Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout042898 CC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE APRIL 28, 1998 - 7:00 PM 5:30 PM - Closed Session of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency: 1. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning the acquisition of real property located at the east side of Pujol Street, south of Sixth Street {APN 922-053-008). The negotiating parties are the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and Otto Family Trust. Under negotiation are the price and terms of payment of the real property interests proposed to be acquired. 2. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning the acquisition of real property located at APN 909-370-002 (32.32 acres) Temecula, California. The negotiating parties are the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and Westside Business Properties/Bill J. Dendy. Under negotiation are the price and terms of payment of the real property interests proposed to be conveyed. 3. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning the leasing of real property located at 28497, 28485, 28559, and 28565 Pujol Street. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and Affirmed Housing Group. Under negotiation are the price and terms of payment of the real property interests proposed to be acquired. At approximately 9:45 PM, the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 PM and may continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 PM. CALL TO ORDER: Prelude Music: Mayor Ron Roberts presiding Cathy Lamoureux Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 98-06 Resolution: No. 98-31 R:\Agenda\042898 1 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 (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title Ill SUPPLEMENTAL A G E N D A TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE APRIL 28, 1998 - 7:00 PM 5:30 PM ' Clos. e(I Session of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency: " .. 1,.. Conference with 'real property negotiet.o~ purs~Jant to Government. Code S~¢tion'54956.8'=i!: c0ncern!ng ~the acquisition of real property located at the east side of Pujol Street, south of Sixth Street (APN 922-053-008}'. The negotiating parties a~e the Redevelopment Agency'of the City' of Temecula and'Otto Family Trust. Under negotiation are the price and terms.of payment of the real property interests proposed to be acquired.. 2. Conference with ·real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning the acquisition of real property located at APN 909-370-002 (32.32 .acres) Temecule, California. The negotiating parties are the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and Westside Business Properties/Bi!I J. Dendy. Under negotiation are the price and terms of payment of the·real property interest~s proposed to be conveyed·. . .. 3. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant'to Government Code Section' 54956.8 · concerning the leasing of real property located at 28497, 28485, 28559, and 28565 Puj0! Street. The negotiating partles'are the City of Temecula and Affirmed.Housing Group. Under negotiation are the price and terms of payment of the real property interests proposed to be acquired. 4, 'Conference 'with real property negotiator pursuant to Government. Code Section 54956.B concernihg the acquisition of a portion of the real property located at 26531 Ynez Road, Temecula, The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and Guidant, Inc. Under negotiation are the Price and terms of. payment of the real property interests proposed to be acquired. At approximately 9:45 PM, the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 PM and may continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 PM. Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 98-06 Invocation: Pastor Linden Curtis, New Convenant Fellowship Flag Salute: Councilman Comerchero ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Ford, Lindemans, Stone, Roberts PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Water Awareness Month Architecture Week 1998 PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Council on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or ones that are not listed on the agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on an item which is listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Council Business matters on the agenda, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports. CONSENT CALENDAR 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 Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Approval of Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of April 14, 1998. R:\Agenda\042898 2 3 4 5 6 Resolution Approving List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO, 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A Award a Professional Services Agreement for the regular maintenance of the City's Television Broadcast System RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Award a Professional Services Agreement in the amount not to exceed $12,000 to Secure Business Communications of Claremont, California, to perform regular inspections, calibrations, equipment checks, and maintenance of the Television Broadcast system located at City Hall. Award of Contract for Toshiba Notebook Computers RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Award a contract for six Toshiba Satellite Pro 470CDT Notebook Computers and miscellaneous supporting peripherals to Valley Micro Computers, Temecula, California, in the amount of $26,657.51. Appeal of 1997-98 Temecula Parks/Street Lighting Tax: Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course - Request for Continuance RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the appellant's request for continuance of the appeal regarding the Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course to June 23, 1998. R:\Agenda\042898 3 8 9 Mitigation Funds for Multi-Species Habitat Conservation from the Proposed El Sobrante Landfill Expansion RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE USE OF FUNDS GENERATED FROM THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE EL SOBRANTE LANDFILL FOR MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION Accept Public Improvements in Parcel Map No. 24085-F (located northwesterly of the intersection of Diaz Road and Zevo Drive (Avenida de Ventas]) RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Accept the public improvements in Parcel Map No. 24085-F; 8.2 Authorize initiation of the one-year warranty period, release of the Faithful Performance and Subdivision Monumentat(on securities, and converting of the Labor and Materials security on file to combine for both Labor and Materials and Faithful Performance Warranty purposes; 8.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. Accept Public Improvements in Parcel Map No. 24085-2 (located northwesterly of the intersection of Diaz Road and Zevo Road [Avenida de Ventas]) RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Accept the public improvements in Parcel Map No. 24085-2; 9.2 Authorize initiation of the one-year warranty period, release of the Faithful Performance and Subdivision Monumentat(on Securities, and converting of the Labor and Materials security on file to combine for both Labor and Materials and Faithful Performance Warranty purposes; 9.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. R:\Agenda\042898 4 10 11 12 13 Release Subdivision Monument Security in Parcel Map No. 24085-1 (located northwesterly of the intersection of Diaz Road and Zevo Drive [Avenida de Ventas]) RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Authorize release of the subdivision monument security in Parcel Map No. 24085-1; 10.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. Amendment No. 1 to Professional Service Agreement with Albert A. Webb Associates for the Rancho California/I-15 Interchange - Project No. PW95-12 RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement between the City of Temecula and Albert A. Webb Associates to provide additional professional inspection services for the Rancho California Road/I-1 § Interchange, Project No. PW95-12, in an amount not to exceed 858,700.00; 11.2 Authorize the Mayor to sign Amendment No. 1. Acceptance of Public Streets into the City-Maintained Street System (within Parcel Map Nos. 24085-1, 24085-2, and 24085-F - westerly of intersection of Winchester Road at Diaz Road) RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY-MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN PARCEL MAP NOS. 24085-1, 24085-2, AND 24085-F Acceleration of the Construction of Rancho California Road at Interstate Route 15, Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements - Project No. PW95ol 2 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Approve the Change Order for Reduction in Working Days from 350 to 270 for the construction of Rancho California Road at Interstate Route 1§, Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements - Project No. PW95-12 - to Riverside Construction Company for the amount of $273,700.00 and authorize the City Manager to sign the Change Order; 13.2 Appropriate $300,000.00 from Capital Reserves and increase the contingency for this contract by an amount of $300,000.00 to a total of $690,777.60. R:\Agenda\O42898 5 14 15 16 17 Solicitation of Construction Bids and Approval of the Plans and Specifications for the Flashing Beacons at Various Locations - Project No. PW96-18 RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit public construction bids for Flashing Beacons at various locations - Project No. PW96-18. Award of Construction Contract for Installation of a Traffic Signal at the Intersection of Margarita Road and Santiago Road - Project No. PW97-24 RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications for the installati.on of a traffic signal at the intersection of Margarita Road and Santiago Road - Project No. PW97-24; 15.2 Award a construction contract for installation of a traffic signal at this intersection to DBX, Inc. in the amount of $98,484.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract; 15.3 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $9,848.40 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. Professional Biological Services for Pala Road Bridge Project o Project No. PW97-15 RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Approve the Professional Services Agreement for Biological Services with KEA Environmental, Inc. for the Pala Road Bridge Project - Project No. PW97-15 in an amount not to exceed $87,900.00 and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. All-Way Stop - Jedediah Smith Road at Ynez Road/De Portola Road RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO, 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AN "ALL-WAY STOP" INTERSECTION AT JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD AND YNEZ ROAD/DE PORTOLA ROAD R:\Agenda\042898 6 18 Support of the Pechanga Indian's Right to Governmental Jurisdiction 19 20 RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE PECHANGA INDIAN'S RIGHT TO GOVERNMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER THEIR LAND AND PEOPLE AND TO ENGAGE IN THE FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM Support of Assembly Bill 2194 (Air Pollution: Clean Fuels Technologies) RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING AB 2194 TO PROMOTE CLEAN FUEL TECHNOLOGIES IN AN EFFORT TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTION 19.2 Authorize the Mayor to execute a letter of support to the Honorable Kevin Murray, Chairman of the Assembly Committee on Transportation, City Council Acceptance of the Applicant's Request to Withdraw the RogersDale Entertainment Project and Repeal Resolutions 97-129 and 98-03 for the Land Use and Subsequent Phase Environmental Approvals for Planning Applications PA97-0298 and PA97-0392 RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW FROM THE ROGERSDALE TEMECULA PROJECT AND REPEALING RESOLUTIONS 97- 129 AND 98-03 FOR THE LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS PA97-0298 AND PA97- 0392 R:\Agenda\042898 21 Second Amendment to Employment Agreement with City Manager 22 RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 Approve the "Second Amendment to the Employment Agreement" between the City of Temecula and City Manager Ronald Bradley and authorize the Mayor to sign the Second Amendment; 21.2 Appropriate $7,000 to the City Manager Department "Salaries and Wages" line item. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 98-05 RECOMMENDATION: ORDINANCE NO. 98-05 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION 15.060.020 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING TIME OF PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR MOBILE HOME PARKS AND ADDING SECTION 15.06.050 A.3 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REDUCTIONS FOR PROJECTS PROVIDING DEMONSTRABLE FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO THE CITY RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND WINCHESTER HILLS FINANCING AUTHORITY R:\Agenda\042898 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: No. CSD 95-0] Resolution: No. CSD 98-05 CALL TO ORDER: President Jeffrey E. Stone ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone PUBLIC COMMENT: A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Board of Directors on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Board of Directors on an item not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Board of Directors gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors, should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of April 14, 1998. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT - Nelson GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT - Bradley BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS R:\Agenda\042898 9 ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: May 12, 1998, scheduled to follow the City Council Consent Calendar, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. City R:\Agenda\042898 10 CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: PUBLIC COMMENT: TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: No. RDA98-01 Resolution: No. RDA 98-07 Chairperson Karel Lindemans presiding AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Ford, Roberts, Stone, Lindemans A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Redevelopment Agency on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Agency on an item net listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Agency gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of April 14, 1998. AGENCY BUSINESS 2 Chamber of Commerce Quarterly Report 2.1 Oral Report Presented by the Chamber of Commerce DEPARTMENTAL REPORT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT AUTHORITY MEMBERS' REPORTS R:\Agenda\042898 11 ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: May 12, 1998, scheduled to follow the Redevelopment Agency meeting, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California R:\Agenda\042898 12 WINCHESTER HILLS FINANCING AUTHORITY Next in Order: Ordinance: No. WHFA 98-02 Resolution: No. WHFA 98-11 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: AUTHORITY MEMBERS: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone, Comerchero PUBLIC COMMENT: A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Winchester Hills Financing Authority on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Agency on an item not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Agency gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of April 14, 1998 2 Second Reading of Ordinance No. WHFA 98-01 RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt an Ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. WHFA 98-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WINCHESTER HILLS FINANCING AUTHORITY LEVYING SPECIAL TAXES WITHIN THE WINCHESTER HILLS FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 98-1 (WINCHESTER HILLS) R:\Agenda\042898 13 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT AUTHORITY MEMBERS' REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: May 12, 1998, scheduled to follow the Redevelopment Agency meeting, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California R:\Agenda\042898 14 RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL BUSINESS 23 24 Urgency Ordinance and Regular Ordinance Amending Section 8.16.010 and 8.16.020 of the Temecula Municipal Code Allowing Weed Abatement on Non-Vacant Real Property RECOMMENDATION: 23.1 Adopt an Urgency Ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 98- AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTIONS 8.16.010 AND 8.16.020 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE DUTY TO ABATE HAZARDOUS VEGETATION ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT THERETO 23.2 Introduce and read by title only an Ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 98- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTIONS 8.16.010 AND 8.16.020 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE DUTY TO ABATE HAZARDOUS VEGETATION ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA Proposed Annexation of Redhawk and Vail Ranch Communities RECOMMENDATION: 24.1 Review Staff's analysis of the proposed annexation of the Redhawk and Vail Ranch communities and provide direction to Staff as to whether or not to proceed with this annexation. R:\Agenda\042898 15 25 Adoption of Ordinance Prohibiting Parking of Oversized Vehicles (including buses, trucks, RVs) and Unattached Trailers on City Streets RECOMMENDATION: 25.1 Adopt an Urgency Ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 98- AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING SECTION 10.16.042 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING THE PARKING OF CERTAIN MOTOR VEHICLES IN EXCESS OF TWENTY FIVE (25) FEET IN LENGTH OR NINETY (90) INCHES IN WIDTH, MOTOR VEHICLES IN EXCESS OF 10,000 POUNDS, CERTAIN COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES, AND TRAILERS DETACHED FROM A MOTOR VEHICLE FROM PARKING ON CITY STREETS EXCEPT UNDER CERTAIN DEFINED CONDITIONS 25.2 Introduce and read by title only an Ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 98- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING SECTION 10.16.042 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING THE PARKING OF CERTAIN MOTOR VEHICLES IN EXCESS OF TWENTY FIVE (25) FEET IN LENGTH OR NINETY (90) INCHES IN WIDTH, MOTOR VEHICLES IN EXCESS OF 10,000 POUNDS, CERTAIN COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES, AND TRAILERS DETACHED FROM A MOTOR VEHICLE FROM PARKING ON CITY STREETS EXCEPT UNDER CERTAIN DEFINED CONDITIONS 26 Traffic Signal Update (Oral Presentation by Public Works Director Kicak.) DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS CITY MANAGER'S REPORT CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: May 12, 1998, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:\Agenda\042898 16 PROCLAMATIONS/ PRESENTATIONS ITEM 1 ITEM 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL APRIL 14, 1998 CLOSED SESSION A meeting of the City of Temecula City Council was called to order at 5:30 P.M. It was duly moved and seconded to adjourn to Closed Session, pursuant to Government Code Sections: 1. Personnel evaluation for the position of City Manager pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 54957. 2. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning the acquisition of real property located at 27985 Diaz Road. The negotiation parties are the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and Downs Commercial Fueling. Under negotiation are the price and terms of payment of the real property interests proposed to be acquired. 3. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning the acquisition of real property located at 27660 Jefferson Avenue. The negotiating parties are the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and Temecula Valley Inn. Under negotiation are the price and terms of payment of the real property interests proposed to be acquired. 4. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning the acquisition of real property located near Ynez Road and extension of Overland Road (APN 921-680-010-3 and 921-090-054-0). The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and Eli Lilly and Company. Under negotiation are the price and terms of payment of the real property interests proposed to be acquired. 5. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to the Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning the acquisition of real property located near Ynez Road and extension of Overland Road (APN 921-330-024-4, 921-330-025-5, 921-330-026-6, and 921-330- 027-7. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and Ik Hoon Chang and Soon Hee Chang, husband and wife; Sinjo Choi and Oak Hee Choi, husband and wife; Nark Hoon Chang and Me Kyung Chang, husband and wife. Under negotiation are the price and terms of payment of the real property interests proposed to be acquired. 6. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to the Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning the acquisition of real property located near Ynez Road and extension of Overland Road (APN 921-720-014). The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. Under negotiation are the price and terms of payment of the real property interests proposed to be acquired. minutes\041498 1 Temecula City Council 0414.98 The Temecula City Council reconvened at 7:07 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, to consider regularly scheduled City Council business. Mayor Roberts presiding. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers: Comerchero, Ford, Lindemans, Stone, and Roberts. ABSENT: Councilmember: None. PRELUDE MUSIC The prelude and intermission music was provided by Margaret Bird. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Rabbi Germaine, Congregation B'Nai Chaim of Murrieta. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Councilman Lindemans PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Eagle Scout Certificate of Achievement for Brock Turley-Trejo Presented to Brock Turley-Trejo by Mayor Pro Tem Ford and accepted with appreciation. Presentation of the Agency Showcase Award by the California Parks and Recreation Society The award was presented to the City by Ms. Donna Georgina for the City's Fourth of July logo. Certificate of Appreciation for Eric Verkouteren Presented to Eric Verkouteren by Mayor Pro Tern Ford and accepted with appreciation. Certificate of Appreciation for Fireman Brad Casady Presented to Brad Casady by Mayor Pro Tem Ford and accepted with appreciation. Minutes\041498 2 Ternecula Citv Council 041498 Certificate of Appreciation for Fireman Darren Hoopengardner Presented to Darren Hoopengardner by Mayor Pro Tem Ford and accepted with appreciation. Certificate of Appreciation for Engineer Debbie Parker Presented to Eric Verkouteren by Mayor Pro Tem Ford and accepted with appreciation. PUBLIC COMMENTS In response to concerns raised by Ms. Kathy Dean, 30909 Corte Arroyo Vista, Staff provided input as to the status of the installation of a traffic signal at Pauba Road near Fire Station No. 84, noting that the contract was awarded by the City Council at the March 17, 1998, meeting and that the installation should be completed within the next three months. City Attorney Thorson advised that, during Closed Session, the City Council gave direction with regard to Closed Session Item No. I (personnel evaluation for the position of City Manager), noting that this Item would be addressed in Open Session by the City Council at the April 28, 1998, meeting. With regard to Item Nos. 2 and 3 (real property), Mr. Thorson advised that the City Council provided direction. With regard to Item Nos. 4 and 5 (real property), Mr. Thorson advised that action was taken to set just compensation and to authorize the making of an offer. With regard to Item No. 6 (real property), Mr. Thorson advised that a staff report was given and that no action was taken. With regard to the subsequent need item, Mr. Thorson advised that City Council direction was given relative to the real property acquisition in Old Town. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Councilman Linderoans requested that all RV information be distributed to the Councilmembers in advance of the upcoming joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting to ensure ample review time. B. In light of the El Nino season, Mayor Roberts requested that Weed Abatement Notifications be sent out in a timely fashion. With regard to Weed Abatement, City Manager Bradley advised that staff has received concerns from environmentally concerned agencies with regard to potentially endangering the habitat of the Quino Checker Spot Butterfly. Having met with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fire Chief Brown further commented on the efforts that must be taken to ensure that the habitat of this endangered butterfly species is not disturbed during weed abatement. Mr. Brown advised that City Staff is working on a Weed Abatement Program throughout the City and that the County Fire Department will handle Weed Abatement outside the City limits. Minutes\041498 3 Temecula City Council 041498 C. Mayor Roberts advised that the Southern California Association of Governments has completed the Regional Transportation Plan which will be approved at the upcoming Regional Council Meeting. D. Commenting on the restructuring of the Riverside County Transportation Committee, Mayor Roberts noted that he will be in Sacramento on Tuesday, April 21, 1998, in order to speak in support of Senate Bill 1851. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2. Approval of Minutes 2.1 Approve the minutes of March 31, 1998. 3. Resolution Approving List of Demands 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 98-28 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 Rel~ort as of February 28, 1998 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of February 28, 1 998. 5. Accept Public Improvements in Parcel Map No. 24085-1 (Located northwesterly of the Intersection of Diaz Road and 7evo Drive {Avenida de Ventas} 5.1 Accept the public improvements; 5.2 Authorize initiation of the one-year warranty, and reduction of the Faithful Performance Securities to the 10% warranty amount in Parcel Map No. 24085-1; 5.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. Minutes\041498 4 Temecula City Council 041498 Right of Entry and Temporary Construction Agreement for Golden Corral Restaurant Project {PA96-0317) with Klaer Brittain General Contractor 6.1 Approve the Right of Entry/Temporary Construction Agreement between the City of Temecula and Klaer Brittain General Contractor for the Golden Corral Restaurant Project (PA96-031 7) near the intersection of Overland Drive and Jefferson Avenue; 6.2 Authorize the Mayor to execute this Agreement. Addendum to e Previously Certified Environmental Impact Report and Reimbursement Agreement - City of Temecula and the Spanos Corporation 7.1 Adopt the Addendum to a Previously Certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and make findings that a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR are not required; 7.2 Approve the Reimbursement Agreement between the City of Temecula and the Spanos Corporation in the amount of $567,600 for the Margarita Road widening project between Solana Way and Overland Drive, Project No. PW97- 07; 7.3 Authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement. o Completion and Acceptance of the Winchester Road at 1-15, Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements, Project No. PW94-21 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Contract between the City of Temecula and Riverside Construction Company to construct Winchester Road at Interstate 1 5, Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements, Project No. PW94-21; 8.2 Authorize the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Contract on behalf of the City in substantially the form attached to the Agenda Report; 8.3 Accept the Winchester Road at I-15, Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements, Project No. PW94-21, as complete; 8.4 Direct the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one-year (1) Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract; 8.5 Direct the City Clerk to release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after the filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. Minutes\041498 5 Temecula CiW Council 041498 Amendment No. I to Construction Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1002 for 1-15 Rancho California Road Interchange Improvements with the State of California, Department of Transportation RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve Amendment No.1 to the Construction Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1002 for I-1 5 Rancho California Interchange Improvements with the State of California, Department of Transportation. 10. Agent Designation For Disaster Recovery Public Assistance RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 98-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER, THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER, AND THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO SIGN, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, THE FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE APPLICATION AND ANY ANCILLARY APPLICATION DOCUMENTS 11. Amendment No. 2 to Electrical Agreement for Maintenance of Signal and Lighting Systems on State Highways RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Electrical Agreement for Maintenance of Signal and Lighting Systems on State Highways with the State Department of Transportation. MOTION: Councilman Lindemans moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 through 1 1. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. At 7:27 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District, the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, and the Winchester Hills Financing Authority. After a brief recess, the City Council resumed with regularly-scheduled City Council business at 8:02 P.M. At this time, Mayor Roberts recognized the other Fire Explorers (Fire Station No. 73) in attendance of the meeting. Minutes\041498 6 Temecula City Council COUNCIL BUSINESS 12. 041498 Old Town Local Review Board Appointment RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Appoint one applicant to the Old Town Local Review Board to fill an unexpired term. City Manager Bradley briefly reviewed the staff report (of record). MOTION: Councilman Lindemans moved to appoint Paul F. Nielsen to the Old Town Local Review Board. The motion was seconded by Councilman Ford and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Councilman Stone who abstained. 13. French Valley Fire Station No. 83 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Authorize the sharing of operating costs with Riverside County for the French Valley Fire Station No. 83. By way of overheads, Fire Chief Brown reviewed the recommendation (as per written material) with City Manager Bradley advising that although the City and the Riverside County would jointly fund the staffing and operating costs of the fire station, the majority of the responses will be within the City. It was also noted that the recently City Council approved upgrade of Fire Personnel from Certified First Responder to Emergency Medical Technician 1 will, as well, expand to this Fire Station, which will be in operation by July 1, 1998. MOTION: Councilman Lindemans moved to approve the recommendation. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 14. Development Impact Fee ¢DIF! Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 98-05 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION 15.06.020 OF TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING TIME OF PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR MOBILE HOME PARKS AND ADDING SECTION 15.06.050 A.3. TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REDUCTIONS FOR PROJECTS PROVIDING DEMONSTRABLE FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO THE CITY Minutes\041498 7 Ternecula City Council 041498 14.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 98-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION 5_ AUTOMATIC ADJUSTMENTS IN AMOUNT OF FEES FOR DEVELOPMENT, OF RESOLUTION NO. 97-94 WHICH ESTABLISHED AND IMPOSED A PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE Briefly reviewing the proposed amendments, City Attorney Thorson presented the staff report (as per agenda material). City Attorney Thorson read Ordinance No. 98-05 by title only. MOTION: Councilman Lindemans moved to introduce and read by title only Ordinance No. 98-05. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. MOTION: Councilman Stone moved to adopt Resolution No. 98-30. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 15. El Nino Update Public Works Director Kicak provided a brief overview. In light of the El Nino season coming to an end, it was noted by the City Council that this Agenda Item be removed from future agendas. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT In response to City Manager Bradley's comments, it was the consensus of the City Council that the upcoming joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting commence at 8:00 P.M. Councilman Stone commended the City Council and the Police Department on its successful Operation Erase It Program. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT None. Minutes\041498 8 Temecula City Council 041498 ADJOURNMENT At 8:19 P.M., Mayor Roberts formally adjourned the City Council meeting to a joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, April 21, 1998, at 8:00 P.M. {Next regularly scheduled meeting will be on April 28, 1998, 7:00 P.M.) Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk Minutes\041498 9 ITEM 3 RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the Office of the City Clerk, have been auditod by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $902,228.37. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. APPROVEI~ AND ADOPTED, this 28th day of April, 1998. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk [SEAL] 98- I STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, Acting City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 98- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 28th day of April, 1998 by the following roll call vote: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Susan W. Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk Resos 98- 2 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 04/09/98 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 04/16/98 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 04/28/98 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 04/16/98 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 04/28/98 COUNCIL MEETING: DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 GENERAL $ 190,729.15 165 RDA-LOW/MOD 11,379.83 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 84,339.11 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 19,441.48 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 73.15 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 25,889.66 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 538.93 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ (ClP) 92,979.93 280 RDA-ClP 271,498.72 300 INSURANCE 3,963.76 310 VEHICLES FUND 21,294.77 320 INFORMATIONS SYSTEMS 12,777.69 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 12,773.38 340 FACILITIES 8,353.66 380 RDA - DEBT SERVICE 3,021.63 $ 124,721.76 233,537.06 400,796.03 143,173.52 $ 902,228.37 PAYROLL: 001 GENERAL $ 95,642.97 165 RDA-LOW/MOD 4,068.96 190 TCS D 28,069.62 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 70.16 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 181.09 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 2,208.80 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 983.30 280 RDA-CIP 4,308.64 300 I NS U RANCE 629.91 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 2,729.64 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 783.00 340 FACILITIES 3,497.23 TOTAL BY FUND: PREPARED BY THERESA ALVAREZ, ACCOUNTING SPECIALIST GENIE ROBERTS, DIRECTOR OF FINARCE I'RONALD E. BRADLEY, CITY MANAGER ~ 143,173.52 902,228.37 , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. VOUCHRE2 04/09/98 11:47 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 165 RDA DEV- LCR,//MOD SET ASIDE 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL O 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP 300 INSURANCE FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES 380 RDA - DEBT SERVICE AMOUNT 47,724.81 589.03 12,232.64 6,143.28 1.96 7,184.15 21.44 25,162.56 14,371.91 7.62 6,238.49 8.26 2,013.98 3,021.63 TOTAL 124,721.76 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 04/09/98 11:47 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 48599 04/08/98 002907 REINHART-FONTES ASSOC., SEVERAL PROPERTIES APPRAISALS 280-199-999-5250 9,000.00 9,000.00 48731 04/09/98 ADAMS, LARISSA REFUND:PUPPET THEATRE 190-183-4982 30.00 30.00 48732 04/09/98 001916 ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIAT 9/28-10/25 PROF SERVS:PW96-15 210-165-655-5802 2,154.75 2,154.75 48733 04/09/98 000936 AMERICAN RED CROSS CPR/1ST AID TRAINING CERT.CRDS 001-150-999-5250 260.00 260.00 48734 04/09/98 002723 APPLIED CONCEPTS, INC. REPAIR/MAINT OF RADAR UNIT 001-170-999-5215 55.24 55.24 48735 04/09/98 001323 ARROWHEAD WATER, INC. DRINKING WATER FOR CITY HALL 340-199-701-5240 191.16 48735 04/09/98 001323 ARROWHEAD WATER, INC. DRINKING WATER FOR MAINT FAC. 340-199-702-5240 56.45 48735 04/09/98 001323 ARROWHEAD WATER, INC. DRINKING WATER FOR CRC 190-182-999-5250 23.59 271.20 48736 04/09/98 BARNHARD, ELIZABETH REFUND:PUPPET THEATRE 190-183-4982 30.00 30.00 48737 04/09/98 BELL, MARILYN REFUND:PUPPET THEATRE 190-183-4982 30.00 30.00 48738 04/09/98 003071 BIDAMERICA ARCHIVING PLAN ROOM FILES SERV 001-163-999-5248 13,459.70 48738 04/09/98 003071 BIDAMERICA OVRCHG ITEM 101-102:1/2pmt 103 001-163-999-5248 5,015.79- 8,443.91 48739 04/09/98 BLUE HAVEN POOLS REFUND:BLDG PERMIT FEES 001-162-4285 156.00 156.00 48740 04/09/98 BOGNACKI, MICHAEL REFUND:VOLLEYBALL CLINICS 190-183-4982 39.00 39.00 48741 04/09/98 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, MAR 98 WORKERS COMP. INS 001-2370 3,217.25 48741 04/09/98 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, MAR 98 WORKERS COMP. INS 165-2370 110.43 48741 04/09/98 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, MAR 98 WORKERS COMP. INS 190-2370 1,180.46 48741 04/09/98 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, MAR 98 WORKERS COMP. INS 191-2370 .80 48741 04/09/98 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, MAR 98 WORKERS COMP. INS 192-2370 1.96 48741 04/09/98 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, MAR 98 WORKERS COMP. INS 193-2370 50.36 48741 04/09/98 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, MAR 98 WORKERS COMP. INS 194-2370 21.44 48741 04/09/98 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES~ MAR 98 WORKERS COMP. INS 280-2370 79.07 48741 04/09/98 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, MAR 98 WORKERS COMP. INS 300-2370 7.62 48741 04/09/98 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, MAR 98 WORKERS COMP. INS 320-2370 41.02 48741 04/09/98 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, MAR 98 WORKERS COMP. INS 330-2370 8.26 48741 04/09/98 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, MAR 98 WORKERS COMP. INS 340-2370 268.32 48741 04/09/98 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, MAR 98 WORKERS COMP. INS 190-181-999-5112 1.21 4,988.20 48742 04/09/98 000674 CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CIT CCCA ANNUAL CF:R.R,J.C.5/14-17 001-100-999-5258 780.00 780.00 48743 04/09/98 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA VILLAGES-LDSC IMPROVEMENTS 193-180-999-5212 4,880.00 48743 04/09/98 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA VINTAGE HILLS-LDSC IMPROVEMENT 193-180-999-5212 895.00 48743 04/09/98 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA T.M.S-BALLFIELD MAINT-FEB 190-180-999-5415 920.00 48744 04/09/98 003206 CALIFORNIA POLICE SUMME ENTRY FEE:CANINE COMPETITION 001-170-999-5327 105.00 6,695.00 105.00 48745 04/09/98 CARLISLE, BETSY REFUND:PUPPET THEATRE 190-183-4982 30.00 30.00 48746 04/09/98 003047 CHAPARRAL HIGH SCHOOL C TEM.AFGHANS-S.CITIES/MARKETING 280-199-999-5270 500.00 48746 04/09/98 003047 CHAPARRAL HIGH SCHOOL C TEM.AFGHANS-S.CITIES/MARKETING 001-101-999-5280 500.00 1,000.00 VOUCHRE2 04/09/98 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 48747 48748 48748 48749 4875O 48751 48751 48751 48752 48753 48753 48753 48753 48753 48753 48754 48755 48756 48757 48758 48759 48759 48759 48759 48760 48760 48760 48761 48761 48761 48761 48762 48763 48763 48763 11:47 CHECK DATE 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 VENDOR NUMBER 003189 001716 001716 002466 001380 001380 001380 002712 000165 000165 000165 000165 000165 000165 003188 002265 000184 002819 002819 002819 002819 000351 000351 000351 000192 000192 000192 000192 000186 000186 000186 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER CRAFTON HILLS COLLEGE PUBLIC FIRE CLASS:CUMMINGS4/13 DAN'S ROOFING DANrS ROOFING C.R.C.-REPAIR LEAKS T.C.C.-REPAIR TILE ROOF DOVER ELEVATOR COMPANY APR ELEVATOR MAINT/SERVICE DURLING, DENNIS REFUND:AQUATIC PROGRAM E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP (2)W/E 3/13 WILLIAMS TEMP HELP (2)W/E 3/13 WILLIAMS TEMP HELP (2)W/E 3/13 CABRAL ECONOMIC & POLITICAL AN MAR ECONOMIC CONSULTING SRVCS FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEOEILAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES FIRE SAFETY TRUST FIRE CLASS FEES:CUMMINGS 4/13 FIRST TRUST OF CALIFORN SEMI-ANNUAL ADMIN FEE-R.D.A. FOODMAKER INC REFUND:DEPOSIT PA96-0268 FOSTER, MAUREEN REFUND:AQUATIC PROGILAMS G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909-506-2626-MAR-SUB-STATION GARWIN & CHAN ASSOCIATE GARWIN & CHAN ASSOCIATE GARWIN & CHAN ASSOCIATE GARWIN & CHAN ASSOCIATE MISC AUDIO/VIDEO SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTOR BLANK AUDIO TAPE DISTRIBUTOR BLANK AUDIO TAPE SALES TAX GILLISS, MAX C.M. GILLISS, MAX C.M. GILLISS, MAX C.M. MARCH CONSULTING SERVICES MARCH CONSULTING SERVICES MAR PROF SRVCS-PALA RD BRIDGE GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE ANTI-STATIC WIPES MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES FREIGHT SALES TAX GUAYANTE, MAUREEN REFUND:DOG OBEDIENCE HANKS HARDWARE, INC. HANKS HARDWARE, INC. HANKS HARDWARE, INC. MISC HARDWARE SUPPLIES MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES - CITY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES - CRC 001-171-999-5261 190-182-999-5212 190-184-999-5212 340-199-701-5212 190-183-4982 001-161-999-5118 001-162-999-5118 001-171-999-5118 280-199-999-5248 280-199-999-5230 001-140-999-5230 001-162-999-5230 001-120-999-5230 001-162-999-5230 280-199-999-5230 001-171-999-5261 380-199-999-5227 001-2650 190-183-4982 001-170-999-5229 320-199-999-5210 320-199-999-5210 320-199-999-5210 320-199-999-5210 001-110-999-5248 001-164-604-5248 210-165-631-5801 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 190-183-4982 001-171-999-5242 340-199-701-5212 190-182-999-5212 ITEM AMOUNT 42.50 750.00 620.00 199.10 70. O0 421.08 421.08 851.31 1,000.00 26.00 7.00 41.85 18.95 30.00 6.60 70.00 3,021.63 22,315.50 70.00 332.05 311.40 395.50 54.50 34.88 500.00 500.00 5,000.00 7.98 35.98 6.31 3.~ 65.00 9.71 215.79 404.54 PAGE 2 CHECK AMOUNT 42.50 1,370.00 199.10 70.00 1,693.47 1,000.00 130.40 70.00 3,021.63 22,315.50 70.00 332.05 796.28 6,000.00 53.91 65.00 VOUCHRE2 04/09/98 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 48763 48763 48764 48765 48766 48766 48766 48767 48768 48769 48770 48771 48772 48772 4877~ 48774 48775 48776 48776 48776 48776 48776 48776 48777 48778 48779 48779 48779 48780 48781 48782 48782 11:47 CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME 04/09/98 000186 04/09/98 000186 04/09/98 002372 04/09/98 001013 04/09/98 002098 04/09/98 002098 04/09/98 002098 04/09/98 003138 04/09/98 04/09/98 001407 04/09/98 04/09/98 002909 04/09/98 001667 04/09/98 001667 04/09/98 003185 04/09/98 002023 04/09/98 000209 04/09/98 000945 04/09/98 000945 04/09/98 000945 04/09/98 000945 04/09/98 000945 04/09/98 000945 HANKS HARDWARE, INC. HANKS HARDWARE, INC. HARMON, JUDY HINDERLITER deLLAMAS AS HOUSE OF MOTORCYCLES HOUSE OF MOTORCYCLES HOUSE OF MOTORCYCLES INDUSTRIAL ASPHALT INGRAM, KIMBERLY INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL JACKSON, SHARLA K W C ENGINEERING, INC. KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE KEN MONTGOMERY & SONS C KING, WENDE L & M FERTILIZER, INC. L P S COMPUTER SERVICE L P S COMPUTER SERVICE L P S COMPUTER SERVICE L P S COMPUTER SERVICE L P S COMPUTER SERVICE L P S COMPUTER SERVICE 04/09/98 LOPEZ, KIM 04/09/98 002890 04/09/98 000220 LOS ANGELES CELLULAR TE MAURICE PRINTERS, INC. 04/09/98 000220 MAURICE PRINTERS, INC. 04/09/98 000220 04/09/98 04/09/98 001205 04/09/98 001384 04/09/98 001384 MAURICE PRINTERS, INC. MCBRIDE, BRENDA MCDERMOTT, TIM K. MINUTEMAN PRESS MINUTEMAN PRESS CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES - PARKS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES - TCC TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS INSTALL/MAINT NW B.L. SOFTWARE MOTORCYCLE PARTS & REPAIR MOTORCYCLE PARTS & REPAIR MOTORCYCLE PARTS & REPAIR A.C. FOR CITYWIDE REPAIRS REFUND:DOG OBEDIENCE POOL SANITIZING CHEMICALS REFUND:SECURITY DEPOSIT MAR-RCSP SIDEWALK DESIGN TEMP HELP W/E 3/22 MILES TEMP HELP W/E 3/22 MILES FACADE IMPROV.PRGM:28475 FRONT TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS MlSC MAINT SUPPLIES HP LASER PRINTER MAINTENANCE HP LASER PRINTER MAINTENANCE REFURB TONER CARTRIDGES REFURB. TONER CARTRIDGES REFURB. TONER CARTRIDGES SALES TAX REFUND:PARK RENTALS 909-223-1667-MAR-J.D. REAL ESTATE OUTLOOK NEWSLETTER DESIGN EDC MASTHEAD FOR NWSLTR SALES TAX REFUND: PARK RENTALS REIMB:MECH BOND SALE CF:4/2-3 B/W BUSINESS CARDS FOR POLICE SALES TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER 190-180-999-5212 190-184-999-5212 190-183-999-5330 320-1980 001-170-999-5214 001-170-999-5214 001-170-999-5214 001-164-601-5218 190-183-4982 190-182-999-5212 190-2900 210-190-154-5802 001-163-999-5118 001-164-604-5118 280-199-813-5804 190-183-999-5330 001-164-601-5218 320-199-999-5215 320-199-999-5215 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 190-183-4988 001-170-999-5208 280-199-999-5270 280-199-999-5270 280-199-999-5270 190-183-4988 001-140-999-5261 001-170o999-5222 001-170o999-5222 ITEM AMOUNT 80.54 69.08 552.80 4,000.00 4.41 145.30 6.00 83.24 65.00 213.35 100.00 137.45 70.53 211.57 980.00 259.83 105.99 221.63 221.63 704.00 66.00 69.00 65.02 30.00 65.44 2,157.16 180.00 13.95 50.00 106.28 38.25 2.96 PAGE 3 CHECK AMOUNT 779.66 552.80 4,000.00 155.71 83.24 65.00 213.35 100.00 137.45 282.10 980.00 259.83 105.99 1,347.28 30.00 65.44 2,351.11 50.00 106.28 41.21 VOUCHRE2 04/09/98 11:47 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER 48783 04/09/98 003205 48784 04/09/98 002292 48785 04/09/98 002105 48785 04/09/98 002105 48785 04/09/98 002105 48785 04/09/98 002105 48785 04/09/98 002105 48786 04/09/98 48787 04/09/98 48788 04/09/98 002331 48789 04/09/98 002498 48790 04/09/98 48791 04/09/98 000254 48791 04/09/98 000254 48791 04/09/98 000254 48791 04/09/98 000254 48791 04/09/98 000254 48791 04/09/98 000254 48791 04/09/98 000254 48791 04/09/98 000254 48792 04/09/98 48792 04/09/98 48792 04/09/98 48793 04/09/98 002930 48793 04/09/98 002930 48793 04/09/98 002930 48793 04/09/98 002930 48793 04/09/98 002930 48794 04/09/98 003199 48795 04/09/98 002072 48796 04/09/98 000262 48796 04/09/98 000262 48796 04/09/98 000262 48796 04/09/98 000262 48796 04/09/98 000262 48796 04/09/98 000262 48796 04/09/98 000262 48796 04/09/98 000262 VENDOR NAME NEW GENERATION OASIS VENDING OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE PALMER, DANIEL PARISt ARLINDA PEP BOYS INC PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC PORTILLO, FELIX PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN PRESS-ENTERPRISE C(~4PAN PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN PROPERTY SERVICES PLUS PROPERTY SERVICES PLUS PROPERTY SERVICES PLUS PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPP PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPP PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPP PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPP PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPP PUBLIC PERSONNEL CONSUL RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER CiTY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION GARAGE DOOR:RSDTL PRGM-TRUJILL COFFEE/VENDING SERVICES CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT REFUND: DOG OBEDIENCE REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT MISC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES GEOTECH SERVS:ILRNCHO CAL/I-15 REFUND: STATE-LINE TURNAROUND MAR ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION ADS PUBLIC NOTICES: BONDS PUBLIC NOTICE: WINCH HILLS FIA PUBLIC NOTICE: PW97-22CSD PUBLIC NOTICE: TOSHIBA PUBLIC NOTICE: PA98-0012 PUBLIC NOTICE: PA98-0066 PUBLIC NOTICE: PA98-0045 REFUND: BUILD PERMIT REFUND: BUILD PERMIT REFUND: BUILD PERMIT FLOOR MAT RENTAL: CITY HALL FLOOR MAT RENTAL: CRC FLOOR MAT RENTAL: MAINT FAC FLOOR MAT RENTAL: SR CTR FLOOR MAT RENTAL: TCC BUILDING INSPECTOR TESTS WATER METER:WINCH CREEK PRK 01-06-30205-0 SIXTH ST 01-06-30206-0 SIXTH ST LDSCP 01-06-84860-5 PUJOL ST 01-02-98000-0 PRKVW FIRE STAT 01-02-98010-0 PRKVW FIRE VARIOUS WATER METERS VARIOUS WATER METERS VARIOUS WATER METERS PAGE 4 ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 165-199-813-5804 400.00 400.00 340-199-701-5250 374.45 374.45 001-164-601-5214 122.17 001-164-604-5214 157.63 001-164-601-5214 129.24 001-16/,-601-5214 209.88 190-180-999-5214 70.78 689.70 190-183-4982 65.00 65.00 190-183-4990 100.00 100.00 001-164-601-5218 16.68 16.68 210-165-601-5801 792.50 792.50 190-183-4986 15.00 15.00 001-165-999-5256 168.00 001-120-999-5256 23.50 001-120-999-5256 43.00 001-120-999-5256 78.02 001-120-999-5256 24.44 001-161-999-5256 18.75 001-161-999-5256 16.75 001-161-999-5256 18.00 001-2280 4.88 001-162-4200 123.38 001-162-4285 164.50 340-199-701-5250 143.00 190-182-999-5250 133.75 340-199-702-5212 56.00 190-181-999-5250 67.85 190-184-999-5250 86.75 001-150-999-5250 326.00 210-190-149-5804 6,986.00 001-164-603-5240 25.35 001-164-603-5240 26.49 280-199-807-5804 39.13 001-171-999-5240 9.62 001-171-999-5240 141.87 190-180-999-5240 lt567.59 190-181-999-5240 87.15 190-182-999-5240 499.86 390.46 292.76 487.35 326.00 6,986.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 04/09/98 11:47 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 48796 04/09/98 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER VARIOUS WATER METERS 190-184-999-5240 48796 04/09/98 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER VARIOUS WATER METERS 191-180-999-5240 487'96 04/09/98 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER VARIOUS WATER METERS 193-180o999-5240 48796 04/09/98 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER VARIOUS WATER METERS 340-199o701-5240 118.11 99.81 947.31 319.65 3,881.94 48797 04/09/98 000907 P~ANCHO CAR WASH VEHICLE DETAILING & MAINT. 001-162-999-5214 48797 04/09/98 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH VEHICLE DETAILING & MAINT. 001-165-999-5214 48797 04/09/98 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH VEHICLE DETAILING & GAS 001-110-999-5214 48797 04/09/98 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH VEHICLE DETAILING & GAS 001-110-999-5263 48797 04/09/98 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH VEHICLE DETAILING & MAINT. 001-163-999-5214 48797 04/09/98 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH VEHICLE DETAILING & FUEL 001-161-999-5214 48797 04/09/98 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH VEHICLE DETAILING & FUEL 001-161-999-5263 48797 04/09/98 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH VEHICLE DETAILING & MAINT. 001-164-604-5214 48797 04/09/98 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH VEHICLE DETAILING & MAINT. 190-180-999-5214 34.00 14.00 12.00 37.15 31.00 5.00 5.71 6.00 43.00 187.86 48798 04/09/98 002457 RANCHO RUNNERS PROMOTIONAL SUPPLIES:CA TRVL M 280-199-999-5270 90.00 90.00 48799 04/09/98 002400 REBEL TEMECULA DUMP TRUCK RENTAL:PW MAINT 001-164-601-5238 150.00 150.00 48800 04/09/98 002985 RICK ENGINEERING COMPAN CONSULTANT SERVS:MARG RD WIDEN 210-165-681-5802 2,963.79 2,963.79 48801 04/09/98 000266 RIGHTWAY PORT TOILET RENTAL:RIVERTON PK 190-180-999-5238 62.89 62.89 48802 04/09/98 000352 RIVERSIDE CO. ASSESSOR ASSESSOR MAP COPIES 190-180-999-5224 17.00 17.00 48803 04/09/98 000411 RIVERSIDE CO. FLOOD CON PLAN CK:LONG CYN-PROMENADE MAL 210-165-681-5801 104.58 104.58 48804 04/09/98 001592 RIVERSIDE CO. INFORMATI REPAIR RADIO BASE 001-162-999-5215 423.99 423.99 48805 04/09/98 000271 ROBERT BEIN, WM FROST & FEB PROF SERVS:WINCH WEST JEFF 210-165-686-5802 4,595.00 4,595.00 48806 04/09/98 SANCHEZ, DIANA REFUND: PARK RENTALS 190-183-4988 30.00 30.00 48807 04/09/98 000403 SHAWN SCOTT POOL & SPA CHLORINE TABS-TEM ELEM POOL 190-180-999-5212 48807 04/09/98 000403 SHAWN SCOTT POOL & SPA POOL SUPPLIES-TEM ELEMENTARY 190-180-999-5212 48807 04/09/98 000403 SHAWN SCOTT POOL & SPA POOL MAIHT-TEM ELEMENTARY 190-180-999-5212 210.00 136.30 400.00 746.30 48808 04/09/98 000645 SMART & FINAL, INC. FOOD & SUPPLIES FOR EMP LUNCH 001-150-999-5265 238.54 238.54 48809 04/09/98 SMITH, ALISON REFUND: TINY TOTS 190-183-4980 37.00 37.00 48810 04/09/98 000405 SMITH, PHILLIP MECHANICAL INSPECTOR RE-CERTIF 001-162-999-5261 45.00 45.00 48811 04/09/98 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR PEST CNTRL SERVS:CITY HALL 340-199-701-5250 56.00 56.00 48812 04/09/98 000374 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 1-15 MONUMENT SIGN-SCE FEES 210-199-130-5804 609.70 609.70 48813 04/09/98 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-06-105-0654 VARIOUS METERS 191-180-999-5319 48813 04/09/98 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-10-331-2153 PUJOL ST 190-184-999-5240 48813 04/09/98 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-00-397-5067 VARIOUS METERS 193-180-999-5240 48813 04/09/98 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 66-77-795o6412-01 FRONT ST 340-199-701-5240 6,042.67 520.54 411.48 22.06 6,996.75 VOUCHRE2 04/09/98 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 48814 48815 48816 48816 48816 48816 48816 48817 48818 48818 48819 48820 48821 48821 48822 48822 48822 48822 48822 48822 48822 48822 48822 48822 48822 48823 48824 48825 48826 48826 48827 11:47 CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAHE 04/09/98 003120 04/09/98 000168 04/09/98 000815 04/09/98 000815 04/09/98 000815 04/09/98 000815 04/09/98 000815 04/09/98 000314 void 04/09/98 002111 04/09/98 000320 04/09/98 003031 04/09/98 003031 04/09/98 002621 04/09/98 002621 04/09/98 002621 04/09/98 002621 04/09/98 002621 04/09/98 002621 04/09/98 002621 04/09/98 002621 04/09/98 002621 04/09/98 002621 04/09/98 002621 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 04/09/98 001342 04/09/98 001342 04/09/98 000345 TEMECULA ART GALLERY TEMECULA FLOWER CORRAL TEMECULA VALLEY CATHY'S TEMECULA VALLEY CATHYrS TEMECULA VALLEY CATHY~S TEMECULA VALLEY CATHYrS TEMECULA VALLEY CATHY'S TEMECULA VALLEY MUSEUM TOGO ' S TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE UNION BANK OF CALIF~ N. UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. UNOCAL WARDROP, HOLLY WATKINS, VALERIE WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY, WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY, XEROX CORPORATION BILLI CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION FACILITY RENTAL FOR SUPERBOWL SUNSHINE FUND TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS DRAW REQUEST FOR CHAPEL PRJT HOUSING COMMITTEES REFRESHMNTS MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES (65) 28" TYPE 1 BARRICADES SALES TAX 5415305001995886-S.F.-MAR 5415305002924984-J.C.-MAR 5415305001995894-R.R.-MAR 5415305001995910-R.B.-MAR 5415305001995910-R.B.-MAR 5415305001995985-G.Y.-MAR 5415305001995985-G.Y.-MAR 5415305001995969 GT/BERKLY CF 5415305001995969 GT/BERKLY CF 541530500199597 JK/PROF MTG 5415305001995951 SN/LG BCH CF FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLE REFUND: PUPPET STORYTIME REFUND: AROMATHERAPY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES - CRC MAINT SUPPLIES - CITY HALL LEASE OF 5021 COPIER a CRC ACCOUNT NUMBER 280-199-999-5362 001-2170 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 210-190-808-5804 165-199-999-5250 001-164-604-5220 001-164-601-5218 001-164-601-5218 001-100-999-5258 001-100-999-5258 001-100-999-5258 001-110-999-5263 001-110-999-5260 001-150-999-5260 001-100-999-5260 001-161-999-5258 001-161-999-5228 001-164-604-5260 190-180-999-5258 001-161-999-5263 190-183-4982 190-183-4982 190-182-999-5212 340-199-701-5212 190-182-999-5239 ITEM AMOUNT 300.00 48.49 732.00 240.00 180.00 180.00 540.00 1,818.79 78.60 97.59 2,222.50 172.24 559.11 532.92 787.56 40.19 47.00 114.68 103.44 151.00 25.90 41.00 82.06 12.25 30.00 15.00 213.53 112.00 67.08 PAGE 6 CHECK AMOUNT 300.00 48.49 1,872.00 1,818.79 78.60 97.59 2,394.74 2,484.86 12.25 30.00 15.00 325.53 67.08 TOTAL CHECKS 124,721.76 VOUCHRE2 04/17/98 14:04 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS PAGE 13 FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 165 RDA DEV- LC)~/MOD SET ASIDE 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP 300 INSURANCE FUND 310 VEHICLES FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES AMOUNT 97,920.73 10,790.80 37,550.59 12,311.20 71.19 1,746.54 517.49 11,438.80 10,790.81 3,956.14 21,294.77 6,539.20 12~765.12 5,843.68 TOTAL 233,537.06 VOUCHRE2 04/17/98 14:04 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER 48600 04/10/98 003153 48828 04/15/98 003047 48828 04/15/98 003047 48829 04/15/98 000418 48830 04/15/98 001534 48831 VOi 48831 48832 04/16/98 48835 04/16/98 48836 04/16/98 48837 04/16/98 48837 04/16/98 48838 04/16/98 48839 04/16/98 48840 04/16/98 48841 04/16/98 48842 04/16/98 48842 04/16/98 48843 04/16/98 000101 48844 04/16/98 002713 48844 04/16/98 002713 48844 04/16/98 002713 48845 04/16/98 48846 04/16/98 002085 48846 04/16/98 002085 48846 04/16/98 002085 48847 04/16/98 001080 48847 04/16/98 001080 48847 04/16/98 001080 48848 04/16/98 002950 48848 04/16/98 002950 48848 04/16/98 002950 VENDOR NAME LA PIERRE, RANDY CHAPARRAL HIGH SCHOOL B CHAPARRAL HIGH SCHOOL B RIVERSIDE CO. CLERK & R LA MASTERS OF FINE TRAV 001534 LA MASTERS OF FINE TRAV 000724 A & R CUSTOM SCREEN PRI 001523 A M BEST COMPANY, INC. 001700 A+ TEACHING MATERIALS 001700 A+ TEACHING MATERIALS 002348 A-PARK AVENUE BUILDERS 002278 ABC SEWING & VACUUM 002669 AMERICAN BATTERY, INC. 000780 AMERICAN ECONOMIC DEVEL 001947 AMERICAS 001947 AMERICAS APPLE ONE, INC. BALLOONS GALORE BALLOONS GALORE BALLOONS GALORE BARCLAY, ERIC BARNEY & BARNEY BARNEY & BARNEY BARNEY & BARNEY BILLIARDS & BARSTOOLS BILLIARDS & BARSTOOLS BILLIARDS & BARSTOOLS BODY THERAPEUTICS BODY THERAPEUTICS BODY THERAPEUTICS CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION FACADE IMPROV.PGM:41975 4TH ST TEM AFGHANS-S.CITIES/MARKETING TEM AFGHANS-S.CITIES/MARKETING NOTICE OF EXEMPTION:PW97-07 AIRFARE:CITY DELEGATION:JAPAN AIRFARE:JAPAN:RECEIVABLE SOFTBALL AND BASKETBALL A~ARDS PUB:98 P/C KEY RATING GUIDE SUPPLIES FOR TINY TOT CLASSES SUPPLIES FOR TINY TOT CLASSES EMERGENCY A.C. REPAIRS PARTS/SERVICE FOR MAINT EQUIP BATTERY SUPPLY & SERVICE ENTRY FEE:98 AEDC A~ARDS COMP. PROPANE FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES PROPANE FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES TEMP HELP W/E 3/28 CRAMER HELIUM BALLOONS-EASTER EGG HNT 15% DISCOUNT SALES TAX SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE INSURANCE:DIFF. IN CONDITIONS INSURANCE:DIFF. IN CONDITIONS CREDIT:DIFFERENCE IN CONDITION REFELT TABLES IN TEEN CENTER GLUE RUBBER BUMPERS-TEEN CNTR SALES TAX (2)CASES SPORT SUNSCREEN FREIGHT SALES TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER 280-199-813-5804 280-199-999-5270 001-101-999-5280 210-165-681-5802 001-100-999-5280 001-1170 190-183-999-5380 300-199-999-5228 190-183-999-5320 190-183-999-5320 001~164-601-5402 190-180o999-5215 001-162-999-5214 280-199-999-5264 001-162-999-5263 190-180-999-5263 001-150-999-5261 190-183-999-5370 190-183-999-5370 190-183-999-5370 001-101-999-5280 300-199-999-5200 300-199-999-5200 300-199-999-5200 190-182-999-5301 190-182-999-5301 190-182-999-5301 190-183-999-5310 190-183-999-5310 190-183-999-5310 ITEM AMOUNT 4,090.00 500.00 500.00 78.00 8,710.00 6,097.00 680.98 86.95 12.09 12.09 3,175.00 9.67 48.03 450.00 7.18 29.56 251.55 300.00 45.00- 19.76 100.00 707.00 1,645.33 305.91- 250.00 200.DO 19.38 108.00 3.59 8.37 PAGE 1 CHECK AMOUNT 4,090.00 1,000.00 78.00 8,710.00 6,097. O0 680.98 86.95 24.18 3,175.00 9.67 48.03 450. O0 36.74 251.55 274.76 100.00 2,046.42 469.38 119.96 VOUCHRE2 04/17/98 14:04 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER 48849 48850 04/16/98 001054 48851 04/16/98 000674 48852 04/16/98 48853 04/16/98 48854 04/16/98 002803 48855 04/16/98 000387 48855 04/16/98 000387 48856 04/16/98 000131 48857 04/16/98 000135 48858 04/16/98 001195 48858 04/16/98 001195 48858 04/16/98 001195 48859 04/16/98 000137 48860 04/16/98 002782 48860 04/16/98 002782 48860 04/16/98 002~82 48861 04/16/98 48862 04/16/98 48863 04/16/98 48864 04/16/98 48865 04/16/98 001275 48866 04/16/98 003189 48866 04/16/98 003189 48867 04/16/98 002932 48867 04/16/98 002932 48868 04/16/98 002661 48869 04/16/98 002106 48870 04/16/98 001393 48870 04/16/98 001393 VENDOR NAME 04/16/98 002099 BUTTERFIELD ENTERPRISES CALIFORNIA BUILDING OFF CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CIT CALLAWAY CALVERY CHAPEL OF MURRI CANTY ENGINEERING GROUP CAREER TRACK SEMINARS M CAREER TRACK SEMINARS M CARL WARREN & CO., INC. CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER CENTRAL SECURITY SERVIC CENTRAL SECURITY SERVIC CENTRAL SECURITY SERVIC CHEVRON U S A INC. CHICK'S SPORTING GOODS CHICK'S SPORTING GOODS CHICK'S SPORTING GOODS CHURCH ON THE ROCK, TEM COLLINS, BOB COLLINS, SEAN COMMERCIAL OFFICE RESOU COMPUSERVE, INC. CRAFTON HILLS COLLEGE CRAFTON HILLS COLLEGE CROWN CARPET & DRAPERIE CROWN CARPET & DRAPERIE CUMMINS CAL PACIFIC, IN DA FAMILY SUPPORT DATA TICKET, INC. DATA TICKET, INC. CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION APR RESTROOM RENTAL OLD TOWN MEMBERSHIP DUES'98 A. ELMO 39 ANN MUN SEM:LINDEMANS:4/14 REFUND:MEN~S BASKETBALL LEAGUE REFUND:SECURITY DEPOSIT MAR PRGSS PMT:RANCHO CA/I-15 WKSHP FOR WOMEN:6/10 RP,CK,KC WKSNP FOR WOMEN:6/10 RP,CK,KC HEMME, ROBERT 07/24/95 SIGNS:CRIME-FREE HOUSING PRGM QTRLY FIRE SYSTEM INSPECT-CRC APR ALARM SERVICE C.R.C. APR ALARM SRVCS-SENIOR CENTER FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES (20)DOZEN SOFTBALLS FREIGHT SALES TAX REFUND:RENTAL FEES APR-AUG REFUND:MEN'S BASKETBALL LEAGUE SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE REFUND:MEN'S BASKETBALL LEAGUE COMPUSERVE INFORMATION SERVICE FIRE PREY.CLASS:4/27-5/1PISTR FIRE PREV.CLASS:4/20-24 PISTER MTNC.FACILITY-INSTALL CARPET MAINT FAC. INSTALL CARPET CRC GENERATOR INSPECT/SERVICE 002106 SUPPORT FEB PRKG CITATION PROCESSING FEB PRKG CITATION PROCESSING ACCOUNT NUMBER 280-199-999-5212 001-162-999-5226 001-100-999-5258 190-183-4994 190-2900 001-1280 001-162-999-5261 001-171-999-5261 300-199-999-5205 165-199-999-5242 190-182-999-5250 190-182-999-5250 190-181-999-5250 190-180-999-5263 190-183-999-5380 190-183-999-5380 190-183-999-5380 190-183-4990 190-183-4994 001-101-999-5280 190-183-4994 320-199-999-5228 001-171-999-5261 001-171-999-5261 340-199-702-5250 340-199-702-5250 190-182-999-5250 190-2140 001-140-999-5250 001-170-999-5250 ITEM AMOUNT 826.00 150.00 390.00 40.00 100.00 1,320.00 98.00 49.00 1,211.90 975.14 150.00 50.00 45.00 12.34 680.00 70.00 52.70 1,359.00 40.00 100.00 40.00 9.95 35.00 46.00 341.91 187.18 545.00 82.50 269.00 269.00 PAGE 2 CHECK AMOUNT 826.00 150.00 390.00 40.00 100.00 1,320.00 147.00 1,211.90 975.14 245.00 12.34 802.70 1,359.00 40.00 100.00 40.00 9.95 81.00 529.09 545.00 82.50 538.00 VOUCHRE2 04/17/98 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 48871 48872 48872 4887'3 48874 48875 48875 48875 48875 48875 48876 48877 48877 48878 48878 48879 48880 48881 48882 48883 48883 48883 48884 48884 48885 48886 48886 48886 48886 48886 48886 48886 14:04 CHECK DATE 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 VENDOR NUMBER 002744 002744 000518 002701 001380 001380 001380 001380 001380 002390 001408 001408 003188 003188 000166 000643 000170 000170 000170 000795 000795 001103 00018/+ 000184 000184 000184 000184 000184 000184 VENDOR NAME DAVIS, PATRICK DE LAMAR ENTERPRISES, I DE LAMAR ENTERPRISES, I DEL RIO CARE ANIMAL HOS DIVERSIFIED RISK E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL S ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL S FIRE SAFETY TRUST FIRE SAFETY TRUST FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH FORTNER HARDWARE, INC. FRANK, JESSICA FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, FRED PRYOR SEMINARS FRED PRYOR SEMINARS FREEDOM MATERIALS G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA, INC. G T E CALIFORNIA, INC. CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE CITY HALL DOOR WINDOW INSTALL. LABOR FOR DOOR WINDOW PROJECT POLICE K-9 MEDICAL TREATMENT MAR SPECIAL EVENT INSURANCE TEMP HELP W/E 3/27 WILLIAMS TEMP HELP W/E 3/27 WILLIAMS TEMP HELP (2)W/E 3/27 YONKER TEMP HELP (2)W/E 3/27 DIAZ TEMP HELP (2)W/E CABRAL APR DIEGO DR LDSC WATER SRVC ASBESTOS ABATEMENT/DEMO 6TH ST CREDIT:INCOMPLETE WORK FIRE PREV.CLASS:4/27-5/1PISTER FIRE PREV.CLASS:4/20-24 PISTER LOT BOOK REPT:RES PRGM:BATES REFUND:SECURITY DEPOSIT MISC. NAINT SUPPLIES SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE DAY PLANNER BINDERS & REFILLS FREIGHT SALES TAX GREAT COMMUNICATOR CF:JUN 98 GREAT COMMUNICATOR CF:JUN 98 GRAFFITI REMOVAL SUPPLIES 909-308-1079-MAR-GENERAL USAGE 909-506-1941-APR-T.T.A./CSD 909-695-1409-MAR-GENERAL USAGE 909-695-3539-MAR-GENERAL USAGE 909-699-0590-MAR-T.T.A ALARM 909-699-1370-MAR-CABOOSE 909-699-2811-APR-GENERAL USAGE ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-101-999-5280 340-199-701-5610 340-199-701-5610 001-170-999-5327 300-2180 001-161-999-5118 001-162-999-5118 001-140-999-5118 001-140-999-5118 001-171-999-5118 193-180-999-5240 165-199-999-5250 165-199-999-5250 001-171-999-5261 001-171-999-5261 165-199-813-5804 190-2900 001-164-601-5218 001-101-999-5280 001-120-999-5220 001-120-999-5220 001-120-999-5220 001-164-602-5261 001-163-999-5261 001-164-601-5218 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 001-110-999-5223 320-199-999-5208 ITEM AMOUNT 100.00 1,559.42 2,186.00 42.38 87.18 551.76 551.76 1,191.53 1,693.25 1,198.14 47.46 8,114.00 811.40- 70.00 70.00 150.00 100.00 1.92 100.00 89.60 18.00 8.34 178.00 89.00 135.77 59.35 60.88 108.60 40.44 59.04 146.08 1,434.96 PAGE 3 CHECK AMOUNT 100.00 3,745.42 42.38 87.18 5,186.44 47.46 7,302.60 140.00 150.00 100.00 1.92 100.00 115.94 267.00 135.77 1,909.35 48887 04/16/98 001355 OPEN LINE FROM CITY TO C.R.C. 320-199-999-5208 320.00 48887 04/16/98 001355 MNT ACCESS-RVSD CO. OPEN LINE 320-199-999-5208 290.00 610.00 VOUCHRE2 04/17/98 14:04 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME 48888 04/16/98 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 48888 04/16/98 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 48888 04/16/98 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 48888 04/16/98 0001%'/ GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT 48888 04/16/98 000177 GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT 48888 04/16/98 000177 GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT 48888 04/16/98 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 48888 04/16/98 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 48888 04/16/98 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 48888 04/16/98 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINANCE DEPT MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 48889 04/16/98 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE (6) CAT 5 PATCH CABLE 48889 04/16/98 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE FREIGHT 48889 04/16/98 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE SALES TAX GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFI 48890 04/16/98 000175 48891 04/16/98 GREEN, NATHON 48892 04/16/98 GRIEGO, GARY T. 48893 04/16/98 GROCHOWSKY, JENNIE 48894 04/16/98 GUIDERA, DEBRAN 48895 04/16/98 HALSEY, HEATHER 48896 04/16/98 002409 HAZ PAK INC. 48897 04/16/98 HENRY, ROBERT 48898 04/16/98 HEYLMUN, LINDSAY HOOPSTERS BOOSTERS, TEM HOOPSTERS BOOSTERS, TEM 48899 04/16/98 48899 04/16/98 48900 04/16/98 HUELSON, ELIZABETH GAAFR REVIEN NWSLTTR SUBSCRIPT SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE REFUND:OVRPMT OF CIT #14007 SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE M.FAC.MATERIAL PICK-UP/STORAGE REFUND:MEN~S BASKETBALL LEAGUE SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE REFUND:SECURITY DEPOSIT ADD~L ROOM RENTAL FEES SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE 48901 04/16/98 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 48901 04/16/98 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 48901 04/16/98 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 48901 04/16/98 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 48902 04/16/98 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 48902 04/16/98 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 48902 04/16/98 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 48902 04/16/98 000444 INSTATAX CEDO) 000444 SD! 48902 04/16/98 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 48902 04/16/98 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 48902 04/16/98 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 48902 04/16/98 000444 INSTATAX (EDO) 000444 STATE ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-110-999-5220 001-120-999-5220 001-120-999-5220 190-180-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-161-999-5220 001-162-999-5220 001-171-999-5220 280-199-999-5220 165-199-999-5220 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 001-140-999-5228 001-101-999-5280 001-170-4055 001-101-999-5280 001-101-999~5280 001-101-999-5280 001-164-601-5430 190-183-4994 001-101-999-5280 190-2900 190-183-4990 001-101-999-5280 001-2080 165-2080 190-2080 280-2080 001-2070 165-2070 190-2070 280-2070 340-2070 001-2070 165-2070 190-2070 ITEM AMOUNT 422.07 127.27 177.69 14.38 475.88 345.23 223.91 61.09 157.03 157.02 59.70 6.17 4.86 50.00 100.00 10.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 692.50 40.00 100.00 100.00 40.00- 100.00 1,460.68 18.75 125.00 6.25 28.10 3.72 48.85 .68 5.13 3,626.82 204.90 758.93 PAGE 4 CHECK AMOUNT 2,161.57 70.73 50.00 100.00 10.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 692.50 40.00 100.00 60.00 100.00 1,610.68 VOUCHRE2 04/17/98 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 48902 48902 48902 48902 48902 48902 48902 48902 48902 48903 48903 48903 48903 48903 48903 48903 48903 48903 48903 48903 48903 48903 48903 48903 48903 48903 48903 48903 48903 48903 48903 48903 48903 14:04 CHECK DATE 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 VENDOR NUMBER 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000444 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 000283 VENDOR NAME INSTATAX (EDD) INSTATAX (EDD) INSTATAX (EDD) INSTATAX (EDD) INSTATAX (EDD) INSTATAX (EDD) INSTATAX (EDD) INSTATAX (EDD) %NSTATAX (EDD) INSTATAX (IRS) INSTATAX (IRS) INSTATAX (IRS) INSTATAX (IRS) INSTATAX (]RS) INSTATAX (IRS) INSTATAX (IRS) INSTATAX (IRS) INSTATAX (IRS) INSTATAX (IRS) INSTATAX (IRS) INSTATAX (IRS) INSTATAX (IRS) INSTATAX (IRS) ]NSTATAX (IRS) ]NSTATAX (IRS) INSTATAX (IRS) INSTATAX (]RS) INSTATAX (]RS) ]NSTATAX (IRS) INSTATAX ([RS) INSTATAX (IRS) INSTATAX (]RS) INSTATAX (IRS) CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEDICARE 48904 04/16/98 000199 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVIC 000199 IRS GARN 48905 002299 002140 001667 001667 002789 000206 001534 48906 04/16/98 04/16/98 INTERNATIONAL RISK MAMA JAGUAR COMPUTER SYSTEMS JOE, ALICIA KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE KIMCO STAFFING SOLUTION KINKO~S, INC. LA MASTERS OF FINE TRAV 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 48907 48908 48908 48909 48910 48911 SUBSCRIPTION:THE RISK REPORT APR-JUN E-MAIL SUPPORT/MAINT SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE TEMP HELP W/E 3/29 MILES TEMP HELP W/E 3/29 MILES TEMP HELP W/E 3/29 GLENN STATIONERY PAPER/MISC SUPPLIES AIR:TEAM CA CF 1/15 MCLARNEY ACCOUNT NUMBER 191-2070 192-2070 193-2070 194-2070 280-2070 300-2070 320-2070 330-2070 340-2070 001-2070 165-2070 190-2070 191-2070 192-2070 193-2070 194-2070 280-2070 300-2070 320-2070 330-2070 340-2070 001-2070 165-2070 190-2070 191-2070 192-2070 193-2070 194-2070 280-2070 300-2070 320-2070 330-2070 340-2070 001-2140 300-199-999-5228 320-199-999-5211 001-101-999-5280 001-163-999-5118 001-164-604-5118 001-150-999-5118 001-110-999-5220 280-199-999-5258 ITEM AMOUNT 1.55 3.77 60.47 23.96 205.53 21.15 127.42 22.07 108.57 14,189.58 562.53 3,294.46 8.84 22.97 305.28 136.78 609.22 83.25 562.66 108.13 526.61 3,614.33 151.89 1,006.88 2.38 6.14 76.48 36.46 162.53 24.12 120.24 26.88 127.58 317.54 158.00 300.00 100.00 104.00 312.00 364.00 35.03 177.00 PAGE 5 CHECK AMOUNT 5,231.62 25,766.22 317.54 158.00 300.00 100.00 416.00 364.00 35.03 VOUCHRE2 04/17/98 14:04 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER 48911 04/16/98 001534 48911 04/16/98 001534 48912 04/16/98 002519 48912 04/16/98 002519 48913 04/16/98 48914 04/16/98 48915 04/16/98 48916 04/16/98 002229 48917 04/16/98 48918 04/16/98 001689 48919 04/16/98 000394 48919 04/16/98 000394 48919 04/16/98 000394 48919 04/16/98 000394 48920 04/16/98 48921 04/16/98 48922 04/16/98 48923 04/16/98 001905 48924 04/16/98 48925 04/16/98 002952 48925 04/16/98 002952 48926 04/16/98 48927 04/16/98 48928 04/16/98 48929 04/16/98 000915 48930 04/16/98 001584 48930 04/16/98 001584 48930 04/16/98 001584 48930 04/16/98 001584 48931 04/16/98 002105 48931 04/16/98 002105 VENDOR NAME LA MASTERS OF FINE TRAV LA MASTERS OF FINE TRAV LAB SAFETY SUPPLY, INC. LAB SAFETY SUPPLY, INC. LAVERDA E'MOND TRUST LEWIS, AARON LIDO INTERIORS DRYWALL LUCE PRESS CLIPPINGS, I LUCERO, AMY MACADEE ELECTRICAL CONS MAINTENANCE SUPERINTEND MAINTENANCE SUPERINTEND MAINTENANCE SUPERINTEND MAINTENANCE SUPERINTEND MANN, CANDACE MARTIN, RICK MELTON, CAROLE MEYERS, DAVID WILLIAM MILGARD MANUFACTURING I MINOLTA BUSINESS SYSTEM MINOLTA BUSINESS SYSTEM MY BUDDIES PIZZA McCALLISTER, ERIK McMAHON, CHRISTINA NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIA NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS ITEM DESCRIPTION AIR:APA CF 4/4-8 THORNHILL AIR:LOBBYING TRIP-BRADLEY 5/2 SUPPLIES FOR HAZMAT STORAGE FREIGHT REFUND:OVRPMT PA98-0151 SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE REFUND:MEN'S BASKETBALL LEAGUE MAR PRESS CLIPPINGS SERVICES SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE REL RETENTION:PW97-14:INV 1666 APR 23,1998 GENERAL MTG:PW/RDA APR 23,1~98 GENERAL MTG:PW/RDA APR 23~1998 GENERAL MTG:PW/RDA APR 23,1998 GENERAL MTG:PW/RDA SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE REFUND: FORFEIT FEES REISSUE CK#47138:RFND:VICR FEE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS REFUND: FORFEIT FEES MAY LEASE FOR MINOLTA COPIER SALES TAX REFUND: FORFEIT FEES SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE 4yr MMBRSHP RENWL:JONES,SUSAN 5part BUSINESS LIC APPLICATION ADDT~L NEGATIVES:CHGES TO BL FREIGHT SALES TAX CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-161-999-5258 001-100-999-5258 001-164-601-5218 001-164-601-5218 280-1652 001-101-999-5280 190-183-4994 280-199-999-5250 001-101-999-5280 210-2035 001-164'601-5260 001-163-999-5261 001-163-999-5261 001-164-602-5260 001-101-999-5280 190-183~4994 001-170-4067 190-183-999-5330 190-183-4994 190-182-999-5239 190-182-999-5239 190-183-4994 001-101'999-5280 001-101-999-5280 001-120-999-5226 001-140'999-5222 001-140-999-5222 001-140-999-5222 001-140-999-5222 001-164-601-5214 001-164-601-5214 ITEM AMOUNT 473.50 600.00 745.50 346.66 7.00 100.00 40.00 17"5.08 100.00 8,743.60 105.