative size of the proposed quarry into perspective, the Coachella Valley MSHCP in 2007 listed the total permitted reserves for the entire Coachella Valley at 272 million tons,29 which is expected to last for approximately 130 years. Liberty Quarry, by contrast, will extract 235 million tons, which is close to the combined quarry reserves in the Coachella Valley. The resulting 1,600 daily truck trips from Liberty Quarry are bound to have a serious negative impact on all ramps of the I-15 (the single freeway which runs through the City of Temecula). This amount of traffic would have quite a large negative impact on all residents and visitors. While the negative impact imposed on all local communities will diminish the attractiveness of the area to prospective buyers in the entire area, we are willing to err on the conservative side by not considering the negative effects on property values to other nearby residential communities such as DeLuz, Fallbrook, Rainbow, Wine Country, French Valley, Pechanga, and the other unincorporated areas of Riverside County east of the I-15. In addition, we are limiting the estimate to residential property values and exclude the impact to commercial property values. In what follows, we will only assume a modest 6% reduction in property values within the City of Temecula boundaries for our median estimate. In 2010, Temecula had 34,004 housing units.30 In May of 2010, the median home sale price was $275,000. This was $75,000 higher than the overall County median price. If the average home price $275,000 diminished its valuation gap with the rest of the County and were to fall by 6%, this represent a $16,500 decline. Multiplied by 34,000 homes, that would be a $561 million decline in total property values. A mega -quarry will certainly be a nuisance to all Temecula homeowners 26 For example, Smith, V. and J. Huang (1995). "Can Markets Value Air Quality? A Meta -Analysis of Hedonic Property Value Models," Journal of Political Economy, 103 (1), 209-227; Zabel, J. and K. Kiel (2000). "Estimating the Demand for Air Quality in Four U.S. Cities," Land Economics, 76 (2), pages 174-194. 27 Brown, W. and S. Frates (2000). "The Economic Impact of the Transit Mixed Concrete Company's Soledad Canyon Project on the Surrounding Community and Los Angeles County." Rose Institute, December 10. 28 Husing (2007). Note that the Liberty Quarry Draft Environmental Impact Report reduced the footprint quarry size to 235 million tons over 75 years. 29 EIR (2007) pp. 44-5. 3° San Diego Association of Governments (SCAG) Local Profiles Report 2011; City of Temecula (2011; 8, 11) 15 and impact all property values. To be conservative, we omit many impacted residences and limit ourselves to 50% of Temecula properties, or $280.5 million. The operation of the quarry will also reduce the value of existing commercial property and the quantity and quality of construction of new homes and businesses to service the population ("retail follows rooftops"). Taken together, these effects are most likely at least as large as the effects on existing residential property, but we will not include a dollar figure in our tabulation of the costs. H.1.B.iii Tourism The Husing report for the City of Temecula identifies Temecula as "a premier tourist destination.s3 ' Among the attractions are more than 640 antique dealers, many specialty shops and restaurants, Wednesday and Saturday farmers markets, wine tasting at more than 30 wineries, seven golf courses, hot air ballooning, the Temecula Children's Museum, Temecula Valley Museum, Pechanga Resort and Casino, and events such as the Temecula Rod Run car show, Temecula Valley International Jazz Festival, and Temecula Valley International Film & Music Festival. The Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau opposes the location of the Liberty Quarry because of the negative effects it will have on the estimated 6,600 business owners and employees who are involved in Temecula's tourist industry, the average of 67,600 visitors a month who stay in Temecula hotels, and the estimated $605 million annual economic impact of tourism.32 The tourism industry is concerned about the presence of a large mining operation overwhelming the reputation of the area, which is largely known for its wine country. Liberty Quarry would be located at the entrance to Riverside County coming from the south. A recent study has attempted to compare quarries in Napa Valley and in the Coachella Valley to the situation at hand, and has concluded that there is no evidence of a negative impact on the wine industry (or for that matter on property values) in those locations 33 Forgetting the many shortcomings of the study, which even suggests a positive correlation between quarry activity and property values or tourism (this simply does not pass the straight face test), we simply note here that the Napa Valley mine produces only 500,000 tons a year, and does so by scraping, not blasting. The highest production volume for the Indio mine was 1.4 million tons, and it is currently producing less than 500,000 tons. Again, production is done here by scraping, not blasting. The proposed Liberty Quarry is scheduled to produce 5 million tons a year, or 10 times the production at either of these mines, with blasting occurring twice a day. The amount of noise, dust, and other pollution will be many orders of magnitude Larger than these small scraping operations. The report even quotes the president of the Shadow Hills Homeowners Association, Todd Crowe, who claims that he did not even realize that Granite's Indio Mine was located within a short distance from his subdivision. The report does not realize that instead of demonstrating that the mine is not disruptive, the inadvertent revelation is 31 Husing (2008; 67) 32 Denis Ferguson, Chairman of the Board for the Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau, letter dated May 18, 2010, to Jeff Stone, Third District Supervisor, Riverside County Board of Supervisors. 33 Wheeler's Market Intelligence (2011). "Analysis of Potential Impacts of Liberty Quarry on the Tourism Industry and Property Values in Temecula, California." 16 that the Indo mine is completely different from the proposed Liberty Quarry. Hence this is similar to comparing apples with oranges 34 Finally, Napa Valley wine country is comprised of 225,000 acres and home to more than 400 wineries, while Temecula wine country has only 1,300 acres of planed vineyards with 33 wineries. In addition, the Napa quarry is not in the prevailing winds of Napa. It seems self-evident that tourism will be negatively affected by the quarry's blasting, processing, and shipping activities. Even a 10 percent decline in tourist activities would have an annual economic impact of $60.5 million. The present value is $953.6 million. To remain consistent with our theme of erring on the conservative side with our calculations, we have not painted a worst case scenario in our impact on tourism and did not include the loss of benefits to the governmental agencies resulting from sales, property, and transient oriented taxes. Thus the economic costs of lost tourism from the quarry would be even larger. II.1.B.iv Agriculture In the City of Temecula report, Husing notes that, "Temecula is unique for an inland community in that an ocean sea breeze makes its way through a gap in the mountains. As a result, the city has a moderate climate and the area is home to over 20 wineries that are increasingly being noted for their fine varietals."35 The Temecula Valley has become well known for its wineries ("Temecula Wine Country") but also has a substantial production of avocados, citrus, and other crops. Indeed, nearby Fallbrook claims that it is the "Avocado Capital of the World." It is estimated that the current annual value of wine production in the Temecula Valley is between $62.2 million and $75 million. The annual value of commercial agriculture production in the San Jacinto/Temecula Valley was estimated to be $130.1 million in 2009.36 This industry is concerned about a large mining operation which would overwhelm the reputation of the area known for its agriculture and especially its wine country. Liberty Quarry would be located at the entrance to Riverside County from the south. Attempts to compare a smaller quarry in Napa Valley to Liberty Quarry would not be reasonable, since Napa Valley Wine Country is comprised of 225,000 acres encompassing almost the entire County of Napa. It is home to more than 400 wineries. Within that area, there are 45,000 acres of planted vineyards. Furthermore, the 34 "Until being made aware of this study, I had no idea that the quarry was operating within such a short distance of our community... I thought Granite Construction had a corporate headquarters at the north end of Monroe Street but didn't know that they have been operating a massive quarry. Nothing related to Granite Construction or their quarry came before our HOA in a meeting setting nor did anyone approach me about any aspect of it during the five years I was president of the association. I have never heard noise from that direction or noticed any dust or anything like that coming from Granite's operation." Wheeler's Market Intelligence (2011; 13). 35 /fusing (2008; 66) 36 Riverside County Agricultural Production -2009, Riverside County Agricultural Commission, page 9. 17 Napa quarry is not situated in a prevailing winds situation of Napa, nor does it include daily blasting. By comparison, Temecula Wine Country is merely1,300 acres of planted vineyards. In addition, the industry is also concerned for the potentially damaging effects of the proposed Liberty Quarry on their crops, as evidenced by the slogan "wine country, not mine country." The Ontario (Canada) Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs has reported that, "Agricultural crops can be injured when exposed to high concentrations of various air pollutants. Injury ranges from visible markings on the foliage, to reduced growth and yield, to premature death of the plant.s37 It is possible that quarry dust and pollutants may adversely affect plants and trees directly and also the bees that pollinate fruits. Since the wine industry is most likely to be the hardest hit by quarry pollution, we conservatively assume a 5% reduction in its annual value and a 1% reduction in the annual value of other crops. This gives a 2012 cost of $4.1 million,38 with a present value of $63.9 million. It is safe to assume that Riverside County, and not just the City of Temecula, has a strong interest in expanding the visibility of the wine industry in the area. This industry is not only important to agriculture, but to tourism in this area. II.1.B.v Health and the Quality of Life Humans as well as plants and trees may be adversely affected by quarry dust and the noise and vibrations caused by daily blasting. The Husing report for the City of Temecula states that "Temecula's residents enjoy one of Southern California's finest lifestyles."39 This lifestyle will be undermined by many consequences of the proposed quarry, including noise pollution, air pollution, the odor of asphalt, artificial lighting for nighttime operations, and increased travel times. The degradation of health and quality of life will have an enormous negative economic impact on the southwest Temecula region, irrespective of whether those impacts are individually defined the same as significant impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). H.1.B.vi Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve The Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (SMER) contains more than 4,000 acres that include the first five miles of the Santa Margarita River, the longest free-flowing coastal river in southern California. The SMER is home for many endangered species and for many endemic species that are found nowhere else in the world.40 Because of the ongoing research conducted by San Diego State University (SDSU) at this pristine site, SMER has been characterized as 37 Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs, "Effects of Air Pollution on Agricultural Crops," June 2003 3B 5%($68.75) + 1%($130.1 — 68.75) = $4.1 J9 Husing (2008; 66) 40 Matt Rahn, Director, Field Stations Programs, San Diego State University, correspondence, June 15, 2010. 18 "an irreplaceable resource dedicated to understanding the most critical issues facing our nation, including climate change, wildfires, air pollution, earthquakes, water quality, invasive species, and endangered species."4l SMER is adjacent to the proposed quarry site and all SDSU research sites are within 3.5 miles of the proposed quarry,42 and vulnerable to dust, light, noise, and water pollution. In its review of the Liberty Quarry proposal, SDSU writes that, "[G]iven the anticipated breadth and depth of the impacts that are well documented from gravel mining operations, including those owned by Granite, we may no longer be able to function as an information generating entity in the future if this proposed mining operation is approved."43 Already, according to the Director of the SDSU Field Stations Programs, "[t]he exponential growth of research is being slowed by the potential threat of the proposed quarry."44 SDSU's review of the quarry proposal includes a long list of potential negative effects on the SMER,45 and the associated economic damage that might be done to this irreplaceable site, including its educational programs, outreach programs, biological importance, and cultural significance. The SMER no doubt has additional value far beyond funded on-site research. However we do not attempt to quantify the loss of SDSU's SMER operations. We simply mention it here given the potential for Liberty Quarry to cause a significant economic loss to SDSU. II.1.B.vii Costs Table 3 summarizes our conservative estimates of some of the costs of the proposed Liberty Quarry for Riverside County residents. This is by no means a comprehensive list of all the negative costs associated with Liberty Quarry. Instead if offers a conservative glimpse of the negative economic impacts. As with the total benefits, the comparison can be made for a specific year (here 2012) or by comparing the present value of these future costs with that of the future benefits. 41 Matt Rahn. 42 San Diego State University, Review of Liberty Quarry DEIR # 475, July 2009, page 197 43 San Diego State University, pages 187-8 44 Matt Rahn, quoted in "Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve: The land that bridges time," Fallbrook BonsalI Village News, November 17, 2006 45 San Diego State University, pages 196-211 19 Table 3: Estimated Costs by the Rose Institute, Millions of 2005 dollars Graph 2 compares the estimated cumulative benefits with the estimated cumulative costs over the life of the project. It clearly indicates that the economic costs of the project to the City of Temecula and Riverside County increasingly outstrip the economic benefits of the project over its expected life time. Graph 2: Comparison of Total Cumulative Costs and Benefits, Liberty Quarry, 2012-2061 Millions of Dollars 4,500 - 4,000 - 3,500 - 3,000 - 2,500 2,000 - 1,500 1,000 - 500 - Costs Benefits 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 20 2012 Present Value Driving costs $15.7 $247.4 Residential property values $280.5 Commercial property values negative Tourism $60.5 $953.6 Agriculture $4.1 $63.9 Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve negative negative Health and the quality of life negative (-)$80.3 mill negative (-)$1,545.4 mill Total Graph 2 compares the estimated cumulative benefits with the estimated cumulative costs over the life of the project. It clearly indicates that the economic costs of the project to the City of Temecula and Riverside County increasingly outstrip the economic benefits of the project over its expected life time. Graph 2: Comparison of Total Cumulative Costs and Benefits, Liberty Quarry, 2012-2061 Millions of Dollars 4,500 - 4,000 - 3,500 - 3,000 - 2,500 2,000 - 1,500 1,000 - 500 - Costs Benefits 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 20 Table 4 Annual Benefits and Costs, millions of 2005 dollars 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Local Spending 90.9 10.3 9.0 9.6 11.4 13.1 19.4 17.6 18.3 18.2 19.5 TUMF 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MSHC 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Benefits 90.9 11.4 9.0 9.6 11.4 13.1 19.4 17.6 18.3 18.2 19.5 Property Values 280.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Driving Costs 0.0 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 Tourism 0.0 60.5 60.5 60.5 60.5 60.5 60.5 60.5 60.5 60.5 60.5 Agriculture 0.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 Total Costs 280.5 80.3 80.3 80.3 80.3 80.3 80.3 80.3 80.3 80.3 80.3 Net -189.6 -68.9 -71.3 -70.7 -68.9 -67.1 -60.8 -62.7 -62.0 -62.0 -60.8 H.1.B.vii.a Sensitivity Analysis Throughout the analysis, we have used conservative estimates on costs. Recall that Granite's Economic Report did not include any costs and hence we could have simply focused the response on the listed benefits. However, we felt it necessary to consider some of the potential costs to give a more objective reading of the economic impact of the proposed quarry. To emphasize that we have erred on the conservative size of the costs, we reiterate that we • assumed only a single person per vehicle in our analysis, whose time was only worth $10 per hour; • assumed no increase in traffic over the next 50-75 years; • omitted negative effects on the value of existing commercial properties; • omitted the negative effects on the quantity and quality of construction of new homes and businesses; • omitted the negative effects on future tourism activities such as potential expansions of existing attractions; • omitted the negative effects on health and the quality of life; • omitted the negative effects on the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve. Regardless, we feel that we can add credibility to our estimates by assuming a range of our estimates, and by displaying the effect that these would have on the costs. We will focus on four areas here: 21 1. Driving Costs. The Soledad Canyon Project study referenced above used a range of 0.75 minutes to 1.5 minutes in increased driving time per person. So far, we employed the assumption of 1 minute in our calculations, despite the fact that daily truck traffic from the Liberty Quarry is projected to be 37 percent higher than was the case for the Soledad project. For a minimum/maximum range, we employ 0.75 minutes and 1.5 minutes. 2. Property Values. The Soledad Canyon Project study used a range of 2 percent to 6 percent for a three and a half -mile radius and 6 percent to 10 percent depreciation for a two mile radius. Even though the Liberty Quarry production is projected to be four times the size of the Soledad project, we employed a 6 percent figure in our study. For a minimum/maximum range, we will use 2 percent and 10 percent. 3. Tourism. Our assumption in the study was a modest 10 percent decline in tourism activity. For a minimum/maximum range, we will use figures of 5 percent and 15 percent. 4. Agriculture. For our study, we assumed a 5 percent reduction in the value of wine production and a 1 percent reduction in the value of other crops. For a minimum/maximum range, we will make calculations of 2.5 percent and 7.5 percent, and 0.5 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively. This changes Graph 2 as follows: Graph 3: Comparison of Total Cumulative Costs and Benefits, Liberty Quarry, 2012-2061, Sensitivity Analysis Millions of Dollars 7,000 - 6,000 - 5,000 - 4,000 - 3,000 2,000 - 1,000 - 0 1 1 Max Costs Costs Min Costs Benefits 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 Tables 5 and Tables 6 present the change in calculated costs under the more optimistic and pessimistic assumptions. 22 Table 5: Estimated Costs by the Rose Institute, Millions of 2005 dollars (minimum cost alternative) Table 6: Estimated Costs by the Rose Institute, Millions of 2005 dollars (maximum cost alternative) 2012 Present Value Driving costs $11.8 $185.5 Residential property values $93.5 Commercial property values negative Tourism $30.3 $467.8 Agriculture $2.0 $32.0 Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve negative negative Health and the quality of life negative negative Total (-)$44.1 million (-)$778.8 million Table 6: Estimated Costs by the Rose Institute, Millions of 2005 dollars (maximum cost alternative) The point of the sensitivity analysis is to demonstrate that even if we consider costs that are unrealistically low, the overall costs outweigh the benefits of the project. In addition, the exercise demonstrates that under less conservative but not outrageous assumptions, the downside is potentially much more severe than what we showed in the main part of the analysis. III. Conclusion Granite's Economic Report asserts that the opening of the Liberty Quarry would yield tens of millions of dollars in benefits with no costs whatsoever. Hence it considers benefits only while 23 2012 Present Value Driving costs $23.5 $371.1 Residential property values $467.S Commercial property values negative Tourism $90.8 $1,430.4 Agriculture $6.1 $95.9 Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve negative negative Health and the quality of life negative negative Total (-)$120.4 million (-)$2,364.9 million The point of the sensitivity analysis is to demonstrate that even if we consider costs that are unrealistically low, the overall costs outweigh the benefits of the project. In addition, the exercise demonstrates that under less conservative but not outrageous assumptions, the downside is potentially much more severe than what we showed in the main part of the analysis. III. Conclusion Granite's Economic Report asserts that the opening of the Liberty Quarry would yield tens of millions of dollars in benefits with no costs whatsoever. Hence it considers benefits only while 23 ignoring all costs. This is not a correct methodology to apply, nor is it in the spirit of standard economic analysis of a project's economic impacts. Yet the report also acknowledges that there is almost always local opposition to quarry operations. The implication is that local residents are naive in not recognizing that living next to a quarry is an unmitigated blessing. Another possible explanation is that the local residents are well aware of substantial costs that Granite's Economic Report fails to consider. Not only are the projected benefits shown in Table 2 much less than reported by Granite's Economic Report due to double counting and the inclusion of revenues that do not impact Riverside County, the projected costs shown in Table 3 are far larger, resulting in a significant net loss to the region. While we do not claim of having a reliable crystal ball to forecast all benefits and costs of the proposed quarry exactly, the magnitude of even these conservative costs clearly dwarf the benefits. The Liberty Quarry will be very profitable for Granite Construction Company, but very costly to the regional economy: the benefits to the community do not outweigh costs; not even close. It is also unlikely that Riverside County will benefit significantly from increased sales tax revenue, since Liberty Quarry will be run by a construction company that will likely use most of the quarry products in San Diego County. We emphasize that much of our estimates are based on costs that are most likely understated: we have typically erred on the conservative side with our numbers. The true costs are likely to be much worse. However, even these understated conservative costs dwarf the economic benefits of the quarry and demonstrate how severe the negative economic impact will be to this region. Southern California is abundantly rich in the natural resources for aggregate of this grade and quality and there are numerous feasible locations for a new quarry where the negative impacts would not be so large. Many of the projected benefits from the quarry would be approximately the same in other locations, but the costs would be substantially lower if the quarry were not located so close to this thriving community. Finally, it is worth noting that Granite Construction Company, like many other businesses in the construction industry, has experienced particularly hard economic times during the Great Recession. The company experienced a large number of layoffs and also a $46 million reported loss for the first half of 2010 alone. Part of the recent economic woes of Riverside County stem from the fact that it has relied heavily on job creation through the construction sector. To illustrate, Riverside County had an unemployment rate as low as 5.2% in May of 2007, only to see the unemployment rate peak at 15.4% in July of 2010 as a result of the. Great Recession. This increase of over 10 percentage points is unprecedented in the area and it is hard to find similar hardship in other parts of the country with a few exceptions. Given the large inventory of housing stock and the number of properties already foreclosed with more of the same to come in the near future, job creation will certainly not come from a revival of the construction industry. Instead Riverside County will have to look to other sectors if it wants to improve its economic outlook. Part of the hoped-for growth may well come from the tourist industry as the United States and the Greater Los Angeles area and San Diego pull out of the Great Recession. Just as Riverside County has spent resources to be more supportive of foreign companies settling in the area and promoting exports, some of the job recovery may well come from tourism and leisure related activities such as Temecula's wine country, the Pechanga resort, Temecula's Old Town, etc. Having a quarry of the 24 size planned by Granite Construction Company in the Temecula area will not help the tourist industry in the Temecula area or the County and will not support the construction industry when job and output growth from this sector is bound to be depressed for years to come. 25 Appendix A Present Value Calculation In general, a present value answers the question "How much money do you have to invest now in order to have a certain future value?" Since a sum of money invested now, called a principal (P), can earn interest (R), then the future value (F) after one year is determined as follows: P7= Pox(1+R,) where the subscript indicates the year. After two years, this would be F2 =P, x(1+R2)=P x(1+4)x(1+R2) and if the interest rate was the same in both periods, this would become F2=P°x(1+R)2 In general (after n years), you would have F" = P° x (1 + R)" For example, if you invested $1,000 at a rate of interest of 10%, or 0.1, then after 7 years you would have $1,948.72, or you would have almost doubled the principal. The present value can therefore be determined as follows: _ f ;, ° (1+R)" The formula provides you with the answer to the following question: if someone offered you an IOU for $1,948.72 in to be paid in 7 years time, how much is this promise of a future payment worth to you now? The answer is $1,000. Imagine that your child is a rising freshman in college and will attend a private college with a cost of $50,000 a year in four years (and you will incur the same cost in each year of her education). Again, and perhaps heroically these days, you assume an interest rate of 10%. Then the present value is 26 �, _ 50, + 000 50, + 000 50, + 000 50,000 _ 119, 078.30 ° (1+0.1)° (1+0.1)5 (1+0.1)6 (1+0.1)' _ which is quite steep, but it is not $200,000. This is the amount you have to set aside today in order to finance the college expense four, five, six, and seven years down the road. Similarly, if your daughter went to a public university and had to pay $25,000 a year in tuition and room and board, the present value would be just under $60,000. Present values are also used to calculate future liabilities of communities and the state for pensions. In other words, they can answer the question about how much money a community has to set aside in order to pay for future retirements of its current employees. The California lottery, similarly, allows you to either collect your winnings in a single sum or to be paid over a lengthy period of time. Clearly the lump sum payment is considerable less than the total of the payments if these were stretched out over 30 years. Present value calculation also has the advantage to compare costs and benefits if these occur at different points in time and if they do not have a constant value. In this sense, present value calculation standardizes the costs and benefits and allows you to properly compare them. Following the EIA, the assumed rate of return in this report is 6% or 0.06. 