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 100.00 40.00 45.00 576.00 40.00 151.00 11.70 40.00 100.00 100.00 90.00 1,157.46 150.00 40.00 101.33 472.44 76.37 PAGE 6 CHECK AMOUNT 1,250.50 1,092.16 7.00 100.00 40.00 173.08 100.00 8,743.60 195.00 100,00 40.00 45.00 576.00 40.00 162.70 40.00 100.00 100.00 90.00 1,448.79 VOUCHRE2 04/17/98 14:04 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE VENDOR NUMBER VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 48931 48931 48931 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 002105 002105 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE OLD TONN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT 001-162-999-5214 190-180-999-5214 001-162-999-5214 102.37 15.95 15.95 683.08 48932 48932 48932 48932 48932 48932 48932 48932 48932 48932 48932 48932 48932 48932 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 001561 001561 001561 001561 001561 001561 001561 001561 001561 001561 001561 001561 001561 001561 PAGENET PAGENET PAGENET PAGENET PAGENET PAGENET PAGENET PAGENET PAGENET PAGENET PAGENET PAGENET PAGENET PAGENET QTRY PAGING SERV & RENTAL QTRY PAGING SERV & RENTAL QTRY PAGING SERV & RENTAL QTRY PAGING SERV & RENTAL QTRY PAGING SERV & RENTAL QTRY PAGING SERV & RENTAL QTRY PAGING SERV & RENTAL QTRY PAGING SERV & RENTAL QTRY PAGING SERV & RENTAL QTRY PAGING SERV & RENTAL QTRY PAGING SERV & RENTAL QTRY PAGING SERV & RENTAL DISCONNECTED 909-014-5059/2627 DISCONNECTED 909-014-5059/2627 320-199-999-5238 001-1990 001-100-999-5238 001-110-999-5238 001-110-999-5238 001-164-601-5238 001-170-999-5238 190-180-999-5238 001-120-999-5238 001-1990 001-1990 001-140-999-5238 001-164-601-5238 001-1990 12.00 438.97 37.50 40.50 81.00 112.50 157.50 415.35 38.49 2.01 40.50 37.50 37.50- 40.50- 1,335.82 48933 48933 48933 48933 48933 48933 48933 48933 48933 48933 48933 48933 48933 48933 48933 48933 48933 48933 48933 48933 48933 48933 48933 48933 48933 48933 48933 48933 48933 48933 48933 48933 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 04/16/98 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 O00246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PER$ (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE MLT PERS PEAS RET PERS RET PERS RET PEAS RET PERS RET PEAS RET PEAS RET PEAS RET PEAS RET PERS RET PERS RET PERS RET PERS-PRE SURVIVOR SURVIVOR SURVIVOR SURVIVOR SURVIVOR SURVIVOR SURVIVOR SURVIVOR SURVIVOR SURVIVOR SURVIVOR SURVIVOR RATE ADJUSTMENT EFFECT 10/25 RATE ADJUSTMENT EFFECT 10/25 RATE ADJUSTMENT EFFECT 10/25 RATE ADJUSTMENT EFFECT 10/25 RATE ADJUSTMENT EFFECT 10/25 RATE ADJUSTMENT EFFECT 10/25 001-2130 001-2390 165-2390 190-2390 191-2390 192-2390 193-2390 194-2390 280-2390 300-2390 320-2390 330-2390 340-2390 001-2130 001-2390 165-2390 190-2390 191-2390 192-2390 193-2390 194-2390 280-2390 300-2390 320-2390 330-2390 340-2390 001-100-~-5102 001-110-999-5102 001-120-999-5102 001-140-999-5102 001-150-999-5102 001-161-999-5102 322.43 19,758.48 790.91 4,017.15 13.15 32.40 401.39 195.23 911.62 131.88 650.10 129.58 468.59 263.61 72.18 1.~ 14.78 .05 .14 1.54 .84 2.43 .46 1.86 .93 2.18 57.42 265.13 205.21 335.58 129.16 499.39 VOUCHRE2 04/17/98 14:04 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 48933 04/16/98 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 48933 04/16/98 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 48933 04/16/98 000246 PEAS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 48933 04/16/98 000246 PEAS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 48933 04/16/98 000246 PEAS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 48933 04/16/98 000246 PEAS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 48933 04/16/98 000246 PEAS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 48933 04/16/98 000246 PEAS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 48933 04/16/98 000246 PEAS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 48933 04/16/98 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 48933 04/16/98 000246 PEAS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 48933 04/16/98 000246 PEAS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 48933 04/16/98 000246 PEAS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 48933 04/16/98 000246 PEAS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 48933 04/16/98 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 48933 04/16/98 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 48933 04/16/98 000246 PEAS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 48933 04/16/98 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE RATE ADJUSTMENT EFFECT 10/25 RATE ADJUSTMENT EFFECT 10/25 RATE ADJUSTMENT EFFECT 10/25 RATE ADJUSTMENT EFFECT 10/25 RATE AOdUSTMENT EFFECT 10/25 RATE AOJUSTMEHT EFFECT 10/25 RATE ADdUSTMENT EFFECT 10/25 RATE ADJUSTMENT EFFECT 10/25 RATE ADJUSTMENT EFFECT 10/25 RATE ADJUSTMENT EFFECT 10/25 RATE ADdUSTMENT EFFECT 10/25 RATE ADJUSTMENT EFFECT 10/25 RATE ADdUSTMENT EFFECT 10/25 RATE ADJUSTMENT EFFECT 10/25 RATE ADJUSTMENT EFFECT 10/25 RATE ADJUSTMENT EFFECT 10/25 RATE ADdUSTMENT EFFECT 10/25 RATE ADJUSTMENT EFFECT 10/25 001-162-999-5102 001-163-999-5102 001-164-604-5102 001-165-999-5102 165-199-999-5102 190-180-999-5102 190-181-999-5102 190-182-999-5102 190-184-999-5102 191-180-999-5102 192-180-999-5102 193-180-999-5102 194-180-999-5102 280-199-999-5102 300-199-999-5102 320-199-999-5102 330-199-999-5102 340-199-701-5102 408.42 489.26 366.28 299.74 118.73 483.46 9.10 79.87 27.29 1.97 4.87 60.14 29.39 136.94 19.83 97.67 19.57 40.06 32,370.14 48935 04/16/98 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PRO 001958 PERS L-T 001-2122 49.85 49.85 48936 04/16/98 000249 PETTY CASH 48936 04/16/98 000249 PETTY CASH 48936 04/16/98 000249 PETTY CASH 48936 04/16/98 000249 PETTY CASH 48936 04/16/98 000249 PETTY CASH 48936 04/16/98 000249 PETTY CASH 48936 04/16/98 000249 PETTY CASH 48936 04/16/98 000249 PETTY CASH 48936 04/16/98 000249 PETTY CASH 48936 04/16/98 000249 PETTY CASH 48936 04/16/98 000249 PETTY CASH 48936 04/16/98 000249 PETTY CASH 48936 04/16/98 000249 PETTY CASH 48936 04/16/98 000249 PETTY CASH 48936 04/16/98 000249 PETTY CASH 48936 04/16/98 000249 PETTY CASH 48936 04/16/98 000249 PETTY CASH 48936 04/16/98 000249 PETTY CASH 48936 04/16/98 000249 PETTY CASH 48936 04/16/98 000249 PETTY CASH 48936 04/16/98 000249 PETTY CASH 48936 04/16/98 000249 PETTY CASH 48936 04/16/98 000249 PETTY CASH 48936 04/16/98 000249 PETTY CASH 48936 04/16/98 000249 PETTY CASH 48936 04/16/98 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 320-199-999-5260 190-180-999-5260 001-164-602-5218 001-171-999-5261 190-183-999-5370 340-199-701-5212 001-150-999-5265 001-171-999-5261 001-171-999-5261 001-170-999-5222 190-181-999-5301 001-171-999-5261 001-171-999-5261 190-184-999-5301 190-183-999-5350 001-150-999-5265 190-183-999-5320 190-180-999-5258 280-199-999-5270 190-183-999-5350 190-183-999-5350 001-162-999-5222 001-150-999-5265 190-184-999-5220 190-180-999-5258 001-140-999-5220 15.04 17.33 16.00 15.00 38.50 7.73 50.00 35.00 15.00 1.94 15.09 35.00 15.00 8.71 35.00 8.38 47.39 12.00 13.50 50.00 8.00 13.61 36.87 23.45 32.00 42.62 608.16 48938 04/16/98 000580 PHOTO WORKS 48938 04/16/98 000580 PHOTO WORKS 48938 04/16/98 000580 PHOTO WORKS FILM & PHOTO DEVELOPING FILM & PHOTO DEVELOPING FILM & PHOTO DEVELOPING 001-164-601-5250 190-180-999-5301 190-180-999-5301 26.63 86.33 88.37 201.33 VOUCNRE2 04/17/98 14:04 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER 48939 04/16/98 000253 48939 04/16/98 000253 48939 04/16/98 000253 48940 04/16/98 003195 48941 04/16/98 000254 48942 04/16/98 002110 48943 04/16/98 000255 48944 04/16/98 48945 04/16/98 48946 04/16/98 000728 48946 04/16/98 000728 48947 04/16/98 002072 48948 04/16/98 000262 48948 04/16/98 000262 48948 04/16/98 000262 48948 04/16/98 000262 48949 04/16/98 002654 48950 04/16/98 48951 04/16/98 003208 48952 04/16/98 000418 48953 04/16/98 48954 04/16/98 48955 04/16/98 003062 48956 04/16/98 000645 48956 04/16/98 000645 48957 04/16/98 000519 48957 04/16/98 000519 48957 04/16/98 000519 48958 04/16/98 000537 48958 04/16/98 000537 48958 04/16/98 000537 48958 04/16/98 000537 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS VENDOR NAME POSTMASTER POSTMASTER POSTMASTER PRECISION WELDING PRESS-ENTERPRISE COHPAN PRIME EQUIPMENT PRO LOCK & KEY QUINLAN, JANELE R.A.J. PUBLISHING RAMSEY BACKFLOW & PLUMB RAMSEY BACKFLOW & PLUMB RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER ITEM DESCRIPTION EXPRESS HAlL & POSTAL SERVS EXPRESS HAlL & POSTAL SERVS EXPRESS HAlL & POSTAL SERVS WELD SVC REPAIR ALUMINUM BLEAC PUBLIC NOTICE: PW97-24 DUMP TRUCK RENTAL:PW LOCKSMITH SERVICES - PARKS SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE BK:TITLE 24 ACCESS REQUIREMENT LDSCP.REPAIRS/VARIOUS SITES LDSCP.REPAIRS/VARIOUS SITES PLN CK FEE WINCH PRJ PW97-21 01-17-80000-1 VIA EDUARDO-LDSP VARIOUS WATER METERS VARIOUS WATER METERS RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER VARIOUS WATER METERS RANCHO FORD LINCOLN HER RANCHO GLENOAKS HOMEOWN REX L GILMORE LANDSCAPE RIVERSIDE CO. CLERK & R ROBINSON, ANNAMARIA ROWER, KARIS SIGN XPRESS SMART & FINAL, INC. SMART & FINAL, INC. SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERH CALIF EDISON SOUTHERH CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 1998 FORD WINDSTAR MINIVAN REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT LANDSCAPING FOR 6TH ST PRKG LIEN RELEASE: 922-190-013 REFUND: PARK RENTAL SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE WHITE FOAMCORE:OLD TWN STRTSCP TEEN ACTIVITIES SUPPLIES 1998 EGG HUNT SUPPLIES PEST CONTROL SERVICES - CRC PEST CONTROL SERVICES - TCC PEST CNTRL SERVS'SR CENTER 2-06-105-0654 MARG LS3 2-10-331-1353 PAUBA ROAD 2-09-330-3030 WINCH RD TC1 2-09-330-3139 WINCH RD TC1 ACCOLINT NUMBER 001-164-604-5230 001-165-999-5230 001-161-999-5230 190-180-999-5250 001-120-999-5256 001-164-601-5238 190-180-9(29-5212 001-101-999-5280 001-162-999-5228 193-180-999~5415 193-180-999-5415 210-165-686-5801 001-164-601-5250 190-180-999-5240 191-180-999-5240 193-180-999-5240 310-1910 190-2900 280-199-804-5804 001-1990 190-183-4988 001-101-999-5280 280-199-999-5220 190-183-999-5320 190-183-999-5370 190-182-999-5250 190-184-999-5250 190-181-999-5250 191-180-999-5319 001-171-999-5240 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 ITEM AMOUNT 32.25 41.45 36.55 250.00 66.27 366.35 72.94 100.00 39.95 ?5.00 290.00 1~500.00 34.64 314.65 98.21 403.71 21,294.77 100.00 1,950.00 10.00 30.00 100.00 19.77 65.63 1,510.33 42.00 36.00 29.00 37.52 865.85 151.98 175.95 PAGE 9 CHECK AMOUNT 110.25 250.00 66.27 366.35 72.94 100.00 39.95 365.00 1,500.00 851.21 21,294.77 100.00 1,950.00 10.00 30.00 100.00 19.77 1,575.96 107.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 04/17/98 14:04 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 10 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 48958 04/16/98 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-00-397-5059 VARIOUS METERS 190-180-999-5240 48958 04/16/98 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-02-351-5281 RANCHO VISTA 190-182-999-5240 48958 04/16/98 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-01-202-7603 VARIOUS METERS 191-180-999-5319 48958 04/16/98 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-05-791-8807 VARIOUS METERS 191-180-999-5319 48958 04/16/98 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 67-77-863o8304-01 MONROE PED 340-199-701-5240 10,782.41 3,567.91 7,052.96 4,766.64 50.55 27,451.77 48959 04/16/98 001972 STANLEY R. HOFFMAN ASSO CONSULTING SERVS:UPGRADE MODEL 001-110-999-5248 1,920.00 1,920.00 48960 04/16/98 000521 STEWART, BRUCE M. STREET ADDRESSING SERVICE 001-162-999-5250 200.00 200.00 48961 04/16/98 TANKERSLEY, SARAH SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE 001-101-999-5280 100.00 100.00 48962 04/16/98 000305 TARGET STORE RECREATION CLASSES SUPPLIES 190-180-999-5301 48962 04/16/98 000305 TARGET STORE SUPPLIES:RECREATION PROGRAMS 190-184-999-5301 48962 04/16/98 000305 TARGET STORE MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES;PW DEPT 001-164-604-5220 41.39 84.39 260.39 386.17 48963 04/16/98 000905 TEMECULA SHUTTLE SERVIC TRANS TO AIRPRT:FORD/COMERCHER 001-100-999-5258 48963 04/16/98 000905 TEMECULA SHUTTLE SERVIC TRANS FROM AIRPORT:FORD/COMERC 001-100-999-5258 88.55 88.55 177.10 48964 04/16/98 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY CO. EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER PLAQUE 001-150-999-5265 61.63 61.63 48965 04/16/98 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-162-999-5263 48965 04/16/98 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 190-180-999-5263 48965 04/16/98 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIEO FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-163-999-5263 48965 04/16/98 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-165-999-5263 48965 04/16/98 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-164-604-5263 48965 04/16/98 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-164-601-5263 48965 04/16/98 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIEO FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 190-180-999-5263 48965 04/16/98 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-162-999-5263 48965 04/16/98 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 001'163-999-5263 48965 04/16/98 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-165-999-5263 48965 04/16/98 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-164-604-5263 48965 04/16/98 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-164-601-5263 240.43 573.01 207.92 103.96 103.96 529.23 547.85 126.21 222.06 111.03 111.03 565.20 3,441.89 48966 04/16/98 000316 THORNHILL, GARY 48966 04/16/98 000316 THORNHILL, GARY REIMB:FUND OF DEBT FIN:3/11-13 165-199-999-5258 REIMB:FUND OF DEBT FIN:3/11-13 001-161-999-5258 27.00 29.34 56.34 48967 04/16/98 000319 TOMARK SPORTS, INC. CRC EQUIP/SNAP BACK BREAKAWAY 190-183-999-5380 308.21 308.21 48968 04/16/98 001921 TRANSAMERICA INFORMATIO METROSCAN RVSD DATA & MAPS 320-199-999-5211 497.25 497.25 48969 04/16/98 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 001-2080 4,589.21 48969 04/16/98 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 165-2080 188.39 48969 04/16/98 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 190-2080 1,572.96 48969 04/16/98 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 192-2080 .75 48969 04/16/98 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 193-2080 24.32 48969 04/16/98 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 194-2080 90.83 48969 04/16/98 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 280-2080 355.07 48969 04/16/98 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 300-2080 85.00 48969 04/16/98 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 320-2080 666.66 48969 04/16/98 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 340-2080 154.83 7,728.02 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TENECULA 04/17/98 14:04 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 11 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 48970 04/16/98 000389 U S C M /PEBSCO COBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 001-2160 421.34 48970 04/16/98 000389 U S C M /PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 165-2160 136.47 48970 04/16/98 000389 U S C M /PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 190-2160 732.66 48970 04/16/98 000389 U S C M /PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 280-2160 37.16 48970 04/16/98 000389 U S C M /PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 340-2160 77'.04 1,404.67 48971 04/16/98 002621 UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. 5415305001995936 GR/GFO BOOKS 001-140-999-5228 48971 04/16/98 002621 UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. 5415305001995944 AE/DBLE HTL 001-162-999-5258 48971 04/16/98 002621 UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. 5415305001995944 AE/DBLE HTL 001-1170 101.80 41.15 8.95 151.90 48972 04/16/98 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 001-2120 48972 04/16/98 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 165-2120 48972 04/16/98 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 190-2120 48972 04/16/98 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 192-2120 48972 04/16/98 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 193-2120 48972 04/16/98 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 194-2120 489~2 04/16/98 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 340-2120 152.00 1.00 34,80 .15 .75 4.00 .30 193.00 48973 04/16/98 002566 VALLEY MICRO COMPUTERS MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES 320-199-999-5221 48973 04/16/98 002566 VALLEY MICRO COMPUTERS HP LASERdET 6MP 320-199-999-5242 48973 04/16/98 002566 VALLEY MICRO COMPUTERS SALES TAX 320-199-999-5242 37.66 925.00 71.69 1,034.35 48974 04/16/98 001209 VAULT INC., THE CART CTNR - DATA STORAGE 001-120o999-5277 48974 04/16/98 001209 VAULT INC., THE DATA STORAGE MICROBOX ARCHIVAL 001-120-999-5277 48974 04/16/98 001209 VAULT INC., THE APERTURE CARD BOX ARCHIVAL 001-120-999-5277 48974 04/16/98 001209 VAULT INC., THE LEASED CTNR/INSERT CONT. 604 001-120-999-5277 48974 04/16/98 001209 VAULT INC., THE LEASED CTNR/MICROBOX 648 001-120-999-527-/ 48974 04/16/98 001209 VAULT INC., THE APERTURE CARD BOX 686 001-120-999-5277 416.52 15.48 38.70 48.00 8.00 20.00 546.70 48975 04/16/98 001342 WAX1E SANITARY SUPPLY, CLEANING SUPPLIES:MAINT YARD 48975 04/16/98 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY, SALES TAX 001-164-601-5218 001-164-601-5218 58.57 4.54 63.11 48976 04/16/98 000339 WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY CITY HALL LEGAL PUBLICATIONS 001-120-999-5228 144.50 144.50 48977 04/16/98 002109 WHITE CAP MISC MAINT SUPPLIES:PW CREWS 001-164-601-5218 47.92 47.92 48978 04/16/98 000341 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES,INC. TRAFFIC SIGNAL DESIGN:RANCHO C 210-165-690-5802 48978 04/16/98 000341 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES, INC. TRAFFIC SIGNAL DESIGN:RANCHO C 210-165-674-5802 558.60 558.60 1,117.20 48979 04/16/98 003204 WOOD FLOOR WHOLESALERS SPEC PAINT FOR CRC GYM FLOOR 48979 04/16/98 003204 WOOl) FLOOR WHOLESALERS SALES TAX 190-182-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 55.70 4.32 60.02 48980 04/16/98 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI 5012 COPIER USAGE:CASHIER OFFI 330-199-999-5239 48980 04/16/98 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI 2/1-3/17/98 DCS-35 LEASE PMT 330-199-999-5391 48980 04/16/98 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI 2/1-3/17/98 DCS-35 LEASE PMT 330-2800 48980 04/16/98 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI 2/1-3/17/98 DCS-35 LEASE PMT 330-199-999-5217 48980 04/16/98 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI 2/1-3/17/98 DCS-35 LEASE PMT 330-199-999-5391 48980 04/16/98 000345 XEROX CORPORATION 81LLI 2/1-3/17/98 0CS-35 LEASE PMT 330-2800 48980 04/16/98 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI 2/1-3/17/98 DCS-35 LEASE PMT 330-199-999-5217 48980 04/16/98 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI 2/1-3/17 DCS-35 LEASE PMT 330-199-999-5391 48980 04/16/98 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI 2/1-3/17 DCS-35 LEASE PMT 330-2800 59.50 311.02 954.35 700.71 310.51 952.76 699.51 330.40 1,013.77 VOUCHRE2 04/17/98 14:04 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER 48980 04/16/98 000345 48980 04/16/98 000345 48980 04/16/98 000345 48980 04/16/98 000345 48980 04/16/98 000345 48980 04/16/98 000345 48980 04/16/98 000345 48980 04/16/98 000345 48980 04/16/98 000345 VENDOR NAME XEROX CORPORATION BILLI XEROX CORPORATION BILLI XEROX CORPORATION BILLI XEROX CORPORATION BILLI XEROX CORPORATION BILLI XEROX CORPORATION BILLI XEROX CORPORATION BILLI XEROX CORPORATION BILL! XEROX CORPORATION BILLI CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS ITEM DESCRIPTION 2/1-3/17 DCS-35 LEASE PMT 2/1-3/17/98 DCS-35 LEASE PMT 2/1-3/17/98 DCS-35 LEASE PMT 2/1-3/17/98 DCS-35 LEASE PMT FEB LEASE PMT:5100 COPIER FEB LEASE PMT:5100 COPIER LEASE OF 5021 COPIER @ CRC JAN LEASE PMT:5100 COPIER JAN LEASE PMT:5100 COPIER ACCOUNT NUMBER 330-199-999-5217 330-199-999-5391 330-2800 330-199-999-5217 330-199-999-5391 330-2800 190-182-999-5239 330-199-999-5391 330-2800 ITEM AMOUNT 744.16 339.17 1,040.71 761.33 514.40 1,605.63 67.08 524.74 1,595.29 PAGE 12 CHECK AMOUNT 12,525.04 TOTAL CHECKS 233,537.06 VOUCHRE2 04/17/98 14:27 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP 340 FACILITIES AMOUNT 45,083.61 34,555.88 987.00 16,958.97 56,378.57 246,336.00 496.00 TOTAL 400,796.03 VOUCHRE2 04/17/98 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 48983 48983 48983 48984 48985 48986 48986 48986 48986 48986 48986 48986 48986 48986 48986 48986 48987 48988 48988 48988 48988 48989 48990 48991 48992 48993 48994 48995 14:27 CHECK DATE 04/28/98 04/28/98 04/28/98 04/28/98 04/28/98 04/28/98 04/28/98 04/28/98 04/28/98 04/28/98 04/28/98 04/28/98 04/28/98 04/28/98 04/28/98 04/28/98 04/28/98 04/28/98 04/28/98 04/28/98 04/28/98 04/28/98 04/28/98 04/28/98 04/28/98 O4/28/98 04/28/98 04/28/98 VENDOR NUMBER 001916 001916 001916 002984 001943 000126 000126 000126 000126 000126 000126 000126 000126 000126 000126 000126 001264 001056 001056 001056 001056 002695 002498 000406 000958 000919 000420 000332 VENDOR NAME ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIAT ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIAT ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIAT B I TRAN SYSTEMS, INC. B R N, INC. CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MR CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA CALIFORNIA LANOSCAPE MA COSTCO WHOLESALE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE J A S PACIFIC CONSULTIN PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFFrS ROBERT CARAN PRODUCTION TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED TRANS-PACIFIC CONSULTAN VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATE CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION FEB PROF SRVCS 1-15 BRIDGE ILAR PRGSS:OLD TWN STRSCP DESGN MAR PRGSS:OLD TWN STRSCP OESGN MAR PROF SRVCS-PW95-16 OCT-DEC SIGNAL DESIGN SERVS MAR LDSC MAINT-RCSP.MEDIAN/SLP MAR LDSC MAINT-RCSP.MEDIAN/SLP MAR LDSC MAINT-RCSP.MEDIAN/SLP MAR LDSC MAINT-RCSP.MEDIAN/SLP MAR LDSC MAINT-RCSP.MEDIAN/SLP MAR LDSC MAINT-RCSP.MEDIAN/SLP MAR LDSC MAINT -CITY HALL MAR LOSC MAINT -FIRE ST ~ CREDIT:MAR LOSC MAINT SERVICES CREDIT:MAR LDSC MAINT SERVICES CREDIT:MAR LDSC MAINT SERVICES YEAR FIVE PAYMENT PER OPA MAR LDSC MAINT -PARKS MAR LDSC MAINT -SLOPES CREDIT:MAR LDSC MAINT SERVICES CREDIT:MAR LDSC MAINT SERVICES MAR TEMP HELP-CLARK,MOORE,MART FEB GEOTECH SERVS:RANCHO/I-15 FEB 98 BOOKING FEES FIREWORK DISPLAY SHOW(DEPOSIT) T.E.A.M. PROGRAM WITH TVUSD MAR PRGSS:OVRLD DR & MARG RD MARCH 98 PLAN CHECK SERVS ACCOUNT NUMBER 210-165-601-5801 280-199-824-5802 280-199-824-5802 210-165-640-5804 210-165-672-5802 190-180-999-5415 190-181-999-5415 190-182-999-5415 190-184-999-5415 191-180-999-5415 193-180-999-5415 340-199-701-5415 001-171-999-5212 190-180-999-5415 190-182-999-5415 193-180-999-5415 280-199-999-5276 190-180-999-5415 193-180-999-5415 190-180-999-5415 193-180-999-5415 001-162-999-5118 210-165-601-5801 001-170-999-5273 190-183-999-5370 001-101-999-5285 210-165-681-5802 001-162-999-5248 ITEM AMOUNT 10,461.92 36,192.75 17,445.50 23,564.22 5,011.80 17,250.00 246.00 1,593.00 325.00 987.00 11,521.00 496.00 250.00 2,377.00- 159.30- 3,281.53- 192,697.75 8,961.00 8,813.00 282.82- 93.50- 8,637.19 10,314.00 11 040.00 9,000.00 7,000.00 7,026.63 18,156.42 PAGE 1 CHECK AMOUNT 64,100.17 23,564.22 5,011.80 26,850.17 192,697.75 17,397.68 8,637.19 10,314.00 11,040.00 9,000.00 7,000.00 7,026.63 18,156.42 TOTAL CHECKS 400,796.03 ITEM 4 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANC£ CITY MANAGER /~,",~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Susan W. Jones Acting City Clerk/Director of Support Services April 28, 1998 Award a Professional Services Agreement for the regular maintenance of the City's Television Broadcast System PREPARED BY: Thomas Hafeli, Information Systems Administrator RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council award a Professional Services Agreement in the amount not to exceed $12,000 to Secure Business Communications of Claremont, California, to perform regular inspections, calibrations, equipment checks and maintenance of the Television Broadcast system located at City Hall. BACKGROUND: Secure Business Communications has been instrumental in assisting the City in determining the cause of component failure. They have been responsive to the City's needs in providing on-going support since the original installation both in monthly service, system modifications, and in training City staff in the proper operation and care of our Television Broadcast System. Although bidding is not required, this is the company that has integrated all components of the system and any Requests for Proposal (RFP) would entail a substantial cost to bring the new contractor up to speed on the system. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available on the 1997-98 Information Services Internal Service fund for the current year portion of this agreement. An appropriation will be indicated in the proposed 1998-99 budget for the remainder of the agreement. ATTACHMENTS: Professional Services Agreement R:TAGENDA.RPTiSECURE. WPD CITY OF TEMECULA AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES (AUDIO/VIDEO TECHNICAL SUPPORT) THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of April 28, 1998, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Secure Business Communications, Claremont, California ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on May 1, 1998, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 1999, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competenfiy and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. PAYMENT. a. The City agrees to pay Consultam monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount shall not exceed twelve thousand Dollars and no Cents ($12,000.00) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager. Consultant shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and Consultant at the time City's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. The City Manager may approve additional work not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the amount of the Agreement, but in no event shall such sum exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00). Any additional work in excess of this amount shall be approved by the City Council. c. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submined on or about the first business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all nondisputed fees. If the City disputes any of consultant's fees it hall give written notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. - 1- r: \agenda. rpt\consult. av - revised 04108198 5. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE. a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 3. 6. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT. a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. a. Consultant shah maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shah provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of term~tion or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer fries, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files, Consultant shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant. -2- r:\agcnda. rpt\consult.av - revised 04/08/98 8. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City. 9. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: (1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001). Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). (3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. (4) Errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to the consultant's profession. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (3) Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. (4) Errors and omissions liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence. c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or elimimte such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. d. Other Intorance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (1) The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or -3- r:\agenda. ~\consult. av - revised 04108198 automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shah be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. (3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (4) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. (5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shah be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. f. Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications. 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shah at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees or agems shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 11. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of State and Federal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. -4- r: \agenda.rpt\consult.av - revised 04/08/98 12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION. a. All information gained by Consultam in performance of this Agreemere shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultam without City's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultam gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Consultam shall promptly notify City should Consultam, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represem Consultam and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultam agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 13. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (I) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice: To City: City of Temecula Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attemion: City Manager To Consultant: Secure Business Communications P.O. Box 627 Claremorn, California 91711 -5- r: \agenda.q~t\consult.av - revised 04/08/98 14. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Because of the personal nature of the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement, only Edward Boykin shall perform the services described in this Agreement. Secure Business Communications may use assistants, under their direct supervision, to perform some of the services under this Agreement. Consultant shall provide City fourteen (14) days' notice prior to the departure of Edward Boykin from Consultant's employ. Should he or she leave Consultant's employ, the city shall have the option to immediately terminate this Agreement, within three (3) days of the close of said notice period. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant. 15. LICENSES. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 16. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event of litigation between the parties concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party as determined by the Court, shall be entitled to actual and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs incurred in the litigation. 17, ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, represemafions and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 18. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above wrinen. CITY OF TEMECULA CONSULTANT SECURE BUSINESS CONSULTANTS By Attest: Ron Roberts, Mayor Tom Glab, President Approved As to Form: Susan W. Jones, CMC, Acting City Clerk Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney -6- r:\agenda.tpt\comult. av - revised 04/08/98 EXHIBIT A TASKS TO BE PERFORMED Scope of Work for the City of Temecula to be performed by Secure Business Communications 1. Perform regular inspections, calibrations, equipmere checks and minor wiring and improvements as needed. 2. Perform routine, consulting, maintenance and testing of the television system on site. 3. Provide emergency response within 24 hours (Minimum 4 hours on site). SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE As needed, normally one visit per month. -?- r: \agenda. rpt\consult.av - revised 04108198 EXHIBIT B PAYMENT SCHEDULE ENGINEERING SERVICES 144 hours to be billed at $75.00 per hour (Normal 8 hours per site visit) (M'mimum 4 hours). Emergency response visits to be billed at $112.00 per hour (M'mimum 4 hours). Additional hours to be billed at $65.00 per hour. -8- r:\agenda.rpt\comult.av - revised 04108198 ITEM 5 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINA~.C_E ~-- CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council City Clerk/Director of Support Services April 28, 1998 Award of Contract for Toshiba Notebook Computers PREPARED BY: Thomas Hafeli, Information Systems Administrator RECOMMENDATION: Award a contract for six Toshiba Satellite Pro 470CDT Notebook Computers and miscellaneous supporting peripherals to Valley Micro Computers, Temecula, California in the amount of $26,657.51. BACKGROUND: The City recently completed a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the purpose to select a qualified vendor to purchase six notebook computers with appropriate docking stations, monitors and keyboards for use by City Councilmembers and staff who have a need for portable computers to work on City business and to access the City's network resources and programs while away from City facilities. A total of twelve proposals were received and reviewed. The proposals ranged from a low of $26,657.51 from Valley Micro Computers, Temecula, California to a high of $30,757.24 submitted by J&R Computers, Temecula, California. Thirty RFP packets were mailed, including thirteen to Temecula computer dealers, of which the following twelve vendors responded: Vendor Valley Micro Computers, Temecula Computerland, Redlands IKON Office Solutions, Redlands Jaguar Computers, Riverside Compucom, Los Angeles CompUSA, San Bernardino Golden State Trading Co, Brea Omni Data, Riverside Optimal Integrated Solutions, San Diego Western Data, Riverside LPS Computer Service, Escondido J&R Computers, Temecula Total Quote $26,657.51 $26,714.53 $26,848.68 $27,394.36 $27,467.44 $27,481,27 $27,869.64 $27,872.77 $27,878.16 $28,083.96 $29,510.57 $30,757.24 Agenda Report Award of Contract for Toshiba Notebook Computers Page 2. Valley Micro Computers of Temecula submitted the lowest qualified quote, meeting all the technical specifications of the RFP. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds were appropriated in the 1997-98 Fiscal Year Budget for Information Services Internal Service fund to accommodate this purchase. ATTACHMENTS: Request for Proposal Scope of Work -Valley Micro Computers, Temecula Equipment Purchase Agreement Valley Micro Computers 41669 Winchester Rd. #106 Temecula, CA 92590 (909) 695-4600 phone / (909) 695-4604 fax Sheet1 Quote 7-Apr-98 To~ City of Temecula Attention: Tom Hafeli 694-6456 phone / 694-6498 fax PO Number Rep Deliver Date I Shipped Via Pending Keith 3 Days FDO Delivered QTY Description Cost Bid 4-7-98 6 6 11 11 10 5 Toshiba T470CDT Notebook (PA1255U-T2C) $ 2,88500 Noteworthy Power Cord (NW202870) $ 12.45 Noteworthy Monitor Stand (NWPR100STD) $ 51.45 NoteDock III Enhanced Port Replicator (PA2717U) $ 410.00 Microsoft PSI2 Mouse $ 22.95 Samsung SyncMaster 700B 17" Monitor $ 410.00 Payment Terms Net 30 Days Extension $ 24,740.15 $ 17,310.00 $ 74.70 $ 565.95 $ 4,510.00 $ 229.50 $ 2,050.00 Warranty: Service: Subtotal $ 24,740.15 Sales Tax $ 1,917.36 Grand Total $ 26,657.51 * One (1) year parts or manufacturers warranty. * Valley Micro honors all manufacturer warranties, therefore the customer need only deal with Valley Micro for all warranty issues. * Three (3) year Labor Valley Micro has the largest service facility in the Valley. Our staff includes 4 technicians and the only Certified Netware Engineer (CNE) in the Valley that is available to the public. We keep 3 technicians in the field which allows service response time typically the same business day. Payment terms: Net 30 Days EQUIPMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT This Purchase Agreement ("Agreement") is made as of April 28, 1998, by and between the City of Temecula ("City"), a municipal corporation, and Valley Micro Computers, Temecula, California ("Vendor"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Purchase and Sale of Equipment. On and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement and the Contract Documents, Vendor agrees to sell and deliver to City six Toshiba Satellite Pro 470CDT Notebook Computers and miscellaneous supporting peripherals as more particularly described in Exhibit A, Description of Equipment, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full (hereafter "Equipment"). 