27 1 1 1 RESOLUTION NO. 11-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA OPPOSING THE LIBERTY QUARRY PROJECT PROPOSED WITHIN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ADJACENT TO THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, declare and determine that: A. Granite Construction Company seeks various approvals from the County of Riverside to operate a quarry in a largely pristine and undisturbed area of Southwest Riverside County, adjacent to the City of Temecula. The entitlements sought include a Surface Mining Permit (SMP No. 213), Change of Zone (No. 7508) from Rural Residential (R -R) to Mineral Resources and Related Manufacturing. (M -R -A) for .110 acres, and a Noise Ordinance Exception (No. 00002). The proposed project site encompasses 414 acres and is located within Riverside County adjacent to the southern boundaries of the City of Temecula. ("Proposed Liberty Quarry Project") B. On or about July 17, 2009, the County of Riverside released Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 475 for the Proposed Liberty Quarry Project. ("Draft EIR") C. The City of Temecula reviewed the Proposed Liberty Quarry Project and the Draft EIR. D. On November 23, 2009, the City of Temecula submitted substantive comments to the County of Riverside on the Proposed Liberty Quarry Project Draft EIR detailing substantial defects, omissions, errors and inadequacies within the Draft EIR and advised that the Draft EIR must be substantially revised and recirculated based upon the various specific defects as well as its overall failure to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. E. On or about January 11, 2011, the Riverside County Planning Department informed the City of Temecula of its decision not to recirculate the Liberty Quarry Project Draft EIR and its intention to release responses to comments and the final EIR document at least 10 days prior to a Planning Commission public hearing that is scheduled for April 26, 2011. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula has considered the Proposed Liberty Quarry Project and the Draft EIR and does hereby find, declare and determine that: R:/Resos 2011/Resos 11-25 1 1 1 1 A. The County of Riverside has established development standards, zoning districts, Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan requirements, land use regulations and General Plan requirements that purposefully prohibit mineral extraction in locations that are incompatible with the surroundings and therefore would prohibit the Proposed Liberty Quarry Project, the Reduced Quarry Footprint Alternative, and Reduced Annual Production Alternative identified in the Draft EIR, from being established at the proposed project location. B. The Proposed Liberty Quarry Project, the Reduced Quarry Footprint Alternative, and the Reduced Annual Production Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIR are all in a completely incompatible and inappropriate location and will negatively and adversely impact the region by, among other things, substantially degrading air quality, increasing traffic and transportation impacts, adversely impacting biological and cultural resources, and negatively impacting the economy. C. The Draft EIR is fundamentally misleading, incomplete, fails to discuss all present and future aspects of the Proposed Liberty Quarry Project, fails to mitigate the adverse impacts of the project, altogether ignores or omits negative impacts, provides errors or miscalculations that deceive the reader as to the magnitude of the Project's true negative impacts including, but not limited to the negative air quality and negative traffic impacts to the region, and provides information that appears to be nothing more than advocacy for the project rather than valid independent environmental analysis. The EIR should not be relied upon by the County of Riverside to approve the proposed Liberty Quarry Project. Section 3. The City of Temecula hereby formally opposes the Liberty Quarry Project and any quarry alternative at that particular project site including a Reduced Footprint and Reduced Annual Production Alternatives as identified in the Draft EIR. Section 4. The City of Temecula authorizes its Mayor, Council Members, City Manager and his designees, to communicate the City's opposition to the Proposed Liberty Quarry Project and EIR to all interested or concerned parties or persons including but not limited to the County of Riverside, business groups, and citizens. R:/Resos 2011/Resos 11-25 2 1 1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 8th day of March, 2011. ATTEST: [SEAL] R:/Resos 2011/Resos 11-25 3 on Roberts, Mayor 1 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 11-25 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of March, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Washington, Roberts NOES: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None R:/Resos 2011/Resos 11-25 4 Susan . Jones, MMC City Clerk TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Item No. 9 ACTION MINUTES of AUGUST 9, 2011 City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING The Temecula Community Services District Meeting convened at 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington, Comerchero CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS CSD CONSENT CALENDAR 18 Action Minutes — Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) Director Washington made the motion; it was seconded by Director Roberts; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Approve the action minutes of July 26, 2011. 19 Agreement between Melody's Ad Works, Inc. and the Temecula Community Services District for FY2011-12 — Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) Director Washington made the motion; it was seconded by Director Roberts; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Approve an agreement with Melody's Ad Works, Inc. in the amount of $39,700 for promoting and marketing Special Events in Old Town for FY2011-12. 19.2 Approve an additional $5,000 as a material reimbursement to be utilized for consultant to procure items at a discounted rate for special events in Old Town. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD Action Minutes1080911 1 CSD ADJOURNMENT At 7:31 P.M., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, August 23, 2011, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, President ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/District Secretary [SEAL] CSD Action Minutes1080911 2 Item No. 10 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: General Manager/Board of Directors FROM: Herman Parker, Director of Community Services DATE: August 23, 2011 SUBJECT: Authorization for Payment of the Sewer Connection Fees for the Old Town Gymnasium, Project No. PW07-05 PREPARED BY: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Avlin Odviar, Senior Engineer — CIP Kendra Hannah-Meistrell, Assistant Engineer — CIP RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors authorize the payment of sewer connection fees in the amount of $48,988.15 to Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) to establish sewer service for the Old Town Gymnasium. BACKGROUND: The Old Town Gymnasium project will provide indoor athletic facilities and activities for City residents and the Boys and Girls Club, in an area currently void of these opportunities. The gymnasium will be located adjacent to the Boys and Girls Club on First Street. The proposed 8,300 square foot gymnasium includes a full-size basketball court with seating for approximately 120 spectators, restrooms, a small office, storage and parking. Due to funding constraints the Old Town Gymnasium Project has been separated into two phases. Phase I consists of pad grading, installation of utilities to the pad, construction of the parking lot, construction of the trash enclosure, installation of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) measures and landscaping. Phase II consists of building the gymnasium, connecting the utilities to the building, constructing walkways around the building, placing a final cap on the parking lot and landscaping. As EMWD is the utility purveyor that provides sewer service in this area, application was made for a sewer connection. EMWD calculated the connection fees based upon the planned use of the new facility. FISCAL IMPACT: The Old Town Gymnasium project is identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program, Fiscal Years 2012-2016 and is funded with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Economic Development Initiative (EDI). Adequate funds are available in the project accounts. ATTACHMENTS: EMWD Application for Service Location Map Project Description DATE: August 2, 2011 S.O.#'s: 234364 **REVISED** EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT APPLICATION FOR SERVICE PROJECT SEQ NUMBER: 3342663 PROJECT NUMBER: 7674 SUBLOT NO. LOT NUMBER(S), 4 WATER CO No: 1 SEWER CO No: CUSTOMER INFORMATION CUSTOMER/COMPANYNAME: KENDRA HANNAH-MEISTRELL / CITY OF TEMECULA CONTACT EMAIL: KENDRA.HANNAHMEISTRELL@CITYOFTEMECULA.ORG MAILING ADDRESS: 41000 MAIN ST P.O. Box 9033 TEMECULA CA 92589 CONTACT PHONE NUMBER: 951-693-3949 LOT INFORMATION: OLD TOWN GYMNASIUM LOT NO. SUBLOT NO. SERVICE ADDRESS CONNECTION LOCATION TENANT TYPE SERVICE ORDER APN 4 18,860.92 42105 FIRST ST, TEMECULA 92590 SIS FIRST ST 175' EIS PUJOL ST (STA. 12+55.22) PER SD•2364 SPORT CENTER • INDOOR 234364 922-100-035 WATER INFORMATION - RANCHO CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT WATER L.D✓SA: 1 PIPE SIZE 4 LOCATION: DOMESTIC RATE 8001( NO: IRR/DATION RATE TBG: DRAWING NO: ZONE: SEWER INFORMATION SEWER LD✓SA: 08 /34 PIPE SIZE & LOCATION- 8" VCP NO.OF UNITS: I0.79EDU'S 1 RATE: 5401 TBG: 97841 1 WATER COMPANY: RCMWD DRAWING NO: SD -2364 FEE INFORMATION FEE DESCRIPTION ASSESSED AMOUNT TOTAL* MISC. SEWER CONN. INSP. SO 234364 ***ACTUAL COST- SUBJECT TO REFUND FOR ADDITIONAL BILLING"•• 595.00 595.00 SEWER FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION CHARGE 10.79 @S1,748/EDU 18.860.92 18,860.92 SEWER TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY 10.79 @ 52,247/EDU 26.295.23 26.295.23 WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT FEE FOR COMMERCIAL SEWER 10.79 @ $300/EDU 3.237.00 3.237.00 Total $48,988.15 DISCLOSURE REGARDING FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION CHARGES SET FORTH HEREIN ABOVE: *This Application shall become null and void if it has not been executed on behalf of Applicant and District, and Applicant has not fulfilled its financial arrangements as set forth herein above, concurrently with Applicant's execution of this Application, on or before September 10, 2011. EMWD: padillaj Page 1 of 2 CUSTOMERS' INITIAL Document ID: 3346601 DATE: 08/02/11 S.O.#'s: 234364 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT APPLICATION FOR SERVICE ALL STANDARD METER/SERVICE INSTALLATIONS BY DISTRICT FORCES: Standard Meter/Service installations fees are based on labor, equipment, and material for a standard installation. The fees do not take into consideration any non-standard conditions set forth by County or City Agencies. Any conditions imposed by County or City Agencies which will require modification to the standard installation may require additional payment. Applicant will be advised of such conditions and additional funds required to proceed. Applicant has the right to cancel their request upon receipt of such notification. ALL SERVICE CONNECTIONS (ITEMS MAY OR MAY NOT APPLY): O EMWD to inspect sewer connection. Customer to contact Inspection Department 48 hours in advance at ext. 4838. O Customer to contact Field Engineering at ext. 4830 to schedule pre -job meeting before any work by customer's contractor. O Annexation to EMWD or I.D. prior to service. ANNEXATION NOT REQUIRED PER NICOLE F. O Property is in Special Area _N/A_,, see attached conditions. VERIFIED ON MAP — LW. O SEWER SERVICE AGREEMENT: Sewer Service is subject to the EMWD's Federal EPA, State and Local regulations. SEWER BACKWATER VALVE: In accordance with the Uniform Plumbing Code Section 409 and due to the relative pad elevation of this property compared to upstream manholes, customer is required to install, own, operate, and maintain, at customer's expense, an approved backwater valve and agrees to hold the Eastern Municipal Water District harmless from or on account of any damages arising from the failure of customer's backwater valve. Customer agrees to notify EMWD should the device overflow. Comments:**REVISED TO REFLECT EXPERIATION DATE FROM 7/10/11 TO 9/10/11 AS REQUESTED BY KENDRA HANNAH-MEISTRELL CITY OF TEMECULA-OK PER ALICIA ARANA TO UPDATE.** CITY OF TEMECULA OLD TOWN GYMNASIUM: FEES BASED ON SPORTS CENTER -INDOOR. 8,300 SQFT + 1000 (BASE UNIT) x 1.30 (EDU PER UNIT) = 10.79 EDU'S FOR PROJECT. DEV/CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE EXCAVATION, PERMITS, 4" SEWER LATERAL, & CLEAN OUT AT PROPERTY LINE. EMWD TO INSPECT AT MAIN LINE AND CLEAN OUT AT PROPERTY LINE PAYMENT, CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE AND PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH EMWD REQUIRED PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY WORK WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY. Prior to construction, applicant must verify the existence and location(s) of water service line(s)/sewer lateral(s). Applicant hereby agrees to hold the District harmless from or on account of any damages arising in cases where the water service line(s)/sewer lateral(s) cannot be located. 1f water service line(s)/sewer lateral(s) represented on EMWD's maps cannot be located, applicant must make arrangements to construct new water service line(s)/sewer lateral(s). Customer's Signature: &MID'a Signature: USA WHITESELLUUA PADILLA Page 2012 DATE: DATE: 08/02/2011 OLD TOWN GYMNASIUM Infrastructure / Other Projects Location Aerial Data - March 2010 0 100 200 Feet 400 A 90 cm' OF TEMECULA OLD TOWN GYMNASIUM Infrastructure J Other Projects Project Description: Design and construct an 8,300 square -foot gymnasium to be located adjacent to the Boys & Girls Club that will include a full-sized basketball court, bleacher seating for approximately 120 spectators, restrooms, storage, and a small office. Benefit: With a Joint -Use Agreement, this project will provide additional recreational facilities and activities for City residents. Project Status: The City is working with the Riverside County Flood Control with regard to the design and land acquisition. This project is estimated to be complete by end of fiscal year 2013. Department: Public Works 1 Temecula Community Services — Account No. 210.190.186 Priority: II Project Cost: Actuals to Date 011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Future Years Total Project Cost Administration $ 67,470 $170,000 $ 290,314 ! $ 527,784 Construction Total Funding: $540,609 $ 2,722,225 $ 3,482,981 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,262,834 Construction Engineering $ 80,000 $ 139,500 $ 219,500 Design $ 260,132 $109,869 $ 60,000 $ 430,001 Fixtures/Furn/Equip $ 107,800 $ 107,800 MSHCP $ 163,142 $ 163,142 Utilities $ 80,000 $ 80,000 Totals $327,602 $980,478 $ 3,482,981 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,791,061 Source of Funds: Actuals to Date 2011-12 Future Total 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Years Project Cost CDBG* $166,655 $ 980,478 $ 3,482, 981 $ 4,630,114 EDI $160,947 $ 160,947 Total Funding: $327,602 $980,478 $ 3,482,981 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,791,061 Future Operation & Maintenance Costs: 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 $ 5,100 2015-16 $ 5,202 $ 5,306 *U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 8 Housing Program loan in the amount of $2,750,686. Note: Agreement will include interior maintenance and utility responsibility of the Boys and Girls Club. 91 TCSD DEPARTMENTAL REPORT Item No. 11 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: General Manager/Board of Directors FROM: Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services DATE: August 23, 2011 SUBJECT: Monthly Departmental Report PREPARED BY: Gail Zigler, Administrative Assistant A conceptual design for the Old Town Gymnasium project was completed and approved by the Community Services Commission and City Council. The new gymnasium project will include the construction of a regulation size basketball court, restroom facilities, seating for spectators and an office. The project is currently in design development. "Art at the Merc" continues to provide local artists with an opportunity to display their art work. On Friday, July 29, 2011, an artist reception was held for Charles Bibb, a renowned creator of African American Art who resides in the Inland Empire. Mr. Bibb's art will be on display in the Gallery at the Merc and the Public Library through August. In August the TCSD concluded its "Tennis in the Park" summer program which provided tennis lessons to underserved youth in the community. Approximately 35 youth participated in the program, elementary through high school ages. Participants were provided the use of a tennis racket, and given a t -shirt, a total of 24 hours of tennis instruction, and tickets to a Professional Tennis tournament. The program was sponsored by USTA and LA84. The Community Services Department has prepared a draft of two Joint Use Agreements for use of Tennis Courts at Erle Stanley Gardner Middle School and Great Oak High School. These agreements are currently being reviewed by the Temecula Valley Unified School District. Once the agreements have been finalized, they will be forwarded for approval by the Community Services Commission and the Board of Directors. The Recreation Division concluded many of their summer programs this month. The F.A.M. series saw record numbers in attendance this year, as well as the Family Fun Night events. In addition, the conclusion of Summer Day Camp and Summer Teen Camp entertained a number of youth during the summer months. Staff is working closely with Context Middle Schools to coordinate the Steve Miller Rock Symphony to be held on September 18, 2011 at the Temecula Civic Center. In addition, staff is working, in conjunction with the Temecula Arts Council, to host a Neil Diamond Tribute Concert at the Old Town Temecula Community Theater in October. A portion of the proceeds from this event will benefit the Temecula Arts Council's annual programs. The Human Services Division is currently coordinating the Annual College Fair to be held September 24, 2011 at the Promenade Mall. This annual event will offer local students an opportunity to meet and discuss college and vocational school programs from over 120 colleges, military organizations, and trade schools. The Maintenance Division has developed a design for the replacement of the water slide at the Community Recreation Center swimming pool. Design specifications are being developed and it is envisioned that we will begin the bid process to replace the water during the summer and the installation of the new water slide in October to avoid conflicting with our summer aquatics programs. The Cultural Arts Division is proud to offer the 2011-2012 Season of Temecula Presents. The season calendar offers many opportunities for cultural experiences in the Theater Arts including dance, classical, blues, etc. The Annual Summer Sunsets Film and Concert Series concluded this month. The series offers residents nine (9) free concert events in the Temecula Amphitheater, and seven (7) free movies in the park. This year's series entertained record crowds and the events were considered to be a tremendous success. The TCSD Maintenance Division plays an integral role in assisting with the many citywide special events held each month. In addition, the Maintenance Division continues to oversee the maintenance and rehabilitation of all City parks and facilities. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Item No. 12 ACTION MINUTES of AUGUST 9, 2011 City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING The Temecula Redevelopment Agency Meeting convened at 7:31 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Person Mike Naggar ROLL CALL: AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Edwards, Washington, Roberts, Naggar RDA PUBLIC COMMENTS RDA CONSENT CALENDAR 20 Action Minutes - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) Agency Member Washington made the motion; it was seconded by Agency Member Comerchero and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Approve the action minutes of July 26, 2011. RDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS REPORT RDA AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS RDA ADJOURNMENT At 7:32 P.M., the Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, August 23, 2011, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Michael S. Naggar, Chair Person ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/Agency Secretary [SEAL] RDA Action Minutes1080911 1 Item No. 13 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT Executive Director/Agency Members Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Redevelopment Genie Roberts, Director of Finance August 23, 2011 Resolution and Enforceable Obligations Payment Schedule required under AB X1 26 and AB X1 27 PREPARED BY: Luke Watson, Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the Members of the Redevelopment Agency: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING AN ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO PART 1.8 OF DIVISION 24 OF THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE AND TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH BACKGROUND: On June 28, 2011 the State of California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill X1 26 and Assembly Bill X1 27. Under ABX1 26, redevelopment agencies are mandated to dissolve their operations while ABX1 27 allows redevelopment agencies to continue their operations subject to a required annual payment. If redevelopment agencies "opt -in" to the Voluntary Alternative Redevelopment Program established by ABX1 27, agencies would be required to make payments annually until they notify the State of their intent to dissolve in some subsequent year. The annual payment required under AB X1 27, determined by the State Department of Finance (DOF), was calculated based on the gross tax increment and total tax allocation bond obligations of agencies as reported in their annual State Controller's Report during the 2008- 2009 fiscal year. The DOF released the annual payment amount for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 on August 1, 2011. The DOF calculated the 2011/2012 annual payment for the Temecula Redevelopment Agency as $4,731,158. Subsequent year's payment would be approximately $1.1 million. As part of the legislation, Redevelopment Agencies are required to adopt an Enforceable Obligations Payment Schedule (EOPS) within 60 days of the date the Governor signature. The deadline for adoption of the EOPS is August 27, 2011. Each Schedule must list all of the Agency's enforceable obligations and include certain information about each obligation, including the amount of payments obligated to be made, by month, through December 2011. AB X1 26 and AB X1 27 define an enforceable obligation as all those obligations previously listed on the Agency's statement of indebtedness. These obligations will be met with tax increment, bond proceeds, and existing fund balance. The EOPS must be adopted at a public meeting and must be posted on the Agency's website. The EOPS must be transmitted (by mail or electronically) to the County Auditor -Controller, the State Controller and the State Department of Finance FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of AB X1 26 and AB X1 27 are significant and serious. If the Agency dissolves under AB X1 26 all assets of the Agency would be liquidated and proceeds remitted to the Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). The Agency's obligations would pass to a successor agency where those obligations would be retired per existing agreements. The successor Agency would then receive only enough tax increment revenue annually to meet existing obligations plus a small amount for administration. If the Agency chooses to "opt -in" under AB X1 27 the Agency would be required to make the 2011/2012 annual payment of $4,731,158, with no appeal, or a reduced amount if the appeal is granted. The Agency would be required to make an annual payment of approximately $1.1M until the life the Agency comes to an end in 2029. The EOPS in itself has no fiscal impact. The EOPS is an accounting of the Agency's legally enforceable obligations over the next 6 months. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. RDA 11 - Enforceable Obligations Payments Schedule RESOLUTION NO. RDA 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING AN ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO PART 1.8 OF DIVISION 24 OF THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE AND TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula does find, determine and declare as follows: A. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula (the "Agency") is a redevelopment agency in the City of Temecula (the "City"), created pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law (Part 1 (commencing with Section 33000) of Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code) (the "Redevelopment Law"). B. On June 12, 1988, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside adopted Ordinance No. 658 adopting and approving the "Redevelopment Plan for Riverside County Redevelopment Project No. 1988-1" (hereafter the "Plan") in accordance with the provisions of the CRL. On December 1, 1989, the City of Temecula was incorporated. The boundaries of the Project Area described in the Plan (the "Project Area") are entirely within the boundaries of the City of Temecula. On April 9, 1991, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Ordinances Nos. 91-08, 91- 11, 91-14, and 91-15 establishing the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and transferring jurisdiction over the Plan from the County to the City. Pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 91-11 and 91-15, the City of Temecula and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula assumed jurisdiction over the Plan as of July 1, 1991. The Plan has been amended by Ordinance Nos. 94-33, 06-11 and 07-20 adopted by the City Council. The Agency duly adopted its Implementation Plan for 2010-2014 on December 8, 2009 in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33490. The Agency is undertaking a program to redevelop the Project Area. C. AB X1 26 was signed by the Governor of California on June, 29, 2011, making certain changes to the Redevelopment Law, including adding Part 1.8 (commencing with Section 34161) and Part 1.85 (commencing with Section 34170) to Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code. Commencing upon the effectiveness of AB X1 26, AB X1 26 suspends most redevelopment agency activities and, among other things, prohibits redevelopment agencies from incurring indebtedness or entering into or modifying contracts. Effective October 1, 2011, AB X1 26 dissolves all existing redevelopment agencies and redevelopment agency components of community development agencies, designates successor agencies to the former redevelopment agencies, and imposes numerous requirements on the successor 1 agencies and subjects successor agency actions to the review of oversight boards established pursuant to the provisions of Part 1.85. D. AB X1 27 was signed by the Governor of California on June 29, 2011, adding Part 1.9 (commencing with Section 34192) to Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code. Part 1.9 establishes an Alternative Voluntary Redevelopment Program whereby, notwithstanding the provisions of Part 1.8 and Part 1.85, a redevelopment agency will be authorized to continue to exist and carry out the provisions of the Redevelopment Law upon the enactment, prior to the applicable deadline established in Part 1.9 (with the earliest deadline being October 1, 2011), by the city council of the city which includes that redevelopment agency of an ordinance to comply with Part 1.9. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34192, if a city participates in the Alternative Voluntary Program and complies with all requirements and obligations contained in Part 1.9, the redevelopment agency in that city will be exempt from Part 1.8 and Part 1.85. E. Provided that the city council of a city has not yet adopted an ordinance to participate in the Alternative Voluntary Redevelopment Program, Health and Safety Code Section 34169 requires the redevelopment agency in that city to adopt an enforceable obligation payment schedule within 60 days of the June 29, 2011 effective date of Part 1.8. The enforceable obligation payment schedule must list all of the obligations that are enforceable within the meaning of Health and Safety Code Section 34167(d) and include specific information about each obligation. F. Provided that the city council of a city has not yet adopted an ordinance to participate in the Alternative Voluntary Redevelopment Program, Health and Safety Code Section 34167(h) provides that the redevelopment agency in that city shall not make a payment unless it is listed in an adopted enforceable obligation payment schedule, other than payments required to meet obligations with respect to bonded indebtedness, after the enforceable obligation payment schedule is adopted pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34169, or after 60 days from the effective date of Part 1.8, whichever is sooner. G. As of the date of adoption of this Resolution, the City Council has not made a determination regarding whether the City will participate in the Alternative Voluntary Redevelopment Program has not completed the process for adopting an ordinance to participate in the Alternative Voluntary Redevelopment Program. Therefore, the Agency desires to adopt an enforceable obligation payment schedule in accordance with the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 34169. Section 2. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34169. Section 3. The Agency hereby adopts the enforceable obligation payment schedule attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution and incorporated herein by reference (the "Enforceable Obligation Payment Schedule"). Section 4. The Agency Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to post the Enforceable Obligation Payment Schedule on the City's Internet Web site. Section 5. The Enforceable Obligation Payment Schedule may be amended from time to time at any public meeting of the Agency. Section 6. The Agency Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to transmit a copy of the Enforceable Obligation Payment Schedule by mail or electronic means to the County Auditor -Controller, the State Controller, and the California Department of Finance (the "Department of Finance"). A notification providing the Internet Web site location shall suffice. Section 7. The officers and staff of the Agency are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things which they may deem necessary or advisable to effectuate this Resolution, including providing documents associated with the Statement of Enforceable Obligations to the Department of Finance and the State Controller in the manner of their choosing, and any such actions previously taken by such officers are hereby ratified and confirmed. The Agency hereby designates Director of Finance Genie Roberts as the official to whom the Department of Finance may make requests for review in connection with the Enforceable Obligation Payment Schedule. Section 8. At such time as the Agency becomes exempt from Parts 1.8 and 1.85, the Agency shall no longer be bound by the Enforceable Obligation Payment Schedule. Section 9. This Resolution has been reviewed with respect to applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq., hereafter the "Guidelines"), and the Agency's environmental guidelines. The Agency has determined that this Resolution is not a "project" for purposes of CEQA, as that term is defined by Guidelines Section 15378, because this Resolution is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. (Guidelines Section 15378(b) (5)). Section 10. Notwithstanding the City's appeal, the City maintains that the provisions of AB X1 26 (Chapter 5 of the Statutes of 2011) and AB X1 27 (Chapter 6 of the Statutes of 2011) are unconstitutional, and that the Director of Finance accordingly lacks the authority to determine remittance amounts pursuant to Health and Safety Section 34194. The City contends that AB X1 26 and AB X1 27 violate, among other provisions of law, California Constitution Article I, Section 9, Article II, Section 8(a), Article XIII, Section 24, Article XIII, Section 25.5, Article XIIIB, Section 6, and Article XVI, Section 16. The City contends that the Director of Finance has no authority to enforce unconstitutional statutes such as Health and Safety Code section 34194. As a result, the adoption of this Resolution is not intended by the City or Agency to waive any right either may have to challenge the legality of all or any portion of AB X1 26 or AB X1 27 through administrative or judicial proceedings or to prejudice the City's right to seek to recover reimbursement of payments made pursuant to AB X1 27, plus interest, should the requirement of making such payments be stayed, enjoined, repealed, or held unconstitutional or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction. Section 11. The Agency Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Members of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula this 23rd day of August, 2011. Mike Naggar,Chairperson ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/Board Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk/Board Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. RDA 11- was duly and regularly adopted by the Members of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: AGENCY MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/Board Secretary Name of Redevelopment Agency: Temecula Redevelopment Agency Project Area(s) All ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE Per AB 26 - Section 34167 and 34169 (*) Page 1 of 2 Pages * This Enforceable Obligation Payment Schedule (EOPS) is to be adopted by the redevelopment agency no later than late August. It is valid through 12/31/11. It is the basis for the Preliminary Draft Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS), which must be prepared by the dissolving Agency by 9/30111. (The draft ROPS must be prepared by the Successor Agency by 11/30/11.) If an agency adopts a continuation ordinance per ABX1 27, this EOPS will not be valid and there is no need to prepare a ROPS. "" Include only payments to be made after the adoption of the EOPS. Project Name / Debt Obligation Payee Description Total Outstanding Debt or Obligation Total Due During Fiscal Year Payments by month Aug"" Sept Oct Nov Dec Total 1) Emporium Building David Harris General Contractors Facade Improvement Program 20,000.00 20,000.00 5,000.00 15,000.00 20,000.00 2) CSUSM Campus Funding Agreement Cal State San Marcos Satellite Campus Development 471,624.00 288.584.00 288,584.00 288.584.00 3) Abbott OPA Abbott Vascular Property Tax Reimbursment 1,910,000.00 159,000.00 159,000.00 159,000.00 4) Payroll -Agency Administration Agency Staff Agency Staff Compensation 812,966.00 812,966.00 93,801.00 62,534.00 62.534.00 62.534.00 281,403.00 5) Promissory Note City of Temecula 6th Street Parking Lot 1,903,333.00 439,622.00 439,622.00 439,622.00 6) Munyon Parking Agreement Dennis Munyon Parking License Agreement 792.00 3,167.00 792.00 792.00 7) Professional Appraisal Agreement Robert Shea Perdue Real Estate Appraisal Appraisals -Main Street Apartments/Cottages 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 8) Professional Services Agreement Brown Bortz & Coddington Community Development Block Grant Entitlement 29,000.00 29,000.00 5,800.00 5,800.00 5,800.00 5,800.00 23,200.00 9) Professional Services Agreement Keyser Marston Associates Real Estate/Economic Analysis 75,000.00 75,000.00 6,250.00 6,250.00 6,250.00 6,250.00 6,250.00 31,250.00 10) Jefferson Corridor Multi Jurisdictional Study Cal Trans In -Kind Contributiuon for Cal -Trans Grant 7,850.00 7,850.00 1,570.00 1,570.00 1,570.00 1,570.00 6,280.00 11) Professional Services Agreement Lance Soll & Luggard Agency Auditing Services 13.930.00 13,930.32 2,286.00 4,679.00 6,965.00 12) Professional Services Agreement Environmental Science Associates Jefferson Corridor Specific Plan EIR 189.220.00 189,220.00 0.00 13) Professional Services Agreement Inland Planning & Design Jefferson Corridor Specific Plan 81.123.00 81,123.00 6,760.25 6,760.25 6,760.25 6,760.25 6,760.25 33,801.25 14) Professional Services Agreement Richards, Watson & Gershon Agnecy Legal Services 135,000.00 135,000.00 27,000.00 27,000.00 27,000.00 27,000.00 27.000.00 135.000.00 15) Non Personnel Agency Administration Multiple Payees Ongoing Agency Administration 375,242.00 375,242.00 7,824.00 40,546.17 30,321.17 30,321.17 40,546.17 149,558.68 16) Property Tax Admin Fee Riverside County Tax Assessor County Adminstration Fee 233,000.00 233,000.00 0.00 17) Trustee Admin Fees US Bank as Trustee for Bondholders Trustee Fees for TAB Bond Issues 18,760.00 18,760.00 18,760.00 18,760.00 18) 2002 TAB FY 2011/12 US Bank as Trustee for Bondholders Bonds Issued to Fund Affordable Housing 44,598,491.25 1,776,063.75 0.00 19) 2006 TAB Series A FY 2011/12 US Bank as Trustee for Bondholders Bonds Issued to Fund Affordable Housing 30,588,675.00 991,836.25 0.00 20) 2006 TAB Series B FY 2011/12 US Bank as Trustee for Bondholders Bonds Issued to Fund Affordable Housing 5,511,856.88 199,606.23 126,853.13 126,853.13 21) 2007 TAB FY 2011/12 US Bank as Trustee for Bondholders Bonds Issued to Fund Affordable Housing 30.281,825.00 1,092,364.38 416,696.25 416,696.25 22) 2010 Housing TAB Series A FY 2011/12 US Bank as Trustee for Bondholders Bonds Issued to Fund Affordable Housing 832,025.00 274,175.00 0.00 23) 2010 Housnig TAB Series B FY 2011/12 US Bank as Trustee for Bondholders Bonds Issued to Fund Affordable Housing 31.453,593.00 983,919.80 0.00 24) 2011 Housing TAB Fiscal Year 2011/12 US Bank as Trustee for Bondholders Bonds Issued to Fund Affordable Housing 27,570,768.88 1,010,061.00 0.00 25) Front St. Plaza Partners, Inc. OPA Front Street Plaza Partners Inc. Grant for construction of Affordable Housing 4,000.000.00 4,000,000.00 0.00 26) AMCAL Pujol Fund L.P. OPA AMCAL Pujol Fund, L.P. Grant for construction of Affordable Housing 5,579,021.00 5,579,021.00 1,859,677.00 1,859,677.00 3,719,354.00 27) Summerhouse Housing Associates, L.P., OPA Summerhouse Housing Associates. L.P. Loan for Affordable Housing 1,080,262.00 1,080,262.00 0.00 28) Temecula Gardens L.P Loan Agreement Temecula Gardens L.P. Loan for Affordable Housing 4,880.000.00 305,000.00 0.00 29) Old Town Infrasrtucture Projects RBF / Pardell / LH Engineering / Edge Old Town Infrastructure Improvements 246.131.00 246.131.00 7,814.00 40,984.00 48,798.00 30) Promenade Parking Garage OPA Forrest City Loan for Public Parking Garage 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 31) Old Town Sound System Western Audio Visual Public Sound System 85,774.00 85,774.00 42,887.00 42,887.00 85,774.00 Totals - This Page Totals - Page 2 Totals - Page 3 Totals - Page 4 Totals - Other Obligations Grand total - All Pages $ 193.015,263.01 $ 20,535,678.73 $ 55,648.25 $ 701,074.42 $ 357,122.42 $ 1,999,912.42 $ 2,907,933.80 $ 6,021,691.31 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - S - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ S - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - S 10,559,000.00 $ 10,559,000.00 $ - $ - $ - S - $ - $ - S 203,574.263.01 $ 31.094.678.73 $ 55,648.25 $ 701,074.42 $ 357.122.42 S 1.999.912.42 $ 2,907,933.80 $ 6,021,691.31 * This Enforceable Obligation Payment Schedule (EOPS) is to be adopted by the redevelopment agency no later than late August. It is valid through 12/31/11. It is the basis for the Preliminary Draft Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS), which must be prepared by the dissolving Agency by 9/30111. (The draft ROPS must be prepared by the Successor Agency by 11/30/11.) If an agency adopts a continuation ordinance per ABX1 27, this EOPS will not be valid and there is no need to prepare a ROPS. "" Include only payments to be made after the adoption of the EOPS. Name of Redevelopment Agency Temecula Redevelopment Agency Page 2 of 2 Pages Project Area(s) All OTHER OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE Per AB 26 - Section 34167 and 34169 (*) * This Enforceable Obligation Payment Schedule (EOPS) is to be adopted by the redevelopment agency no later than late August. It is valid through 12/31/11. It is the basis for the Preliminary Draft Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS), which must be prepared by the dissolving Agency by 9/30/11. (The draft ROPS must be prepared by the Successor Agency by 11130/11.) If an agency adopts a continuation ordinance per ABX1 27, this EOPS will not be valid and there is no need to prepare a ROPS. ** Include only payments to be made after the adoption of the EOPS. *** All payment amounts are estimates Project Name / Debt Obligation Payee Description Total Outstanding Debt or Obligation Total Due During Fiscal Year Payments by month Aug** Sept Oct Nov Dec Total 1) Pass -Through Payments Riverside County General Fund Annual Pass -Through to Taxing Entity 3,438,000.00 3.438,000.00 $ - 2) Pass -Through Payments Riverside County Library Annual Pass -Through to Taxing Entity 414,000.00 414,000.00 S - 3) Pass -Through Payments Riverside County Fire Annual Pass -Through to Taxing Entity 892,000.00 892,000.00 $ - 4) Pass -Through Payments Temecula Public Cemetary District Annual Pass -Through to Taxing Entity 73.000.00 73,000.00 $ - 5) Pass -Through Payments Mt. San Jacinto CCD Annual Pass -Through to Taxing Entity 198,000.00 198,000.00 $ - 6) Pass -Through Payments Temecula Valley USD Annual Pass -Through to Taxing Entity 1,717,000.00 1,717.000.00 $ - 7) Pass -Through Payments Eastern Municipal Water District Annual Pass -Through to Taxing Entity 1,788,000.00 1,788.000.00 $ - 8) Pass -Through Payments Riverside County Flood Control District Annual Pass -Through to Taxing Entity 323,000.00 323,000.00 $ - 9) Pass -Through Payments Riverside Co. Superintendent of Schools Annual Pass -Through to Taxing Entity 572,000.00 572,000.00 $ - 10) Pass -Through Payments Rancho California Water District Annual Pass -Through to Taxing Entity 1,144,000.00 1,144,000.00 $ - 11) $ - 12) $ - 13) $ - 14) S 15) $ - 16) $ - 17) $ - 18) $ - 19) $ - 20) $ - 21) $ - 22) $ - 23) $ - 24) $ - 25) S - 26) $ - 27) $ - 28) $ - Totals - Other Obligations 1 $ 10,559,000.00 1 $ 10,559,000.00 1 $ - 1 $ - 1 $ - 1 $ - 1 $ - 1 $ - * This Enforceable Obligation Payment Schedule (EOPS) is to be adopted by the redevelopment agency no later than late August. It is valid through 12/31/11. It is the basis for the Preliminary Draft Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS), which must be prepared by the dissolving Agency by 9/30/11. (The draft ROPS must be prepared by the Successor Agency by 11130/11.) If an agency adopts a continuation ordinance per ABX1 27, this EOPS will not be valid and there is no need to prepare a ROPS. ** Include only payments to be made after the adoption of the EOPS. *** All payment amounts are estimates Item No. 14 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager OuL TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: Executive Director/Agency Members FROM: Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Redevelopment DATE: August 23, 2011 SUBJECT: Tenant Relocation Plan for the Portola Terrace Affordable Housing Development located at 28673, 28681, and 28701 Pujol Street. PREPARED BY: Luke Watson, Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the Redevelopment Agency Board approve the Tenant Relocation Plan (Plan) for the Portola Terrace Affordable Housing Development. BACKGROUND: Project Description On February 22, 2011 the Temecula Redevelopment Agency Board approved the Owner Participation and Conditional Grant Agreement for the development of 46,765 square foot mixed use project on 1.49 acres along the west side of Pujol Street, north of 1 Street and South of Main Street. The project will be a three story building with 44 units restricted at the low income category and one (1) manager's unit. The development is proposed to include a 2:1 parking ratio (parking spots to units) and will have a parking structure at the rear of the site. Tenant Relocation Plan Currently the developer of the project AMCAL Pujol Fund L.P. (AMCAL) is attempting to acquire the property necessary to complete the project. In order to complete the real estate transaction AMCAL is required to provide relocation assistance to all tenants residing on the property. There is a total of one (1) tenant currently residing on the subject property that will be entitled to relocation benefits. The relocation process and benefits are established in the Tenant Relocation Plan. This Plan sets forth policies and procedures necessary to conform with the California Relocation Assistance Law, California Government Code Section 7260 et seq. and the California Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines, Title 25, California Code or Regulations, Chapter 6, Section 6000 et seq. for residential displacements. AMCAL has retained the professional services of Overland Pacific & Cutler, Inc (OPC), to complete the Plan. In order for AMCAL to move forward the Redevelopment Agency Board must review and approve the Plan. OPC will be available to the Tenant for any and all technical assistance the tenant may need in understanding the plan and assistance in relocating through the Relocation Assistance Program. In addition to the technical assistance provided by OPC the displaced tenant will also receive the following benefits: • Moving Expenses Payments • Replacement Housing Rental Assistance/ Down Payment Assistance The total amount of relocation benefits determined by OPC to be delivered to the displaced tenant is $33,000. The funds will be provided to the tenant upon receipt of supporting documentation from the tenant. To qualify for a Replacement Housing Payment, the tenant must rent or purchase and occupy a comparable replacement unit within one year from the date that they move from the displacement dwelling. All claims for relocation benefits must be filed with the AMCAL within eighteen (18) months from the date on which tenants receive final payment for the property, or the date on which the tenant moves, whichever is later. AMCAL is solely responsible for the relocation funds and to make the payments in accordance with the relocation plan. FISCAL IMPACT: The total relocation benefits of $33,000 outlined in the Relocation Plan have no fiscal impact on the City. All relocation payments will be made by AMCAL. ATTACHMENTS: Relocation Plan RELOCATION PLAN PORTOLA TERRACE APARTMENTS PROJECT PREPARED FOR AMCAL MULTI -HOUSING, INC. BY OVERLAND, PACIFIC & CUTLER 438 Camino Del Rio South Suite 213 San Diego, CA 92103 Phone: (619) 688-7980 ,JUNE 2011 INTRODUCTION AMCAL Multi -Housing, Inc. (the Developer) is proposing to acquire three adjacent parcels in Temecula California to build a new 45 -unit affordable housing apartment complex for the Portola Terrace Apartments Project (Project). The Developer will acquire three parcels located at 28673, 28681 and 28701 Pujol Street, Temecula, CA (please see Exhibit 1 for regional and project site maps). Each parcel is improved with a single family residence, one of which is tenant occupied. Proceeding forward with the Project will require the razing of the three dwellings and the permanent displacement of one tenant occupied household. Funding sources for the Project include tax exempt bonds and Set -Aside funds from the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency. The Project complies with the General Plan guidelines, zoning requirements and conforms to the adjacent land uses. There is no foreseen negative impact onthe surrounding neighborhood. Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. (OPC), an experienced acquisition and relocation firm, has been selected to prepare this Relocation Plan (the `Plan'), and will provide all subsequently required relocation assistance. In compliance with statutory requirements, the Plan has been prepared to evaluate the present circumstances and replacement housing requirements of the current Project occupants. This Plan provides for the results of a needs assessment survey, their incorporation into the planning process, and details of the Developer's proposed relocation plan. This Plan sets forth policies and procedures necessary to conform with the California Relocation Assistance Law, California Government Code Section 7260 et seq (the "CRAL") and the California Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines, Title 25, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 6, Section 6000 et seq. (the "Guidelines") for residential displacements. No mandatory displacement activities will take place prior to the required reviews and approval of this Plan. A. GENERAL DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS Information necessary for the implementation of this Plan was obtained from an interview of the Project occupant in their home in June 2011. Inquiries made of the occupant included household size and composition, ages of occupant, rental and income information, length and type of occupancy, ethnicity, primary language in the home, disabilities and health problems, and preferences related to replacement housing and location. Survey responses were anecdotal in nature and not qualified. There are three single family residences located within the proposed project area, one dwelling is tenant occupied and the other two dwellings are vacant. The tenant occupied dwelling is a 2 - bedroom / 1,336 square foot single family residence with an attached garage. Project population consists of one adult. The household is not a senior household and no disabilities were reported. Household ethnicity was reported as Caucasian and English as the primary household language. Project household income is median income, based on the current Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) income limits, as adopted by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for Riverside County. Please see Exhibit 2 for a table of current HUD income levels for Riverside County. B. RELOCATION NEEDS The standard housing density utilized is two persons per bedroom and one person in a common living area for tenant occupied units. If the family size is in excess of these standards, then families would be referred to housing with an additional bedroom(s), if available. Based on the standard housing density criteria there are no overcrowded households and the household will be provided a referral to replacement housing of comparable size to the displacement dwelling. Project rehousing will require one 2 -bedroom single family residential rental unit. Relocation activities will consider individual household needs in order to be close to public transportation, employment, schools, public/social services and agencies, recreational services, parks, community centers, shopping and household relocation preferences. The Project household indicated a preference to locate a replacement dwelling within Temecula. C. REPLACEMENT RESOURCES A resource survey was conducted during June 2011 to identify available comparable, decent, safe and sanitary units, which are adequate in size and contain the required number of bedrooms for each household, in close proximity to the Project site. The survey identified 11 two-bedroom or greater single family residences for rent, ranging from $1,200 to $1,750 per month with a median rent of $1,550. OVERLAND, PACIFIC & CUTLER PAGE 3 Based on the results of the resource survey, an adequate number of available units were found to meet the potential needs ofthe household that will be permanently displaced. D. CONCURRENT RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT There are no projects now, or planned in the immediate future, which will impact negatively upon the efforts and ability to relocate the displaced households. E. PROGRAM ASSURANCES AND STANDARDS The Developer has secured adequate funds to relocate the existing household. Services will be provided to ensure that displacement does not result in different or separate treatment of households based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, marital status, familial status, disability or any other basis protected by the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VIII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1968, the California Fair Employment & Housing Act, and the Unruh Act, as well as any other arbitrary or unlawful discrimination. No household will be permanently displaced without at least 90 days notice and unless "comparable" replacement housing can be located. "Comparable" housing includes standards such as: decent, safe, and sanitary (as defined in the Guidelines); comparable as to the number of bedrooms, living space, and type and quality of construction ofthe acquired unit but not lesser in rooms or living space than necessary to accommodate the displaced household; in an area that does not have unreasonable environmental conditions; not generally less desirable than the acquired unit with respect to location to schools, employment, health and medical facilities, and other public and commercial facilities and services. The relocation program to be implemented by the Developer conforms with California Relocation Assistance Law, California Government Code Section 7260 et seq (the "CRAL") and the California Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines, Title 25, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 6, Section 6000 et seq. (the "Guidelines") for residential displacements. F. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM OPC staff is available to assist the displaced household with questions about relocation and/or assistance in relocating. Relocation staff can be contacted at (619) 688-7980 from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m Monday through Friday, and also available on-site by appointment. The Relocation Office is located at 438 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 213, San Diego, CA 92103. A comprehensive relocation assistance program, with technical and advisory assistance, will be provided to the households being displaced. Close contact will be maintained withthe household. Specific activities will include: OVERLAND, PACIFIC & CUTLER PAGE 4 1. To distribute written information concerning the Developer's relocation program (please see Exhibit 3) to each displacee and to fully inform eligible project displacees ofthe nature of, and procedures for, obtaining relocation assistance and benefits; 2. To determine the needs of each residential displacee eligible for assistance; 3. To provide assistance that does not result in different or separate treatment due to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, marital status or other arbitrary circumstances; 4. To assist each eligible person to complete applications for benefits. 5. To make relocation benefit payments in accordance with the CRAL and the Guidelines, where applicable; 6. To inform all persons subject to displacement of the Developer's policies with regard to eviction and property management; and, 7. To establish and maintain a formal grievance procedure for use by displaced persons seeking administrative review ofthe Developer's decisions with respect to relocation assistance. Because of the nature of a permanent displacement, the following services will be provided to these households in addition to those outlined above: 1. To provide an adequate number of referrals. 2. To provide current and continuously updated information concerning replacement housing opportunities. G. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Copies of this Plan will be provided to the residents to promote review and participation. The Developer will ensure the following: 1. Full and timely access to documents relevant to the relocation program; 2. Providing technical assistance necessary to interpret elements of the relocation program and other pertinent materials; 3. A general notice of this Plan shall be provided to all displacees of the proposed project. This Plan shall be made available for circulation for information and OVERLAND, PACIFIC & CUTLER PAGE 5 review by interested citizen groups, state and county agencies, and all persons affected by the project; 4. The Plan will be reviewed to ensure that it is feasible; and complies with locally - adopted rules and regulations governing relocation. H. RELOCATION BENEFIT CATEGORIES Benefits will be provided in accordance with the CRAL, the Guidelines and all other applicable regulations and requirements. Benefits will be paid upon submission of required claim forms and documentation in accordance with approved procedures. The Developer will provide appropriate benefits for the displacees as required by the above laws and requirements. 1. Residential Moving Expense Payments The subject households will be eligible to receive a payment for moving expenses. The payment will be made based upon either a fixed room count schedule or an invoice for actual reasonable moving expenses from a licensed professional mover. a) Fixed Payment - A fixed payment for moving expenses based on the number of rooms containing furniture or other personal property to be moved. The fixed moving payment will be based upon the most recent Federal Highway Administration schedule maintained by the California Department of Transportation. Please see Exhibit 4 for the current fixed moving payment schedule. - OR — b) Actual Reasonable Moving Expense Payments - The displaced tenants may elect to have a licensed, professional mover perform the move; if so, the Developer will pay for the actual cost of the move up to 50 miles and all reasonable charges for packing, unpacking, insurance, and utility connection charges. The payment will be made directly to the mover or as a reimbursement to the displaced tenants. 2. Rental Assistance/Down Payment Assistance for Tenants A tenant displaced from a dwelling may be entitled to a Replacement Housing Payment in the form of rental or downpayrnent assistance not -to -exceed $5,250 (prior to consideration of eligibility for Last Resort Housing benefits - see Last Resort Housing), if the displacee: (1) Has actually and lawfully occupied the displacement dwelling for at least 90 days immediately prior to the initiation of negotiations; and (2) Has rented, or purchased, and occupied a decent, safe, and sanitary replacement dwelling within one year (unless the Developer extends this period for good cause) after the date he or she moves from the OVERLAND, PACIFIC & CUTLER PAGE 6 displacement dwelling. RentallDownpayment Assistance payment amounts are equal to 42 times the difference between the base monthly rent and the lesser of: (i) The monthly rent and estimated average monthly cost of utilities for a comparable replacement dwelling; or (ii) The monthly rent and estimated average monthly cost of utilities for the decent, safe, and sanitary replacement dwelling actually occupied by the displaced person. The base monthly rent for the displacement dwelling is the lesser of: (i) The average monthly cost for rent and utilities at the displacement dwelling for a reasonable period prior to displacement, as determined by the Developer; or (ii) Thirty percent (30%) of the displaced person's average, monthly gross household income ifthe amount is classified as "low income" by the HUD Annual Survey of Income Limits. If a displacee refuses to provide appropriate evidence of income, the base monthly rent shall be determined to be the average monthly cost for rent and utilities at the displacement dwelling; or (iii) The total of the amount designated for shelter and utilities if receiving a welfare assistance payment from a program that designated such amounts. Please see Exhibit 5 for an example of a rental assistance payment computation. Displacees otherwise eligible to receive a Rental Assistance Payment as previously described, may choose to utilize the full amount of their rental assistance eligibility amount (including Last Resort benefits) to purchase a home. Such payments shall be deposited directly to an escrow account with provisions that allow the Developer to recover its funds should the escrow be cancelled or not proceed in a timely manner. 3. Last Resort Housing There is adequate "comparable replacement housing" to meet the needs of the displaced tenants. However, a combination of factors, including the income level of the Project occupant, Project rent, and the high cost of replacement units, may create the need for a Last Resort Housing Payment. "Last Resort Housing" payments are authorized by statute if affordable "comparable replacement housing" cannot be located for the displaced tenant household (i.e., housing renting for not more than 30% of the household's gross monthly income). In this case, payments may be made beyond the $5,250 statutory cap up to forty-two (42) months' OVERLAND, PACIFIC & CUTLER PAGE 7 worth of rental assistance. Any supplemental increment beyond $5,250 will be paid in installments. Ifthe household chooses to purchase a replacement home rather than rent, the household will have the right to request a lump sum payment ofthe entire balance for use as a down - payment toward the purchase of a comparable replacement dwelling. I. PAYMENT OF RELOCATION BENEFITS Claims and supporting documentation for relocation benefits must be filed with the Developer within eighteen (18) months from: • The date the claimant moves from the acquired property; or, • The date on which final payment for the acquisition of real property is made, whichever is later. The procedure for the preparation and filing of claims and the processing and delivery of payments will be as follows: 1. Claimant(s) will provide all necessary documentation to substantiate eligibility for assistance. 2. Assistance amounts will be determined in accordance with the provisions of Relocation Law and guidelines. 3. Required claim forms will be prepared by relocation personnel in conjunction with claimant(s). Signed claims and supporting documentation will be submitted by relocation personnel to the Developers. 4. The Developer will review, and approve claims for payment, or request additional information. 5. The Developer will issue benefit checks which will be available for pick-up or delivery, unless circumstances dictate otherwise. 6. Final payments will be issued after confirmation that the Project area premises have been completely vacated, and actual residency at the replacement unit is verified. 7. Receipts of payment will be obtained and maintained in the relocation case file. The affected households will not be displaced until "comparable" housing is located as defined above. Relocation staff will inspect any replacement units to which referrals are made to verify OVERLAND, PACIFIC & CUTLER PAGE 8 that they meet all the standards of decent, safe, and sanitary as defined in Section 6008, Subdivision (d) of the Guidelines. J. RELOCATION TAX CONSEQUENCES No relocation payment received by any person shall be considered as income for the purposes of the Personal Income Tax Law, Part 10 (commencing with Section 17001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or the Bank and Corporation Tax Law, Part 11 (commencing with Section 23001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The above statement on tax consequences is not intended to be provision of tax advice by the Developer, its Agents, Consultants or Assigns. Displacees are encouraged to consult with their own tax advisors concerning the tax consequences of relocation payments. K. APPEALS POLICY The appeals policy will follow the standards described in Section 6150 et seq. of the Guidelines. Briefly stated, displacees will have the right to ask for a review, when there is a complaint regarding any of its rights to relocation and relocation assistance, as to: 1. eligibility; 2. the amount of payment; 3. the failure to provide comparable replacement housing referrals; or, 4. the Developer's property management practices. L. EVICTION POLICY Eviction by the Developer is permissible only as a last alternative. With the exception of persons considered to be in unlawful occupancy, a displaced person's eviction does not affect eligibility for relocation assistance and benefits. Relocation records must be documented to reflect the specific circumstances surrounding the eviction. Eviction may be undertaken only for one or more of the following reasons: 1. Failure to pay rent, except in those cases where the failure to pay is due to the lessor failure to keep the premises in habitable condition; is the result of harassment or retaliatory action; or is the result of discontinuation or substantial interruption of services; 2. Performance of a dangerous, illegal act in the unit; 3. Material breach of the rental agreement and failure to correct breach within 30 days of notice; OVERLAND, PACIFIC & CUTLER PAGE 9 4. Maintenance of a nuisance, and failure to abate within a reasonable time following notice; 5. Refusal to accept replacement housing; 6. A requirement under State or local law or emergency circumstances that cannot be prevented by reasonable efforts on the part of the public entity. M. PROJECTED TIME-LINE/DATES OF DISPLACEMENT The Developer contemplates that the relocation process will commence in late summer 2011 and be completed by end of the year. N. ESTIMATED RELOCATION COSTS The total budget estimate for relocation -related payments for this Project, including a 10 percent contingency, is $33,000. The estimated relocation budget does not include any payments related to property acquisition. In addition, the budget does not consider the cost of any services necessary to implement the Plan and complete the relocation element of the Project. If the Project is implemented, and circumstances arise that should change either the number of residential occupants, or the nature of their activity, the Developer will authorize any additional funds that may need to be appropriated. They pledge to appropriate, on a timely basis, the funds necessary to ensure the successful completion of the Project, including funds necessary for last resort housing, to meet its obligation under the relocation regulations. OVERLAND, PACIFIC & CUTLER PAGE 10 EXHIBIT 1: Regional and Project Site Maps alcyieska Sun City Winchester Canyon Quail Valley Terra Cotta lake Elsinore 'Canyon En Lake r Sedco Hills Lakeland T4 Village Rancho Santa Margarita Coto De Caza Flores 1 0 San temente Caspers Regional Park De Luz Wikiomar Murrieta'1 4 Rancho Santa Rosa Historic Area De Luz Heights Fallbrook Mame Corps Base Camp Pendleton V Camp Penigeton South Oceanside Carlsbad Bonsall Vista Te rr 0 Rainbow Diamond' Valley Lake R Rincon Palomar Mountain State Park Hidden Valley * Meadows Center Hellhole Canyon • Preserve San Marcos Escondido Lake San Marcos Dixon Dam and Lake City Park Elfin Forest T8 - • - i2011 Google - Map da*•t t$116alugie - Edna ktesat in Go 1 Figure 1: Regional Location =;1980-2008 Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. (01/08) Page 11 Tem.., iv Stam{» :. I 79 • Temecula Community Centre a Frlr 6 2 0 Y1,4, �'sC° g �occ°° �cd, i b4, as Sf Rancho CaAiemid Rd ,`. B` 4 o v -17!o a a LL;, apo este ct elf a n moo. �i A Temecula o hyo. 9 y .0o oeao RA m`� u t 're Ave ffi a N T -^ 10•o N c o 'pd °� 'Aa 3 Goo 79 E t gI Ln79 G (IP& r ;` Pie h c W �aR. r,0//%Ak, ©2011 Google - I iap data Z2C 11 G ccgle - ?auto Rd ttancho Vista R u cn aP� Temecut.. Children ,.:17" Museum Figure 2: Project Site Location @ 1980-2008 Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. (01108) Page 12 EXHIBIT 2: HUD Income Limits The following figures are approved by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (H.U.D.) for use in the County of Riverside to define and determine housing eligibility by income level. Area Median: $65,000 Family Size Extremely Low Very Low Lower Median Moderate 1 Person 13,650 22,750 36,400 45,500 54,600 2 Person 15,600 26,000 41,600 52,000 62,400 3 Person 17,550 29,250 43,800 58,500 70,200 4 Person 19,500 32,500 52,000 65,000 78,000 5 Person 21,100 35,100 56,200 70,200 84,250 6 Person 22,650 37,700 60,350 75,400 90,500 7 Person 24,200 40,300 64,500 80,600 96,700 8 Person 25,750 42,900 68,650 85,800 102,950 Figures are per the Department of Housing and Community Development (California), Division of Housing Policy Development, effective June 17, 2010. © 1980-2008 Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. (01/08) Page 13 EXHIBIT 3: Relocation Assistance Informational Statement (Begins next page) © 1980-2008 Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. (01/08) Page 14 e oca ion ss is an ce Informational Statement for Families and Individuals (CA State) Displacing Agency: AMCAL Multi -Housing, Inc. Project Name: Portola Terrace Apartments Displacing Agency Representative: OVERLAND) „e, PAC I F 1 C & CUTLER,INC. Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. 438 Camino Del Rio South Suite 213 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 688-7980 Informational Statement Content: 2. General Information 3. Assistance In Locating A Replacement Dwelling 4. Moving Benefits 5. Replacement Housing Payment - Tenants And Certain Others 6. Section 8 Tenants 7. Replacement Housing Payment — Homeowners 8. Qualification For And Filing Of Relocation Claims 9. Last Resort Housing Assistance 10. Rental Agreement 11. Evictions 12. Appeal Procedures — Grievance 13. Tax Status of Relocation Benefits 14. Non -Discrimination and Fair Housing 15. Additional Information And Assistance Available =;1980-2008 Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. (01/08) Page 15 Spanish speaking representatives are available. Si necesita esta informacion en espanol, por favor !lame a su representante. © 1980-2008 Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. (01/08) Page 16 Informational Statement for Families and Individuals (CA State) 1. GENERAL INFORMATION The dwelling in which you now live is in a project area to be improved by, or financed through, the Displacing Agency using state and/or local funds. If and when the project proceeds, and it is necessary for you to move from your dwelling, you may be eligible for certain benefits. You will be notified in a timely manner as to the date by which you must move. Please read this information, as it will be helpful to you in determining your eligibility and the amount of the relocation benefits you may receive under the state law. You will need to provide adequate and timely information to determine your relocation benefits. The information is voluntary, but if you don't provide it, you may not receive the benefits or it may take longer to pay you. We suggest you save this informational statement for reference. The Displacing Agency has retained the professional firm of Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. (OPC) to provide relocation assistance to you. The firm is available to explain the program and benefits. Their address and telephone number is listed on the cover. PLEASE DO NOT MOVE PREMATURELY. THIS IS NOT A NOTICE TO VACATE YOUR DWELLING. However, if you desire to move sooner than required, you must contact your representative with Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc., so you will not jeopardize any benefits. This is a general informational brochure only, and is not intended to give a detailed description of either the law or regulations pertaining to the Displacing Agency's relocation assistance program. Please continue to pay your rent to your current landlord, otherwise you may be evicted and jeopardize the relocation benefits to which you may be entitled to receive. Once the Displacing Agency acquires the property, you will also be required to pay rent to the Displacing Agency. 2. ASSISTANCE IN LOCATING A REPLACEMENT DWELLING The Displacing Agency, through its representatives, will assist you in locating a comparable replacement dwelling by providing referrals to appropriate and available housing units. You are encouraged to actively seek such housing yourself. When a suitable replacement dwelling unit has been found, your relocation consultant will carry out an inspection and advise you as to whether the dwelling unit meets decent, safe and sanitary housing requirements. A decent, safe and sanitary housing unit provides adequate space for its occupants, proper weatherproofing and sound heating, electrical and plumbing systems. Your new dwelling must pass inspection before relocation assistance payments can be authorized. 3. MOVING BENEFITS If you must move as a result of displacement by the Displacing Agency, you will receive a payment to assist in moving your personal property. The actual, reasonable and necessary expenses for moving your household belongings may be determined based on the following methods: @ 1980-2008 Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. (01/08) Page 17 • A Fixed Moving Payment based on the number of rooms you occupy (see below); or • A payment for your Actual Reasonable Moving and Related Expenses based on at least two written estimates and receipted bills; or • A combination of both (in some cases). For example, you may choose a Self Move, receiving a payment based on the Fixed Residential Moving Cost Schedule shown below, plus contract with a professional mover to transport your grand piano and /or other items that require special handling. In this case, there may be an adjustment in the number of rooms which qualify under the Fixed Residential Moving Cost Schedule. A. Fixed Moving Payment A Fixed Moving Payment is based upon the number of rooms you occupy and whether or not you own your own furniture. The payment is based upon a schedule approved by the Displacing Agency, and ranges, for example, from $400.00 for one furnished room to $2,150.00 for eight rooms in an unfurnished dwelling. (For details see the table). Your relocation representative will inform you of the amount you are eligible to receive, if you choose this type of payment. If you select a fixed payment, you will be responsible for arranging for your own move, and the Displacing Agency will assume no liability for any loss or damage of your personal property. A fixed payment also includes utility hook-up, credit check and other related moving fees. 1 Fixed Moving Schedule CALIFORNIA Effective 6-15-2005 Occupant Owns Furniture: 1 room 2 rooms 3 rooms 4 rooms 5 rooms 6 rooms 7 rooms 8 rooms Each additional room $625 $800 $1,000 $1,175 $1,425 $1,650 $1,900 $2,150 $225 Occupant does NOT Own Furniture: 1 room $400 Each additional room $65 B. Actual Moving Expense (Professional Move) If you wish to engage the services of a licensed commercial mover and have the Displacing Agency pay the bill, you may claim the ACTUAL cost of moving your personal property up to 50 miles. Your relocation representative will inform you of the number of competitive moving bids (if any) which may be required, and assist you in developing a "mover" scope of services for Displacing Agency approval. 4. REPLACEMENT HOUSING PAYMENT - TENANTS AND CERTAIN OTHERS You may be eligible for a payment of up to $5,250.00 to assist you in renting or purchasing a comparable replacement dwelling. In order to qualify, you must either be a tenant who has occupied the present dwelling for at least 90 days prior to the initiation of negotiations or an owner who has occupied the present dwelling between 90 and 180 days prior to the initiation of negotiations. A. Rental Assistance. If you qualify, and wish to rent your replacement dwelling, your maximum rental assistance benefits will be based upon the difference over a forty-two (42) month period between the rent you must pay for a comparable replacement dwelling and the lesser of your current rent and estimated utilities or thirty percent (30%) of your gross monthly household income. You will be © 1980-2008 Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. (01/08) Page 18 required to provide your relocation representative with monthly rent and household income verification prior to the determination of your eligibility for this payment. -OR- B. Down -payment Assistance. If you qualify, and wish to purchase a home as a replacement dwelling, you can apply up to the total amount of your rental assistance payment towards the down -payment and non-recurring incidental expenses. Your relocation representative will clarify procedures necessary to apply for this payment. 5. SECTION 8 TENANTS When you do move, you may be eligible to transfer your Section 8 eligibility to a replacement site. In such cases, a comparable replacement dwelling will be determined based on your family composition at the time of displacement and the current housing program criteria. This may not be the size of the unit you currently occupy. Your relocation representative will provide counseling and other advisory services along with moving benefits. 6. REPLACEMENT HOUSING PAYMENT - HOMEOWNERS A. If you own and occupy a dwelling to be purchased by the Displacing Agency for at least 180 days prior to the initiation ofnegotiations, you may be eligible to receive a payment of up to $22,500.00 to assist you in purchasing a comparable replacement unit. This payment is intended to cover the following items: 1. Purchase Price Differential - An amount which, when added to the amount for which the Displacing Agency purchased your property, equals the lesser of the actual cost of your replacement dwelling; or the amount determined by the Displacing Agency as necessary to purchase a comparable replacement dwelling. Your relocation representative will explain both methods to you. 2. Mortgage Interest Differential - The amount which covers the increased interest costs, if any, required to finance a replacement dwelling. Your relocation representative will explain limiting conditions. 3. Incidental Expenses - Those one time incidental costs related to purchasing a replacement unit, such as escrow fees, recording fees, and credit report fees. Recurring expenses such as prepaid taxes and insurance premiums are not compensable. B. Rental Assistance Option - If you are an owner -occupant and choose to rent rather than purchase a replacement dwelling, you may be eligible for a rental assistance payment of up to the amount that you could have received under the Purchase Price Differential, explained above. The payment will be based on the difference between an economic rent ofthe dwelling you occupy and the rent you must pay for a comparable replacement dwelling. If you receive a rental assistance payment, as described above, and later decide to purchase a replacement dwelling, you may apply for a payment equal to the amount you would have received if you had initially purchased a comparable replacement dwelling, less the amount you have already received as a rental assistance payment. @ 1980-2008 Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. (01/08) Page 19 7. QUALIFICATION FOR, AND FILING OF, RELOCATION CLAIMS To qualify for a Replacement Housing Payment, you must rent or purchase and occupy a comparable replacement unit within one year from the following: • For a tenant, the date you move from the displacement dwelling. • For an owner -occupant, the latter of: a. The date you receive final payment for the displacement dwelling, or, in the case of condemnation, the date the full amount of estimated just compensation is deposited in court,: or b. The date you move from the displacement dwelling. All claims for relocation benefits must be filed with the Displacing Agency within eighteen (18) months from the date on which you receive final payment for your property, or the date on which you move, whichever is later. 