2. Purchase Price. The Purchase Price which City agrees to pay to Vendor for the Equipment is Twenty-six thousand, six hundred fifty-seven dollars and fifty-one cents. The Purchase Price is final and shall be paid by City to Vendor in accordance with the following schedule: Net 30 days. 3. Representations and Warranties of Vendor. Vendor makes the following representations and warranties to City: a. Authority and Consents. Vendor has the right, power, legal capacity and authority to enter into and perform its obligations under this Agreement. No approvals or consents of any persons are necessary in connection with Vendor's execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement, except for such as have been obtained on or prior to the date hereof. The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by Vendor have been duly authorized by all necessary action on the part of Vendor and constitute the legal, valid and binding obligations of Vendor, enforceable against Vendor in accordance with their respective terms. b. Title and Operating Condition. Vendor has good and marketable title to all of the Equipment. All of the Equipment are free and clear of any restrictions on or conditions to transfer or assignment, and City will acquire absolute title to all of the Equipment free and clear of mortgages, liens, pledges, charges, encumbrances, equities, claims, covenants, conditions and restrictions except for such as may be created or granted by City. All of the Equipment are in good operating condition, are free of any defects, and are in conformity with the specifications, descriptions, representations and warranties set forth in the Contract Documents. Vendor is aware that City is purchasing the Equipment for use with a Novell 4.1 network and that City is relying on Vendor's warranties that the Equipment is fit for this purpose and the ordinary purposes for which the Equipment is normally used. c. Full Disclosure. None of the representations and warranties made by Vendor in this Agreement contain or will contain any untrue statement of a material fact, or omits to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. 4. Time of Delivery. The date and time of delivery of the Equipment shall be on or before June 1, 1998. 5. Place of Delivery. The Equipment shall be delivered to this location. 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. 6. Title and Risk of Loss. Title to and the risk of loss, damage and destruction of the Equipment shall remain with the Vendor until after inspection and acceptance of the Equipment by City. 7. Inspection and Acceptance. City shall inspect the Equipment at the time and place of delivery. Such inspection may include reasonable tests and use of the Equipment by City. If, in the determination of City, the Equipment fails to conform to the Agreement IN ANY MANNER OR RESPECT, City shall so notify Vendor within ten (10) days of delivery of the Equipment to City. Failing such notice, the Equipment shall be deemed accepted by City as of the date of receipt. 8. Rejection. In the event of such notice of non-conformity by City pursuant to Section 7, City may, at its option, (1) reject the whole of the Equipment, (2) accept the whole of the Equipment, or (3) accept any commercial unit or units of the Equipment and reject the remainder. The exercise of any of the above options shall be "without prejudice" and with full rescreation of any rights and remedies of City attendant upon a breach. In the event of such notice and election by City, City agrees to comply with all reasonable instructions of Vendor and, in the event that expenses are incurred by City in following such instructions, Vendor shall indemnify City in full for such expenses. 9. No Replacements of Cure. This Agreement calls for strict compliance. Vendor expressly agrees that both the Equipment tendered and the tender itself will conform fully to the terms and conditions of the Agreement on the original tender. In the event of rejection by City of the whole of the Equipment or any part thereof pursuant to Section 8, City may, but is not required to, accept any substitute performance from Vendor or engage in subsequent efforts to effect a cure of the original tender by Vendor. 10. Indemnification. Vendor agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, damages, costs and liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of or from the Equipment or Vendor's maintenance thereof, excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City. 2 11. Contract Documents. a. This Agreement includes the following documents, which are by this reference incorporated herein and made a part hereof~ (1) Request for Proposal dated March 17, 1998, attached hereto as Exhibit B; (2) Vendor's response to the Request for Proposal dated April 7, 1998, attached hereto as Exhibit C. b. In the event any term or condition of the Contract Documents conflicts with or is contradictory to any term or condition of the Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Agreement are controlling. c. In the event of a conflict in terms between this Agreement, the RFP and/or the Vendor's response to the RFP, this Agreement shall prevail over the RFP and the Vendor's Response to the RFP, and the RFP shall prevail over the Vendor's Response to the RFP. 12. Remedies. The remedies and rights conferred on the City by this Agreement are in addition to and cumulative with all other remedies and rights accorded the City under law or equity. 13. Survival of Representations and Warranties. All representations, warranties, covenants and agreements of the parties contained in this Agreement shall survive the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement. 14. Legal Responsibilities. The Vendor shall keep itself informed of State and Federal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Vendor shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Vendor to comply with this section. 15. Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned by Vendor without the express written consent of City. This Agreement shall be binding on, and shall inure to the benefit of, the parties to it and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns. 16. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable by any court of final jurisdiction, it is the intent of the parties that all other provisions of this Agreement be construed to remain fully valid, enforceable, and binding on the parties. 17. Entire Agreement: Modification: Waiver. This Agreement, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties pertaining to the subject matter hereof and thereof and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements, representations and understandings of the parties, whether oral or written. No supplement, modification or amendment of this Agreement or the Contract Documents shall be binding unless executed in writing by all the parties. No waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement or the Contract Documents shall be deemed, or shall constitute, a waiver of any other provision, whether or not similar, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. No waiver shall be binding unless executed in writing by the party making the waiver. 18. Notices. All notices, requests, demands, and other communications under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given on the date of service if served personally on the party to whom notice is to be given, or on the third business day after mailing if mailed to the party to whom notice is to be given, by first class mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid, or on the first business day alter being deposited with an overnight carder for delivery the next business day, and properly addressed as follows: To Vendor at: Valley Micro Computers 41669 Winchester Rd. #106 Temecula, California 92590 Attn: Paul Edmeier, President To City at: City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Attn: City Manager Any party may change its address for purposes of this paragraph by giving the other parties written notice of the new address in the manner set forth above. 19. Effects of Headinl~s. The subject headings of the sections and subsections of this Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not affect or be considered in the construction or interpretation of any of its provisions. 20. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with, and governed by, the laws of the State of California as applied to contracts that are executed and performed entirely in California. //// IIII 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have duly executed in on the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA Attest: Ron Roberts Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney Vendor Paul Edmeier, President ITEM 6 CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAN~,~ ,/~ CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Shawn D. Nelson, Director of Community Services April 28, 1998 Appeal of 1997-98 Temecula Parks/Street Lighting Tax: Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course - Request for Continuance. PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION:  eryl Yasinosky, Development Services Analyst. That the City Council: Approve the appellant's request for continuance of the appeal regarding the Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course to June 23, 1998. BACKGROUND: On March 31, 1998, the City Council moved to continue the appeal of the Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course property to the April 28,1998, City Council meeting. On April 14, 1998, staff received a written request from the appellant, Paul Reed, requesting an additional continuance of this matter to the June 23, 1998, Council Meeting. It is recommended that the City Council approve this request in order to allow the appellant additional time to identify improved golf course areas and specific parcel information within the subject property. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: Letter from Paul Reed, dated 4/14/98 R:\yasinobk\agendas\temcrkin.con 042898 '~-14-1c_:J~ 11:5t~ 619 4S9 6'~8 P.{~2 VI~ FACRIMII !: igor! 6.q.4-(;F{RR April 14, 1998 Ms. Beryl Yasinosky Development Services Ar~lyst CITY OF TEMECULA P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, C~lifomia 92589-9033 Appeal of 1997-98 Temecula Park/Street Ughting Tax Temecule Creek Inn Golf Course Dear Ms. Yasinosky: We hereby request that the above-captioned item be continued from the Hearing cu~ently scheduled for April 28, 1998 to June 23, 1998. It is understood that you will confirm whether the continuance is granted. Executive V~e President I(SC MANAGI~IENT, JllC. S~i cl~est Bdx~lle~d ~luth. IJ Jdla, CA 92037 ITEM 7 APPROV. ,. - CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECTOR CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO.' FROM: DATE: City Manager/City Council Shawn D. Nelson, Director of Community Services April 28, 1998 SUBJECT: Mitigation Funds for Multi Species Habitat Conservation from the Proposed El Sobrante Landfill Expansion PREPARED BY: Phyllis L. Ruse, Development Services Administrator RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a Resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE USE OF FUNDS GENERATED FROM THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE EL SOBRANTE LANDFILL FOR MULTI SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION DISCUSSION: At the March 31, 1998 Council meeting, Council Member Ford requested that this item be agendized and brought back to the Council for consideration. On May 26, 1998, the County Board of Supervisors will consider an application by USA Waste for the expansion of the El Sobrante landfill. The ultimate expansion will provide for an expanded capacity of the existing landfill to 100 million tons of solid waste. The daily allowable disposal will increase from 4,000 ton per day to 10,000 per day with 40% of that tonnage reserved for in-county waste and 60% for out-of-county waste. The greater capacity will also substantially increase the life of the landfill. The expansion is expected to generate an additional $500 million to the County over the life of the landfill. These funds may be used to finance other needed services within the County. One of the areas anticipated to receive funding from the additional revenue generated by the expansion is multi-species habitat conservation. FISCAL IMPACT: Potentially, as much as $20 million may be generated for multi- species habitat conservation through the expansion of the El Sobrante landfill. RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE USE OF FUNDS GENERATED FROM THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE EL SOBRANTE LANDFILL FOR MULTI SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. declare that: The City Council of the City of Temecula does find, determine and USA Waste is owner of the E1 Sobrante landfill, which has operated since 1986. b. The El Sobrante landfill expansion will meet or exceed state and federal environmental protection requirements. c. USA Waste and the El Sobrante landfill will construct an earthen berm around the landfill to limit sound and light impacts from the landfill. d. USA Waste will accept only non-hazardous household and commercial waste and USA Waste will be responsible to ensure compliance through continuous monitoring of all in-coming vehicles and submitting to inspection of landfill operations by local, county and state authorities. e. USA Waste and the expansion of the E1 Sobrante landfill will help meet the solid waste disposal needs of western Riverside County for many years into the future. f. USA Waste and the expansion of the E1 Sobrante landfill may potentially bring over one-half billion dollars in revenue to the County of Riverside which would be available for various projects and programs of importance to the residents and businesses in Riverside County. One such project is multi species habitat conservation. Section 2. The City Council, upon approval of the E1 Sobrante landfill expansion by the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors, supports the use of a portion of the additional revenues generated by the expansion for the planning and implementation of multi species habitat conservation. Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of the Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 28th day of April, 1998. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, Acting City Clerk of the City of Temeeula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 28th day of April, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk ITEM 8 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE ~)~,'~---' CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Manager/City Council Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer April 14, 1998 SUBJECT: Accept Public Improvements in Parcel Map No. 24085-F (Located Northwesterly of the Intersection of Diaz Road and Zevo Drive (Avenida de Ventas)) PREPARED BY: ~ Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council 1. ACCEPT the public improvements in Parcel Map No. 24085-F AUTHORIZE initiation of the one-year warranty period, release of the Faithful Performance and Subdivision Monumentation securities, and converting of the Labor and Materials security on file to combine for both Labor and Materials and Faithful Performance Warranty purposes. 3. DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. BACKGROUND: On December 16, 1997, the City Council approved Parcel Map No. 24085-F and entered into subdivision agreement with: Westside City I, LLC for the improvement of streets, and subdivision monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were cash deposits as follows: In the amount of $10,574 for Faithful Performance In the amount of $10,574 for Labor and Materials. In the amount of $3,000 for installation of subdivision monumentation. Staff has inspected and verified the public improvements. The Rancho California Water District had previously accepted their water and sewer items of work for all four phases of this development. Public Works Staff therefore recommends acceptance of the public street improvements, release of the Faithful Performance security and the Subdivision Monumentation security, combining of the Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor and Materials security, and initiation of the one-year warranty period. r:\agdrpt\98\O428~2408Sf.acc The subdivision monumentation has been both office and field reviewed and determined to be satisfactory. Therefore the following security amounts are recommended for City Council authorization for refund of cash deposits: In the amount of $10,574 for Faithful Performance In the amount of $3,000 for subdivision monumentation. The Labor and Materials security ($10,574) is sufficient to cover both Faithful Performance warranty and Labor and Materials considerations, and will be maintained as follows: In the amount of $5, 257 for Faithful Performance Warranty. in the amount of $5,287 for Labor and Materials The Faithful Performance warranty portion will be retained for the contractual one-year warranty period. The Labor and Materials portion will be maintained for the minimum contractual lien period of six-months. Recommendation will be made at the appropriate times to the City Council for its authorization for reduction or release of these securities. The street within this subdivision is being accepted into the City Maintained-Street System by Resolution No. 98- at this time. The street to be accepted is a portion of Remington Avenue. FISCAL IMPACT: ATTACHMENTS: None Location Map r:\agdrpt\98\O428\24085f.acc · ' · p.M. pARCEL 1 P,M. ~ / ~ ' ~ PARCEI. MAP NO. ?.4085-F i ,oc:ation Mau NOTF,; MAP~ NOT TO ,qC. ALE ITEM 9 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANC CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Manager/City Council Ap seph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer ril 28, 1998 SUBJECT: Accept Public Improvements in Parcel Map No. 24085-2 (Located Northwesterly of the Intersection of Diaz Road and Zevo Drive (Avenida de Ventas)) PREPARED BY:~/ Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council 1. ACCEPT the public improvements in Parcel Map No. 24085-2, AUTHORIZE initiation of the one-year warranty period, release of the Faithful Performance and Subdivision Monumentation Securities, and converting of the Labor and Materials Security on file to combine for both Labor and Materials and Faithful Performance Warranty purposes. 3. DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. BACKGROUND: On July 22, 1997, the City Council approved Parcel Map No. 24085-2 and entered into subdivision agreements with: Westside City 1, LLC for the improvement of streets and drainage, and subdivision monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were cashier's checks issued by Scripps Bank as follows: In the amount of $51,000 for Faithful Performance for street and drainage improvements. In the amount of $51,000 for Labor and Materials for street and drainage improvements. In the amount of $3,000 for the installation of subdivision monumentation. Staff has inspected and verified the public improvements. The Rancho California Water District earlier accepted their water and sewer items of work for the four units of development. Public Works Staff therefore recommends acceptance of the public improvements, release of the 1 R:~A-GDRFT¥)$\0428~PIVI240852.ACC Faithful Performance security and the Subdivision Monumentation security, authorize combining of the Faithful Performance warranty amount and Labor and Materials security, and initiation of the one-year warranty period. The subdivision monumentation has been both field and office reviewed and determined to be satisfactory. Therefore the following security amounts are recommended for City Council authorization for refund of cash deposits in the following amounts: In the amount of $51,000 for Faithful Performance In the amount of $3,000 for Subdivision Monumentation The Labor and Materials security ($51,000) is sufficient to cover both Faithful Performance warranty and Labor and Materials considerations, and will be maintained as follows: In the amount of $25,500 for Faithful Performance Warranty In the amount of $25,500 for Labor and Materials demands. The Faithful Performance portion will be retained for the contractual one-year warranty period. The Labor and Materials portion will be maintained for the minimum contractual lien period of six-months. Recommendation will be made at the appropriate time to the City Council for its authorization for reduction or release of these securities The streets within this subdivision are being accepted into the City Maintained-Street System by Resolution 98- at this time. The streets to be accepted are portions of Zevo Road, Remington Avenue, and Winchester Road. FISCAL IMPACT: ATTACHMENTS: None Location Map 2 R:~AGDRPT~98\0428\PM240852.ACC \ \ ITEM 10 APPROVAL ~/~,~"" ' CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOROF FINANCE~ CITY MANAGER / ~,~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Council/City Manager  <,/Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer April 28, 1998 SUBJECT: Release Subdivision Monument Security in Parcel Map No. 24085-1 (Located Northwesterly of the Intersection of Diaz Road and Zevo Drive (Avenida de Ventas)) PREPARED BY.-~ Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council 1. AUTHORIZE release of the subdivision monument security in Parcel Map No. 24085-1, 2. DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. BACKGROUND: On November 12, 1996, the City Council approved Parcel Map No. 24085-1 and entered into subdivision agreements with: Westside City I, LLC for the improvement of streets, and subdivision monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements was Instrument of Credit issued by Scripps Bank as follows: In the amount of $289,000 ($193,000 for Faithful Performance, and $96,500 for Labor and Materials.) A cash bond in the amount of $2,000 was posted for the installation of subdivision monumentation. On January 13, 1998, the City Council authorized reduction in the Faithful Performance security amount to the maximum extent for partial reductions under the Subdivision Improvement Agreement (fifty-percent) (50%) as follows: In the amount of $96,500 for Faithful Performance. 1 r:\agdrpt\98\0428~240851 .mon Therefore there remained the following security amount for completion of the improvements: In the amount of $96,500 for Faithful Performance The Labor and Materials security amount remains in place until City Council accepts the improvements, the subsequent six-month lien period has elapsed, and the City Council authorizes release of this security. On April 14, 1998, the City Council accepted the public improvements, inititated the one-year warranty period, and authorized reduction in Faithful Performance security amount to the ten- percent (10%) warranty level. The amount retained for Faithful Performance Warranty purposes was $19,300. The subdivision monumentation and related information has been reviewed in the office and field, and therefore Public Works Staff recommends the release of the following security: Cash Bond in the Amount of $2,000 for Subdivision Monumentation The streets within this subdivision are being accepted into the City Maintained-Street System by Resolution 98- at this time. The streets to be accepted are portions of Diaz Road and Zevo Drive. FISCAL IMPACT: ATTACHMENTS: None Location Map 2 r: \agd rpt\98~0428\240851. mort \ 'x., \ ~':arcel Mau No. ~.4085-1 _ ocation Mao NOTF: MAPS NOT TO SCALF ITEM 11 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER TO' FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager _J~";~oseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer April 28, 1998 Amendment No. 1 to Professional Service Agreement with Albert A. Webb Associates for the Rancho California Road/I-15 Interchange, Project No. PW95-12 PREPARED BY: Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works Steven W. Beswick, Project Engineer - Capital Projects RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement between the City of Temecula and Albert A. Webb Associates to provide additional Professional Inspection Services for the Rancho California Road/I-15 Interchange, Project No. PW95-12 in an amount not to exceed $58,700.00 and authorize the Mayor to sign Amendment No. 1. BACKGROUND: The City Council awarded a contract to Albert A. Webb Associates on October 28, 1997 to provide professional inspection services for Rancho California Road at Interstate Route 15, Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements, Project No. PW95- 12, in the amount of $268,800.00. During a workshop session held on Saturday, March 14, 1998, City Council discussed approval and allocation of funds necessary to accelerate construction by 80 working days and reduce adverse traffic conditions that occur daily at Rancho California Road Interchange. On April 7, 1998, the City received a letter from Albert A. Webb Associates after staff requested an evaluation of inspection costs due to an accelerated construction schedule. The savings cost to eliminate inspections for 80 working days from their contract is $45,371.00, however, additional overtime inspection costs required to complete the project consists of $104,130.00 for a net increase of $58,700.00. The additional cost for accelerating the contractor's work is being presented for City Council consideration under a separate action item. The amendment has been approved as to form by the City Attorney. FISCAL IMPACT: This project is a Capital Improvement Project originally funded primarily by Capital Reserves and Development Fees (DIF). Measure A Funds will replace 3.8 Million of this funding source. Adequate funds are available in Account No. 210-165-601-5801. ATTACHMENTS: Amendment No. 1 Albert A. Webb Associates letter dated April 7, 1998 R:\agdrpt\98\O428\webb.amd FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT 1-15, BRIDGE WIDENING AND NORTHBOUND RAMP IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. PW95-12 THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of April 28, 1998 by and between the City of Temecuia, a municipal corporation CCity~) and Albert A. Webb Associates CConsultant~). In comideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendmere is made with respect to the following facts and purposes: ao On October 28, 1997 the City and Consultant entered into that certain agreement entitled "City of Temecula Agreement for Consultant Services" ("Agreement"). b. The parties now desire to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. e Exhibit "C" is added to the Agreemere, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. o Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreemere shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to he executed the day and year first above written. CONSULTANT Albert A. Webb Associates 28481 Rancho California Road, Suite 106 Temecula, CA 92590 (909) 694-9250 BY: By: A. Hubert Webb Title: President CITY OF TEMECULA BY: Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: BY: Susan W. Jones, CMC, Acting City Clerk Approved As to Form: BY: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney ASSOCIATES 3788 McCray Street, Riverside, CA 92506 (9O9) 686-1070 FAX (9O9) 788-1256 3600 Lime Street, Ste. 312 Riverside, CA 92501 (909) 781-6190 FAX (909) 788-4139 28481 Rancho California Rd., Ste. 106 Temectda, CA 92590 (9O9) 69q-9~50 FAX (909) 699-1032 W.O. 97-272 File: 4101.7 Mr. Ron Parks Deputy Director of Public Works City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 April7,1998 RECEIVED APR 7 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Rancho California Road at Interstate 15 Bridge Widening And Northbound Ramp Improvements Project PW 95-12 Dear Mr. Parks: It is our understanding that the City is negotiating with Riverside Construction regarding incentives to expedite the completion schedule for the above referenced project. City staff has requested that Webb Associates evaluate any costs affecting our contract administration and inspection services agreement that may be anticipated due to an expedited construction schedule. The following presents our analysis. Our original manpower estimate for the project was organized into three basic work periods; (1) Preconstruction Activities, (2) Construction and (3) Project Closeout. The Contractor's expedited schedule will affect the manpower for our construction period work tasks. Our original construction period manpower estimate is summarized below. 250 Hrs. ~ $90.00 = $22,500.00 1150Hrs. ~ $75.00 = $ 86,250.00 800 Hrs. ~ $65.00 = $52,000.00 1050 Hrs. ~ $55.00 = $ 57,750.00 500 Hrs. (~ $50.00 = $25,000.00 Total $243,500.00 97-272/Park.q CIVIL ENGINEERING * PLANNING · ASSESSMENT/SPECIAL TAX ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS · SURVEYING · CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT & INSPECTION Mr. Ron Parks April 7, 1998 Page 2 The original project completion schedule (excluding the plant establishment time period) is 350 working days (WD). It is our understanding that the expedited schedule will reduce the time 80 working days for a revised total of 270 working days. Therefore, the original work schedule is to be decreased by about 22.9% (80/350). It would then follow that based upon a normal 8 hour construction workday, our inspection time would be reduced accordingly.. However, since we are still managing the same amount of construction work, our contract administration time would not necessarily be reduced in proportion to the expedited time frame. We estimate that perhaps 25% of the contract administration time could be reduced with the expedited schedule. Our original construction period cost estimate of $243,500 consists of about $183,000 of inspection time and $60,500 of contract administration time. Therefore, with the Contractor's expedited schedule, the City could expect to save a total of about $45,371 [($183,000 x .229) + $60,500 (.229 x 0.25)]. Discussion with City staff and the Contractor indicates the expedited schedule will be accomplished by the Contractor working longer days and on the weekends. It is our understanding that during the week, the Contractor will extend his workday from 3:30 PM to 7:00 PM, which is an additional 3.5 hours/day. Attached is our current working day statement that indicates there are, per the original completion schedule, 306 working days remaining for construction. Assuming the City Council approves the expedited schedule at their meeting on April 14, 1998 and assuming the Contractor begins his extended work day schedule on April 20, 1998, there will be, as of April 20, 1998, 216 working days remaining.l Assuming the Contractor works the extended day for the duration of the project, we would encounter 756 overtime hours.2 In addition to working longer hours from Monday to Friday, the Contractor indicates that they expect to work 2 Saturdays and 1 Sunday per month. We are not sure if the City would count the weekend work as "workdays", with regards to the completion schedule however, assuming this weekend work begins this month, there are 13 months remaining until the expedited completion date, which would occur in February of 1999. Assuming the workday for the weekend work is 8 hours, we would encounter 312 overtime hours (3 d/mo. x 8 hrs/d x 13 mos.). Therefore, under the expedited construction schedule, Webb Associates could expect to encounter 1068 overtime hours which would consist of 756 overtime hours for Monday through Friday work and 312 overtime hours for Saturday and Sunday work. Depending upon the type ~ 306 working days - 10 working days expended for the weeks beginning April 6 and 13, 1998 - 80 working days incentive. 2 3.5 overtime hours/working day x 216 working days. 97-272/Parks Mr. Ron Parks April 7, 1998 Page 3 of overtime work that would be performed, we would anticipate using one of our three field inspectors currently assigned to this project to cover the overtime work. The regular billing rates for these three individuals range from $55.00/hr. to $75.00/hr. Overtime billing rates are 1.5 times the regular billing rates. Assuming an average overtime-billing rate of $97.50/hr. ($65.00 x 1.5), the total estimated overtime billing to complete the project is $104,130.00. Subtracting the $45,371 that the City would not encounter since the project would be completed an expected 80 working days earlier than the original schedule yields a net increase of about $58,700 for additional inspection fees for the Contractor's expedited schedule. Should the Contractor find that less overtime work is necessary to obtain an expedited completion date, our inspection time would be reduced accordingly. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact our office. WF/at Sincerely, ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES CC: Mr. Joe Kicak, City of Temecula Mr. Steve Beswick, City of Temecula Mr. Phil Lemoine, Webb Associates 97-272/Parks A L B ~ FIT ~. ASSOCIATES 3788 McCray Sweet. Riverside, CA 92506 (909) 686-1070 FAX (909) 788-1256 April 6, 1998 3600 Lime S~eet. $te. 312 Riverside. CA 92501 (909) 781-6190 FAX (909) 788-4139 28481 Rancho 'O_.adifomia Rd.. Ste. 106 Temecuia. CA 92590 (909) 694-92rd) FAX (9/)9) 699-1032 WO: 97-272 Riverside Construction Co. P.O. Box 1146 Riverside, CA 92502-1146 RE: Rancho California Road at I-15 Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements Gentlemen: Following is a recapitulation of the working days used on the above referenced project for the period ending: April 4, 1998 Date of Notice to Proceed: Working days specified in contract: Time extensions granted: (3-30-98, 4-1-98, 4-2-98, & 4-3-98 Rain Days) Days used this period: Days previously used: Working days remaining: Original completion date: Revised completion date: January 5, 1998 35O 18 State Construction Workday Calendar numbers: 218 5 57 306 June 2, 1999 June 28, 1998 568 586 This working day statement will be considered final unless we receive written notification from you within 15 days of the date of this letter. Sincerely, · ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES Annette Trussell CC: Mr. Steve Beswick, City o£Temecula Mr. Davo Romero, W~bb Associates CML ENGINEERING · PLANNING · ASSESSMENT/SPECIALTAX ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS · SURVEYING" CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT & INSPECTION ITEM 12 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE' CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Council/City Manager  t~Aoseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer pril 28, 1998 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Public Streets into the City Maintained-Street System (Within Parcel Maps No. 24085-1, 24085-2, and 24085-F)(Westerly of intersection of Winchester Road at Diaz Road). PREPARED BY: ~ Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY MAINTAINED-STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN PARCEL MAPS NO. 24085-1, 24085-2, AND 24085-F) BACKGROUND: The City Council approved Parcel Map No. 24085-1 on November 13, 1996, Parcel Map No. 24085-2 on July 25, 1997, and Parcel Map No. 24085-F on December 27, 1997, and entered into Subdivision Agreements for construction of street and drainage, and water and sewer system improvements, and subdivision monumentation with Westside City 1 LLC. On April 14, 1998, the City Council accepted the public improvements for Parcel Map No. 24085-1, and on April 28, 1998, for Parcel Maps No. 24085-2 and 24085-F. The public streets now being accepted by this action are: Parcel Map No. 24085-1: Portions of Diaz Road and Zevo Drive. Parcel Map No.24085-2: Portions of Zevo Drive, Winchester Road, and Remington Avenue. Parcel Map No. 24085-F: Portion of Remington Road. r:\agdq~t\98~O428\pm240851.2fm FISCAL IMPACT: 8 years. Periodic surface and/or structural maintenance will be required every 5 to ATTACHMENT: Resolution No. 98- with Exhibits "A-B," inclusive r:\agdrpt\98~O428\pm240851.2fm RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEIVIECULA ACCFJq'ING CERTAIN lqJBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY MAINTAINED-STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN PARCEL MAPS NO. 2408.%2, 24085-2, AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Temecula accepted an offer of dedication of certain lots for street and public utility purposes made by Westside City I, LLC a California Liability Company, with the recordation of Parcel Maps No. 24085-1, 24085-2, and 24085-F; and, WHEREAS, The City of Temecula accepted the improvements within Parcel Map No. 24085-1 on April 14, 1998, and within Parcel Maps No. 24085-2 and 24085-F on April 28, 1998. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Temccula hereby accepts into the City Maintained-Street System those streets or portions of streets offered to and accepted by the City of Temecula described in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of April 1998. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATFEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk r:\agdrpt\98\O428~pm240851.2fro [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, Acting City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 98- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 28th day of April 1998, by the following vote: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOF~: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk r:\agdrpt\98\O428\pm240851.2fro EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION NO. 98- Accepting the public streets offered to and accepted by the City of Temecula as indicated on Parcel Maps No. 24085-1, 24085-2, and 24085-F, and accepting subject public streets into the City Maintained-Street System as described below: A. Those lots described as Lots hA" through "B" inclusive, as shown on Parcel Map No. 24085-1, f'ded 15 November 1996, in Book 188 of Parcel Maps, Pgs 70-72 Incl., further described as follows: Lot "A" Lot "B" Portion of Diaz Road Portion of Zevo Drive B. Those lots described as Lots "A' through 'C' inclusive, as shown on Pareel Map No. 24085-2, f'ded 25 July 1997, in Book 189 of Parcel Maps, Pgs 92-94 Incl., further described as follows: Lot 'A" Lot 'B" Lot 'C" Portion of Zevo Drive Portion of Winchester Road Portion of Remington Avenue C. That lot described as LOt "A", as shown on Parcel Map No. 24085-F, f'ded 29 December 1997, in Book 190 of Parcel Maps, Pages 98-100 Incl., further described as follows: Portion of Remington Avenue r:\~ldq~t\98~O428\pm240851.2fm EXHIBIT "B" TO RESOLUTION NO. SUBJECT ACCEPTANCE-PUBLIC STREETS INTO ~ CITY MAINTAINED-STREET SYSTEM AS INDICATED BELOW: ,, \ \ STREETS OR PORTIONS OF STREETS TO BE ACCEPTED INTO CITY MAINTAINED-STREET SYSTEM NOTE: MAPS NOT TO SCALE ITEM 13 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAN{ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Manager/City Council  Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works\City Engineer April 28, 1998 SUBJECT: Acceleration of the Construction of Rancho California Road at Interstate Route 15, Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements - Project No. PW95-12 PREPARED BY: Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works Steven W. Beswick, Project Engineer - Capital Projects RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve the Change Order for Reduction in Working Days from 350 to 270 for the Construction of Rancho California Road at Interstate Route 15, Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramps Improvements, Project No. PW95-12, to Riverside Construction Company for the amount of $273,700.00 and authorize the City Manager to sign the Change Order. 2. Appropriate $300,000.00 from Capital Reserves and increase the contingency for this contract by an amount of $300,000.00 to a total of $690,777.60. BACKGROUND: The City Council awarded a contract to Riverside Construction Company on October 28, 1997 to construct Rancho California Road at Interstate Route 15, Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements, Project No. PW95-12, for the base bid of $3,907,776.00. The general items of work to be completed will consist of the following: widen Rancho California Road (including the bridge over Interstate Route 15) between Front Street and Ynez Road; a northbound loop entrance ramp; a northbound exit ramp with an auxiliary lane; relocation and reconstruction of existing utilities; and landscape/irrigation improvements. During a workshop session held on Saturday, March 14, 1998, City Council discussed approval and allocation of funds necessary to accelerate construction by 80 working days and reduce adverse traffic conditions that occur daily at Rancho California Road Interchange. The total lump sum cost to eliminate 80 working days from the contract is $273,700.00 based upon the contractor's letter dated March 6, 1998. Overtime hours required by the City's consultants for the accelerated schedule are not included. The additional cost for overtime hours is being presented for City Council consideration under a separate action item. I R:\agdrpt\98\O428\pw95-1 2.acl/ajp The original construction schedule as stated in the contract included a total of 600 working days (350 working days for construction and 250 working days for plant establishment). Work started on January 5, 1998 and construction is scheduled to be completed in early June 1999. The total number of working days will be revised from 600 to 520 (270 working days for construction and 250 working days for plant establishment) and a revised date of completion for the project will be during the month of February 1999. The following requirements will be included in this Change Order: 1) For each and every working day beyond the 270 working days allotted for construction, an amount of $3,421.25 per working day will be deducted from any monies due the contractor through this Change Order. 2) For each and every working day the construction work is completed before the expiration of the 270 working days allotted for construction, the contractor will receive an additional incentive payment of $3,421.25 per working day through this Change Order. The $300,000.00 requested will provide for completion in 263 working days. As stated in the October 28, 1997 City Council Report for this project, the City applied for and received approval from Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) for a loan of Measure A Funds in the amount of $5 million. These Measure A Funds in the amount of $3.8 million will replace the funding sources listed in the Capital Improvement Program for this project. FISCAL IMPACT: This project is a Capital Improvement Project originally funded primarily by Capital Reserves and Development Impact Fees (DIF). Measure A Funds will replace $3.8 million of these funding sources. Appropriation of the $300,000.00 from Capital Reserves into Account No. 210-165-601-5804 is required to provide for this Change Order. ATTACHMENT: Letter from Riverside Construction Dated March 6, 1998 2 R:\agdrpt\98\0428\pw95-12.acl/ajp (909) 682-8308 CALIF. STATE (909) 682-8350 (FAX) LICENSE NO. 266222 RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS 111 NO. MAIN STREET-- P.O. BOX 1146 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502-1146 RECEIVED MAR 0 9 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT March 6, 1998 Joseph Kicak, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 RE: Project No. PW95-12, Rancho California Road at Interstate Route 15 Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements. Dear Mr. Kicak: Per your request, the following is the additional cost for accelerating the work to cut time out of the contract. After reviewing this matter, Riverside Construction Company has determined 80 working days can be eliminated from the contract for a lump sum cost of $273,700.00. The above amount does not include any overtime costs for City consultants such as Design, Inspection, Testing or other fees which arise out of this matter. This change is based on timely approval of the required submittals to carry out the work. Significant submittals which have yet to be approved are Tieback Wall Earthwork Working Drawings, Tieback Anchor Plans, Bridge Falsework Plans, Bridge Prestressing Plans, Overhead Sign Structure Plans. Please let us know as soon as possible whether or not the City wishes to proceed with this Change to the contract. Should you have any questions, please contact us. Thank you. Very truly yours, ~ve/ilr~rUct~t~pany Vice President - Engineering Faxed Prior To Mailing To (909) 694-6475 ITEM 14 APPROVAL j"~,/, ~ CITY ATTORNEY /~'~ DIRECTOR OF FINANCE /~'~-.~ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Council/City Manager  Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer April 28, 1998 SUBJECT: Solicitation of Construction Bids and Approval of the Plans and Specifications for the Flashing Beacons at Various Locations, Project No. PW96-18 PREPARED BY: ~.>~ Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works Scott Harvey, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit public construction bids for Flashing Beacons at Various Locations, Project No. PW96-18. BACKGROUND: The City Council has approved installation of the Flashing Beacons at Various Locations for this year's Capital Improvement Program. This project will install 19 solar powered flashing beacons at 8 school sights (see Exhibit "A"). These beacons will be installed to supplement the standard school signing and markings for the purpose of providing advance warning during specified times of the day. The plans, specifications and contract documents have been completed and the project is ready to be advertised for construction bids. The estimated total cost for the flashing beacons is $115,000. This project will be funded by Signal Mitigation (DIF) funds. FISCAL IMPACT: This project is a Capital Improvement Project through Development Impact Fees. These funds have been appropriated in Account No. 210-165-672-5804. ATTACHMENT: Location Map R: L&G DRPT\9'g'~0~'28'Ll~,V96-18.B ID/AIP SCHOOL srrE LOCATIONS t LBFELD SCHOOL K-12 2. MAFIGA.~A IVIDOLE ~3..K3OL 3. PALOMA ELEMENTARY 8CHOOL 4. FIANCHO ~AI~ ~3OL $. 8PARKMAN ELEIVlENTARY ~ 8. 'rBvECULA ¥ALLEY I-IGH ~:X3L g. VAIL ELE!VlL=NTA~ SCHOOL LEGEND BEACON (19 TOTAL) FLASHING BEACONS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS PROJECT PW96-18 EXHIBIT 'A' ITEM 15 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Manager/City Council Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer April 28, 1998 SUBJECT: Award of Construction Contract for Installation of a Traffic Signal at the Intersection of Margarita Road and Santiago Road - Project No. PW97-24 . PREPARED BY: ~)Ali Moghadam P.E., Senior Engineer - Traffic/Capital Projects RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Margarita Road and Santiago Road, Project No. PW97-24. Award a construction contract for installation of a traffic signal at this intersection to DBX, Inc. in the amount of $98,484.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $9,848.40 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. BACKGROUND: Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Margarita Road and Santiago Road was approved by the City Council in the Fiscal Year 1997/98 Capital Improvement Program. This project includes installation of a four-way traffic signal at this intersection and some minor signing and striping. This project also includes installation of flashing yellow lights warning motorists of the new signal. The engineer's estimate for this project was $100,000.00 R:~.GDRPT\98\0428\PVV97-24.AWD/ajp Eight (8) bids were publicly opened on April 16, 1998, and the results are as follows: 1. DBX, Inc .................................... $ 98,484.00 2. Transtech Engineers, Inc ......................... $ 99,000.00 3. Macadee Electrical Const ......................... $ 101,669.00 4. New West Signal ............................... $ 103,692.00 5. Sierra Pacific .................................. $ 104,716.00 6. Paul Gardner Corp .............................. $ 105,472.00 7 Peek Traffic .................................. $ 108,250.00 8. Computer Service Co ............................ $ 111,111.00 Staff has reviewed the bid proposals and found DBX, Inc. to be the lowest responsible bidder for this project. DBX, Inc. has satisfactorily completed other projects for the City in the past, including installation of traffic signals at the intersections of Margarita Road/SR79(S), Margarita Road/Rustic Glen Drive and SR79(S)/La Paz Street. The specifications allow ninety (90) working days for completion of this project. Work is expected to be completed by November 1998. A copy of the bid summary is available for review in the City Engineer's office. FISCAL IMPACT: This Capital Improvement Project is funded by Capital Project Reserves and Development Impact Fees. Adequate funds are available for the construction contract of $98,484.00 and the contingency amount of $9,848.40 for a total construction cost of $108,332.40 in Account No. 210-165-674-5804. ATTACHMENTS: Contract 2 R:~AGD RPT~98\0428\PVV97 -24 .AVVD/ejp CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACT FOR PROJECT NO. PW97-24 INSTALLA T/ON OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL MARGARITA ROAD A T SANTIA GO ROAD THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 28th day of April, 1998, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and DBX, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR." WITNESSETH: That CITY and CONTRACTOR, for the consideration hereinafter named, mutually agree as follows: CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The complete Contract includes all of the Contract Documents, to wit: Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Proposal, Performance Bond, Labor and Materials Bond, Plans and Specifications entitled PROJECT NO. PW97-24, INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL, MARGARITA ROAD AT SANTIAGO ROAD, Insurance Forms, this Contract, and all modifications and amendments thereto, the State of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications (1992 Ed.) where specifically referenced in the Plans and Technical Specifications, and the latest version of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, including all supplements as written and promulgated by the Joint Cooperative Committee of the Southern California Chapter of the American Associated General Contractors of California (hereinafter, "Standard Specifications") as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO. PW97-24, INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL, MARGARITA ROAD AT SANTIAGO ROAD. Copies of these Standard Specifications are available from the publisher: Building News, Incorporated 3055 Overland Avenue Los Angeles, California 90034 (213) 202-7775 The Standard Specifications will control the general provisions, construction materials, and construction methods for this Contract except as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO. PW97-24, INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL, MARGARITA ROAD AT SANTIAGO ROAD. In case of conflict between the Standard Specifications and the other Contract Documents, the other Contract Documents shall take precedence over, and be used in lieu of, such conflicting portions. CONTRACT CA- 1 R:\CIP\PROJ ECTS\PW97~PVV97-24\CONTRACT.D OC Where the Contract Documents describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in complete detail, it is understood that the item is to be furnished and installed completed and in place and that only the best general practice is to be used. Unless otherwise specified, the CONTRACTOR shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and do all the work involved in executing the Contract. The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is called for by anyone shall be as binding as if called for by all. Any conflict between this Contract and any other Contract Document shall be resolved in favor of this Contract. SCOPE OF WORK. CONTRACTOR shall perform everything required to be performed, shall provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation services required for the following: PROJECT NO. PW97-24 INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL MARGARITA ROAD AT SANTIAGO ROAD All of said work to be performed and materials to be furnished shall be in strict accordance with the Drawings and Specifications and the provisions of the Contract Documents hereinabove enumerated and adopted by CITY. CITY APPROVAL. All labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and work performed and completed under the direction and supervision, and subject to the approval of CITY or its authorized representatives. CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHEDULE. The CITY agrees to pay, and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept, in full payment for, the work agreed to be done, the sum of: NINETY EIGHT THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY FOUR DOLLARS and NO CENTS {$98,484.00), the total amount of the base bid. CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed ninety (90) working days, commencing with delivery of a Notice to Proceed by CITY. Construction shall not commence until bonds and insurance are approved by CITY. 5. CHANGE ORDERS. All change orders shall be approved by the City Council, except that the City Manager is hereby authorized by the City Council to make, by written order, changes or additions to the work in an amount not to exceed the contingency as established by the City Council. 6. PAYMENTS. LUMP SUM BID SCHEDULE: Before submittal of the first payment request, the CONTRACTOR shall submit to the City Engineer a schedule of values allocated to the various portions of the work, prepared in such form and supported by such data to substantiate its accuracy as the City Engineer may require. This schedule, as approved by the City Engineer, shall be used as the basis for reviewing the CONTRACTOR's payment requests. CONTRACT CA-2 R:\CIP\PROJ ECTS\PWe7\PW97-24\C ONTRACT.DOC Payments shall be made on demands drawn in the manner required by law, accompanied by a certificate signed by the City Manager, stating that the work for which payment is demanded has been performed in accordance with the terms of the Contract, and that the amount stated in the certificate is due under the terms of the Contract. Partial payments on the Contract price shall not be considered as an acceptance of any part of the work. Interest shall be paid on all undisputed payment requests not paid within thirty (30) days pursuant to Public Contracts Code Section 20104.50. Public Contracts Code Section 7107 is hereby incorporated by reference. In accordance with Section 9-3.2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction and Section 9203 of the Public Contracts Code, a reduction in the retention may be requested by the Contractor for review and approval by the Engineer if the progress of the construction has been satisfactory, and the project is more than 50% complete. WARRANTY RETENTION. Commencing with the date the Notice of Completion is recorded, the CITY shall retain a portion of the Contract award price, to assure warranty performance and correction of construction deficiencies according to the following schedule: CONTRACT AMOUNT $25,000- 975,000 975,000- 9500,000 Over 9500,000 RETENTION PERIOD 180 days 180 days One Year RETENTION PERCENTAGE 3% 92,250 + 2% of amount in excess of 975,000 910,750 + 1% of amount in excess of 9500,000 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES - EXTENSION OF TIME. In accordance with Government Code Section 53069.85, CONTRACTOR agrees to forfeit and pay to CITY the sum of one thousand dollars (91,000.00) per day for each calendar day completion is delayed beyond the time allowed pursuant to Paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR will be granted an extension of time and will not be assessed liquidated damages for unforeseeable delays beyond the control of, and without the fault or negligence of, the CONTRACTOR including delays caused by CITY. CONTRACTOR is required to promptly notify CITY of any such delay. WAIVER OF CLAIMS. On or before making each request for payment under Paragraph 6 above, CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY, in writing, all claims for compensation as to work related to the payment. Unless the CONTRACTOR has disputed the amount of the payment, the acceptance by CONTRACTOR of each payment shall constitute a release of all claims against the CITY related to the payment. CONTRACTOR shall be required to execute an affidavit, release, and indemnity agreement with each claim for payment. 10. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, CONTRACT CA-3 R:\CIP~PRO J £CTS\PVV97\P~/97-24\CONTRACT,DOC classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract, from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City Clerk. Copies may be obtained at cost at the City Clerk's office of Temecula. CONTRACTOR shall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, CONTRACTOR shall forfeit to the CITY, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this Contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of the Contract. 11. TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this contract. 12. INDEMNIFICATION. All work covered by this Contract done at the site of construction or in preparing or delivering materials to the site shall be at the risk of CONTRACTOR alone. CONTRACTOR agrees to save, indemnify, hold harmless and defend CITY, its officers, employees, and agents, against any and all liability, injuries, or death of persons (CONTRACTOR's employees included) and damage to property, arising directly or indirectly out of the obligations herein undertaken or out of the operations conducted by CONTRACTOR, save and except claims or litigations arising through the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of the CITY. The CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and be responsible for reimbursing the CITY for any and all costs incurred by the CITY as a result of Stop Notices filed against the project. The CITY shall deduct such costs from Progress Payments or final payments due to the CITY. 13. GRATUITIES. CONTRACTOR warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents, or representatives has offered or given any gratuities or promises to CITY's employees, agents, or representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or securing favorable treatment with respect thereto. 14. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CONTRACTOR warrants that he has no blood or marriage relationship, and that he is not in any way associated with any City officer or employee, or any architect, engineer, or other preparers of the Drawings and Specifications for this project. CONTRACTOR further warrants that no person in its employ has been employed by the CITY within one year of the date of the Notice Inviting Bids. 15. CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT. After the completion of the work contemplated by this Contract, CONTRACTOR shall file with the City Manager, its affidavit stating that all workmen and persons employed, all firms supplying materials, and all subcontractors upon the Project have been paid in full, and that there are no claims outstanding against the Project for either labor or materials, except certain items, if any, to be set forth in an affidavit covering disputed claims or items in connection with a Stop Notice which has been filed under the provisions of the laws of the State of California. 16. NOTICE TO CITY OF /ABOR DISPUTES. Whenever CONTRACTOR has knowledge that any actual or potential labor dispute is delaying or threatens to delay the timely performance CONTRACT CA-4 Ft:\ClP\PRO J ECTS\PVV97\I~N97-24\CONTRACT,DOC 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. of the Contract, CONTRACTOR shall immediately give notice thereof, including all relevant information with respect thereto, to CITY. BOOKS AND RECORDS. CONTRACTOR's books, records, and plans or such part thereof as may be engaged in the performance of this Contract, shall at all reasonable times be subject to inspection and audit by any authorized representative of the CITY. INSPECTION. The work shall be subject to inspection and testing by CITY and its authorized representatives during manufacture and construction and all other times and places, including without limitation, the plans of CONTRACTOR and any of its suppliers. CONTRACTOR shall provide all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and convenience of inspectors. All inspections and tests shall be performed in such manner as to not unduly delay the work. The work shall be subject to final inspection and acceptance notwithstanding any payments or other prior inspections. Such final inspection shall be made within a reasonable time after completion of the work. DISCRIMINATION. CONTRACTOR represents that it has not, and agrees that it will not, discriminate in its employment practices on the basis of race, creed, religion, national origin, color, sex, age, or handicap. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Contract and also govern the interpretation of this Contract. Any litigation concerning this Contract shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event of litigation between the parties concerning this Contract, the prevailing party as determined by the Court, shall be entitled to actual and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs incurred in the litigation. ADA REQUIREMENTS. By signing this contract, Contractor certifies that the Contractor is in total compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101-336, as amended. WRITTEN NOTICE. Any written notice required to be given in any part of the Contract Documents shall be performed by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, directed to the address of the CONTRACTOR as set forth in the Contract Documents, and to the CITY addressed as follows: Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 CONTRACT CA-5 R:\CIP\PRO J ECTS\PVV97\PVV97-24\CONTRACT.DOC IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the date first above written. DATED: CONTRACTOR DBX, Inc. 42066 Avenida Alvarado, Suite C Temecula, CA 92590 (909) 676-0115 By: Jim Perry, President DATED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF TEMECULA By: Ron Roberts, Mayor Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC, Acting City Clerk CONTRACT CA-6 R:\CIP~PRO J ECTS\PVV97 \P~V97-24\CONTRACT.DOC ITEM 16 APPROVAL City ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANC[: CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council  ~ooseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer April 28, 1998 Professional Biological Services for Pala Road Bridge Project - Project No. PW97-15 PREPARED BY: ~1 Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Professional Services Agreement for Biological Services with KEA Environmental, Inc. for the Pala Road Bridge Project, Project No. PW97-15 in an amount not to exceed $87,900.00 and authorize the mayor to sign the agreement. BACKGROUND: As part of the Mitigation Monitoring Program required to meet the permit conditions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game, the City is required to hire qualified biologists and perform several biological tasks to satisfy all requirements of the permits. Paula Jacks was the Project Manager for the firm who initially prepared the Wetlands Mitigation Plan for the Environmental Impact Report prepared for this project and is very familiar with the project area. In order to maintain continuity and to expedite the process, we have obtained a proposal from Paula Jacks at KEA Environmental to complete the Biological Consulting Services through the build out of the project. The scope of work is defined in the Agreement and includes 1) Staking the Construction Zone showing areas that can be disturbed; 2) Contractor Education Program; 3) Construction Monitoring Program; 4) Consulting Services to Restore Wetlands, including a) Developing Restoration Specifications; b) Review and Approve Landscape Plans (by others); c) Supervise and Monitor Construction; d) 5 Years of Monitoring and Supervising Maintenance of Restored Areas. FISCAL IMPACT: This Capital Improvement Project is funded by Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation (HBRR) and Federal Highway Administration/BIA. Adequate funds area available in Account No. 210-165-631-5801. ATTACHMENT: Agreement for Professional Biological Services, Pala Road Bridge Cost Proposal from KEA Environmental, Dated March 25, 1998 R:IAGDRPT]98[O428~PALABIO.AGR 1 4/20/98 CITY OF TEMECULA AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL BIOLOGICAL SERVICES PALA ROAD BRIDGE PROJECT NO. PW97-15 THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of April 28, 1998, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and KEA Environmental, Inc., ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on April 28, 1998, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than April 28, 2005, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. PAYMENT. a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount shall not exceed Eighty-Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($87,900.00) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager. Consultant shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and Consultant at the time City's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. The City Manager may approve additional work not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the amount of the Agreement, but in no event shall such sum exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00). Any additional work in excess of this amount shall be approved by the City Council. c. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all nondisputed fees. If the City disputes any of consultant's fees it shall give written notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. - 1 - r:\cip\projecta\pw97\pw97- i 5~keabio.agr/ajp 5. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE. a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any porfon hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 3. 6. DEFAULT OF CONSUI,TANT. a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files, Consultant shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant. -2- r: \cip\projecta\pw97\pw97-15'~keabio.agr/ajp 8. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City. 9. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Consultam shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: (1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001). (2) Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). (3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. (4) Errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to the consultant's profession. b. Minimum 1 .imits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $1,000,0130 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (3) Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. (4) Errors and omissions liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence. c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (1) The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or -3- r:\cip\proj~cts\pw97\pw97-15~eabio.agr/ajp automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. (3) Any failure to comply. with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (4) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. (5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. e. Acceptability of In.,wers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. f. Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City wit& original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications. 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent conlractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees or agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 11. I,EGAI. RESPONSIBII.ITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of State and Federal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. -4- r:\cip\projecta\pw97\pw97-15\keabio.agr/ajp 12. REI,EASE OF INFORMATION. a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written authorization. Consultant, i~s officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 13. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (I) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice: To City: City of Temecula Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: City Manager To Consultant: KEA Environmental, Inc. Paula Jacks 1420 Ketmer Boulevard, Suite 620 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 233-1454 14. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Because of the personal nature of the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement, only Paula Jacks shall perform the services described in this Agreement. Paula Jacks may use assistants, under their direct supervision, to perform some of the services under this Agreement. Consultant shall provide City fourteen (14) days' notice prior to the departure of Paula Jacks from Consultant's employ. Should he or she leave Consultant's employ, the city shall have the option to immediately terminate this Agreement, within three (3) days of the close of said nofce period. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant. -5- r: \cip\proje. cts\pw97\pw97-15~keabio.ag r/ajp 15. LICENSES. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 16. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event of litigation between the parties concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party as determined by the Court, shall be entitled to actual and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs incurred in the litigafon. 17. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party' s own independent invesfgation of any and all facts such party deems material. 18. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA By Ron Roberts, Mayor Attest: Susan W. Jones, CMC, Acting City Clerk Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT KEA Environmental, Inc. 1420 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 620 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 233-1454 Paula Jacks -6- r: \cip\projec~\pw97\pw97-15~keabio.agr/ajp F.~r~IBIT Pala Road Bridge Biological Services KEA Environmental, Inc. October 28, 1997 In addition to the biological services currently authorized that are associated with the engineering design and project construction (i.e., field surveys for the southwestern pond turtle and assistance with the design specifications to assure that permit conditions are complied with), several biological tasks must be performed to meet all requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game permits. The task outlined below must be conducted by qualified biologists. KEA Environmental, Inc. employs seven biological resource specialists, five of which are certified in wetlands delineations, and three specialize in habitat restoration. KEA has managed numerous habitat restoration and creation projects and is well-qualified to supervise and conduct maintenance and monitoring programs. The tasks itemized below address all biological resource monitoring, supervision of a maintenance contractor, preparation of biological specifications, and site monitoring for five years. Costs associated with tasks required of a landscape architect and a landscape contractor are not included below. Work Scope and Estimated Costs 1. Stake and flag the extent of the construction zone to assure that the impacts do not exceed those permitted. This would require one to two days with a surveyor to flag the area; field monitoring during the clearing of the construction zone (adjacent to the wetlands to be avoided) to assure that impacts are not exceeded; and follow-up communication with the Army Corps (letter and photos) to document that the impacts were in compliance with the permit and that the neighboring wetland areas that must be avoided are clearly marked. Estimated costs are $2,400 to $3,200. 2. Implement a contractor education program to ensure that the contractors and all construction personnel are fully informed of the biologically and archeologically sensitive resources associated with the project site and are aware of the terms and conditions of the Army Corps permit. The program will involve a training session prior to construction and a hand-out for all personnel involved in the construction. Estimated costs are $700. 3. Weekly monitoring during the first month of the construction period, and biweekly thereat~er, to document that no accidental egress into the wetlands has occurred, plus one final monitoring event to document that construction was completed per the permit without additional wetland impacts. Assume a total of nine monitoring visits and one letter to the Army Corps are required. Estimated costs are $4,600. 4. After construction is completed, the 3.45 acres of wetlands that were temporarily impacted within the permitted construction zone must be restored as riparian woodland, southern willow scrub and channel. As partial compensation for the permanent impacts to 1.49 acres ofripafian woodland and willow scrub that coincide with the new bridge alignment, 1.49 acres o£ similar wetlands will be created upstream of the new bridge at the location that has been approved by the Army Corps. Tasks associated with the restoration and creation of wetlands include the following: Develop restoration specifications, including planting palettes and a five year maintenance and monitoring program for the mitigation planting. Estimated costs are $3,500. Review and approve all final landscape construction documents, including grading plans, prepared by a landscape architect. Estimated costs are $700 to $900. Supervise and monitor all grading, contract growing of all plant materials, container plant and seed acceptability, landscape installations, and landscape maintenance work associated with the 3.45 acres of restoration and the 1.49 acres of habitat creation. Estimated costs are $7,500 to $15,000 (the costs will vary up or downward depending on the duration of construction). Monitor the sites according to the Army Corps requirements and the approved 5-year monitoring plan and supervise the maintenance contractor. Monitoring tasks will include a minimum of six visits to the site per year to document the success of the plantings. Success will be gauged on quantitative measurements and qualitative observations in accordance with the success criteria outlined in the mitgafion and monitoring plan. Estimated costs are $40,000 to $60,000. In addition to work associated with the biological services outlines above, the Army Corps permit General Condition #3 requires the notification of the Corps if any previously unknown historic or archeological remains are discovered. KEA Environmental, Inc. employs seven full-time cultural resource specialists. KEA would be pleased to provide additional scope and cost for cultural resource monitoring for the Pala Road Bridge project if desired. EXHIBIT KEA Environmental, Inc. Payment Schedule ITEM NO. 1. 2. 3. 4. a. b. C. d. DESCRIPTION Stake & Flag Construction Zone Contractor Education Program Construction Monitoring Program Restore Wetlands Develop Restoration Specifications Review & Approve Landscape Plans Supervise & Monitor Construction Five (5) Year Monitoring & Maintenance Supervision COST RANGE $ 2,400 to $ 3,200 $ 700 $ 4,600 $ 3,500 $ 700 $ 7,500 to $15,000 $ 40,000 to $60,000 TOTAL COST $59,400 to $87,900 -9- r: \cip\projects\pw97\pw97- i 5~k. eabio. ag r/ajp ITEM 17 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council .