8. LAST RESORT HOUSING ASSISTANCE If comparable replacement dwellings are not available when you are required to move, or if replacement housing is not available within the monetary limits described above, the Displacing Agency will provide Last Resort Housing assistance to enable you to rent or purchase a replacement dwelling on a timely basis. Last Resort Housing assistance is based on the individual circumstances of the displaced person. Your relocation representative will explain the process for determining whether or not you qualify for Last Resort assistance. If you are a tenant, and you choose to purchase rather than rent a comparable replacement dwelling, the entire amount of your rental assistance and Last Resort eligibility must be applied toward the down -payment and eligible incidental expenses of the home you intend to purchase. 9. RENTAL AGREEMENT As a result of the Displacing Agency 's action to purchase the property where you live, you may become a tenant of the Displacing Agency. If this occurs, you will be asked to sign a rental agreement which will specify the monthly rent to be paid, when rent payments are due, where they are to be paid and other pertinent information. 10. EVICTIONS Any person, who occupies the real property and is not in unlawful occupancy, is presumed to be entitled to relocation benefits. Except for the causes of eviction set forth below, no person lawfully occupying property to be purchased by the Agency will be required to move without having been provided with at least 90 days written notice from the Agency. Eviction will be undertaken only in the event of one or more of the following reasons: • Failure to pay rent; except in those cases where the failure to pay is due to the lessor's failure to keep the premises in habitable condition, is the result of harassment or retaliatory action or is the result of discontinuation or substantial interruption of services; @ 1980-2008 Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. (01/08) Page 20 • Performance of dangerous illegal act in the unit; • Material breach ofthe rental agreement and failure to correct breach within the legally prescribed notice period; • Maintenance of a nuisance and failure to abate within a reasonable time following notice; • Refusal to accept one of a reasonable number of offers of replacement dwellings; or • The eviction is required by State or local law and cannot be prevented by reasonable efforts on the part of the public entity. 11. APPEAL PROCEDURES - GRIEVANCE Any person aggrieved by a determination as to eligibility for a relocation payment, or the amount of a payment, may have the claim reviewed or reconsidered in accordance with the Displacing Agency's appeals procedure. Complete details on appeal procedures are available upon request from the Displacing Agency. 12. TAX STATUS OF RELOCATION BENEFITS California Government Code Section 7269 indicates no relocation payment received shall be considered as income for the purposes ofthe Personal Income Tax Law, Part 10 (commencing with Section 170 01) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or the Bank and Corporation Tax law, Part 11 (commencing with Section 23001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. Furthermore, federal regulations (49 CFR Part 24, Section 24.209) also indicate that no payment received under this part (Part 24) shall be considered as income for the purpose of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, which has been redesignated as the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. No federal dollars are anticipated for this project. Therefore, federal regulations may not apply and the IRS may consider relocation payments as income. The preceding statement is not tendered as legal advice in regard to tax consequences, and displacees should consult with their own tax advisor or legal counsel to determine the current status of such payments. (IRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax -related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein) 13. NON-DISCRIMINATION AND FAIR HOUSING No person shall on the grounds of race, color, national origin or sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under the Displacing Agency's relocation assistance program pursuant to Title VI ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and other applicable state and federal anti -discrimination and @ 1980-2008 Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. (01/08) Page 21 fair housing laws. You may file a complaint if you believe you have been subjected to discrimination. For details contact the Displacing Agency. 14. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE Those responsible for providing you with relocation assistance hope to assist you in every way possible to minimize the hardships involved in relocating to a new home. Your cooperation will be helpful and greatly appreciated. If you have any questions at any time during the process, please do not hesitate to contact your relocation representative at Overland, Pacific & Cutler. @ 1980-2008 Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. (01/08) Page 22 EXHIBIT 4: Fixed Moving Payment Schedule Schedule of Fixed Moving Payments Unfurnished Dwelling (Tenant Owned Furniture) Rm Cont 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Each Additional Amount $625 $800 $1,000 $1,175 $1,425 $1,650 $1,900 $2,150 $225 Furnished Dwelling (Landlord Owned Furniture) Room Count 1 Each Additional Amount $400 $65 Source: The Federal Highway Administration (effective 8/22/2008) @ 1980-2008 Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. (01/08) Page 23 EXHIBIT 5: Computation of Rental Assistance Payment Computation of Rental Assistance Payments 1. Old Rent $650 Old Rent, plus Utility Allowance or 2. Ability to Pay $700 30% of the Gross Household Income* 3. Lesser alines 1 or 2 S650 Base Monthly Rental Subtracted From: 4. Actual New Rent $750 Actual New Rent including Utility Allowance or 5. Comparable Rent $775 Determined by the Developer; includes Utility Allowance 6. Lesser alines 4 or 5 $750 7. Yields Monthly Need: $100 Subtract line 3 from line 6 Rental Assistance $4,200 Multiply line 7 by 42 months * Gross income means the total annual income of an individual less the following: (1) a deduction of $500 for each dependent in excess of three; (2) a deduction of 10% of total income for the elderly or disabled head of household; (3) a deduction for recurring extraordinary medical expenses defined for this purpose to mean medical expenses in excess of3% of total income, where not compensated for, or covered by insurance or other sources; (4) a deduction of reasonable amounts paid for the care of children or sick or incapacitated family members when determined to be necessary to employment of the head of household or spouse, except that the amount deducted shall not exceed the amount of income received by the person who would not otherwise be able to seek employment in the absence of such care. @ 1980-2008 Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. (01/08) Page 24 RDA DEPARTMENTAL REPORT Item No. 15 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: Executive Director/Agency Members FROM: Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Redevelopment DATE: August 23, 2011 SUBJECT: Redevelopment Department July Monthly Report RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. REDEVELOPMENT Town Square Market Place - As part of the Civic Center Master Plan, the City has created a development opportunity for approximately 52,000 square feet of commercial and office space surrounding the Town Square along the reconfigured Main Street. The Agency issued a Request for Interest to select a preferred development partner. On August 26, 2008, the City Council entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with Pelican Properties to develop the project. Pelican has participated in several meetings with Old Town stakeholders and adjacent property owners. They have worked closely with Staff on site planning issues. On January 22, 2009 the Executive Director granted a three-month extension to the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement which expires on May 26, 2009. Due to the state of the economy Staff recommended the Agency extend the ENA an additional six months. On May 26, 2009 Agency Board approved a six (6) month extension to the ENA. Agency Staff met with the Agency sub- committee in February 2010 and received direction to take an extension of one year with the possibility of an additional one year administrative extension which the Agency approved on March 9, 2010. Due to Pelican Property's lack of progress on the project the Agency allowed the ENA to expire in February. Agency staff anticipates going out with a new solicitation of interest in an attempt to identify a preferred developer in which to enter into a ground lease for the future development of the Town Square Marketplace. Facade Improvement Program - The Facade Improvement Program provides funding assistance to Old Town business and property owners to provide exterior improvements to their buildings and property. On June 15, 2011, the City Council approved funding in the amount of $40,000 for FY 2011-2012. However, as of July 1, 2011, this program is currently frozen due to legislation passed by the State of California. This program will remain frozen until staff receives more information regarding the legislation. HOUSING 3rd and Front Street Development - On February 22, 2011 the Agency board approved the Owner Participation Agreement between the Agency and Front Street Plaza Partners Inc for the development of a 25 -unit affordable housing development at the southwest corner of Old Town Front Street and 3rd Street. Of the 25 units in the proposed development, 23 will be restricted at affordable rents for 55 years. The remaining 2 units will be rented at market rate rents. The development itself is to include restaurant space on the ground floor with office and residential space on floors two through four. Plans call for a gated garage that would provide a total of 25 parking spaces, or one space per residential unit. Agency funding for this development will come at the completion of the project. The developer is currently working to secure construction financing. AMCAL Puiol Apartments - On February 22, 2011 the Agency board approved the Owner Participation and Grant Agreement between the Agency and AMCAL Pujol Fund L.P. for the development of a 45 -unit affordable housing development on the west side of Pujol Street between Main Street and First Street. The plans call for the development of 45 affordable units on 1.5 acres. The site will include a parking garage with two designated spots per residential unit. The units themselves will consist of a mix of two and three bedroom units. Additionally the site will include a pool and community room. The Developer closed escrow on a portion of the property and has submitted its entitlement application which is currently under review and will be going before the Planning Commission on August 3, 2011. The developer is also in the process of preparing their Tax Credit Application which is due in September. R.C. Hobbs Exclusive Negotiating Agreement - The R.C. Hobbs Company approached the Agency regarding the possible development of mixed income affordable housing on vacant Agency owned property located at 28640 Pujol Street. Considering Hobbs' background and recent Staff experience working with the organization, Staff felt that Hobbs would be a quality partner on an affordable housing development at the aforementioned location. Hobbs requested that the Agency and Hobbs enter into an ENA with a one-year term with a potential six month extension by written approval of the Executive Director. The Agency approved the ENA at its February 9, 2010 meeting. An appraisal for the subject property was commissioned by the Agency and completed on June 24, 2010. The Agency and R.C. Hobbs continue to negotiate potential development on the subject site. On February 7, 2011, R.C. Hobbs requested that the provision of the ENA that allows for an administrative extension of up to 6 months be exercised. The Executive Director of the Agency approved this extension and the ENA has been extended to August 9, 2011 First Time Homebuvers Program - This down payment assistance program allows qualifying households to purchase homes in the $200,000-$300,000 price range. On June 15, 2011, the City Council approved funding in the amount of $750,000 for FY 2011-2012. However, as of July 1, 2011, this program is currently frozen due to legislation passed by the State of California. This program will remain frozen until staff receives more information regarding the legislation. Summerhouse - The developer has completed phase one of the project which includes 20 moderately affordable residential units. The developer has recently applied for tax credits which, if awarded, would enable the project to move on to phase two. Phase two will include an additional 60 units. Construction of phase two is expected to begin shortly after the issuance of tax credits. Diaz Road Request for Interest - The Agency issued a Request for Interest to select a preferred buyer for the 30 -acre site located on Diaz Road. Two firms responded. The Agency is currently reviewing the submittals and is anticipating meeting with potential buyers in May. Once a buyer is selected it is anticipated that the Agency and buyer will enter into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with an escrow period of 60-90 days. As of July 30, 2011 no qualified buyers have submitted proposals. Residential Improvement Program - The Residential Improvement Program (RIP) provides funding assistance to low and moderate income level homeowners to do exterior improvements to their home and property. On June 15, 2011, the City Council approved funding in the amount of $400,000 for FY 2011-2012. The Agency began taking applications for the program July 1, 2011. Currently, over 30 applications have been received and filed. However, as of July 1, 2011, this program is currently frozen due to legislation passed by the State of California. This program will remain frozen until staff receives more information regarding the legislation. Supportive Housing/Services - The Agency, in collaboration with the Temecula Housing Authority, intends to continue to serve the needs of the low and moderate income households and individuals by continuing to construct affordable housing units within the City. In addition to its efforts to construct new units, the Agency also intends to provide Supportive Services to assist moderate, low, very low and extremely income households and individuals within the community. Supportive Services will include, providing housing, food, clothing, counseling, health care and day care services, among other services, to assist these families and individuals. In order to achieve this, a number of specific action steps have been identified to meet the needs of these populations. The recommended action steps were approved by City Council on May 10, 2011. PUBLIC HEARING Item No. 16 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Redevelopment DATE: August 23, 2011 SUBJECT: Issuance of Tax -Exempt Private Activity Bonds by the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSDA) for the purpose of constructing a 45 unit multi -family affordable housing development to be located at 28673, 28681, and 28701 Pujol Street PREPARED BY: Luke Watson, Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF TAX-EXEMPT PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS BY THE CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PORTOLA TERRACE APARTMENTS BACKGROUND: The California Statewide Communities Development Authority (California Communities) is a joint powers authority which is authorized by State law to execute and deliver multi -family housing revenue obligation bonds for the purpose of acquisition, rehabilitation, and construction of affordable housing. The City has received a request from the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (the "Authority") to conduct public hearings as required by the Internal Revenue Code in order to issue tax-exempt revenue bonds (the "Bonds") in an aggregate amount not to exceed $9 million on behalf of AMCAL Multi -Housing, Inc. (the "Developer"). The Developer will use the proceeds of the Bonds for the acquisition, construction and development of a 45 -unit multi- family housing project known as Portola Terrace Apartments located at 28673, 28681, 28701 Pujol Street in the City of Temecula (the "Project"). The Bonds would be tax-exempt private activity bonds for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code and, as such, require the approval of the elected body of the governmental entity having jurisdiction over the area where the project to be financed is located. The City will riot be under any obligation to repay the Bond indebtedness. In order for the Authority to issue such Bonds, the City must (1) conduct a public hearing allowing members of the public to comment on the proposed Project, and (2) approve of the Authority's issuance of Bonds on behalf of the proposed financing. Although the Authority (riot the City) will be the issuer of the tax-exempt bonds for the Project, the financing cannot proceed without the City approving of the Authority's issuance of indebtedness. Agency Involvement On February 22, 2011 the Redevelopment Agency Board approved an Owner Participation and Conditional Grant Agreement (OPA) for the development of a 46,765 square foot mixed use project on 1.49 acres along the west side Pujol Street, north of 1st Street and South of Main Street. The project will include 44 units restricted at the low income category and one (1) manager's unit. The development was approved by the planning commission on August 3, 2011. Per the OPA total Agency assistance includes the contribution of $5,579,000 million towards the acquisition, construction, and permanent financing of the project. The Agency assistance is conditionally based on AMCAL's ability to issue the tax exempt housing bonds and meet all other terms of the OPA. No Agency assistance will be made available until the housing bonds have been secured and all other terms of the OPA have been met. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct financial impact to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency or the City of Temecula as a result of this proposed financing. The Authority will issue tax-exempt bonds on behalf of the Project. The tax-exempt bonds are payable solely out of the revenues derived by the Developer from the Portola Terrace project. No financial obligations are placed on the Agency or City for project financing costs or debt repayment. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 11 - Tax Exempt Housing Bond Application RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF TAX-EXEMPT PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS BY THE CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PORTOLA TERRACE APARTMENTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula finds, determines and declares as follows: A. The California Statewide Communities Development Authority (the "Authority") is authorized by the laws of the State of California (the "Law") to execute and deliver multi -family housing revenue obligations for the purpose of financing the acquisition, construction/rehabilitation and development of multi -family residential rental facilities located within the area of operation of the Authority which are to be occupied by very low income tenants. B. AMCAL Pujol Fund L.P. a limited liability company (the "Borrower") has requested the Authority to issue and deliver multi -family housing revenue obligations in the anticipated principal amount not to exceed $9,000,000 (the "Obligations"), the proceeds of which may only be used for the purpose of financing the construction of a 45 -unit multi -family residential rental facility, commonly known as the Portola Terrace Apartments, located at 28673, 28681, and 28701 Pujol Street in the City of Temecula, California (the "Project"). C. The Obligations which are expected to be issued and delivered to finance the construction of the Project would be considered "qualified exempt facility bonds" under Section 142 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and Section 147(f) of the Code requires that the "applicable elected representative" with respect to the Project hold a public hearing on the issuance and delivery of the Obligations. D. The City Council of the City of Temecula as the "applicable elected representatives" to hold said public hearing, has held said public hearing at which all those interest in speaking with respect to the proposed financing of the Project were heard. Section 2. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and correct: A. For purposes of the requirements of the Code only, the City Council hereby approves the proposed financing of the Project by the Authority with the proceeds of the Obligations. B. The issuance and delivery of the Obligations shall be subject to the approval of and execution by the Authority of all financing documents relating thereto to which the Authority is a party and subject to the sale of the Obligations by the Authority. C. The adoption of this Resolution is solely for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the Code and shall not be construed in any other manner, the City nor its staff having fully reviewed or considered the financial feasibility of the Project or the expected financing or operation of the Project with regards to any State of California statutory requirements, and such adoption shall not obligate (1) the City to provide financing to the Borrower for the acquisition, construction rehabilitation and development of the Project or to issue the Obligations for purposes of such financing; or (2) the City, of or any department of the City, to approve any application or request for, or take any other action in connection with, any environmental, General Plan, zoning or any other permit or other action necessary for the acquisition, rehabilitation, development or operation of the Project. Section 3. The City Clerk of the City shall forward a certified copy of this Resolution and a copy of the affidavit of publication of the public hearing notice to: Justin Cooper Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 405 Howard Street San Francisco, California 94105 Section 4. This resolution shall take effect upon its adoption PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 23rd day of August, 2011. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) 1, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 11- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES@ JOINT U»UR$ YYTNQIITY BIrltdiug CAllAt1HLsiiirs, JPJrrcfrUg u J.4)Ct? Ci, yrriiw ttr Shure T48 Housing Bond Application APPLICANT INFORMATION Application Number: Name of Developer: Primary Contact: Title: Address: Telephone Number: Fax Number: E-mail: 2011039 AMCAL Multi -Housing, Inc. Frank Chang Project Manager 30141 Agoura Road, Suite 100 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 (818) 706-0694 Ext. 186 (818) 706-3752 fchang@amcalhousing.com BORROWER DESCRIPTION Type of Entity: [ For-profit Corporation [' Municipality [ Other (specify): For Non -profits only: Will you be applying for State Volume Cap? No Name of Borrowing Entity: AMCAL Pujol Fund L.P. Date Established: February 2011 Number of Multi -Family Housing Projects Completed in the Last 10 Years: N/A Number of Low Income Multi -Family Housing Projects Completed in the Last 10 Years: N/A Non-profit Corporation Pr Partnership PRINCIPAL FINANCE TEAM INFORMATION UNDERWRITER/PLACEMENT AGENT Firm: TBD Contact: Address: Telephone: Fax: E-mail: donotsend@tbd.com Firm: Contact: Address: Telephone: Fax: E-mail: BOND COUNSEL Bocarsly, Cowan, Esmail & Amdt, LLP Kyle Arndt 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 29 Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 239-8048 (213) 239-0410 karndt@bocarslyemden.com California Communities® www.cacommunities.org Page 1 of 5 Application Number: 2011039 - Portola Terrace Name of Borrower: AMCAL Multi -Housing, Inc. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Current Project Name: Portola Terrace New Project Name: Project Street Address: 28673, 28681, 28701 Pujol Street City: Temacula State: CA Zip Code: 92590 County: Riverside County Is Project located in unincorporated part of the County? No Total Number of Units: Market: 1 Restricted: 44 Total Units: 45 Lot Size: 1.53 acres (66,765 square feet) Amenities: Swimming Pool, Community Room, Tot lot, outdoor sitting areas Type of Construction (i.e., Wood Frame, 2 Story, 10 Buildings): Wood Frame 3 Story One Building With A Parking Structure In The Rear Of The Property. Type of Housing: 17 New Construction [R' Family T Acq/Rehab T Senior Is this an Assisted Living Facility? City or county contact information: Contact Name: Patrick Richardson Title: Director of Planning & Redevelopment Phone Number: (951) 506-5173 Fax Number: (951) 694-6477 E-mail: patrick.richardson@cityoftemacula.org PUBLIC BENEFIT Percentage of Units in Low Income Housing: 98% total 45 units 44 Affordable and 1 Exempt Manager's unit Percentage of Area Median Income(AMI) for Low Income Housing Units: 50% and 60% AMI Total Number of Management Units: 1 # of Restricted Restricted Market Expected Unit Size AMI Units Rent Rent Savings 2 Bedrooms 50 3 $668 $1,462 $794 2 Bedrooms 60 27 $814 $1,462 $648 3 Bedrooms 50 2 $734 $1,626 $892 3 Bedrooms 60 12 $896 $1,626 $730 Remarks: California Communities® www.cacommunities.org Page 2 of 5 Application Number: 2011039 - Portola Terrace Name of Borrower: AMCAL Multi -Housing, Inc. OTHER PUBLIC BENEFIT SERVICES PROVIDED r High-speed Internet service in each affordable unit of an on-going nature for a minimum of 10 years. • After school program of an on going nature for the minimum of 10 years. r Educational classes (which are not the same as the after school program) for a minimum of 10 years. • Licensed childcare providing 20 hours or more per week(Monday through Friday) to residents of the development. ✓ Contract for services, such as assistance with the daily living activities, or provision of senior counseling services. ENVIRONMENT Energy Does the facility exceed Title 24 Standards? 17 Yes In No E N/A If Yes, by what percent? 20% Does the facility have solar(PV) panels? E Yes r No 17 N/A If Yes, what is the size in kWh? Does the facility purchase carbon credits? I— Yes r No 11 N/A If Yes, what is the annual consumption? Water Does the facility provide any of the following: Efficient Toilets? 17 Yes fl No T N/A Water -saving showerheads? 17 Yes E No E N/A Drought tolerant landscaping? P' Yes r No E N/A Other, specify: Transportation Does the entity provide carpooling or mass -transit subsidies? T Yes Does the entity maintain a fuel efficient fleet? E Yes Waste Does the project provide recycling facilities? WORKFORCE Employment Creation Job Type/Description Temporary construction employement Full time permanent management GOVERNMENTAL INFORMATION Fr Yes r No T N/A Fir No J- N/A 17No T N/A During Post Construction Construction 50 3 0 2 Congressional District # State Senate District # State Assembly District # 49 36 66 California Communities® www.cacommunities.org Page 3 of 5 Application Number: 2011039 - Portola Terrace Name of Borrower: AMCAL Multi -Housing, Inc. FINANCING STRUCTURE Type of Financing: E Public Sale Fir Private Placement For Refundings only: Will you be applying for State Volume Cap? No For Refundings only: Is this a transfer of property to a new owner? Maturity: 30 Years CONSTRUCTION FINANCING: Credit Enhancement: Refunding Interest Rate Mode: W. Fixed r Variable None r FNMA(Fannie Mae) Bond Insurance Letter of Credit Freddie Mac Other (specify): Name of Credit Enhancement Provider or Private Placement Purchaser: N/A PERMANENT FINANCING: Credit Enhancement: 17 None I- Letter of Credit T FNMA(Fannie Mae) T Freddie Mac T Bond Insurance T Other (specify): Name of Credit Enhancement Provider or Private Placement Purchaser: N/A Expected Rating: P Unrated T Moody's Projected State Allocation Pool: r General Will the project use Tax -Credit as a souce of funding?: Yes r S&P r Fitch Mixed Income Rural SOURCES & USES CONSTRUCTION SOURCES Tax -Exempt Bond Proceeds: $7,459,025 Land Acquisition: $1,095,200 Taxable Bond Proceeds: Building Acquisition: Tax Credits: $1,139,740 Construction or Remodel: $6,944,123 Developer Equity: $228,935 Cost of Issuance: $475,997 Other Funds(Describe): Capitalized Interest: $427,962 Operating Reserves $200,819 Reserves: $200,819 City of Temacula RDA $3,737,930 Other Funds(Describe): Construction Loan Fees/Closing $286,970 Costs Architecture/Engineering $743,000 TCAC Fees $39,036 TOTAL: $12,766,449 Permit Fees/Marketing/ $1,191,971 Contengency Developer Fees $1,361,371 TOTAL: $12,766,449 USES California Communities® www.cacommunities.org Page 4 of 5 Application Number: 2011039 - Portola Terrace Name of Borrower: AMCAL Multi -Housing, Inc. PRINCIPAL FINANCE TEAM INFORMATION (continued) FINANCIAL ADVISOR REBATE ANALYST Firm: N/A Contact: Address: Telephone: Fax: E-mail: donotsend@n-a.com Firm: TBD Contact: Address: Telephone: Fax: E-mail: donotsend@tbd.com ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT Please provide the following as an additional attachment: Attachment Description of Information A $5,000 non-refundable* application fee payable to "California Communities.". *Refundable only if financing not approved. MAILING ADDRESS California Communities® 2033 N. Main St., Suite 700 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 California Communities® www.cacommunities.org Page 5 of 5 COUNCIL BUSINESS Item No. 17 ORDINANCE NO. 11-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That an amendment to the contract between the City Council of the City of Temecula and the Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System is hereby authorized, a copy of said amendment being attached hereto, marked Exhibit, and by such reference made apart hereof as though herein set out in full. Section 2. The Mayor of the City Council is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to execute said amendment for and on behalf of said Agency. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect at least 30 days after the date of its adoption and prior to the expiration of 30 days from the passage thereof shall be published at least once in the North County Times — The Californian and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 23rd day of August, 2011. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:/Ords 2011/Ords 11-06 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 11-06 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 26t" day of July, 2011, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of August, 2011, the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk R:/Ords 2011/Ords 11-06 2 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Shawn Nelson, City Manager DATE: August 23, 2011 SUBJECT: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 11-06 AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM. PREPARED BY: Grant Yates, Deputy City Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 11-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM. 2. Certify PERS Form CON -5, Certification of Final Action of Governing Body. SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE: The proposed Ordinance amends the current CaIPERS contract to include a second-tier retirement formula of 2% @ 60 to be applied to those employees hired after the second-tier implementation date. BACKGROUND: The Resolution of Intention No. 11-54 was adopted at the July 26, 2011 City Council Meeting along with the first reading of the above Ordinance No. 11-06. Government Code Section 20471 requires that all actions to amend the City's CaIPERS contract not be placed on a consent calendar; therefore, the City Attorney will conduct the second reading of Ordinance No. 11-06. FISCAL IMPACT: Following the introduction of the Ordinance on July 26, 2011, CaIPERS informed us that any current, regular City employee who leaves after the implementation date of the second-tier amendment and returns to Temecula at a future date would need to be enrolled in Tier One retirement benefits. The rehiring of a City employee has occurred on a very limited basis since the incorporation of the City. We do not anticipate that this PERS requirement will have any material impact relative to the analysis as presented on July 26, 2011 which is included below. The City currently spends approximately $3 million dollars annually on retirement cost. The implementation of the 2% @ 60 Formula has the potential to reduce these costs by one third or approximately $1 million dollars annually when fully implemented. ATTACHMENT: Proposed Ordinance Amendment to Contract Certification of Final Action of Governing Body CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM Actuarial and Employer Services Branch Public Agency Contract Services P.O. Box 942709 Sacramento, CA 94229-2709 (888) CaIPERS (225-7377) CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ACTION OF GOVERNING BODY I hereby certify that the _ Ci7.1/ COW)C,i / of the (governing body) Ci'iq a F -ryeetiQ. (public agency) considered and adopted on fia �(a.S J , Rod , by an affirmative (date) vote of a majority of the members of said Governing Body, Ordinance / Resolution No. //-(;((/ //-5(/ approving the attached contractual agreement between the Governing Body of said Agency and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System, a certified copy of said Ordinance / Resolution in the form furnished by said Board of Administration being attached hereto. Adoption of the retirement benefit increase was not placed on the consent calendar. Clerk/Secretary SitWines i'Ym ,/Ci -/y fexk Title Date PERS-CON-5 (Rev. 6/09) 1, Ca1PERS California Public Employees' Retirement System • AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT Between the Board of Administration California Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council City of Temecula • The Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System, hereinafter referred to as Board, and the governing body of the above public agency, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency, having entered into a contract effective December 1, 1990, and witnessed November 8, 1990, and as amended effective October 25, 1997, August 24, 2002, July 10, 2004, April 24, 2009 and June 19, 2010 which provides for participation of Public Agency in said System, Board and Public Agency hereby agree as follows: A. Paragraphs 1 through 13 are hereby stricken from said contract as executed effective June 19, 2010, and hereby replaced by the following paragraphs numbered 1 through 14 inclusive: 1. All words and terms used herein which are defined in the Public Employees' Retirement Law shall have the meaning as defined therein unless otherwise specifically provided. "Normal retirement age" shall mean age 55 for local miscellaneous members entering membership in the miscellaneous classification on or prior to the effective date of this amendment to contract and age 60 for local miscellaneous members entering membership for the first time in the miscellaneous classification after the effective date of this amendment to contract. 2. Public Agency shall participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System from and after December 1, 1990 making its employees as hereinafter provided, members of said System subject to all provisions of the Public Employees' Retirement Law except such as apply only on election of a contracting agency and are not provided for herein and to all amendments to said Law hereafter enacted except those, which by express provisions thereof, apply only on the election of a contracting agency. 3. Public Agency agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS) and its trustees, agents and employees, the CaIPERS Board of Administration, and the California Public Employees' Retirement Fund from any claims, demands, actions, losses, liabilities, damages, judgments, expenses and costs, including but not limited to interest, penalties and attorneys fees that may arise as a result of any of the following: (a) Public Agency's election to provide retirement benefits, provisions or formulas under this Contract that are different than the retirement benefits, provisions or formulas provided under the Public Agency's prior non-CaIPERS retirement program. (b) Public Agency's election to amend this Contract to provide retirement benefits, provisions or formulas that are different than existing retirement benefits, provisions or formulas. (c) Public Agency's agreement with a third party other than CaIPERS to provide retirement benefits, provisions, or formulas that are different than the retirement benefits, provisions or formulas provided under this Contract and provided for under the California Public Employees' Retirement Law. (d) Public Agency's election to file for bankruptcy under Chapter 9 (commencing with section 901) of Title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code and/or Public Agency's election to reject this Contract with the CaIPERS Board of Administration pursuant to section 365, of Title 11, of the United States Bankruptcy Code or any similar provision of law. (e) Public Agency's election to assign this Contract without the prior written consent of the CaIPERS' Board of Administration. (f) The termination of this Contract either voluntarily by request of Public Agency or involuntarily pursuant to the Public Employees' Retirement Law. (g) Changes sponsored by Public Agency in existing retirement benefits, provisions or formulas made as a result of amendments, additions or deletions to California statute or to the California Constitution. 4. Employees of Public Agency in the following classes shall become members of said Retirement System except such in each such class as are excluded by law or this agreement: a. Employees other than local safety members (herein referred to as local miscellaneous members). 5. In addition to the classes of employees excluded from membership by said Retirement Law, the following classes of employees shall not become members of said Retirement System: a. SAFETY EMPLOYEES. 6. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local miscellaneous member in employment before and not on or after July 10, 2004 shall be determined in accordance with Section 21354 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 55 Full) 7 The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local miscellaneous member in employment on or after July 10, 2004 and not on or after June 19, 2010 shall be determined in accordance with Section 21354.4 of said Retirement Law (2.5% at age 55 Full). 8. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local miscellaneous member in employment on or after June 19, 2010 and not entering membership for the first time in the miscellaneous classification after the effective date of this amendment to contract shall be determined in accordance with Section 21354.5 of said Retirement Law (2.7% at age 55 Full). 9. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited current service as a local miscellaneous member entering membership for the first time in the miscellaneous classification after the effective date of this amendment to contract shall be determined in accordance with Section 21353 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 60 Full). 10. Public Agency elected and elects to be subject to the following optional provisions: a. Section 20042 (One -Year Final Compensation) for those local miscellaneous members entering membership on or prior to the effective date of this amendment to contract. b. Sections 21624 and 21626 (Post -Retirement Survivor Allowance). c. Section 21574 (Fourth Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits). d. Section 21024 (Military Service Credit as Public Service). e. Section 20903 (Two Years Additional Service Credit). f. Section 20475 (Different Level of Benefits). Section 21353 (2% @ 60 Full formula) and Section 20037 (Three -Year Final Compensation) are applicable to local miscellaneous members entering membership for the first time in the miscellaneous classification after the effective date of this amendment to contract. 11. Public Agency shall contribute to said Retirement System the contributions determined by actuarial valuations of prior and future service liability with respect to local miscellaneous members of said Retirement System. 12. Public Agency shall also contribute to said Retirement System as follows: a. Contributions required per covered member on account of the 1959 Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21574 of said Retirement Law. (Subject to annual change.) In addition, all assets and liabilities of Public Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on term insurance rates, for survivors of all local miscellaneous members. b. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment within 60 days of date of contract to cover the costs of administering said System as it affects the employees of Public Agency, not including the costs of special valuations or of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. c. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment as the occasions arise, to cover the costs of special valuations on account of employees of Public Agency, and costs of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. 13. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be subject to adjustment by Board on account of amendments to the Public Employees' Retirement Law, and on account of the experience under the Retirement System as determined by the periodic investigation and valuation required by said Retirement Law. 14. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be paid by Public Agency to the Retirement System within fifteen days after the end of the period to which said contributions refer or as may be prescribed by Board regulation. If more or less than the correct amount of contributions is paid for any period, proper adjustment shall be made in connection with subsequent remittances. Adjustments on account of errors in contributions required of any employee may be made by direct payments between the employee and the Board. B. This amendment shall be effective on the 05`t day of Sep/eR2ber` ,. BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM CITY OF TEMECULA BY LORI MCGARTLAND, CHIEF EMPLOYER SERVICES DIVISION PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AMENDMENT ER# 1522 PERS-CON-702A BY PRESIDING OFFICER Witness Date Attest: Clerk DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS Item No. 18 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Redevelopment DATE: August 23, 2011 SUBJECT: July Monthly Report The following are the recent highlights for the Planning Division of the Community Development Department for the month of July, 2011. CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITIES New Cases The Division received 35 new applications for administrative, other minor cases, and home occupations including 7 applications for public hearings during the month of July. Special Projects & Lonci Ramie Planninci Activities The Long Range Planning Division commits work efforts toward larger scale and longer time frame projects for both private and public purposes. These activities can range from a relatively simple ordinance or environmental review to a new specific plan or a general plan amendment. Some of the major special projects and long range planning activities currently in progress are described in the paragraphs below: • Temecula Regional Hospital — This project was approved by the City Council on January 22, 2008. On December 30, 2009 the applicant submitted an application for a one year extension of time and Council approved this extension on January 26, 2010, extending the approval until January 22, 2011. The applicant submitted a Major Modification application on June 18, 2010, to reduce the number of hospital beds in the first phase from 178 beds to 140 beds and to change the construction of the building from concrete to framed construction. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Major Modification application on December 15, 2010 and City Council approved the Modification application on February 8, 2011. The applicant has submitted permit applications to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Army Corps, and the California Department of Fish and Game and is currently seeking environmental clearances from these agencies. Environmentally sensitive areas on the project site have been identified by these agencies, and the agencies have provided clearance for the application to begin grading operations outside of the environmentally sensitive areas. A grading permit was issued for rough grading operations on June 8, 2011. Clearing and grubbing operations began on June 9, 2011, and cut/fill operations began on June 21, 2011 and import operations began on June 30, 2011. UHS and their biologist from URS continue to work with the agencies to address the environmentally sensitive areas so that grading can commence in those areas. Import operations are anticipated to be completed by August 17, 2011. (FISK) • The Green House Gas (GHG) Emissions Inventory—The Green TAC selected 2007 as the base year for GHG emissions inventory analysis. Two inventories were prepared: 1) a municipal operations inventory and, 2) a communitywide inventory. The next steps are to select a target emission reduction and identify implementation measures that will achieve the selected target. The Green TAC established a test target of 15 percent below the 2007 base year. Staff is currently reviewing potential reduction measures to see if a 15 percent reduction in GHG emissions below baseline is feasible. (WEST) • Residential Energy Efficiency Loan Program — The Residential Energy Efficiency Loan Program makes low interest loans available to low and moderate income homeowners to make energy efficient improvements to their homes. The Program allows for specific types of energy efficiency improvements based on the year of construction, which coincides with the changes to Energy Codes of the California Building Standards. The Residential Energy Efficiency Program will work in conjunction with the Redevelopment Agency Residential Improvement Program, which offers forgivable loans for qualifying interior and exterior home improvements. The program was approved by the City Council on September 14, 2010 and staff began accepting applications on January 1, 2011. The two applications that were being reviewed were determined to be ineligible for funding. Currently, there are no applications pending. (WESTIWEAVER) • Liberty Quarry — The County of Riverside has held four continuous Planning Commission Hearings (April 26, May 3, June 22 and July 18) for Granite Construction's Liberty Quarry proposal for a Surface Mining Permit, Change of Zone, and Noise Ordinance Exception. The Liberty Quarry hearing has been continued again to August 15, 201. The project is a 75 -year land use permit for a rock quarry and associated aggregate processing facilities, hot mix asphalt plant, ready mix concrete plant, concrete and asphalt recycling facility, administration and employee buildings, a maintenance facility with diesel, gas and propane tanks, water tanks, natural gas fuel engines for electric power generation, water and gas lines, truck scales, and truck and equipment parking areas within a 414 acre -site located adjacent to the City's southern boundary within the County of Riverside. The City reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report and provided comments to the County of Riverside on November 23, 2009. Despite voluminous comments on the DEIR received by the County on the project, the Riverside County Planning staff determined that redrafting/recirculation of the Liberty Quarry Surface Mining Permit Draft Environmental Impact Report is not required and recommended approval to the Planning Commission of the project including certification of the EIR. The City Attorney responded with written comments at the first Planning Commission hearing on April 26, 2011 and the City has since provided additional written support material in opposition of the project. The Planning Commission public hearing has been closed to further public testimony and the next hearing on August 15, 2011 is anticipated to complete Commission discussions/questions on topics from various experts from both sides and Granite Construction's rebuttal. It is anticipated the Commission will vote on the project on August 15, 2011. (JOHNSON/RICHARDSON/LOWREY) • Jefferson Avenue Specific Plan —Staff is studying the Jefferson Avenue Corridor to create a future Specific Plan for the area. The boundaries of the Jefferson Avenue Corridor are preliminarily defined to include all properties north of Rancho California Road, east of Diaz, south of the Murrieta City boundary and west of Interstate 15. In June 2010, approximately 15 representatives of the Urban Land Institute (ULI) together with City Staff conducted a tour of the Jefferson Corridor. The ULI Technical Advisory Panel consists of design, architectural, engineering, retail, and planning experts and provided the City with an outside expert review of the Jefferson Avenue Corridor with land use recommendations. The ULI Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) held a one day planning summit in the Council Chambers on June 23, 2010, and shared their findings and recommendations with City staff. On September23, the recommendations from the ULI Technical Advisory Panel were presented at a ULI Transit Oriented Development conference in Anaheim. This conference was intended to highlight the planning efforts being made throughout California in relation to the future high speed rail that will eventually connect San Diego to San Francisco. The City of Temecula was recognized, along with two other cities (San Diego and San Jose), for its future transportation planning efforts and ULI TAP process. Since the future high speed rail station will be located to the north of the Temecula boundary in Murrieta, the ULI TAP process provided a case study for a "station adjacent" community and focused on how future land use planning efforts within the Jefferson Avenue Corridor will take advantage of the proximity to the future high speed rail station. The ULI TAP recommendations have provided valuable information from a group of outstanding and diverse professionals. The recommendations from the study will set the foundation as the City embarks on our own planning effort for the Jefferson Avenue Corridor. Staff is currently finalizing an Existing Conditions Summary Report for the project study area. This report will outline baseline information, including existing zoning and land uses, existing businesses, building square footages and development intensity, historic structures, parcel sizes, property ownership, existing and future planned roadway circulation, roadway capacity and existing traffic volumes, impacts of the French Valley Interchange on the corridor, existing transit routes and transit stops, existing sidewalk conditions, and existing and proposed Murrieta Creek trail improvements within the corridor. On January 11, 2011 the City Council established the Jefferson Corridor Ad Hoc Committee. On July 25, 2011 staff met with the Jefferson Corridor Ad Hoc Committee to discuss the status of the Jefferson Corridor Planning Effort and to discuss the Professional Services Agreement for the Caltrans Community Based Transportation Planning grant between the City of Temecula, WRCOG and Fehr & Peers. At the July 25 subcommittee meeting the subcommittee members gave staff the authorization to move forward with the public outreach and visioning effort for the Jefferson Corridor Specific Plan and the Multi -Jurisdictional Transportation Corridor Plan. (RICHARDSON/ WATSON/WEST/INNES/LOWREY) • SCAG 2012 Regional Transportation Plan — The update to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is underway. The RTP includes a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which is a new component to the RTP as a result of the passage of SB 375. Staff has provided land use, employment and population data to SCAG and the County of Riverside Center for Demographic Research to establish Base Year Conditions and General Plan Based Growth Forecast/Distribution and land use for years 2020 and 2035. Staff is working with the SCAG Local Sustainability Planning Tool to apply land use and transportation scenario assumptions to develop the SCS. The Regional Transportation Plan, including the SCS, is scheduled to be adopted by SCAG by November 2012. (WEST) • Caltrans Community Based Transportation Planning Grant — The City of Temecula was awarded $248,200 from Caltrans for a Community Based Transportation Planning grant. This grant will fund a multi -jurisdictional transportation corridor planning effort for the Jefferson Avenue Corridor for the Cities of Temecula, Murrieta, Wildomar, and Lake Elsinore. The City of Temecula is the lead agency and primary recipient of the grant funding. WRCOG is a sub -recipient for the purposes of administering the grant. The City of Murrieta, City of Wildomar and City of Lake Elsinore are grant participants. The Jefferson Avenue Corridor is a 16 -mile central north/south arterial that parallels the west side of Interstate 15. The planning effort will promote public engagement, livable communities, and will address mobility, access and safety along the Jefferson Avenue Corridor. As