~~Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer April 28, 1998 "All-Way Stop" - Jedediah Smith Road at Ynez Road/DePortola Road PREPARED BY: All Moghadam P.E., Senior Engineer - Traffic/CIP RECOMMENDATION: The Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AN "ALL-WAY STOP" INTERSECTION AT JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD AND YNEZ ROAD/DE PORTOLA ROAD BACKGROUND: The City received a letter from the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association requesting that the Public/Traffic Safety Commission consider the following traffic control modifications. Establish an "All-Way Stop" at the intersection of Jedediah Smith Road and Ynez Road/DePortola Road Reduce the posted speed limit to 35 MPH on Ynez Road and DePortola Road between Santiago Road and Margarita Road Establish La Paz Street as "One-Way" toward SR79(S) and Jedediah Smith Road as "One- Way" toward Ynez Road/DePortola Road Install "No Left Turn" signs at the exit driveways from Rancho Community Church to Vallejo Avenue After conducting a comprehensive study of the traffic flow in the area, staff recommended that the Public/Traffic Safety Commission deny the proposed modifications due to lack of warrants and adequate justification. This request was presented to the Public/Traffic Safety Commission at their April 9, 1998 regular meeting. Several residents of the Los Ranchitos Community attended the meeting and provided input and comments. The majority of speakers supported items 1 and 2, installation of an "All-Way Stop" at the intersection of Jedediah Smith Road and Ynez Road/DePortola Road, and lower speed limits on Ynez Road and DePortola Road. However, items 3 and 4, "One-Way" streets and "No Left Turn" out of Rancho Community Church driveways, were disputed by the majority of the audience. r:\agdrpt\98\0428~stopynez .sgn/ajp After reviewing the staff report and the public comments, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission voted two (2) to one (1) to recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution establishing an "All-Way Stop" at the intersection of Jedediah Smith Road and Ynez Road/DePortola. Items 2 through 4 however, were unanimously denied by the Commission. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in the Public Works Department Signs Account No. 001-164-601-5244 and Striping/Stenciling Account No. 001-164-601-5410. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 98- 2. Exhibit "A" - April 9, 1998 Public/Traffic Safety Commission Agenda Report 3. Exhibit "B" - Letter of Request 2 r :\agdrpt\98\0428~topynez.sgn/ajp RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AN "ALL-WAY STOP" INTERSECTION AT JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD AND YNEZ ROAD/DE PORTOLA ROAD The City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and order as follows: Section 1. The City Council has considered the facts justifying the need for the stop signs proposed for the location described in this resolution. The Council hereby finds and determines that installation of the stop signs pursuant to this resolution will enhance the public health safety and general welfare at this location and the proposed stop signs will not create any adverse conditions in the area. Section 2. Pursuant to Section 10.12.100, of the Temecula Municipal Code, the following "STOP" location is hereby established in the City of Temecula. Jedediah Smith Road at Ynez Road/DePortola Road Section 3. 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 at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of April, 1998. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC, Acting City Clerk 3 r:\agdr pt\98\0425~st opynez.sgn/ejp [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 98- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 28th day of April, 1998 by the following roll call vote: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC, Acting City Clerk 4 r:\agdr pt\OB\O428~topynez.sgn/ejp EXHIBIT "A" AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Public/Traffic Safety Commission ~-'~Ali Moghadam P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic/ClP April 9, 1998 Item 2 Request for Traffic Control Modifications - Los Ranchitos Community RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission deny a request to: Establish an "All-Way Stop" at the intersection of Ynez Road and Jedediah Smith Road Reduce the posted speed limit to 35 MPH on Ynez Road between Santiago Road and Margarita Road Establish La Paz Street as "One-Way" toward SR79(S) and Jedediah Smith Road as "One-Way" toward Ynez Road/DePortola Road Install "No Left Turn" signs at exit driveways from Rancho Community Church to Vallejo Avenue BACKGROUND: The City received a letter from the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association requesting the Public/Traffic Safety Commission consider the above mentioned traffic control modifications. Staff has conducted an extensive study of the area traff~c flow and has analyzed all of the requested modifications. The following provides a brief summary of our analysis and recommendations for each item. UAII-Way Stop" at the intersection of Ynez Road and Jedediah Smith Road Currently, Ynez Road is a 44 foot wide roadway with a posted speed limit of 45 MPH. Jedediah Smith Road is a 24 foot wide roadway and the speed limit is posted at 40 MPH north of Ynez Road. Two (2) accidents have been reported at this intersection from March, 1996 to March, 1997. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Traffic Manual identifies three (3) criteria for installation of "All-Way Stop" signs. These warrants include urgent need for a traffic signal, accidents susceptible to correction by installation of "Stop" signs and traffic volumes. Caltrans warrants are guidelines that are utilized by most agencies throughout the State of California. Adhering to these guidelines allows uniformity and reduces liability potentials. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and Caltrans also discourage use of "Stop" signs for speed control. Since this intersection did not satisfy any of the warrants, installation of an "All-Way Stop" is not recommended. r: \ira ffi¢\commissn ~ug end a ~98 \0409\nmchito.agn/ajp Speed limit reduction on Ynez Road and DePortola Road from 45 and 50 MPH to 35 MPH The California Vehicle Code (CVC) requires that speed limits (other than prima facie speeds such as Residence District, School Zones, etc.) be justified by an Engineering and Traffic Survey. An Engineering and Traffic Survey, among other things, consists of measurement of prevailing speeds, review of accident history and roadside conditions not readily apparent to a driver. In addition to the previous speed studies, staff conducted a new speed survey to determine if a lower speed limit could be justified for Ynez Road and DePortola Road with installation of the new "All-Way Stop" at the intersection of Ynez Road and La Paz Street. The new speed surveys did not indicate a change in the overall speed. Therefore, a reduced speed limit on Ynez Road/DePortola Road is neither justifiable nor recommended. An arbitrary speed limit which is not justified by an Engineering and Traffic Survey constitutes a "Speed Trap" and is difficult to enforce. Without enforcement a lower posted speed limit does not reduce the overall speed on a given street and could result in increased number of accidents due to inconsistency in traveling speeds and unsafe passing. Establishing La Paz Street as "One-Way" toward SR79(S) and Jedediah Smith as "One-Way" toward Ynez Road/DePortola Road Although we understand the objective of this recommendation, we are not convinced that the proposed "One- Wax" streets will accomplish the objective of reducing the "cut-through" traffic. The morning peak hour traffic on SR79(S) still could turn on Jedediah Smith Road to get to Ynez Road and the evening peak hour traffic could turn from Ynez Road to La Paz Street to get to SR79(S). It should be noted that "One-Way" street systems are generally established to increase capacity of a roadway system and not to impede traffic and discourage use. No "Left-Turn" signs out of the Rancho Community Church on Vallejo Avenue According to the letter, this recommendation was made to eliminate congestion and a perceived unsafe situation at the intersection of Ynez Road and Vallejo Avenue (north) when making a left turn. Our records indicate one (1) reported accident from January, 1992 to March, 1998 at this intersection. Therefore, it does not appear that left turns at this intersection create an unsafe condition. Also, by eliminating left-turns at the church driveways, the vehicles exiting the church and making a right-turn could continue on Vallejo Avenue going south and make a left-turn at the intersection of Ynez Road and Vallejo Avenue (south). Therefore the suggested "No Left-Turn" signs do not eliminate left-turns onto Ynez Road. The proposed turning restriction would also inconvenience the residents of the area to the north of the church who attend this church and force them to either disobey the signs or travel a long loop to access their homes. However, during our analysis of this request we noticed that making a left-turn out of driveway "C" in Exhibit "B" is difficult due to a horizontal curve (crest) just south of this driveway. Staff recommends that this driveway be modified by the church to either an entrance only or exits from this driveway be restricted to right-turn only. In lieu of the modifications to this driveway, the existing "No Parking" zone south of driveway "C" can be extended to improve the visibility of approaching cars from the south. In summary, since the requested modifications are not warranted, staff recommends that they be denied. It should also be noted that Ynez Road, DePortola Road, La Paz Street and Jedediah Smith Road are identified as circulation streets on the City's General Plan. All these streets are public roads, publicly maintained and are for use of the general public. We anticipated that the improvements on SR79(S) will reduce the "cut-through" traffic within the Los Ranchitos Community. Meanwhile staff will continue to monitor the intersection of Ynez Road/DePortola Road with Jedediah Smith Road, and consider installation of an "All-Way Stop" when the traffic conditions warrant it. r: \traffic ~.commisamag end a~,97 \0409 ~ranchit~. agn/al p FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachment: 1. Exhibit "A" - Location Map 2. Exhibit "B" - Rancho Community Church Driveway 3. Exhibit "C" - Warrant Analysis and Supporting Data 4. Exhibit "D" - Letter of Request r: xtra fflc \commiasn\ag cnda~98 xlg09 xranchito. ag n/ajP LOCATION MAP LO~I'A Rancho ch Community urch Requested Stop Sign Location Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association P.O. Box 471 · Temecula, CA 92593 EXHIBIT "B" November 25, 1997 Public Traffic and Safety. Commission City. of Temecula Commissioners Larry. Markham John Telesio Ron Perry. Knox Johnson Charles Coe Subject: Traffic recommendations for the Los Ranchitos Commumty. Gentlemen,. Thank you for the opportunity. to present our views on the traffic control needs for the Los Ranchitos commamiry.. The board of directors has been working on this problem for several months and considerable thought has been given to the needs of the entire communi .ty. We have attempted to be ever mindful of the cost of our recommendations and balance them with the possible cost of human tragedy if certain actions are not taken. We are truly saddened by the death and injuries which have occurred recently at the intersection of LaPaz and Ynez which tinfortunately has created a sense of urgency to the situation. As you know Los Ranchitos has been and continues to be considered "Horse Propert3.'" with relatively high propert3.' values and minimum acreage lots. The CC&R's contain specific language that is desired to maintain that destination within the ~eater Temecula area. Numerous residents within Los Ranchitos take advantage of the ability. to keep horses and use the trails and roadsides for their riding pleasure. The major through street, Ynes Road/De Portola Road, also has a bike lane along a Meat deal of it which is used frequently by cyclists and joggers. Both of these things, while extremely difficult to calculate, add to the traffic safety. problems within Los Ranchitos boundaries. After much thought and concern for the overall traffic safety. within our commanit', the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association would like to make the following recommendations for your consideration. 1. Place 4 way stop signs at the intersection of Ynez Road and Jedediah Smith Road. Discussion Based on the commissions recommendations during the November 204 meeting, the intersection of Ynez Road and La Paz Street will become a 3-way stop with other engineering changes that will elevate a Southbound queue for those vehicles mining right onto La Paz. That was to be one of our recommendations to go along with # 1 above. Since the commission has already seen fit to take action at La Paz and Ynez for all the same masons. 2. Reduce the posted speed limit on Ynez Road to 35 MPH between Santiago Road and Margarita. Discussion We recognize that this area of the city. had been historically viewed as rather rural and a higher than normal residential speed was considered acceptable. Our position is that cimumstances have changed dramatically during the last 8-10 years. We are now completely surrounded by a large number of high density residential areas with no end in sight for continued construction to the South and East of Los Ranchitos. Due to the bottle-neck conditions along Highway 79 a high number of these new residents have chosen to use Ynez Road to "bypass" HWY 79 between Margarita and Rancho California. This gives them quicker access to Interstate 15 in the morning and a quicker route home in the evening. The traffic survey numbers substantiate this understandable adjustment in their driving patterns. It is a well established fact that drivers will adjust their driving routes and habits to the path of least resistance. Unfortunately for the residents of Los Ranchitos, that adjustment has brought them directly through the middle of our small community.. We believe that if the control devices discussed in # 1 above are in place and the speed limit is lowered and made consistent along Ynez/De Portola, the "bypass" traffic will be reduced because it will be less efficient for those drivers objectives. Ynez and De Portola are the only means by which most Los Ranchitos residents can either enter or leave this community. With the existing posted speed limits and the typically higher speeds being driven, this communities' residents are forced to enter a freeway like environment without benefit of on ramps. As the population grows, so does the danger. We reco~ize that many people will not understand the need to reduce the speed along Ynez and De Portola to 35 MPH because it has the general appearance of wide open space due to the low population density: however, in reality it is still just a residential area and should be given consideration as such. 3. Change La Paz St. to "One-Way" Westbound (toward HNVY' 79) and Jedediah Smith Rd. To "One-Way" Eastbound toward Ynez Rd. & De Portola Rd. Discussion By making the change in the flow oftraftic a number of things might be accomplished. The traffic m both directions on Ynez wishing to turn onto La Paz would be able to negotiate their respective turning movements more quickly, thus avoiding the Engineering departments concerns about queuing problems at the intersectiota The left turn lane and the left mm tri-light signal phase at La Paz and HWY 79 could be eliminated and the Southbound queuing problem at HWY 79 at La Paz could be transferred further South on HWY 79 to where Jedediah Smith intersects for traffic entering into Los Ranchitos community. 4. Post "No Left Turn" signs at the exits from Rancho Community. Church entering onto Vallejo SL Discussion For some time now the traffic comi~lg from the church onto Vallejo Ave. Northbound has been creating severe congestion both on Vallejo and at the intersection of Vallejo and Ynez Road. Many of them want to turn left Northbound on Ynez Rct Which again creates a hazardous left turning movement. Being able to turn left only or Southbound on Vallejo and then again only Westbound on La Paz (due to La Paz now being one w~y), these vehicles would be making right turning movements (much safer) at each of the intersections not controlled by a tri-light signal until they reach HWY 79. This would also reduce the number ofout of the area vehicles moving through Los Ranchitos. For those parishioners that are residents of Los Ranchitos, they could enter again at Jedediah Smith through controlled intersections. We feel that this recommendation has merit even as a stand along change. As you know there are preliminary plans to develop the land at the Noah/East comer of the intersection of HWY 79 and La Paz. By making La Paz Westbound, that shotfid reduce the related traffic into Los Ranchitos from those developments and also from the church nearby. The board members realize there has been some consideration for the placement of trMight signals on Yuez at either or both of the intersections with La Paz and Jedediah Smith. We believe such an installation would not be in keeping with the rural feeling of the community. and are not necessary. for safe control of traffic. We are also mindful of the budgetary impact oftri-light installations. We don't believe the traffic manual minimum requirements will be met either. We do not claim to be traffic engineering experts, but, we have g/ven careful consideration to our recommendations. We make these recommendations in the spirit of concerned community representatives and recognize the decisions you make are sometimes difficult ones that do not please eveR'one. We appreciate your willingness to listen to our concerns and stand ready to assist you in working out a plan that will prov/de the safest traffic flow at a reasonable price. If our board members can be of any help at all, please let me know. We observed on November 20~ that the Commission is truly concerned and common sense prevailed. We trust you will use that same insightful wisdom m dealing with our recommendations. Thank you again for your consideratior~ Sincerely, Victor Jones, President Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association ITEM 18 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAN~'E/ CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Prepared by: RECOMMENDATION: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council Ronald E. Bradley ~d'-~ City Manager April 28, 1998 Support of the Pechanga Indian's Right to Governmental Jurisdiction Susan W. Jones Acting City Clerk/Director of Support Services That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO, 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE PECHANGA INDIAN'S RIGHT TO GOVERNMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER THEIR LAND AND PEOPLE AND TO ENGAGE IN THE FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM BACKGROUND: In response to Governor Wilson's Pala Compact for Class III games, the Pechanga Band of Luise~o Indians is requesting that the City Council support their right to governmental jurisdiction. The Pechanga Band is of the opinion that the proposed Pala Compact would violate the intent of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the trust responsibilities of the Secretary, the Justice Department, and the Federal government to protect tribal sovereignty against abuse by states. The Pala Compact would, as well, impose a reduction in gaming activities and, thereby, limiting future economic development on the reservation; potentially increasing welfare and joblessness on the reservation; and decreasing employment provided to neighboring communities. Although the Pechanga Band would not deny the right to reach an agreement with the Governor, the proposed Pala Compact would be financially disastrous to the reservation and, therefore, it is being requested that the City Council reject the Pala Compact. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 98- R:\agenda.r pt\pechanga 1 RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE PECHANGA INDIAN'S RIGHT TO GOVERNMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER THEIR LAND AND PEOPLE AND TO ENGAGE IN THE FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians are responsible business owners, with over 1,200 employees, the Pechanga Band is one of the largest employers in the Temecula Valley; WHEREAS, the Pechanga Entertainment Center is the major source of the Pechanga Band's government revenues, and constitutes a major investment of over $11 million; the Pechanga Band has a total payroll of $13 million, pays payroll taxes of $1.3 million, and contributes to local business growth with more than $64 million in the purchase of goods and services; WHEREAS, the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians has its own government, with the same responsibilities and obligations as other governments to their respective constituents, to provide services on the Pechanga Reservations; WHEREAS, the Pechanga Band works with the local government and neighbors and has voluntarily invested in mutually beneficial infrastructure improvements; WHEREAS, the Pechanga Band is a sovereign government, recognized as such by the United States Government, with rights protected and promised by treaties, the United States Courts, and Federal law; WHEREAS, the Pechanga Band, as others, have engaged in tribal government gaming, which has eliminated welfare and joblessness on their reservation and has created employment in the neighboring community, benefitting all the taxpayers; WHEREAS, the Pechanga Band is a good neighbor and corporate citizen, contributing to the charitable, civic educational, and non-profit service organizations of the Temecula Valley; resos\pechanga I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Temecula support the Pechanga Indian's right to governmental jurisdiction and reject the Pala Compact. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of April 1998. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk resos\pechanga 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, Acting City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 98- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on this 28th day of April, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk resos\pechanga 3 ITEM 19 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY ' 2_. DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Susan W. Jones Acting City Clerk/Director of Support Services April 28, 1998 Support of Assembly Bill 2194 (Air Pollution: Clean Fuels Technologies) RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING AB 2194 TO PROMOTE CLEAN FUEL TECHNOLOGIES IN AN EFFORT TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTION Authorize the Mayor to execute a letter of support to the Honorable Kevin Murray, Chairman of the Assembly Committee on Transportation. BACKGROUND: The South Coast Air Quality Management District has requested the City's support for a bill in the California Assembly that would reauthorize funding for clean fuels research. Existing law authorizes the South Coast Air Quality Management District to impose a $1.00 fee on the renewal of motor vehicles in our jurisdiction to fund the Clean Fuels Program. The existing legislation, which allows the money to be used to fund clean fuels research and demonstration projects, expires next year. If signed into law, Assembly Bill 2194 (authorized by Assembly member Carl Washington) will extend the funding through 2010. Funding for clean fuels technology research provided under the current legislation has allowed AQMD to fund innovative projects through joint ventures with the private sector, resulting in dramatic air quality improvements, enhanced economic growth and better relationships between government and industry. The Clean Fuels Program will continue to play a significant role in the future. By the year 2010, the year the Federal Clean Air Act requires this area to reach attainment of the federal standard for ozone, we must obtain additional emission reductions, basically through use of technologies which don't even exist today. P:~STA NDARD I A GENDA.RPT 1 4/21/98 Although improvement has been noted in recent years, we still have the nation's worst air quality. This bill's passage is critical in allowing us to meet federal standards by 2010, as required under the Clean Air Act. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 98- Letter of Support of AB 2194 P:[STANDARD[AGENDA.RPT 2 4/21/98 RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING AB 2194 TO PROMOTE CLEAN FUEL TECHNOLOGIES IN AN EFFORT TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, in 1988 the State Legislature authorized the adoption of a $! surcharge on vehicle registrations within the South Coast Air Quality management District to fund a clean fuels program to find and nurture new technologies to reduce air pollution; WHEREAS, since 1988, every dollar invested from this vehicle surcharge has been matched by another four dollars invested by private industry, universities and other public agencies, effectively leveraging the program's $60 million investment to obtain $250 million in public-private matching funds to finance research and development projects valued at more than $310 million; WHEREAS, the existence of this program has resulted in a vibrant public/private partnership engaged in developing new technologies to combat air pollution, with 87 of these projects currently underway; WHEREAS, this program has been instrumental in the development and deployment of low and zero emission technologies in critical transportation applications, including but not limited to: advanced electric cars; the world's first fuel cell buses; hybrid-electric delivery trucks; and locomotive engines running on liquefied natural gas; WHEREAS, the local Southern California economy has benefited from tens of millions of dollars in public/private investments in clean fuel technologies since 1989; WHEREAS, 40% of the emission reductions needed in the South Coast District to meet the federal clean air standard for ozone by 2010 rely upon advanced technologies which do not exist today; WHEREAS, a variety of projects funded by this program have resulted in real emission reductions through the introduction of zero-emitting vehicles powered by fuel cells and clean fuel public transit buses; Resos 98- I WHEREAS, the existing program has provided necessary research and development resources to technologies that might not have become commercially available without such investment; WHEREAS, the successful commercialization of technologies essential to achieving acceptable air quality in the South Coast is dependent on the continuation of the advanced technology program; WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 2194, authored by Assembly Member Carl Washington, and introduced in the 1998 session of the California Legislature, would continue the clean fuels program until 2010, assuring that it will be an integral program to the regional efforts to achieve the federal air quality health standard for ozone by 2010; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Temecula supports AB 2194 by Assembly Member Washington. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of April, 1998. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk [SEAL] Resos 98- 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, Acting City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 98- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 28th day of April, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk Resos 98- 3 April 28, 1998 The Honorable Kevin Murray, Chairman Assembly Committee on Transportation State Capitol, Room 412§ Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Chairman Murray: As Mayor, I strongly urge your support for Assembly Bill 2194 now pending before the Legislature. AB 2194 would reauthorize a $1 surcharge on vehicle registrations within the South Coast Air Quality Management District to fund a clean fuels program to develop new technologies to reduce air pollution. Funding for clean fuels technology research provided under the current legislation has allowed AQMD to fund innovative projects through joint ventures with the private sector, resulting in dramatic air quality improvements, enhanced economic growth and better relationships between government and industry. The Clean Fuels Program will continue to play a significant role in the future. By the year 2010, the year the Federal Clean Air Act requires this area to reach attainment of the federal standard for ozone, we must obtain additional emission reductions, basically through use of technologies which don't even exist today. Despite AQMD's efforts, we are far from meeting federal clean air standards and time is running out. Therefore, I urge you to vote yes on AB 2194 when it comes before you. Sincerely, Ron Roberts, Mayor RR/Cheryl Domenoe CC: Barry Wallerstein Acting Executive Officer, SCAQMD R:iLETTERSlCLEANAIR. WPD ITEM 20 CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE,.,/~ CItY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Peter Thorson, City Attorney April 28, 1998 City Council Acceptance of the Applicant's Request to Withdraw the RogersDale Entertainment Project and Repeal Resolutions 97-129 and 98-03 for the Land Use and Subsequent Phase Environmental Approvals for Planning Applications PA97-0298 and PA97-0392 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW FROM THE ROGERSDALE TEMECULA PROJECT AND REPEALING RESOLUTIONS 97-129 AND 98-03 FOR THE LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS PA97-0298 AND PA 97-0392 BACKGROUND: On April 7, 1998, the City Manager received a letter from Mr. Zev Buffman, President of TEV, Inc., the applicant on the RogersDale Project, stating that the owners of the Project have made the decision to move the Project to the City of Murietta and that they would not be pursuing the development identified in Planning Applications PA97-0298 and PA97-0392. Accordingly, it is necessary for the City Council to formally accept the Applicant's request to withdraw from the project and repeal Resolutions 97-129 and 98-03 being the land use and environmental approvals for the subsequent phases of the Project. The litigation concerning these approvals now pending in the Riverside Superior Court can then be dismissed by the Court as moot. Phase I of the RogersDale Project consisted of the construction of a 103,564 square foot, 4,800 seat arena and associated improvements (hardscape, parking, landscaping and roadways) located west of Old Town temecula. The Council considered Phase I at a hearing on November 18, 1997 at which time the City Council approved Resolution No. 97-129 approving PA97- 0298 and denying certain appeals in connection with the Project. This Resolution also made detailed findings concerning the City's environmental review of both Phases I and II of the Project and determined that further environmental review of the Project beyond that contained in an Environmental Impact Report for PA95-0031 previously certified by the City Council on July 13, 1995 was not required for the Project. R:I STAFFRPT'I298PA97.RPL 4/21/98 Phase II of the Project consisted of the design, construction, and operation of a total of 203,300 square feet of retail, restaurant, arcades, theaters, and shops and associated improvements (hardscape, parking and landscaping) on 16.5 acres at the same location. The Council considered Phase II at a hearing on January 13, 1998, at which time the City Council approved Resolution No. 98-03 approving PA97-0392 and denying certain appeals in connection with the Project. This Resolution also made detailed findings concerning the City's environmental review of both Phases I and II of the Project. The repeal of these two planning applications does not affect the continuing validity of the Westside Specific Plan. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impacts are anticipated from this action. ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. Proposed Resolution No. 98-(next) Resolution 97-129 Resolution 98-03 April 7, 1998 Letter from Mr. Zev Buffman, President of TEV, Inc R:i$TAFFRPTI298PA9?.RPL 2 4/21/98 ATTACHMENT NO. I R:iSTAFFRPTI298PA97. RPL 3 4/21/98 RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW FROM THE ROGERSDALE TEMECULA PROJECT AND REPEALING RESOL~IONS 97-129 AND 98-03 FOR ARE THE LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS PA97-0298 AND PA 97-0392 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES IH~ERY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. that: The City Council of the City of Temeeula does hereby f'md, determine and declare A. TEV, Inc. filed Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan) on August 29, 1997 for Phase I of the Project which phase consisted of construction of a 103,564 square foot, 4,800 seat arena and associated improvements (hardscape, parking, landscaping and roadways) located west of Old Town Temecula (100 feet west of Pujol Street, 700 feet south of Ridge Park Drive/Vincent Moraga Drive and east of the City's western boundary, within the Westside Specific Plan). B. On November 18, 1997, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved Resolution No. 97-129 approving PA97-0298 and denying certain appeals in connection with the Project. This Resolution also made detailed findings concerning the City's environmental review of both Phases I and II of the Project and determined that further environmental review of the Project beyond that contained in an Environmental Impact Report for PA95-0031 previously certified by the City Council on July 13, 1995 was not required for the Project. C. TEV, Inc. filed Planning Application No. PA97-0392 (Conditional Use Permi0 on November 10, 1997 for Phase 1I of the Project which phase consisted of the design, construction, and operation of a total of 203,300 square feet of retail, restaurant, arcades, theaters, and shops and associated improvements (hardscape, parking and landscaping) on 16.5 acres located west of Old Town Temecula ((100 feet west of Pujol Street, 700 feet south of Ridge Park Drive/Vincent Moraga Drive and east of the City's western boundary, ~vithin the Westside Specific Plan). D. On January 13, 1998, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved Resolution No. 98-03 approving PA97-0392 and denying certain appeals in connection with the Project. This Resolution also made detailed findings concerning the City's environmental review of both Phases I and II of the Project and determined that further environmental review of the Project beyond that contained in an Environmental Impact Report for PA95-0031 previously certified by the City Council on July 13, 1995 was not required for the Project. P:tDOMENOECIROGERSDA. WPD 4 4/23/98 E. On April 7, 1998, the City Manager received a letter from Mr. Zev Buffman, President of TEV, Inc., the applicant on the Project, stating that the owners of the Project have made the decision to move the Project to the City of Murietta and that they would not be pursuing development of PA97-0298 and PA97-0392. Section 2. The City Council hereby accepts the Applicant's request to withdraw from the Project and terminate all proceedings with respect to Planning Applications PA97-0298 and PA97- 0392. Therefore, the City Council hereby repeals Resolution 97-129 of the City Council, approved on November 18, 1997, and Resolution 98-03 of the City Council, approved on January 13, 1998, said resolutions being the land use and environmental approvals for Planning Applications PA97-0298 and PA97-0392. Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula on April 28, 1998. ATTEST: RON ROBERTS MAYOR SUSAN JONES, CMC CITY CLERK [SEAL] R:IS TAFFRPI'~298PA9 7. RPL § 4/21/98 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA SS I, Susan Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the Resolution No. 98- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on , 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: SUSAN JONES, CMC CITY CLERK R:tSTAFFRPTI298PA97. RPL 6 4/21/98 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 RESOLUTION 97-129 R:ISTAFFRPTI298PA97. RPL 7 4/2 ~'/98 ]~]~-qoI,UTION NO. 9%129 A RESOLU'I/ON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF T~v!ECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-41298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN- ~ NO. 1), MDDD'YING CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 7 OF PLANNING AFFLICATION NO. PA97-0298 APPRO~G A CHANGE TO Tm~ ROOF MATERIALS lrOR ~ ARENA AND DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELO~ It. AN- Alq'EAL NO. 2), UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION APPRO~G ~G APPLICA~N NO. PA97-0298 (DEV~OPMENT PLAN) FOR Tmc CONSTRUCTION OF A 103,564 SQUARE FOOT, 4,800 SEAT ARENA AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS (HARDSCAPE, PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND ROADWAYS) AND AN AND ADDENDUM TO A PREVIOUSLY BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS CONTAINED IN ~ STAFF ]tlq~ORT SUIUECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON FIIJC IN ~ CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. WHEREAS, TEl/, Inc. fried Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan) in accordance with the Ci~ of Temecula Gea~'al Plan and l~v~lopn~t WIIERRAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan) was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commis._qlon considered Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan) on ~ 6, 1997, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time ifiterested persons had an opportuni~ to testify either in support oF in opposition; WHF. REAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering nil testimony and ~ts, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Comm;.,.,~o~ considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA97-0'298 (Development Plan); WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA97-(Y298 (Development Plan); WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan - Appeal No.l) was filed on by TEV, Inc. on October 13, 1997, requesting additional design flexibility with re.slX~ to the material for the roof of the arena; · em~7-12g I ~, Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Devek~ment Plan - Appeal No. 2) was ~ by Albert S. Pratt on October 13, 1997 request{n___.g the City Council deny the approval of the Planning Commission and requirg a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report be prepared for the project; WHEREAS, the City Council conducted & public: henzing pertaining to Planning Appllc~tlon No. PA97-0298 (Developtnmt Plan - Appeal No. 1) m November 18, 1997, at which Application No. PA97-0298; and WU!~I~-A.q, the City Council _rec~__'_ved a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding Planning Application No. PA97-0298; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETEB.M~E AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: ,~ct{on 1. findings; to wit: Findings. That the Temecula City Council hereby mak~ the following 1. The Project has been the subject of extensive prior environmental review nnd that no additional environmental review is needed for the following reasons: A. On luly 13, 1995, following a duly no6ced public hearing, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopaxl Resolution No. 95-49 entitled "A RF.~OLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECUL.A CF. RTIFYINO PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 95-41)31 (FINAL ENVIRO~AL IMPACT REPORT) ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STA~ OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION MON1TORINO PROORAM ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF INTERSTATE 15, EAST OF THE C1TY'S WES~ BORDER, SOUTH OF RANCHO C,ALn~ORNIA ROAD AND NORTH OF THE SANTA MARGARITA RIVER,' certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Wemid~ Specific Plan and Planning Application No. PA95- 0003 (Westside Specific Plan) and changing the zone from R-A-20 (Residmt{,~ Agricultural - Twenty Acre lvti_nimum Parcel Size) to S-P (Specific Plan) for the Property. B. An amendment to the lxoject was approved by the Planning Commission on March 18, 1996 and by the City Council on March 26, 1996, at which time a finding was mad~ that no furthe~ environmental review was required for the project; C. The Slaff of the Planning DelxuUnent has prepared an Initial Environmental Study (IF.S), dated September 17, 1997, analyzing the proposed Development Plan and the prior environmental actions on the Project, which ~ is incorporated hem'ein by this reference. ~97-129 2 D. An Initial Navi~mmm~l Study (IF, S) w~ ~ to determine if the project was within the scope of the pmviomly cer6fied Environmental Impact l~mrt (EIR) for the Old Town Redev~t Project (Planning Applic~o~ No. PA.9~-0031). Based upon this analysis, staff determined an Addendum to the previously certified EIR be prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Envinmrnemal Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline. The Addendum was prepared in Section 15162 of the G~de~ines calling for the prelmmfion of ~ subsequent EIR have occurred. No. PA95-0031) will apply ~o this project. E. Tim proposed Deve2~t Plan incorporates the provisions of the City's General Plan, ~e Westside Specific Plan, the current zoning reguhtions for the Property, the Mitigation Plan of Planning Application No. PA9~-0031 (Final Envittmment~l lml~ct Report) and such other ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies governing permitted uses, density, design, and analy7.ed in Planning Application No. PA~-0031 (FEIR). Minor changes to the project have been leVieWed and etamlned in an Addendum to Planning Application No. PA95-0031 ~). F. Based on the evidence in the record before it, and after careful consideratlon of the ~videnm and the Addendum, the City Council hereby finds and detennin~ that neither a Subsequent tRR or a Supplemental P. rR is required for the Developmint Plan pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166, 14 Cal. Admin. Code Sections 15162 or 15163, based on the following findings of the City Council: 1. The elements of the Project as described in the Development Phn were contemphted and fully and properly anal~_~_ in the ~R ce~ified and approved by the City Council on July 13, 1995 and the Addendum prelxtred for the Development Plan (Planning Application No. PA97-0298). 2. Then: have been no subsequent c2umges to the Project which would require major revision~ of the pmviom FEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial inctense in the severity of previously identified significant effects. 3. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken which will require major ~ of the previous FEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. 4. There is no new information since the certification of the previous FEIR which would show or tend to show that the Project might have one or more significant effects not discussed in the prcwious FEIR. Itaaoa~/-129 3 5. There is no new information since the ce~ification of the previous F~-rR which would show or tend to show that 's~gficant effects previously examined might be substantially more severe than shown in the FEIR. 6. The~ is no new inforum60n since the cettificalJm of the FEIR w~ would show or trod to show that mi 't~ation measures or alternative previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project. 7. There is no new information since the cerfi't~__~on of the l=V~R which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous FEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. findings; to wit: Findings. That the Temecula City Council hereby mak~ the following 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the Gertreal Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requitemeats of State law and other ordinances of tbe City. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including the City's General Plan and the Westside Specific Plan. 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. The project as lXoposed complies with all City Ot~inor~.s and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and weftare. Section 3. Conditions. That the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves Planning Application No. PA9%0298 (Development plan - Appeal No. 1), modifying Condition of Approval No. 7 of Planning Application No. PA97-0298, to approve a change to the roof materials for the Arena and denies Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan, Appeal No. 2) and hereby upholds the Planning Commission's decision approving Planning Appli~_.tion No. PA97-0398 (Development Plan) for the construction of a 103,564 square foot, 4,800 seat arena and associated improvements (hardsca~, parking, landscaping and roadways) and an Addendum to a Previously Certified ~ for the Old Town Redevelopment Projec~ based upon lhe analysis contained in the Staff Report ~ subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. Rs~o~97-1~.9 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City o~ Temecula this 18th day of November, 1997. Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY' OF TF. MECULA ) I, June $. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 97-129 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula a~ a regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th day of November, 1997 by the following vote, to wit: 4 COUNCILMEMBEI~: Ford, Lindemarts, Roberts, Birdsall NOES: 0 COUNCH. MEMBERS: None 0 COUNCH.MEMBERS: None I COUNCrL~..bfB~: Stone June $. Greek, City Ckrk ATTACHMENT NO. 3 RESOLUTION 98-03 R:ISTAFFRPTi298PA97. RPI. 8 4/2 ~/98 RESOLUTION NO. 98-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT} AND DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- APPEAL), UPIIOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT), TO PERMIT THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A TOTAL OF 203,300 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, RFSTAURANT, ARCADES, THEATERS AND SHOPS AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS (HARDSCAPE, PARKING AND LANDSCAPING) ON 16.5 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF OLD TOWN TEMECULA (100 FEET WEST OF PUJOL STREET), 700 FEET SOUTII OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE/VINCENT MORAGA DRIVE AND EAST OF TIlE CITY'S WESTERN BORDER, WITHIN THE WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 940-310-013, 940-310-044, 940-310-045, 940-310-047, 940-3104M8, 940.320-~1,940-320-002, 940-320-003 BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT S~ TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. WHEREAS, TEV, Inc. filed Planning Application No. PA97-0392 (Conditional Use Permi0 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0392 (Conditional Use Permit) was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application PA97-0392 (Conditional Use Permi0 on December 15, 1997, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public heating, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA97-0392 (Conditional Use Permit); WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA97-0392 (Conditional Use Permit); WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0392 (Conditional Use Permit - Appeal) was filed by Albert S. Pratt on December 22, 1997, requesting the City Council deny the approval Re~o~\98-03 I of the Planning Commission and require a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report be prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding Planning Application No. PA97-0392 (Conditional Use Permit); NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. findings; to wit: Findings. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following 1. The Project has been the subject of extensive prior environmental review and that no additional environmental review is needed for the following reasons: A. On July 13, 1995, following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution No. 95-49 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 9543031 (FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT) ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF INTERSTATE 15, EAST OF THE CITY'S WESTERN BORDER, SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND NORTH OF THE SANTA MARGARITA RIVER," certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Westside Specific Plan and Planning Application No. PA95- 0003 (Westside Specific Plan) and changing the zone from R-A-20 (Residential Agricultural - Twenty Acre Minimum Parcel Size) to S-P (Specific Plan) for the Property. B. An amendment to the project was approved by the Planning Commission on March 18, 1996 and by the City Council on March 26, 1996, at which time a finding was made that no further environmental review was required for the project; C. The Staff of the Planning Department has prepared an Initial Environmental Study (IES), ~t__exl September 17, 1997, analyzing the proposed Development Plan and the prior environmental actions on the Project, which IES is incorporated herein by this reference. D. An Initial Environmental Study (IES) was conducted to determine if the project was within the scope of the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Old Town Redevelopment Project (Planning Application No. PA95-0031), Based upon this analysis, staff determined an Addendum to the previously certified EIR be prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The Addendum was prepared because changes and additions were necessary for the project, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Mitigation measures approved with the Old Town Redevelopment R~o~98-(Lt 2 Project (Planning Application No. PA95-0031) will apply to this project. E. The proposed Project incorporates the provisions of the City's General Plan, the Westside Specific Plan, the current zoning regulations for the Property, the Mitigation Plan of Planning Application No. PA95-0031 (Final Environmental Impact Report) and such other ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies governing permitted uses, density, design, improvement, development fees, and construction standards applicable to the Property. All of the components of the proposed Project which might affect the environment were discussed and analyzed in Planning Application No. PA95-0031 (FEIR). Minor changes to the project have been reviewed and examined in an Addendum to Planning Application No. PA95-0031 (FEIR). F. Based on the evidence in the record before it, and after careful consideration of the evidence and the Addendum, the Planning Commission on October 6, 1997 and the City Council on November 18, 1997 made findings and determined that neither a Subsequent EIR or a Supplemental EIR was required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166, 14 Cal. Admin. Code Sections 15162 or 15163. G. The elements of the Project, as described in the Conditional Use Permit were contemplated and fully and properly analyzed in the EIR certified and approved by the City Council on July 13, 1995 and the Addendum adopted on November 18, 1997. H. There have been no subsequent changes to the Project which would require major revisions of the previous FEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. I. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous FEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. J. There is no new information since the certification of the previous FEIR which would show or tend to show that the Project might have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous FEIR. K. There is no new information since the certification of the previous FEIR which would show or tend to show that significant effects previously examined might be substantially more severe than shown in the FEIR. L. There is no new information since the certification of the FEIR which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternative previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project. Re~oa~98-0:~ 3 M. There is no new information since the certification of the FEIR which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous FEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. Section 2. findings; to wit: Findirlgs. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following 1. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The project meets the Goals and Objectives of the General Plan, is consistent with the Design Guidelines and Development Standards of the Westside Specific Plan and the applicable sections of the City's Development Code. 2. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The project is consistent with the Design Guidelines and Development Standards of the Westside Specific Plan and the applicable sections of the City's Development Code. The uses on-site will be compatible with each other in terms of intensity of use, scale and design. The uses proposed are consistent with the Westside Specific Plan and are allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. There is adequate buffering between those uses on-site and those uses which are adjacent (off-site). 3. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The project is consistent with the Design Guidelines and Development Standards of the Westside Specific Plan and the applicable sections of the City's Development Code. The uses on-site will be compatible with each other in terms of intensity of use, scale and design. The uses proposed are consistent with the Westside Specific Plan and are allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. There is adequate buffering between those u~-s on-site and those uses which are adjacent (off-site). 4. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The project as designed and conditioned will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. 5. The decision to conditionally approve the application is based upon substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission. The Commission has _received a copy of the Staff Report which includes the necessary analysis, findings and Conditions of Approval. In addition, the Commission has previously reviewed and recommended approval of an EIR and Addendum to the EIR, both of which were certified/adopted by the City Council and which addressed the impacts of this project on the environment and the necessary mitigation measures. R~so~[98-03 4 Section 3. Conditions. That the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves Planning Application No. PA97-0392 (Conditional Use Permit) and denying Planning Application No. PA97-0392 (Conditional Use Permit - Appeal), upholding the Planning Commission's decision approving Planning Application No. PA97-0392 (Conditional Use Permit), to permit the design, construction and operation of a total of 203,300 square feet of retail, restaurant, arcades, theaters and shops and associated improvements (hardscape, parking and landscaping) on 16.5 acres located west of Old Town Temecula (100 feet west of Pujol Street), 700 feet south of Ridge Park Drive/Vincent Moraga Drive and east of the City's western border, within the Westside Specific Plan and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 940-310-013, 940-310-044, 940-310-045, 940- 310-047, 940-310-048, 940-320-001, 940-320-002, 940-320-003 based upon the analysis contained in the Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth on Exlfibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula, at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of January, 1998. ATTEST: rk [SEAL] Resos\98-03 5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 98-03 was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 13th day of January, 1998, by the following roll call vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Comerchero, Ford, Lindemarts, Roberts NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Stone June S; Greek, 'C-io~lerk Rcaoa\98-03 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 LETTER FROM ZEV BUFFMAN R:iSTAFFRPT~298PA97. RPL 9 4/21/98 Reliving the Spirit of Yesteryear'" April 7, 1998 Mr. Ronald E. Bradley City M~-~gcr City of 43200 B~,q~m'-qs Park Dxive T~n~xda, CA 92589-9033 Re: RogersDale, U.S.A. and Pratt v. the City ofTm~cula, er. Dear Mr. Brzdl~: As you are aware, d~c Rog~r~Dale, US.A- owners have made the decision to move ~he site for the Project to Murrie. m Accordiagly, the al:rplicam, TEV, Inc., Zev Buffman, contact, do~ not intend to pursue Planning Application No.'s 9'/0298 and 970392 for base [I, respectively. ~e~d~nt RogersDale, U.S.A. 15650 Seneca Road, Victorville, California 92392 ITEM 21 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAN{;; CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney April 28, 1998 Second Amendment to Employment Agreement with City Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1) Approve the "Second Amendment to Employment Agreement" between the City of Temecula and City Manager Ronald Bradley and authorize the Mayor to sign the Second Amendment in substantially the form attached to this Report. 2) Appropriate $7,000 to the City Manager Department "Salaries and Wages" line item. BACKGROUND: On June 14, 1994, the City and Mr. Bradley entered into an "Employment Agreement" describing the terms and conditions of Mr. Bradley's employment with the City as its City Manager. On April 8, 1997, the City and Mr. Bradley entered into an amendment of that Agreement entitled "First Amendment to Employment Agreement" extending the term of the Employment Agreement to July 1, 1998, and modifying certain other terms of the Agreement. Mr. Bradley has agreed to remain in City employment until December 31, 1999, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, as amended by this Second Amendment. The Council ad hoc subcommittee of Mayor Roberts and Councilmember Stone recommends that Mr. Bradley's Employment Agreement be extended to December 31, 1999, and that he receive a 10% increase in salary, retroactive to January 1, 1998, pursuant to the requirements of the First Amendment to the Employment Agreement approved on April 8, 1997. Mr. Bradley's current annual salary is $114,044 pursuant to the provisions of Sections 4 and 11 of the Employment Agreement. A 10% salary adjustment would increase his salary to $125,448. All other terms of the Employment Agreement, as amended on April 8, 1997, would remain the same. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed amendment will result in a total annual cost increase of approximately $13,600 (including direct benefits). An appropriation of General Fund reserves in the amount of $7,000 will be required for the 1997-98 fiscal year. R:I Y,~ TESGIREPORT$1CM-CONTR. ARP rh 1 1/1/98' ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Second Amendment to Employment Agreement Original Employment Agreement First Amendment to Employment Agreement R:l YA TESGiREPORTSICM-CONTR. ARP rh 2 I/1/95 SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT THIS SECOND AMENDMENT EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is made, entered into, and effective as of April 28, 1998 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, ("City"), and Ronald E. Bradley, an individual, ("Employee"). In consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, and conditions contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. This Second Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes, which the parties hereto agree are true and correct: a. On June 14, 1994 the City and Employee entered into that certain "Employment Agreement" describing the terms and conditions of Employee's employment with the City as its City Manager. b. On April 8, 1997, the City and Employee entered into that certain "First Amendment to Employment Agreement" extending the term of the Agreement and modifying certain other terms of the Agreement. The original Agreement of June 14, 1994 as amended by the First Amendment of April 8, 1997 shall be collectively referred to as the "Agreement." c. Employee's current salary is $114,044 pursuant to the provisions of Sections 4. and 11. of the Agreement. The City Council desire to increase Employee's salary by 10% to $125,448. d. Employee has agreed to remain in City employment until December 31, 1999, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement as amended by this Second Amendment, notwithstanding his right to complete City service under the terms of the Agreement. The parties, therefore, now desire to amend the Agreement in order to provided for the extension of the term of the Agreement and modify certain terms thereof as contemplated by the terms of the First Amendment. 2. Section 2.D. of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: "D. Employee's employment with the City shall remain in effect until December 31, 1999, unless sooner terminated or extended pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. Employee agrees to remain in the exclusive employment of City for a period to and including December 31, 1999, and shall not accept other employment nor become employed by any other employer prior to that date except as provided in Section 3., paragraph C. of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, Employee shall be permitted to instruct, write, teach, and lecture on Employee's time off." 4/17/98 11086-00001 pmt 1480734 0 3. Section 3.C. of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: "C. In the event Employee voluntarily resigns his position as City Manager, he shall give the City at least sixty (60) days prior written notice of his intention to resign. Employee may solicit other employment at any time after giving or receiving written notice of termination or after December 31, 1999." 4. Section 4. of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: "4. SALARY "City agrees to pay Employee a base salary of one hundred twenty five thousand four hundred forty eight dollars ($125,448.00) as set forth in the City salary resolution, salary additives as set forth in this Agreement and benefits as set forth in this Agreement, for his services rendered pursuant hereto in installments at the same time as other employees of the City are paid. This salary shall be effective as of January 1, 1998, and retroactive to said date, implementing the terms of Section 4. of the First Amendment to Employment Agreement approved by the Council on April 8, 1997. 5. Section 8.F. of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: "F. Unused balances of the leaves described in this Section and Section 15.B. as of December 31, 1999 may be exercised as leave time by the Employee or taken as a lump-sum payment, at the option of the Employee. Employee shall remain an employee of the City until such time as the accrued leave described herein has been exhausted." 6. In addition to the duties of Employee as specified in Section 1. of the Agreement, Employee shall conduct the recruitment for the position of City Manager and shall present to the City Council a list of qualified applicants from which the Council may appoint a new City Manager. 7. Employee acknowledges that he has had the opportunity and has conducted an independent review of the financial and legal effects of this Second Amendment to the Agreement. Employee acknowledges that he has made an independent judgment upon the financial and legal effects of this Second Amendment to the Agreement and has not relied upon any representations of the City, its officers, agents, or employees other than those expressly set forth herein. 8. Except as explicitly set forth in this Second Amendment, all other terms of the Employment Agreement between the City and the Employee, dated as of June 14, 1994, as amended April 8, 1997, shall remain in full force and effect. 4/17/98 110864X)001 pmt 1480734 0 - 2 - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA Ron Roberts Mayor Attest: Susan Jones, CMC City Clerk Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney EMPLOYEE Ronald E. Bradley 4/17/98 11086-00001 prat 1480734 0 3 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 14thday of June , 1994, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City," and Ronald E. Bradley, an individual, hereinafter referred to as "Employee." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council of City to retain the services of Employee as City Manager; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council of City to provide certain benefits, establish certain conditions of employment, and to set certain working conditions of Employee; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council of City to: (1) provide inducement for Employee to remain in City's employment; (2) make possible full work productivity by assuring Employee's morale and peace of mind with respect to future security; and (3) provide an equitable means for terminating Employee's services; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, and conditions contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. DUTIES: City hereby agrees to employ Employee as City Manager of the City of Temecula to perform the functions and duties specified in the Municipal Code, and to perform other legally permissible and proper duties and functions as the City Council shall from time to time assign. 2. TERM: A. Employee is an at-will employee serving at the pleasure of the City Council subject to the terms of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of the City Council to terminate the services of Employee at any time, for any lawful reason, subject only to the provisions set forth in Section 3, paragraphs A and B of this Agreement. Termination shall require a three-fifths (3/5) vote of the City Council. B. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of the City Manager to resign at any time from his position with City, subject only to the provisions set forth in Section 3, paragraph C of this Agreement. C. Notwithstanding the above, it is also understood and agreed that the Employee shall be retained a minimum of six (6) months following any municipal election, thereby allowing the new City Council adequate time to assess the Employee's performance. If Employee is to be terminated at the end of the six (6) month period following an election, the provisions of Section 3, paragraph A shall apply effective at the end of the six (6) month period. D. This Agreement shall remain in effect until terminated by either party in the manner hereinafter provided. Employee agrees to remain in the exclusive employment of City for a minimum period to and including July 1, 1997, and shall not accept other employment nor to become employed by any other employer prior to that date except as provided in Section 3, paragraph C of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, Employee shall be permitted to instruct, write, teach, and lecture on Employee's time off. 3. TERMINATION AND SEVERANCE PAY: A. City shall give six (6) months' prior written notice of termination to Employee. B. In the event Employee is terminated by City, City agrees to pay Employee a terminating cash payment equal to six (6) months of Employee's base monthly 2 salary. In the event Employee is terminated because of his conviction of a felony or the filing of criminal charge against him alleging a felony which subsequently results in his conviction of a felony (including a plea of nolo contendere thereto), then, in that event, City shall not be obligated to pay the terminating cash payment designated in this paragraph. If Employee is terminated by City following the filing of such charges, and pending a final judgment thereon or disposition thereof, City shall deposit said severance pay in an interest bearing trust account in a bank doing business in the City of Temecula. Said terminating cash payment including interest, if any, shall be considered part of Employee's termination pay and may be taken by Employee, at his option, (1) upon the date of termination, (2) as a lump sum on January I of the year following termination, or (3) in a number of equal monthly payments not to exceed the number of months provided in Paragraph A above beginning on the date of termination. City agrees to keep in full force and effect and pay premiums of all of Employee's health and life insurance plans until all termination payments are made. C. In the event Employee voluntarily resigns his position as City Manager, he shall give City at least sixty (60) days' prior written notice of his intention to resign. Employee may solicit other employment at any time after giving or receiving written notice of termination or after July 1, 1997. D. In the event City, at any time during the term of this Agreement, reduces Employee's salary or any other financial benefits in a greater percentage than an applicable a cross-the-board reduction for executive management employees of City, or fails to increase Employee's salary or any other financial benefits consistent with increases granted executive management employees, or in the event City refuses, following written notice, to comply with any other provision benefiting Employee herein, or Employee resigns following a suggestion, whether formal or informal, by the City Council that he resign, 3 then, in that event, Employee may, at his option, be deemed to be "terminated" effective as of the date of such resignation or reduction. 4. SALARY: City agrees to pay Employee a base salary of $103,870.00as set forth in the City salary resolution, salary additives, and benefits for his services rendered pursuant hereto in installments at the same time as other employees of the City are paid. In addition, City agrees to increase Employee's base salary and/or other benefits in such amounts and to such extent as the City Council may determine desirable on the basis of an annual salary review of the City Manager made at the same time as similar consideration is given other executive management employees generally. 5. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: A. The City Council shall review and evaluate the performance of Employee annually, after adoption of the annual operating budget. Said review and evaluation shall be in accordance with specific criteria developed jointly by the City Council and Employee. Said criteria may be added to or deleted from as the City Council may from time to time determine after consultation with Employee. The Mayor shall provide Employee with a summary written statement of the findings of the City Council and provide an adequate opportunity for Employee to discuss his evaluation with the City Council. B. Annually, the City Coancil and Employee shall define such goals and performance objectives which they determine necessary for the proper operation of City, and in the attainment of the City Council's policy objectives and shall further establish a relative priority among those various goals and objectives, said goals and objectives to be reduced to writing. They shall generally be attainable within the time limitations as specified and the annual operating and capital budgets and appropriations provided. 6. HOURS OF WORK: It is recognized that Employee must devote a great deal of time outside the normal office hours to business of City and, to that end, he shall be allowed to take compensatory time off as he shall deem appropriate during said normal office hours. 7. AUTOMOBILE: Employee's duties require that he shall have the exclusive and unrestricted use of an automobile at all times during his employment with City. City shall be responsible for paying for all liability, property damage and comprehensive insurance and for the purchase, operation, maintenance, repair and regular replacement of said automobile. Employee shall be allowed unrestricted personal and professional use of said automobile, not including vacations, and will reimburse City for personal use of automobile at $.29 per mile. 8. SICK LEAVE, HOLIDAYS, VACATION, LEAVE WITHOUT PAY, BEREAVEMENT LEAVE, AND ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE: A. Employee shall be credited with one hundred thirty-two (132) hours of combined sick and vacation leave effective May 28, 1994. B. Employee shall be entitled to accrue, and have credited to his personal account, vacation and sick leave at the same rate as executive management employees of City with ten (10) plus years seniority. C. Employee shall be entitled to holidays, leave without pay, and bereavement leave on the same basis as executive management employees of City. D. Employee will be credited with eighty (80) hours of administrative leave on July 1st of each year. Unused administrative leave balances may be paid in cash semi-annually in June and December at Employee's option. 5 9. DISABILITY, HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE: City agrees to provide Employee and his dependents with, and make required payments for, all insured and city-funded benefits provided to current executive management employees, including, but not limited to life, accident, medical, and disability plans. Employee agrees to make payments for these benefits in the same amounts as executive management employees. 10. ANNUAL PHYSICAL: City agrees to provide, at (~ity expense, an annual physical to Employee by a physician of his choice. Said physical shall be at least as extensive as that required of executive management employees. Employee agrees to share results of said physical examination with the (~ity Council at their request. 11. RETIREMENT, DEFERRED COMPENSATION, AND MANAGEMENT PACKAGE: A. City agrees that Employee shall be granted the same "management package" as that offered to (~ity's executive management employees. B. City agrees to contribute all of the City's and Employee's shares to maintain employee as a member of the Public Employees' Retirement System. C. City shall deduct $312.50 from Employee's salary for each pay period for Employee's contribution to a deferred compensation plan of his choice, pursuant to Government Code Section 19993. D. The City and Employee acknowledge the desirability of employee's relocation to the (~ity of Temecula. In order to secure Employee's relocation, the City will reimburse Employee for moving and relocation expenses in an amount not to exceed $4,000. Such costs include, but are not limited to, real estate fees, escrow fees, title insurance, and moving company fees. In addition, City will reimburse employee for loan 6 fees or "points" necessary for employee to secure a conventional home loan from a commercial lender for a seven percent (7%) thirty (30) year home loan. E. City agrees to pay employee a salary additive of seven and 22/100 percent (7.22%) of his base salary. Such payment shall be earned biweekly beginning May 28, 1994 and paid annually to Employee on the first pay period in January, beginning in January 1995. 