a part of this effort, the City of Temecula will analyze affordable housing opportunities, and the opportunities and impacts of increased intensity and density, mixed-use development and impacts and opportunities related to the transportation network. The final product emerging as a result of this grant will be a "Multi -Jurisdictional Corridor Plan for the Jefferson Corridor" which is a 20 -year transportation plan for the Jefferson Corridor. The Caltrans Community Based Transportation Planning grant is anticipated to complement the ULI Technical Advisory Panel study completed for the Jefferson Avenue Corridor which focuses on future land use and transportation planning efforts related to the high speed rail alignment through the City of Temecula. A Request For Proposal (RFP) was released on May 25, 2011 for multi -jurisdictional transportation and land use plan coordination. The RFP closed on June 16, 2011, and consultant interviews were conducted on July 7, 2011. Fehr and Peers was the consulting firm selected as a result of the interview process. The Jefferson Corridor Ad Hoc Subcommittee met on July 25, 2011 to discuss Fehr and Peers contract and the draft scope of work. The subcommittee recommended that the contract and scope of work move forward to be considered by the full City Council at the August9, 2011 City Council Meeting. (WEST/INNES) • SCAG Compass Blueprint Demonstration Project Grant for the Jefferson Avenue Corridor and Specific Plan Visioning and Public Outreach Process - The City of Temecula was awarded a Compass Blueprint Demonstration Project grant by SCAG in February 2011 to provide visioning and public outreach assistance for the Jefferson Avenue Multijurisdictional Corridor Planning effort funded by Caltrans and visioning and outreach assistance with the Jefferson Avenue Specific Plan. The objective of the grant is to establish a vision for the future of the Jefferson Corridor area through public outreach and an extensive visioning process. The visioning process is intended to promote SCAG's four key principles of livability, mobility, sustainability and prosperity and also focus on achieving the goals of SB 375. The future Jefferson Corridor Specific Plan area is intended to become a mixed-use, transit -oriented corridor and future planning efforts are intended to support the feasibility of the future High Speed Rail station that is slated to be located north of the specific plan area in the City of Murrieta, and the planned Cherry Street Transit Station located on the boundaries of the City of Murrieta and Temecula. The public outreach efforts will include visioning workshops and a website dedicated to the visioning and public outreach process. SCAG released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the public outreach project on April 25, 2011. The SCAG RFP closed on June 9, 2011, and consultant interviews were conducted on July 5' 2011. MIG was the consulting firm selected as a result of the interview process. MIG will provide professional planning consulting work for the public outreach effort for the Jefferson Corridor Specific Plan and the Multi -Jurisdictional Transportation Corridor Plan. MIG is expected to be under contract with SCAG and ready to start work for the City in early August 2011. (WEST/INNES) ■ Development Code Amendment to address concerns with off-sale alcohol sales for businesses that require a Conditional Use Permit — On May 24, 2011 the City Council adopted an Interim Urgency Ordinance establishing a 45-day moratorium on the issuance/approval of Conditional Use Permits for off-sale alcohol businesses (i.e. Convenience Markets and Liquor Stores). On June 28, 2011 the City Council adopted an extension to the Interim Urgency Ordinance to extend the moratorium until May 13, 2012. This extension would provide staff adequate time to prepare studies as may be required to determine the appropriate locations in the City for Off-Sale Alcohol CUP businesses and to determine whether additional regulations should be imposed upon these businesses or whether these businesses should be prohibited in certain areas of the City. Since adoption of the moratorium ordinance on May 24, 2011, Staff has been studying potential provisions for the City's Zoning Ordinance that would mitigate the detrimental impacts on public peace, health and safety expressed in the moratorium ordinance, including review of ordinances from other cities addressing these issues. In addition, staff will determine if additional regulations should be imposed upon Off Sale Alcohol CUP Businesses to reduce their detrimental impacts on public peace, health and safety and report these findings to the City Council at a public hearing. Staff is currently working with the City Attorney to prepare the draft ordinance and required environmental documents. Staff anticipates bringing a draft ordinance to the Planning Commission and City Council in October/November, 2011. (KITZEROW) Planning Agenda Report 7/1/2011 through 7/31/2011 1. Recently Approved APN # • PA10-0226 Chaparral 3 DP 922026041 CHERYL KITZEROW A Development Plan application for Chaparral 3, a 23,137 square foot, mixed use, three-story building with retail/restaurant uses on the first floor/mezzanine and offices above at 28455 Old Town Front Street between Moreno Road and Sixth Street (APN: 922-026-041). Associated with Variance request (PA11-0053) to reduce setback at northeast property corner and parking/landscape setback along western property line. Related Case PROS -0047. Submitted Date Approved Date Jul 23 2010 Jul 20 2011 • PA10-0309 Highgate Dev. Plan APN # 944290025 ERIC JONES A Development Plan application for a two-story, 89,148 square foot senior congregate care facility featuring 94 units consisting of studio and one bedroom units generally located on the southwest corner of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road (APN 944-290-026) Submitted Date Approved Date Oct 21 2010 Jul 20 2011 APN # • PA11-0069 TMobile Right of Way Site 961020027 ERIC JONES An Antenna Facility Application to allow a cellular facility disguised as a street light to be located within the public right-of-way generally located on Pechanga Parkway directly across from Via Gilberto (Closest APN: 961-020-027) Submitted Date Approved Date Mar 172011 Jul 20 2011 PAI1.0073 Q -Club Minor CUP APN # 921050012 ERIC JONES A Minor CUP to allow the existing 0 -Club, located at 27911 Jefferson Avenue, to upgrade their existing liquor from a Type 40 to a Type 47 and provide live entertainment Submitted Date Approved Date Mar 28 2011 Jul 6 2011 • PA11-0085 CESNerizon light pole WC APN # 962010007 ERIC JONES A Wireless Antenna Facility to be located on a new 29.5 foot high tubular steel light pole within the right of way along the south side Wolf Valley Road, approximately 283 feet east of the centerline of Pechanga Parkway. Submitted Date Approved Date Apr 8 2011 Jul 20 2011 • PA71-0160 Bundt Cake Major TUP APN # 921320052 ERIC JONES A Major Temporary Use Permit to allow Nothing Bundt Cakes to conduct a charity event for the boys and girls club at 27540 Ynez Road, Suite J1, on July 9, 2011 from 3 p.m. to 9 p.m. The event will feature live entertainment, beer garden, and food. Submitted Date Approved Date 1 of 6 Planning Agenda Report 7/1/2011 through 7/31/2011 Jun 82011 Jul 5 2011 • PA11-0173 Albertson's BBQ Major TUP APN # 959090002 ERIC JONES A Major Temporary Use Permit to allow an outside barbeque area on weekends between July 2 and Labor Day within the sidewalk area of Albertson's Grocery Store located at 31960 Temecula Parkway, generally located on the northeast corner of Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway [APN 959-090-002] Submitted Date Approved Date Jun 24 2011 Jul 14 2011 • PA11-0179 BARRIO BLUES & BBQ APN # 922110046 ERIC JONES A Major TUP to allow Quaid Harley Davidson to hold the Barrio Blues BBQ on July 31 between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. featuring live music and BBQ vendors. The project is located at 28897 Old Town Front Street (APN: 922-110-046) Submitted Date Approved Date Jun 29 2011 Jul 18 2011 APN # • PA11-0182 Sprouts Concert Major TUP 910470003 ERIC JONES A Major Temporary Use Permit to allow a free concert to be conducted within an existing commercial center on July 16, 2011 between the hours of 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. (in front of the existing Sprouts grocery store) (APN: 910-470- 015) Submitted Date Approved Date Jun 30 2011 Jul 13 2011 • PA11-0053 Chaparral 3 Variance APN # 922026041 CHERYL KITZEROW A Variance request for Chaparral 3 (PA10-0226) to reduce the front setback f om 10 feet to a variable setback that ranges from 18" to 4 feet; and to reduce the rear setback for parking from 40 feet to 24 feet and to allow a drive ailse within this setback area. Project site is located at 28455 Old Town Front Street. Submitted Date Approved Date Feb 25 2011 Jul 20 2011 2 of 6 Planning Agenda Report 7/1/2011 through 7/31/2011 2. Scheduled for Hearing APN # 921750001 • PA11-0175 Fish House Vera Cruz MinorCUP ERIC JONES A Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow the existing Fish House Vera Cruz located at 26700 Ynez Road to upgrade their existing liquor license from a Type 41 to a Type 47. Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Planning Commision Jun 27 2011 5/12/2011 Sep 7 2011 • PA11-0127 Portola Terrace Apts DP APN # 922062003 CHERYL KITZEROW A Multi -family residential Development Plan for Portola Terrace to construct 45 affordable apartment units and a parking structure on 1.53 acres located at 28673/28681/28701 Pujol Street. Associated cases include Parcel Merger PA11-0128 and Certificate of Historical Appropriateness PA11-0129. (Pre -app PR10-0033) Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Planning Commision Apr 20 2011 5/12/2011 Jul 20 2011 • PA11-0112 Newpath Networks (Node TM -18) APN # 945203001 MATTHEW PETERS A Conditional Use Permit for NewPath/Crown Castle to install a new 40' high concrete street light pole as part of its wireless distributed antenna system (DAS) Master Plan (Node TM -18) in the City of Temecula right-of-way on the northwest side of Southern Cross Road, across from Sky Terrace Drive. Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Planning Commision Apr 192011 Jul 20 2011 • PA11-0009 Harveston TPM 36358 APN # 916560006 ERIC JONES A Tentative Parcel Map to allow one existing parcel to be divided into three separate parcels. Project is located on the southwest corner of Landings Road and Village Road within the Harveston Specific Plan (Current APN: 916-560 -006) Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Directors Hearing Jan 18 2011 Aug 172011 3 of 6 Planning Agenda Report 7/1/2011 through 7/31/2011 3. New Submittals Pending DRC Meeting APN # • PA10-0214 Simms Zoning & GPA 945120001 ERIC JONES A Zoning Map and General Plan Land Use Map Amendment application. Current zoning and General Plan designation is Very Low Residential. Proposed zoning and General Plan designation is L-1 (Low Density Residential). The project is located approximately 1,500 east of the Santiago and Ynez Road intersection (related application PA10-0213) Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Hearing Planned Jul 14 2010 8/12/2010 TBD • PA10-0317 Mtn. View Community Church CUP APN # 910281001 MATTHEW PETERS A Minor Conditional Use Permit for Mountain View Community Church to operate in a Service Commercial (SC) zone and occupy approximately 101,619 square feet of an existing building next to Gold's Gym located at 29201 Ynez Road (APN 910-281-001). Related cases PR10-0025 and PA10-0318. Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Hearing Planned Oct 29 2010 TBD APN # • PA11-0082 Village & Landing DP 916560006 ERIC JONES Development Plan for two new retail buildings totaling 11,423 square feet that will house a restaurant, yogurt shop and market at 40135 Village Road within the Harveston Specific Plan. Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Hearing Planned Apr 6 2011 4/28/2011 TBD • PA11-0141 Christ Fellowship Minor CUP APN # 909270057 ERIC JONES A Minor CUP to allow the Love of Christ Fellowship to operate a church located at 41630 Winchester Road within suites B and C (APN: 909-270-057). Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Hearing Planned May 2 2011 TBD APN # • PA11-0178 Villages @ Paseo del Sol TTM2 959390009 CHERYL KITZEROW A Tentative Tract Map (No. 36212) to subdivide 29.4 gross acres into 189 developable lots and 25 lettered lots (streets/open space) to construct 186 single family attached units (rowhomes - 90 units and motorcourts - 96 units) with a minimum lot size of 1,545 square feet, located in Planning Area 6A of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan at the southwest corner of De Portola and Meadows. Associated with Development Plan/Product Review application PA11 -0180. (Note: this project replaces the withdrawn applications PA09-0209 & PA09-0210) Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Hearing Planned Jun 29 2011 8/4/2011 TBD • PA11-0180 Villages @ Paseo del Sol DP2 4 of 6 APN # 959390009 CHERYL KITZEROW Planning Agenda Report 7/1/2011 through 7/31/2011 A Development Plan to construct 186 single family attached units (rowhomes - 90 units and motorcourts - 96 units) with a minimum lot size of 1,545 square feet, with 3 floor plans and 2 elevation styles. Units range in size from 1,743 square feet to 2,582 square feet. Project site is located in Planning Area 6A of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan at the southwest corner of De Portola and Meadows. Associated with Tentative Tract Map (No. 36212) to subdivide 29.4 gross acres into 189 developable lots and 25 lettered lots (streets/open space). (Note: this project replaces the withdrawn applications PA09-0209 & PA09-0210) Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Hearing Planned Jun 29 2011 8/4/2011 TBD • PA11-0189 Verizon Right of Way Site APN # 945090003 ERIC JONES An Antenna Facility Application to allow for a wireless telecommunication facility disguised as a street light to be placed in the public right-of-way directly south of the Temecula public library (across Pauba Road) and north of APN 945-090-003 Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Hearing Planned Jul 13 2011 TBD • PA11-0033 Vail Ranch Major Mod APN # 960010044 ERIC JONES A Major Modification Application to allow the Vail Ranch Historic Site to revise the phasing plan. Revisions consist of postponing construction of several items to phase 2. Project is generally located at the southeast corner of Redhawk Parkway and Wolf Store Road (APN:960-010-044) Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Hearing Planned Feb 4 2011 TBD APN # • PA11-0031 Rancho Highlands Maravilla MHC 944330001 CHERYL KITZEROW A Major Temporary Use Permit for a Model Home Complex at Maravilla (Rancho Highlands - PA10-0326) located along the west side of Rancho Highlands Drive, east of Ynez Road. Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Hearing Planned Feb 3 2011 TBD • PA11-0194 Spooktacular TUP APN # 921070016 CHRISTINE DAMKO Major Temporary Use Permit for Spooktacular Event for Animal Friends of The Valleys to be loacted at the Sam Hicks Monument Park at 41970 Moreno Rd. on October 23, 2011 from 12:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Hearing Planned Jul 18 2011 TBD APN # • PA11-0200 Harveston Barrington Mod Arch TR32437LT15 CHERYL KITZEROW A Major Modification to PA10-0021, the approved Home Product Review/Architectural Plans for the build -out of 64 lots in Harveston's Barrington community. Six architectural plans with four elevations each are proposed, ranging in size from 2,320 to 3,464 square feet. Project is generally located at the northeast comer of Ynez Road and Date Street. Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Hearing Planned 5 of 6 Planning Agenda Report 7/1/2011 through 7/31/2011 Jul 21 2011 TBD 6ons VIII VIVIRTZIR MilinetaIVOIL) qv; , rilkIV4fir tre, 4114figipp,.. EN•siteNt • , .„, mown ar Ng/golommouggilp gh -,Q,,,, givamintiv "ht„ ,,,.,nn •. � : RENA � ff44• Mir I ka4 144KA tiw4 ,WW1 IV*i wirrf0.4N blofrlitui&V troVir-OANN&PIS '*AM4&,1 1. Recently Approved 2. Scheduled for Hearing 3. New Submittals Pending DRC Meeting Item No. 19 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Shawn D. Nelson, City Manager DATE: August 23, 2011 SUBJECT: City Council Travel/Conference Report - July 2011 PREPARED BY: Sue Steffen, Executive Assistant RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file On July 7, 2011, Mayor Ron Robert traveled to Los Angeles to attend the Southern California Association of Governments' Joint Retreat of the Regional Council, Community, Economic & Human Development, Energy & Environment, and Transportation Committees. On July 8, 2011 he attended the Metrolink (Southern California Regional Rail Authority) Board of Directors Meeting in Los Angeles. Attachment: Meeting Agendas SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA JOINT RETREAT OF THE ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Main Office 818 West Seventh Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3435 t (213) 236.1800 ((213)236-1825 www.scag.ca.gov Officers President Pam O'Connor, Santa Monica First Vice President Glen Serena, Simi Valley Second Vice President Greg Pettis, Cathedral City immediate Past President Larry McCallon, Highland Executive/Administration Committee Chair Pam O'Connor, Santa Monica Policy Committee Chairs Community, Economic and Human Development Bill Jahn, Blg (Sear Lake Energy & Environment Margaret Clark, Rosemead Transportation Paul Glint), Laguna Niguel REGIONAL CouNcI COMMUNITY_ ECONOMIC & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ENERGY &, ENVI.RONMENT AND . TRANSPORTATION CGOMMITTEES PLEASE NOTE TIME Thursday, July 7, 2011 10:00 a.m. — 1:30 p.m. SCAG Main Office 818 W. 7th Street, 12th Floor Board Room Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 236-1800 If members of the public wish to review the attachments or have any questions on any of the agenda items, please contact Deby Salcido at (213) 236-1993 or via email at salcidoPscag.ca.gov. In addition, regular meetings of the Regional Council may be viewed live or on -demand at www.scag.ca.gov/scagty SCAG, in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), will accommodate persons who require a modification of accommodation in order to participate in this meeting. If you require such assistance, please contact SCAG at (213) 236-1928 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting to enable SCAG to make reasonable arrangements. To request documents related to this document in an alternative format, please contact (213) 236-1928. The Regional Council is comprised 0184 elected officials representing 190 cities, six counties, six County Transportation Commissions and a thiol Government replesenlalive within Southern California. JOINT RETREAT OF THE REGIONAL COUNCIL COMMUNITY, ECONOMIC & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEES AGENDA JULY 7, 2011 10:00 a.m. — 1:30 p.m. 13 CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Hon. Pain O'Connor, Chair) PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD — Members of the public desiring to speak on items on the agenda, or items not on the agenda, but within the purview of the Committee, must fill out and present a speaker's card to the Assistant prior to speaking. Comments will be limited to two (2) minutes. The Chair may limit the total time for all comments to twenty (20) minutes. PRESIDENT'S REPORT New Appointments EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and High Speed Rail (HSR) Attachment Ad Hoc Subcommittees Report INFORMATION ITEM Improving Communication with the Public and Members Introduction: Pete Peterson, Facilitator (Pain O'Connor, President) ADJOURNMENT There will be no meeting in August. The next regular meeting of the Regional Council and Policy Committees will be held on Thursday, September 1, 2011 at the SLAG Los Angeles Office. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION Of GOVERNMENTS ME rnDLIMIK SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTI-IORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS JULY 8, 2 0 1 1 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Orange County Transportation Authority Riverside County Transportation Commission San Bernardino Associated Governments Ventura County Transportation Commission r,1 METROLINK SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY SCRRA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING FRIDAY, JULY 8, 2011 - 10:00A.M. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (METRO) BOARD ROOM ONE GATEWAY PLAZA, 3RD FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 TELECONFERENCE LOCATIONS 500 W. Temple Street Room 869 Los Angeles, CA 90012 AGENDA DESCRIPTIONS The agenda descriptions are intended to give notice to members of the public of a brief general description of items of business to be transacted or discussed. The posting of the recommended actions does not indicate what action will be taken. The Authority may take any action that it deems to be appropriate on the agenda item and is not limited in any way by the notice of the recommended action. Southern California Regional Rail Authority Consent Calendar Matters (Items 14-23B) to be approved in one motion unless a Board Member requests separate action which it deems to be appropriate on the agenda item and is not limited in any way by the notice of the recommended action. The Chair reserves the right to discuss the items listed on the agenda in any order. A person with a disability may contact the Board Secretary's office at (213) 452-0255 or via email brozowskikscrra.net at least 72 -hours before the scheduled meeting to request receipt of an agenda in an alternative format or to request disability -related accommodations, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in the public meeting. Later requests will be accommodated to the extent feasible. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION The agenda, staff reports and supporting documentation are available from the Board Secretary, located at 700 S. Flower, 26 Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017, and on the Metrolink website at www.metrolinktrains.com under the Board Agenda link. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEMS Members of the public wishing to address the Board of Directors regarding any item appearing on the agenda may do so by completing a Speaker's Form and submitting it to the Board Secretary. Speakers will be recognized by the Chairman at the time the agenda item is to be considered. When addressing the Board, please state your name for the record. Please address the Board as a whole through the Chair. Please note comments to individual Board members or staff are not permitted when addressing the Board. A speaker's comments shall be limited to three (3) minutes. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Members of the public wishing to address the Board of Directors regarding any item not on the agenda, but within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board, will be taken under Item 12 (Public Comment), and will be subject to the same guidelines as noted above. One Gateway Plaza, 121h Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012 SCRRA Board of Directors Meeting Agenda Transmittal Date: June 30, 2011 Page 2 Meeting Date: July 8, 2011 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance REGULAR CALENDAR 3. Approval of Consent Calendar Consent Calendar Items 14-23B listed at the end of the agenda. 4. Meetings Attended by Members of the Board of Directors A report on meetings attended by members of the Board of Directors is provided in compliance with SCRRA policies and "AB 1234" (Government Code Section 53232 et seq). The Board may receive and file this report. Page 1 5. Purchase Order No. H1640-12 — Global Positioning System (GPS) Equipment & Services — Recommendation to Award — Zonar Systems, Inc. To purchase Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment & services for use in SCRRA's fleet of non -revenue vehicles, approval is requested to award Purchase Order No. H1640-12 with Zonar Systems, Inc. The Safety and Operations Committee recommend the Board to authorize the Chief Executive Officer to award Purchase Order No. H1640-12 to Zonar Systems, Inc. to supply GPS Services for SCRRA's fleet of non -revenue vehicles. The purchase order will be for a period of three (3) years, which includes the first year purchase, installation and monitoring total of $117,443.69. Ongoing monitoring will total $51,013.34 in each year two and year three. The total three (3) year not -to -exceed purchase order authorization of $219.470.37. Page 3 6. Updates to Human Resources Policies and Procedures The Human Resources Policies and Procedures Manual, adopted by the Board of Directors on October 8, 1999. amended April 13, 2001, November 12, 2004, and March 25, 2011 needs to be updated for consistency with new federal and state legal requirements and revised based on best business practices. The Executive Management and Audit Committee recommends: (1) The Board approve the proposed updates to thirty one (31) policies to be considered at this meeting. (See Summary of Proposed Updates - Attachment I). (2) The Board authorize the Chief Executive Officer to review and approve future changes to the Human Resources Policies and Procedures consistent with approval given to the CEO for other agency -wide policies and procedures (such as the I. T. Policies and Procedures) with the exception of policies with significant legal, contractual and/or financial implications which would be submitted to the Board of Directors for approval. Page 6 7. Appeal of Discharge: John Schwarzenbach Former employee John Schwarzenbach was discharged by the Authority on January 7, 2011. In accordance with H.R. Policy 5.6 Mr. Schwarzenbach appealed his discharge SCRRA Board of Directors Meeting Agenda Transmittal Date: June 30, 2011 Page 3 Meeting Date: July 8, 2011 to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). On March 3, 2011 his discharge was upheld by the CEO. In accord with H.R. Policy 5.6 Mr. Schwarzenbach then appealed his discharge to the Executive Management and Audit Committee (EMAC) which heard the matter at its meeting of June 24, 2011. Based on the Agency's total record including all information provided to the EMAC from the former employee and the CEO and including the Committee's hearing on the appeal, the EMAC recommends that the Board of Directors uphold the CEO's decision to discharge Mr. Schwarzenbach. Page 151 8. Chief Executive Officer's Contract — Annual Review Following the Chief Executive Officer's annual performance evaluation, the Board may address the Chief Executive Officer's contract, including but not limited to his compensation. 9. Chief Executive Officer's Report • Agency Update 10. Chair's Comments 11. Board Members' Comments 12. Public Comment CLOSED SESSION 13. Closed Session a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION — Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54956.9 (1 or more potential cases) b. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RELEASE — Pursuant to Section 54957: Appeal of Mr. Schwarzenbach pursuant to Agency policies c. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION — Pursuant to Section 54957 Public Employee Performance Evaluation Title: Chief Executive Officer d. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS — Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 Agency Designated Representatives: Doug Linn, Chief People Officer Unrepresented Employee: Chief Executive Officer e. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION - Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9; SCRRA v. Arkow — Case No. BC461963 f. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION — Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9; Proceedings before the SCRRA Board of Directors Meeting Agenda Transmittal Date: June 30, 2011 Page 4 Meeting Date: July 8, 2011 Federal Communications Commission — Re: Applications of MCLM to Modify and Assign License for Station WQGF318 g. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION — Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 — Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) vs. SCRRA and Veolia/Connex — State: Case No. BC424287 and Federal: CV 09-8286 CONSENT CALENDAR (As referenced in Item 3) 14. Approval of Minutes — June 10, 2011 Board Meeting Staff recommends the Board approve the Minutes of the June 10, 2011 Board Meeting. Page 221 15. Orange County Grade Crossing Improvement Program (OCX) — (1) Amendment #2 to Cooperative Agreement between Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) (2) Contract No. C3101-09 — Orange County Expansion — Approval of Change Order — Herzog Contracting Corporation To perform improvements to the North Beach pedestrian crossing in the City of San Clemente as part of the "OCX" program which provides for railroad grade crossing safety enhancements and safety measures related to quiet zone implementation for cities, an amendment to specify changes to the Cooperative Agreement between OCTA and SCRRA is needed. A change order to the contract with Herzog Contracting Corporation is also needed to perform this work in the most timely and cost-effective manner. The Safety and Operations Committee recommend the Board authorize the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to: 1. Execute an amendment to the Cooperative Agreement No. C-7-1302 with OCTA for the OCX to revise the OCX scope of work to include construction improvements at the North Beach Pedestrian crossing in San Clemente; and increase funding by an additional $795,000. 2. Execute a Change Order in an amount not -to -exceed $295,000 under Contract No. C3101-09 with Herzog Contracting Corporation (Herzog) for civil construction improvements related to the North Beach Pedestrian Crossing. The value of this Change Order exceeds the $150,000 limit on delegated authority and thus must be authorized by the Board. This Change Order remains within the existing total contract funding authorization of $46,490,431.34. Page 235 16. Contract No. SP327-12 — CaII Box Maintenance Services and Procurement — Recommendation to Award — Case Systems, Inc. To continue maintenance and procurement of SCRRA's call box system, approval is requested to award Contract No. SP327-12 to Case Systems, Inc. The Safety and Operations Committee recommend the Board to authorize the Chief Executive Officer to award Contract No. SP327-12 to Case Systems, Inc. to provide call box maintenance services and procurement, in an amount not -to exceed $250,000 for a contract term of three -years with a single two-year option. Award is subject to resolution of any protest filed. Page 238 SCRRA Board of Directors Meeting Agenda Transmittal Date: June 30, 2011 Page 5 Meeting Date: July 8, 2011 17. Contract No. MS234-12 — Preventative Maintenance and As -Needed Emergency Repair Services for Drop Table Equipment — Recommendation to Award — Macton Corporation To ensure the safety of employees operating or working in close proximity of the drop table at the Central Maintenance Facility (CMF) preventative maintenance and as - needed emergency repair services are required. The Safety and Operations Committee recommend the Board authorize the Chief Executive Officer to award Contract No. MS234-12 to Macton for Preventative Maintenance and As -Needed Emergency Repair Services for Drop Table Equipment. The total not -to -exceed contract funding authorization amount is $254,746.34 for the initial three-year term. The period of performance shall be for three years with a one two-year option that may be exercised at the sole discretion of the SCRRA. This award is subject to resolution of any protest timely filed. Page 241 18. Contract No. MS235-12 — Preventative Maintenance and As -Needed Emergency Repair Services for Wheel Truing Equipment — Recommendation to Award — West -Con Services To ensure safety of employees operating or working in close proximity of the Central Maintenance Facility (CMF) wheel truing equipment preventative maintenance and as - needed emergency repair services are required. The Safety and Operations Committee recommend the Board authorize the Chief Executive Officer to award Contract Number MS235-12, Preventative Maintenance and As -Needed Emergency Repair Services for Wheel Truing Equipment, to the single responsive and responsible bidder, West -Con Services. The total not -to -exceed contract funding authorization amount is $369,015.00 for the initial three-year term. The period of performance shall be for three years with two one-year options that may be exercised at the sole discretion of SCRRA. Page 243 19. Contract No. SP346-12 — Procurement and Installation of Passenger Emergency Intercom (PEI) Signal pass through system in Sentinel Coach cars — Non - Competitive Contract Award - TOA Electronics, Inc. (TOA) The procurement and installation of a Passenger Emergency Intercom (PEI) signal pass-through system in up to sixty eight (68) SCRRA Sentinel Coach cars is required to ensure proper function and compatibility with PEI system installed in the new Guardian rail cars and currently in all locomotives, as required by CFR 238.121(b). The Safety and Operations Committee recommend the Board authorize the Chief Executive Officer to award non-competitive Contract No. SP346-12 to TOA Electronics, Inc. (TOA) for the procurement and installation of the PEI signal pass through system in up to 68 Sentinel coach cars for a total not -to -exceed amount of $290,000. Page 246 20. Evaluation Criteria — Request for Proposal No. SP345-12 - Human Resources Consulting Support Services Proposed evaluation criteria have been developed to initiate a competitive process to retain one or more qualified firms to provide consulting services to the Human SCRRA Board of Directors Meeting Agenda Transmittal Date: June 30, 2011 Page 6 Meeting Date: July 8, 2011 Resources Department for various employee development programs, leadership and organizational development, and curriculum design. The Planning and Finance Committee recommend the Board approve the proposed evaluation criteria, detailed in Attachment 1, specifying a weighting of 80% for technical qualifications and 20% for cost to retain one or more firms to provide Human Resources consulting support services. The proposed criteria are consistent with the Evaluation Criteria Policy adopted by the Board. Page 248 21. Notice of Intent to Amend SCRRA's Conflict of Interest Code The purpose of this item is to request authorization for SCRRA's amendment of its conflict of interest code by expanding the number of positions required to file disclosures, as defined in Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) requirements, to include new positions, updated titles of previously designated positions and delete positions abolished by the agency. The Executive Management and Audit Committee recommend the Board adopt the proposed amendment to SCRRA's Conflict of Interest Code and authorize the Chief Executive Officer or his designee to work with the FPPC in its review and approval. Page 251 22. Evaluation Criteria — Request for Proposal No. L138-12 — Federal Legislative Representation; and Request for Proposal No. L139-12 — State Legislative Representation Proposed evaluation criteria was developed to initiate a competitive procurement (Request for Proposal) to retain a technically qualified firm to provide Federal and State Legislative Representation and regulatory support. The Legislative and Communications Committee recommends the Board approve the proposed evaluation criteria, detailed in Attachments 1 & 2, specifying a weighting of eighty percent (80%) for technical qualifications and twenty percent (20%) for the cost to retain firms to provide Federal and State Legislative Representation and regulatory support. The proposed criteria are consistent with the Evaluation Criteria Policy adopted by the Board. Page 259 23. A. Assembly Bill 1229 (Feuer) — Federal Highway Grant Anticipation Notes AB 1229 will authorize transportation planning agencies to commit up to 50% of its share of Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds and Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds as a source of revenue to pay debt service for GARVEE bonds. This bill is sponsored by our member agency Metro and creates another option for our member agencies that receive this type of funding. The Legislative and Communications Committee recommends the Board take a Support position on AB 1229 authored by Assembly Member Mike Feuer (D -Los Angeles). Page 265 23. B. Assembly Bill 845 (Ma) — Proposition 1A High Speed Rail Bond Funds Proposition 1A the Safe, Reliable, High -Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century included $950 million for the Commuter and Urban Rail program. AB 845 will SCRRA Board of Directors Meeting Agenda Transmittal Date: June 30, 2011 Page 7 Meeting Date: July 8, 2011 codify sections of the California Transportation Commission (CTC) guidelines that outline the distribution of the funds. The funds will continue to be distributed through the existing formula. The Legislative and Communications Committee recommends the Board take a Support position on AB 845 authored by Assembly Member Fiona Ma (D - San Francisco). Page 267 24. ADJOURNMENT Item No. 20 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: August 23, 2011 SUBJECT: Public Works Department Monthly Report RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the attached Department of Public Works Monthly Activity Report for the month of July 2011. MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works FROM: Rodney Tidwell, Maintenance Supervisor DATE: August 5, 2011 SUBJECT: Monthly Activity Report - July, 2011 The following activities were performed by Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division in-house personnel for the month of July, 2011: SIGNS A. Total signs replaced 42 B. Total signs installed 98 C. Total signs repaired 64 D. Banners Replaced 92 II. TREES A. Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns 92 III. ASPHALT REPAIRS A. Total square feet of A. C. repairs 8 B. Total Tons 0 IV. CATCH BASINS A. Total catch basins cleaned 124 B. Down Spouts 0 C. Under sidewalks 0 D. Bowls 0 V. RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT A. Total square footage for right-of-way abatement 0 VI. GRAFFITI REMOVAL A. Total locations 67 B. Total S.F. 1,865 VII. STENCILING A. 184 New and repainted legends B. 2,740 L.F. of new and repainted red curb and striping C. 0 Bull Nose D. 27 Thermal Plastic E. 15 RPMs Installed DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT STREET MAINTENANCE FISCAL YEAR 2011 - 2012 1ST QUARTER Date Submitted: August 5, 2011 Submitted By: Greg Butler Prepared By: Rodney Tidwell SCOPE OF WORK WORK COMPLETED COST FOR JULY'11 JULY'11 WORK WORK TOTAL COST COMPLETED COST FOR AUG. COMPLETED COST FOR FOR THIS AUG. '11 11 SEPT. '11 SEPT. '11 FISCAL YEAR TOTAL COST FOR LAST FISCAL YEAR ASPHALT AC Square Footage: 0 $0.00 $0.00 $95,917.63 Tons: 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 SIDEWALK CURB & GUTTER REPAIR Square Footage: 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 PCC Yards: 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 STRIPING LINEAR FEET: 2,740 $191.80 $191.80 $6,242.18 IN-HOUSE PAINTING LEGENDS: 184 $1,472.00 $1,472.00 $27,488.00 SIGNS REPLACED Material: 42 $2,100.00 $2,100.00 $41,500.00 Labor: $1,108.38 $1,108.38 $21,903.37 SIGNS INSTALLED Material: 98 $4,900.00 $4,900.00 $5,100.00 Labor: $2,586.22 $2,586.22 $2,691.78 SIGNS REPAIRED Material: 64 $3,200.00 $3,200.00 $39,486.50 Labor: $1,688.96 $1,688.96 $15,965.95 GRAFFITI Square Footage: 1,865 DRAINAGE CHANNELS CLEANED Basins: 124 $3,272.36 $3,272.36 $69,854.33 Channels: $177,505.50 IN-HOUSE TREES TRIMMED: 92 $2,427.88 $2,427.88 $26,812.24 SERVICE ORDER REQUESTS: 36 AFTER HOURS CALL OUTS: 154 $6,086.96 $6,086.96 $48,200.99 R.O.W. WEED ABATEMENT: 0 $0.00 $0.00 $2,332.84 TOTALS $290,345.60 $290,345.60 $581,001.31 R:\MAI NTAI N\MOACR PTU U LY.AU G.SEPT. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT MAINTENANCE WORK COMPLETED FISCAL YEAR 2011 - 2012 FIRST HALF Date Submitted: Submitted By: Prepared By: 05 -Aug -11 GREG BUTLER RODNEY TIDWELL CONTRACTORS Asphalt Square Feet JULY 0 AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER 1ST HALF TOTALS 0 YEAR-TO-DATE 0 Concrete Square Feet 0 0 0 Drainage Channels 0 0 0 TOTAL COSTS $0.00 $0.00 I $0.00 CONTRACT STRIPING 0 0 0 Striping Linear Feet Sandblasting Linear Feet 0 0 0 TOTAL COSTS S0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TREE CONTRACTORS 0 0 0 Trees Trimmed Trees Removed 0 0 0 TOTAL COSTS S0.00 $0.00 S0.00 R.O.W. SPRAYING SQ. FT. 0 0 0 TOTAL COSTS S0.00 $0.00 $0.00 CITY MAINTENANCE CREW 92 92 92 Banners Signs Replaced 42 42 42 Signs Installed 98 98 98 Signs Repaired 64 64 64 Catch Basins Cleaned 124 124 124 Trees Trimmed 92 92 92 R.O.W. Weed Abatement 0 0 0 New & Repainted Legends 184 184 184 After Hours Call Outs 154 154 154 Service Order Requests 36 36 36 Graffiti Removal - Sq Ft 1.865 _ 1,865 1,865 TOTAL COSTS S0.00 S0.00 $0.00 R:WAINTAINWOACRTPUULY THRU DEC STREET MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS The following contractors have performed the following projects for the month of July, 2011 DATE STREET/CHANNEL/BRIDGE DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST ACCOUNT OF WORK SIZE CONTRACTOR: Date: TOTAL COST Date: TOTAL COST Date: TOTAL COST Date: TOTAL COST CONTRACTOR: Date: TOTAL COST Date: TOTAL COST CONTRACTOR: Date: # TOTAL COST Date: # TOTAL COST TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5401 - 0 - TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5402 - 0 - TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #99-5402 - 0 - SOUARE FOOTAGE January 7,298 February 6,267 March 3,279 April 5,937 May 9,502 June 6,027 July 1,865 August September October November December CITY OF TEMECULA 2011 GRAFFITI REMOVAL TOTAL CALLS January February March April 113 103 111 198 May 150 June July August September October November December 141 67 51000 49000 47000 45000 43000 41000 39000 37000 35000 33000 31000 29000 27000 25000 23000 21000 19000 17000 15000 13000 11000 9000 7000 3000 1000 JAN FEB MAR APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC Totals for the Year To Date: August. 1, 2011 Sq. Foot 40,175 Calls 883 FT R:VMA1NrENANCSORAFFTITG l d Chant] doe CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Monthly Activity Report Prepared by: Amer Attar Submitted by: Greg Butler Date: 8/8/2011 PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Roripaugh Ranch Fire Station The majority of work was completed by April of 2006. The remaining work will be completed when the mainline utilities are installed, which the City is undertaking - estimated start in December of 2011. A fire engine/truck venting system (requested/added on 2/06) will be installed when the Contractor re- mobilizes, this cost is also included in the approved change order total. Temporary power, initially established in 2003 by the developer, had to re-established in May of 2010. City Property at Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway (Northwest RDA Property) - Rough Grading This project provided for the rough grading of the vacant City property at Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway. All work was completed on March 28, 2007. Site restoration, including hydroseeding, was completed in December of 2008. A notice of completion was approved by the City Council at the 1/13/09 meeting. Ongoing maintenance expenses will be incurred for NPDES measures until such time the property is developed. Minor BMP improvements were completed in April of 2010. Old Town Infrastructure Project -Town Square and Mercedes & Main Street This project involves construction of the Town Square and street improvements on Mercedes & Main Streets. The project was awarded on March 18, 2008. Final work items involve completion of the show power which is in design and set to be constructed in summer of 2011. Old Town Infrastructure Projects - Parking Structure & Office/Retail Frontage The structure was opened to the public on March 1, 2010. Punchlist and close out work will be ongoing for two to three months. In addition a long term (5 year) maintenance contract for landscaping in the Caltrans right of way was awarded at the 10/26/10 City Council meeting. Old Town Civic Center This project will construct the Old Town Civic Center. City Council awarded the contract to Edge Development, Inc. on 09/09/08. Edge began work on 4/8/09. Dedication ceremony was held on 12/9/10 and the City started operations from the new structure on 12/20/2010. Resolution of punchlist and added work items are ongoing. Temecula Community Center Expansion - Phase 2, Renovation of Historical Buildings 1 Phase 2 of this project will renovate the Escallier House and Barn. The landscape is in maintenance. Contract is being closed out. Staff will file a Notice Of Completion upon receipt of appropriate documentation from the contractor. Redhawk Park Improvements This project will add amenities, which include ADA accessible parking, a restroom, a half -court basketball court, and permanent dog park at Redhawk Community Park. As part of this project, a seatwall will be installed at Sunset Park. The project is essentially complete. Winchester Road / State Route 79 North - North Corridor Beautification This federally funded project will design and construct landscaping and irrigation enhancements to the existing raised medians along Winchester Road between Ynez Road and the easterly City limits. The City is negotiating with the contractor's bonding company. Traffic Signal Installation - Citywide This project will install traffic signals on Rancho California Road at Yukon Road. This project is essentially complete. Ronald Reagan Sports Park Desilting Basin Environmental Mitigation This project involves the installation of landscape and irrigation improvements on a .26 acre Habitat Creation Area and maintaining it for five (5) years in accordance with a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Program. The work was completed on 1/20/11. The project is now in the 5 -year maintenance/monitoring program. Efforts continue to establish a conservation easement on the 0.26 acre parcel, in accordance with the requirements of the DFG permit. Margarita Road Right -of -Way Enhancement This project will enhance the east side of Margarita Road parkway from Ramsey Court to Avenida Cima Del Sol. Contract award at 07/26/11 City Council meeting, preconstruciton meeting will occur over the next reporting period. Project notices were sent to all adjacent property owners. Citywide Slurry Seal Project FY 2010-11 This is the annual citywide slurry seal project that will slurry various streets through out the City. This project will slurry Chardonnay Hills and a Portion of Paseo Del Sol. The Notice to Proceed was issued for July 26, 2011 start date, for a 35 -working day duration. Citywide Concrete Repairs - FY2010-11 This project is an annual maintenance project. The project involves removing and replacing various damaged concrete facilities throughout the city. Contract award at 06/28/11 City Council Meeting, and preconstruciton meeting on 7/14/11. This 40 working day contract (2 month duration) will begin over the next reporting period. Pavement Rehabilitation - Margarita Road Project 1 This project will rehabilitate Margarita Road between Rancho California Road and Avenida Barca. Bids were opened on 07/11/11. Contract award is scheduled for the 07/26/11 City Council meeting. 2 Pavement Rehabilitation - Winchester Road This project will rehabilitate Winchester Road between Roripaugh Road and Nicolas Road. Bids were opened on 07/11/11. Contract award is scheduled for the 07/26/11 City Council meeting, pre - construction meeting to be held August 8, 2011. 3 PROJECTS IN DESIGN Pechanga Parkway Storm Drain Improvements - Environmental Mitigation This project includes construction of new wetlands for the Wolf Valley Creek Channel Improvements - Stage I. Site visits for a new proposed location was conducted with the Department of Fish&Game (DFG) and Regional Water Board in May. City will contract with a consultant to map the new proposed area and obtain resource agencies approval. Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension from Commerce Center to Diaz Rd The project includes the extension of Overland Drive from Commerce Center Drive to Diaz Road with a bridge over Murrieta Creek. The design is complete and the City has the mylars. Main Street Bridge Over Murrieta Creek (Replacement) This project will replace the existing Main Street Bridge over Murrieta Creek. All resource agency permits, with the exception of the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) 404 permit, have been obtained. ACOE permit application is still being processed. Word received from ACOE on 6/2/11 that 404 permit will be issued by end of June, at which point application for the Riverside County Flood Control District encroachment permit may be made. As of 7/11/11, the City has not received the USACOE 404 permit. Efforts to obtain this permit continue. Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Over Santa Gertrudis Creek This project includes the construction of an approx. 150' long ped/bike bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek near Chaparral H.S.. Request for extension of the 6/30/11 deadline for obligating SB821 funds approved at the 6/27/11 RCTC Budget Implementation Commission meeting. Final approval scheduled for the 7/13/11 RCTC Board meeting. on 07/14/11, the City received word from Caltrans that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has just approved the Request for Authorization (RFA) to construct the project. The project will be advertised for bids shortly. Western Bypass Bridge Over Murrieta Creek This project involves the design, environmental clearance, and construction of a new bridge over Murrieta Creek at the westerly terminus of Western Bypass and an extension of Pujol Street to the new structure. Once constructed, this will serve as the southerly connection of the Western Bypass Corridor. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted. Applications to the various environmental agencies have been submitted. Review of the 100% Plans and Specs is on-going. Temecula Park and Ride (79 South) This project will design and construct a park and ride facility on Temecula Parkway (formerly 79 South) at La Paz. The City just received the 100% plans and all reports. The design is complete. This project will be shelved until construction funds are identified. French Valley Parkway / Interstate 15 Over -Crossing and Interchange Improvements - Phase 1 (PS&E) 4 A southbound off -Ramp to Jefferson, an auxiliary lane, and widening the bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek at the Winchester southbound off -ramp are the components of Phase 1. City continued the design work. Status is as follows: > Final PS&E - Under Caltrans Review. > Right of Way - RNV Requirements map approved. > Utilities - 2nd round of potholing of existing utilities within APE is completed. Relocation Claim Letter was sent to all utility companies and discussions regarding relocations have begun. Old Town Gymnasium This projects involves the design of the approximately 9,000 square foot gymnasium adjacent the Boys & Girls Club on Pujol Street. The City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and authorized staff to solicit construction bids for Phase I at the 06/14/11 meeting. Consultant is finalizing the plans. Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect The project will provide a Class I bicycle trail that connects the existing Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail at Ynez Road to the Murrieta Creek Multi -Purpose Trail at Diaz Road. The alignment study has been completed. Extension of time for the Bicycle Transportation Account funds was approved on 05/01/09. The consultant is working on 90% plans, specifications and estimate. Nicolas Valley - Assessment District (Liefer Road) This project will study assessment district feasibility and formation, including completing the street and minor storm drain improvements on the unimproved portions of certain streets within Nicolas Valley (Liefer Road) area. Consultant is finalizing 100% plans for signature. Roripaugh Ranch Street Improvements - Phase! Phase I improvements involve wet and dry utilities, sidewalks, medians and new roadway section on Butterfield Stage Road (BSR) from Murrieta Hot Springs Road (MHSR) to Calle Chapos, a portion of MHSR, Calle Chapos, South Loop Road. The project will also utlitlies to the Fire Station and future amentities (e.g, traffic signals, park, ..etc.). The project will be bid over the next reporting period. 1-15 / SR -79S Ultimate Interchange 95% PS&E (2nd Submittal) - Under Caltrans review. Pavement Rehabilitation Program This project will rehabilitate portions of Winchester, Rancho California, Ynez, Margarita Road and Rancho Vista Road's. City has received final plans for Margarita Road, Project 1, Winchester Road and Rancho Vista Road. The consultant continues to finalize the design for the rest of the projects. French Valley Parkway / Interstate -15 OverCrossing and Interchange Improvements - Phase II RFP171 for Engr Svcs: Aug - Sep 2010. Evaluation/Interview: Oct - Nov 2010. City is currently under negotiations with the most qualified candidate. Citywide Storm Drain Improvements - Calle Fiesta 5 This project consists of extending an existing City -maintained storm drain line an additional 200 feet to eliminate slope erosion at the current storm drain discharge point. The necessary drainage easement for future City access and maintenance of the new pipe is being pursued and will be secured prior to start of construction. Library Parking Expansion This project will add on -street parking adjacent to the Temecula Library and Fire Station #84 on Pauba Road. The Consultant is preparing the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The City received the 100% plans. 6