12. OFFICIAL AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES: A. City agrees to budget and to pay for the professional dues and subscriptions of Employee necessary for his continuation and full participation in national, regional, state, and local associations and organizations necessary and desirable for his continued professional participation, growth and advancement, and for the good of City. B. City agrees to budget and to pay for the travel and subsistence expenses of Employee for professional and official travel, meetings, and occasions adequate to continue the professional development of Employee and to adequately pursue necessary official and other functions for City, including, but not limited to the Annual Conference of the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), the League of California Cities, and such other national, regional, state, and local government groups and committees thereof which employee serves as a member. Co City agrees to budget and to pay for the travel and subsistence expenses of Employee for short courses, institutes, and seminars that are necessary for his professional development and for the good of City. 1 3, INDEMNIFICATION: City shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify Employee against any tort, professional liability claim or demand or other legal action, whether groundless or otherwise, arising out of an alleged act or omission occurring in the performance of 7 Employee's duties in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code 825. City may compromise and settle any such claim or suit and pay the amount of any settlement or judgment rendered therefrom. 14. BONDING: City shall bear the full cost of any fidelity or other bonds required of Employee under any law or ordinance. 15. OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT: A. The City Council, in consultation with Employee, shall fix any such other terms and conditions of employment, as it may determine from time to time, relating to the performance of Employee, provided such terms and conditions are not inconsistent with or in conflict with the provisions of this Agreement, the Municipal Code, or any other law. B. All provisions of the Municipal Code, and regulations and rules of City relating to vacation and sick leave, retirement and pension system contributions, holidays, and other fringe benefits and working conditions as they now exist of hereafter may be amended, also shall apply to Employee as they would to executive management employees of City in addition to said benefits enumerated specifically for the benefit of Employee except as herein provided. C. Such other benefits as the City Council may authorize in the future will be amended to this Agreement. 1 6. NO REDUCTION OF BENEFITS: City shall not at any time during the term of this Agreement reduce the base salary, compensation, or other financial benefits of Employee, except to the degree of such a reduction across-the-board for all executive management employees of City without subjecting such action to be deemed a termination at Employee's option. 8 17. NOTICES: Any notice required or permitted by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be personally served or shall be sufficiently given and deemed served upon the other party if sent by United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows: TO CITY: City Clerk City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 TO EMPLOYEE: Ronald E. Bradley City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Notices shall be deemed given as of the date of personal service or upon the date of deposit in the course of transmission with the United States Postal Service. 18. GENERAL PROVISIONS: A. The text herein shall constitute the entire Agreement between the parties. B. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs at law and executors of Employee with respect to salary benefits or other payments due employee at the time of death. C. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution; provided, however, that all financial provisions shall be retroactive to May 28, 1994. D. Employee acknowledges that he has had the opportunity and has conducted an independent review of the financial and legal effects of this Agreement. Employee acknowledges that he has made an independent judgment upon the financial and legal effects of this Agreement and has not relied upon any representations of the City, its officers, agents, or employees other than those expressly set forth herein. 9 E. If any provision, or any portion thereof, contained in this agreement is held unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or portion thereof, shall be deemed severable, shall not be affected and shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City has caused this Agreement to be signed and duly executed on its behalf by its Mayor, and duly attested by its City Clerk, and Employee has signed and executed this Agreement, in triplicate, the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation ATTEST: ~'~(~~"~ City Clerk~ APPROVED AS TO FORM: Employee Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney Dated 10 FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT THIS FIRST AMENDMENT EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is made, entered into, and effective as of April 8, 1997 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, ("City"), and Ronald E. Bradley, an individual, ("Employee"). In consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, and conditions contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. This First Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes, which the parties hereto agree are true and correct: a. On June 14, 1994 the City and Employee entered into that certain "Employment Agreement" describing the terms and conditions of Employee's employment with the City as its City Manager. b. The parties now wish to amend the Agreement in order to extend the term of the Agreement and modify certain terms thereof. 2. Section 2.D. of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: "D. Employee's employment with the City shall remain in effect until July 1, 1998, unless sooner terminated or extended pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. Employee agrees to remain in the exclusive employment of City for a period to and including July 1, 1998, and shall not accept other employment nor become employed by any other employer prior to that date except as provided in Section 3., paragraph C. of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, Employee shall be permitted to instruct, write, teach, and lecture on Employee's time off." follows: Sections 3.C. and 3.D. of the Agreement are hereby amended to read as "C. In the event Employee voluntarily resigns his position as City Manager, he shall give the City at least sixty (60) days prior written notice of his intention to resign. Employee may solicit other employment at any time after giving or receiving written notice of termination or after July 1, 1998." "D. In the event City, at any time during the term of this Agreement, reduces Employee's salary or any other financial benefits in a greater percentage than an applicable across-the-board reduction for executive management employees of the City, or fails to increase Employee's salary or any other financial benefits consistent with increases granted executive management employees, or in the event City refuses, following reasonable written notice, to 970321 11086-00013 mt 1480399 R:\cityatty\cmcntrt.amd comply with any other provision benefiting Employee herein, or Employee resigns following a suggestion, whether formal or informal, by a City Councilmember that he resign, then, in that event, Employee may, at his option, be deemed to be "terminated" effective as of the date of such resignation or reduction." 4. Section 4. of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: "4. SALARY "City agrees to pay Employee a base salary of $103,870.00 as set forth in the City salary resolution, salary additives as set forth in this Agreement and benefits as set forth in this Agreement, for his services rendered pursuant hereto in installments at the same time as other employees of the City are paid. "Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Agreement, the City Council shall review and evaluate the performance of the Employee in January, 1998 and shall determine, in its discretion, whether Employee shall be granted a salary increase and, if so, shall designate the amount of the increase which shall be effective as of January 1, 1998." 5. Sections 8.E. and 8.F. are hereby added to the Agreement to read as follows: "E. The maximum accrual of the leaves described in this Section and Section 15.8 shall be an amount equal to three (3) times the annual amount of the leaves. "F. Unused balances of the leaves described in this Section and Section 15.B. as of July 1, 1998 may be exercised as leave time by the Employee or taken as a lump-sum payment, at the option of the Employee. Employee shall remain an employee of the City until such time as the accrued leave described herein has been exhausted." 6. Employee acknowledges that he has had the opportunity and has conducted an independent review of the financial and legal effects of this First Amendment to the Agreement. Employee acknowledges that he has made an independent judgment upon the financial and legal effects of this First Amendment to the Agreement and has not relied upon any representations of the City, its officers, agents, or employees other than those expressly set forth herein. 7. Except as explicitly set forth in this First Amendment, all other terms of the Employment Agreement between the City and the Employee, dated as of June 14, 1994 shall remain in full force and effect. 970321 110864)0013 rat 1480399 R:\cityatty\cmcntrt.amd - 2 - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreemere to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA BY: ~-~' · ' H. Birdsall Mayor EMPLOYEE City Manager ~/ Attest: Greek, CMC City Clerk Approved As to Form: City Attorney 970321 11086-00013 mt 1480399 R: \cityatty\cmcntrt.amd 3 ITEM 22 ORDINANCE NO. 98-05 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF T]~MECULA AMENDING SECTION 15.06.020 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING TIME OF PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR MOBILE HOME PARKS AND ADDING SECTION 15.06.050 A.3. TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REDUCTIONS FOR PROJECTS PROVIDING DEMONSTRABLE FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO THE CITY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. and declares that: The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds, determines a. The City has enacted Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code providing for development impact fees to mitigate the impacts of that development on the City's public facilities. b. Chapter 15.06 recognizes that certain developments will meet its obligations to mitigate the impacts on public facilities by constructing certain regional facilities or by contributing to construction of the facilities through other public financing mechanisms and provides a procedure for reducing development impact fees under these circumstances. c. The addition of Section 15.06.050 A.3. to Chapter 15.06 further recognizes the fact that certain development will have a significant financial and economic benefit upon the City. Such benefits directly increase the City's available tax revenues and enable the City to pay for the public facilities required to meet the demands of development within the City and to provide other City services. Therefore, in recognition of such financial and economic benefits to the City, the development impact fees on certain developments can be reduced without an adverse impact on the City's ability to generate revenues sufficient to address the need for public facilities generated by new development within the City. d. Section 15.06.020 is being modified only to clarify the time at which development impact fees for mobile home parks will be paid. No other changes are being made to Section 15.06.020. Section 2. Section 15.06.020 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 15.06.020 Residential Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Required. "A. Except as provided in Sections 15.06.040 and 15.06.050, a developer shall pay a public facilities development impact fee for each building which is part of a residential development, in an amount established by resolution of the City Council, upon final inspection for that building, or the date the certificate of occupancy is issued for that building, whichever occurs first, or in the case of mobile home parks, the fee for all potential units within the entire park shall be paid prior to the first mobile home being placed within the park; provided, however, that if a residential development contains more than one dwelling, the Director of Community Development may determine whether the fees or charges shall be paid on a pro rata basis for each dwelling when it receives its final inspection or certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first, or in the case of a mobile home park when the unit is placed within the park; on a pro rata basis when a certain percentage of the dwellings have received their final inspection or certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first; or on a lump-sum basis when the first dwelling in the development receives its final inspection or certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. If the required fee is not fully paid prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any portion of the residential development encumbered thereby, the Director of Community Development may require the property owner, or lessee if the lessee's interest appears of record, as a condition of issuance of the building permit, to execute a contract to pay the fee or charge, or applicable portion thereof, within the time specified above. The contract shall be recorded with the Riverside County Recorder and shall constitute a lien for the payment of the fee. "B. For purposes of this Section, "final inspection" or "certificate of occupancy," shall be defined as that term is defined in Government Code Section 66007, as amended." Section 3. Section 15.06.050 A.3. is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows: '3. Any developer of non residential property whose development is subject to the public facilities development impact fee required by this Chapter may apply to the Director for a full or partial reduction of that fee based upon significant financial and economic benefit to the City of the proposed development. In determining the significant financial and economic benefit to the City of the proposed development, the O~d,,:\98-05 2 Council shall consider the following factors: Sobs created by the development; average annual salary of jobs created; multiplier effect of jobs created; tax revenue to the City or the City's redevelopment agency generated by the development; effect of the development upon the economic development of the City; and infrastructure needs generated by the development. The Council shall in its sole discretion determine, by resolution of the Council, whether to grant a reduction in development impact fees based upon the significant finan~ and economic benefit to the City of the development and the Council's decision shall be final and conclusive. The application for such a r~duction in fees shall be filed with the Director of Community Development no later than July 1, 1998 or ninety (90) days following issuance of a building p~rmit for the development, whichever is later. The application shall be on a form approved by the Director of Community Development and shall contain such information as required by the Director. The Director shall schedule the application to be heard by the City Council at a public heacing within forty five (45) calendar days of filing. Sections 15.06.050 B. and C. shall not apply to applications for fee reductions under this subsection. If the development impact fees have been paid prior to Council action reducing the fees, the Council may order a refund in accordance with its action." Section 4. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 28th day of April, 1998. ATTF_3T: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk [SEAL] Ords:\98-05 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, Acting City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 98-05 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 14th day of April 1998, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 28th day of April 1998, by the following roll call vote: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Susan W. Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk O~i8:\98-05 4 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT APRIL 14, 1998 A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 7:27 P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. President Jeffrey E. Stone presiding. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Ford, Linderoans, Roberts, and Stone, ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None. Also present were General Manager Bradley, City Attorney Thorson, and Acting City Clerk Jones. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes 1.1 Approve the minutes of March 31, 1998. Acceptance of Agreement and Bonds for Landscaped Medians within Paseo Del Sol - Newland Associates. Inc. ¢De Portola Road. Campanula Way, and Meadows Parkway) 2.1 Accept the agreement and surety bonds provided by the developer to improve certain landscaped median islands within Paseo Del Sol - Newland Associates, Inc. Award of Contract for Community Recreation Center Cooling System - Project No. PW97-22CSD 3.1 Award a construction contract to 1st Mechanical, Inc. in the amount of $145,800.00 and authorize the President to execute the contract; 3.2 Authorize the General Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $14,580.00 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount; minutes. CS D\041498 1 Temecula Communitv Services District April 14, 1998 3.3 Authorize the transfer of $45,103.00 from the Margarita Community Park Project to the Capital Projects Fund and appropriate $45,103.00 into the CRC Gymnasium Cooling System Project Fund, Account No. 210-190-152-5804. MOTION: Director Lindemarts moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. I - 3. The motion was seconded by Director Ford and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT Community Services Director Nelson recognized Marjorie Spence, graphic artist of Tech Marketing Graphics, and Recreation Superintendent Julie Crowe-Pelletier for their efforts in creating and designing the City's Fourth of July logo for which the City was presented the Agency Showcase Award. Mr. Nelson as well noted that the City had another successful Egg Hunt. GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT None. BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS None. ADJOURNMENT At 7:29 P.M., President Stone formally adjourned the meeting to Tuesday, April 28, 1998, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Jeffrey E. Stone, President ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk/District Secretary minutes. CSD\041498 2 TCSD DEPARTMENTAL REPORT APPROVAL~'~fl ~ CITY ATTORNEY I'WV DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER .~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: Board of Directors ShawnD. Nelson, Director of Community Services April 28, 1998 Departmental Report ~Gail L. Zigler, Administrative Secretary On February 10, 1998, the City Council awarded a contract to Edge Construction for $1.35 million, for the construction of Margarita Community Park. Staff is currently in the process of gathering the appropriate signatures on the documentation. A preconstruction meeting was held on March 11, 1998, and construction is scheduled to begin on April 20, 1998. The Master Plan includes parking, lighting, tot lots, picnic facilities, landscaping, irrigation, pedestrian walkways, a roller hockey rink, tennis courts, and ballfield lighting. It is anticipated this project will be completed in the Spring, 1999. The City Council awarded a contract on October 7, 1997, to ModCraft for the ADA upgrades project and this project is currently under construction. This project provides handicap accessibility to the following park sites: John McGee Park, Calle Aragon Park, Bahia Vista Park, Rancho California Sports Park and Veteran's Park. Rancho California Sports Park will be completed first and the other three parks will follow. It is anticipated this project will be complete by June 1998. On February 10, 1998, the City Council awarded a contract to Terra Cal Construction for $601,000, for the construction of Winchester Creek Park. A preconstruction meeting was held on March 16, 1998, and construction is scheduled to begin on April 20, 1998. Winchester Creek Park is a 4.5 acre passive use park consisting of a tot lot, picnic facilities, an outdoor basketball court, a sand volleyball court and open turf areas. On March 17, 1998, the Board of Directors approved a Professional Services Agreement and Scope of Services, in the amount of $55,000, with AMS Planning and Research, for the preparation of a ten (10) year Cultural Arts Master Plan for the City of Temecula. It is anticipated the first meeting with the consultant will be scheduled within the next 30 days. Staff will be meeting with the consultant on April 21, 1998 to establish time lines and identify key interviewees. ~c ~.4.~,GENDAS~dt~9804 16, 1998 Ubrary architect interviews were held on February 9, 1998, with follow-up interviews held on February 26, 1998. Staff is currently negotiating a Scope of Services and Compensation with the top ranked firm. Once the Scope of Services has been finalized, staff will bring forward a recommendation to the City Council. City Council awarded a contract to Dahl, Taylor & Associates for the design of a temperature control system at the Community Recreation Center gymnasium. Bid opening was held March 26, 1998, and the City Council awarded a contract on April 14, 1998 to 1st Mechanical. Staff anticipates construction will being in early June 1998, with this project completed by mid August 1998. At the request of the several homeowners who live in the area of Butterfield Stage Park, staff is currently in the process of designing a half court basketball court at Butterfield Stage Park. Staff is currently reviewing the plans. It is anticipated this project will go out to bid in June, 1998. The Sports Park Sidewalk Project is currently in third plan check. Modifications were made to the landscaping and irrigation plans. Staff anticipates this project will be out to bid in May 1998. P.: ~A~AGENDAS~dp~9804 ~ 16, 1~$ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APRIL 14, 1998 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 7:29 P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Lindemans presiding. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Ford, Roberts, Stone, and Lindemarts. ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBER: None. Also present were Executive Director Bradley, City Attorney Thorson, and Acting City Clerk Jones. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes 1.1 Approve the minutes of March 31, 1998. MOTION: Agency Member Stone moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. The motion was seconded by Agency Member Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. AGENCY BUSINESS 2. EDC Quarterly Report Providing a detailed overview of on-going economic developments throughout the City, Mr. Tom Eidem of EDC also highlighted continuing activities in an effort to promote City development and advised that the City of Murrieta has rejoined the EDC. REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Redevelopment Director McLarney briefly highlighted upcoming Old Town activities: Thursday, April 16, 1998, Grand Opening for the Stage Stop and Saturday and Sunday, April 18 and 19, 1998, Western Days along with the Grand Opening for McDonald's. minutes. RDA\041498 1 Temecula RedeveloDment Aaencv April 14, 1998 Ms. McLarney advised that the Old Town Streetscape Improvements will go to bid this week and will be forwarded to the City Council for award at the June 2, 1998, City Council meeting. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT None. AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS None. ADJOURNMENT At 7:40 P.M., the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, April 28, 1998, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Karel F. Lindemarts, Chairman ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk/District Secretary minutes.RDA\041498 2 ITEM 2 ORAL PRESENTATION RDA DEPARTMENTAL REPORT APPROVAL ~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECTOR CITY MANAGER ~. TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Memb~..~ Mary Jane McLarney, Redevelopment Director ' ~'~ - April 28, 1998 Monthly Departmental Report Attached for your information is the monthly report as of April 28, 1998 for the Redevelopment Department. This report covers housing, redevelopment and economic development. Redevelopment Agency Report April 28, 1998 O! r) TOWN Old Town Temecula Market Study Keyser Marston Associates of San Diego met with business owners, property owners, community stakeholders and City Staff on March 3, 1998 to receive input to the study. Surveys of shoppers and residents are complete. The study will be complete in 30 days. Facade Improvement Non-Conforming Sign Progrnm The following facade improvement projects are underway: Temecula Creek Plaza (southwest corner of Sixth and Front) - paint and minor repairs Long Branch Antiques (Formerly Napa Auto Parts) - facade renovation The following facade improvement project is completed: · The Bank Restaurant -paint The following facade improvement applications are being processed: · Second Street Automotive -complete facade renovation · Rancon Building -repaint trim Staff has also met with several other interested property and business owners. Old Town Streetscape Improvement Projects On March 31, 1998, the Council authorized the plans and specifications for the R:\SYERSK~MONTHI.LY'xAPRIL.28 4/20/98 k~ Streetscape Project. Bids were advertised on April 15 and are anticipated to be awarded at the June 1 lth 1998 Council Meeting. Construction is scheduled to begin in early July. Old Town C. rnnd Opening The Temecula Stage Stop Transportation Center Grand Opening was held Thursday, April 16th. A special mailing will be sent to bus tour operators and travel writers who expressed interest in attending the opening but were not able to attend. Old Town Promotion Western Days was held on April 18 and 19. Crowds gathered as the four different groups of gunfight re-enacters took to the streets. There was also a Civil War Encampment at the corner of Fourth and Front which attracted many visitors who were provided with educational information on the roles of both the Union and Confederate armies. Several street vendors provided Western clothing and accessories which included vendors from the Farmer's Market who stayed on in Old Town after the market's usual closing time of 12:00 p.m. Carriage rides and stage coach rides were provided as well as several groups of live entertainment throughout Old Town. Frontier Days will be held May 22-24 to coincide with the Frontier Days Rodeo. Cross promotion is being coordinated with the Temecula Town Association. North Pujol Redevelopment Project The Affirmed Housing Group of Escondido has submitted an application for Mortgage Revenue Bonds and Tax Credits. Staff has reviewed preliminary plans for the new units and rehabilitation of the existing units preliminary pro forma for the project. The proposed project will rehabilitate the existing 38 apartment units and develop 18 new units on the vacant acre of land. In addition, Affirmed is negotiating with an adjacent property owner to enlarge the project. The additional property would yield 20 more units. A formal agreement will be brought back to the Agency next month. Residential Improvement Programs Since the program started, twenty one projects have been completed and 16 are in process. The majority of these projects are roof repairs, repainting and fence replacement. Temeculn O.N.F. Crime Free Multi-Housing Program certificates have now been awarded to five R:\SYERSKXMONTHI_LY~,PRlL.28 4/20/98 k~ 2 apartments complexes (Creekside, Rancho West, Vintage View, Morning Ridge, Summer Breeze and Sycamore Apartments). The monthly T.A.G. Program, in which Temecula Police volunteers conduct surveillance at persistent graffiti locations within the City limits, was held on April 24. The Illegal Off-Road Enforcement Program, which consists of P.O.P. Officers, reserves and posse volunteers pro-actively enforcing illegal off-road vehicles within the City limits, was conducted on April 4th and 18th. Reserve Deputy Sheriffs participated in providing security for Western Days on April 18 and 19. FCONOMIC IDFVF! OPMFNT Marketing Rnd Public Relations We have produced a new Real Estate Outlook (real estate industry newsletter) which contains information obtained from Dr. John Husing, the TVEDC and local commercial real estate brokers. The newsletter was sent to 2500 business owners, real estate professionals, TVEDC members, and included in our business kits. The City is currently working with the EDC to finalize the Temecula demographic brochure which will be used at trade shows and in our business kits. This will be a high-quality four-color booklet highlighting information from the report form the community profile report compiled by Dr. John Husing. A marketing meeting for local brokers was held on April 16th to update them on current marketing materials, and to receive input on the FY99 Marketing Plan. ! eads Rnd Inquiries In the month of February, we responded to 7 leads and 6 inquiries. Fast Track Appleton Electronics closed escrow on April 14 on property in the Westside Business Center and will be utilizing the City's Fast Track Program. The Bostik building will consist of 140,000 sq. ft.; Phase I - 45,625 sq. ft.; Phase II - 94,375 sq. ft.. They are planning to open in July of 1998. Western Telecom, located at the corner of Winchester & Zevo Drive, is a 16,000 sq. ft. building. R:XSYERSK~MONTHIJ.,Y~RIL.28 4/20/98 k$s 3 Four-Sher's 226,000 sq. ft. industrial office building is currently under construction. Completion date is slated for early summer '98. Speculative RmJilding Approximately 300,000 sq. ft. of speculative industrial space is in various stages of development in Temecula. Four-Shat Development, a San Diego based developer, is developing two speculative buildings which are planned to serve either manufacturing, distribution or assembly business users. One development includes a 38,300 sq. ft. industrial building and the second encompasses 28,700 sq. ft. both located on Business Park Drive within the Rancho California Business Park. Utilizing the City's Fast Track program, SPT Holdings currently has two 46,000 sq. ft. speculative buildings under construction in the Winchester Highlands Business Park. The developments are designed for an industrial/warehouse or office user. A ribbon cutting is planned for Thursday, March 26th. San Diego-based CW Assets have currently constructed five light industrial buildings using the Fast Track program. The buildings range in size from 9,490 sq. ft. up to 11,492 sq. ft. And are located in the Westside Business Center. Tourism Monthly calendar of events and press releases continue to go out to the media. The 1998 San Diego Convention & Visitors Bureau Official Visitors guide is published and is being distributed to conventioneers, hotel concierges, and visitors. The City placed a full page color ad in the publication. The Chamber of Commerce represented Temecula at the California Travel Market in San Diego last month. This tourism trade show attracted 120 VIP international buyers and 25 international press. Follow up material is being sent out to the attendees and contacts. Updated material on Temecula has been submitted to the Guest Informant. This is a San Diego/Orange County tourism publication found in up-scale hotel rooms and will be published in June '98. Tanya Rogers, a travel writer from the Los Angeles Times, will be dong a feature story on Temecula as a weekend getaway. Embassy Suites, Temecula Creek Inn and Baily's Wine Country Cafe are providing complementary lodging, meals and wine tasting during her stay in Temecula on April 17- 19. Attachments: Western Days News Clippings R:~SYERSK~ONTHLLY~PRIL.28 4/20/9g kga 4 B-2 · Sunday, .~pril 19, 1995 · Tin: pl~:~s-Ex'r~-:m'ms~: T 6reg vojtko / The Press-Enterprise Members of an American Civil War re- Main Street in Old Town Temecula during the enactment group march in formation down city's annual Western Days festivities. Civil War sounds echo again A re-enactment group gives visitors to Temecula' Western Days a hands-on look at how' things were. By Gavin Tachibana The Press-Enterprise TEMECULA Kids of all ages fired their rifles and guns in Old Town Temecula Saturday and enjoyed a good we. st- em shoot-'em-up. Western Days' newest addition, a Civil War re-enactment group, even took it a step further. They offered historical and interactive rifle lessons to the parents and children. "It's 54 inches with a 39-inch barrel. It weighs 8 pounds, 14~ ounces. It's not accurate over 700 yards," said Sgt. Bloody Bob of the 10th Georgia Volunteer Infantry, Company A. The sergeant. also known as Bob McDonald, 54. of Escortdido,. was explaining the details of his Civil War-vintage rifle. McDonald's group, based in north San Diego County, re-enacts battles the real infantry. fought in, such as Gettysburg, Chancellors- ville, Sharpsburg and Fredericks- burg. They also explain the battles to visitors, which is what they did Saturday. "We like to educate people about the Civil War, back when a soldier lived this kind of life," McDonald said, standing next to the infantry's encampment, a set of tents and Confederate flags set up on Front Street. McDonald also let children fire a cap from the long rifle, much to their enjoyment. "I like to hear the gun shoot," said 5-year-old Garrett Kale of Temecula. Firing the rifle was also fun for 3-year-old Dam Smith. who car- ried around a plastic, 2-foot John Wayne rifle with him. "He's into rifles," said his father, Drew Smith. "He loves rifles and all that good stuff." The Civil War re-enactment group complemented about 150 gun-slinging actors who performed in the streets. They included the Old Town Temecula Gunfighters, the Fallbrook Outlaws, the Cros- screek Cowboys from San Juan Capistrano, Cimarron Ridge from Ramona, Border Renegades from Banning and Gaskill Brothers from Campo. Western Days continues today with music, gunfight shows, craft derr~onstrations and horse-drawn carriage rides. Western Days mosey into Old Town Old Town Temecula celebrated its Western her- itage Saturday with historical re-enactments and special displays. The annual celebration continues today on Main Street. An authentic stagecoach will offer rides through Old Town, and gunfighters will sta,~e shootouts in the streets. Right, this young cowboy seems to be ready for the Old Town Temecula Gunfighters to re-enact a ~unfiSht for Western Days. Stephen Neal, 4, of Temecula was one of hundreds of visitors watching the annual event. The Fall- brook Outlaws also joined in the action. Above, the Old Town Temecula Gunfighters, Fallbrook Outlaws and a few other groups joined forces Saturday for a staged shootout on Main Street. Photos by STEVE THORNTON / ST.~FF PHOTOOK~PHER Community Publications Group ~ Friday, April 17, 1998 ~] E-7 .OLD TOWN TEMECULA 1-15 TO RANCHO CALIF. lTD. WEST. SOUTH ON FRONT ST. WESTERN DAYS IN SAT APRIL 18TM & SUN APRIL 19TM · ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOUSE 676-7388 28659 FRONT ST. 10~ OFF SELECTTO ITENS · TAOS TERRITORIAL TRADERS 676-6144 ,~ 28561 FRONT ST. ORIGINAL WORKS NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAN JEWELRY AND · FARMER'S MARKET EVERY SATURDAY 8 AM TILL NOON AT FRONT & TI~RD. SPECIAL ACTIVITES FOR WESTERN DAYS · THE LONGBRANCH ANTIQUE CO 676-3330 41975 FOURTH ST, GRAND OPENING-- UNIQUE! UNIQUE! UINQUEI · STAGE STOP TRANSPORTATION CENTER ' 694-0292 CORNER OF FRONT & SIXTH GRAND OPENING ACTIVITES SAT. APRIL 18th · MCDONALD'S CORNER OF FRONT & SIXTH, GRAND OPENING- GAMES- FOOD & FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT SAT. APRIL 18TH · FALLBROOK NATIONAL BANK, TEMECULA BRANCH, 27541 YNEZ 693-5253 FOR MORE INFORMATION... 694..64t2 ' "': ~ ' -' ~ · CONSTANTINO'S SILVER SPOON 699-1015 CORNER OF FRONT & THIRD LIVE MUSIC & FASHION SHOW · FOREST FANTASY 676-4767 28636 FRONT ST #106 SIDEWALK SALE · PENNY'S CORNER 694-1881 28636 FRONT ST ~100 40% OFF SELECTED ITEMS · SPIRIT OF LIGHTFOOT 699-7518 42030 MAiN STE #6 (iN OLD JAIL) 20% OFF SELECTED ITEMS · COUNllW SELLER & FRIENDS 676-2322 42050 MAIN ST. PICTURES WITH PECOS PUG · THE OLDE TIN BOX 506-6335 42030 MAIN STE H 10% OFF ALL CANDIES · DOC'S TEMECULA TRADERS 506-0971 MAiN & FRONT REAL WEST ITEMS - GENUINE COWBOY ANTIQUES · TREASURES YOU'LL CHERISH 694-6990 28663 FRONT ST. TRUNK DAYS SALE Show Schedules: · Fanller. Ma~,et- ~l.O~y 8amtfillx)oll. . ~~I. MII~ thek' encami~nt on Front & Fourth $bgets. co 6aL & Sun. 1 r,',',',',',',',',:30 io 3:30 Ro~a's CaMIna Antique Faire Pendlelon&AnnHutch'mm.Shemmn. Nso · Sundayat4pm, TmxK~dashootena/my NMh. Coffe~ --' They ~&l featwe gun ~fely demofmtmtlons in addition to !heir usual entertaining program. Saturday Sunday · Noon at Front & Main Streets · Noon at Front & Main Street · 1:30 PM at Calico Coffee parking lot * 1:30 near Longbranch Antiques · 3:00 PM at Chaparral Antique Mell * 3:00 at We Chocolate Florist & Butterfield Square & Butterfield Square I~ARTICIPATING SPONSORS AND THE/R ACTI¥1TIES & SALES Temecula's Western Days Time warp takes over Old .... "~ Town Temecula this week- ~ * ~ ,~ ..... -', -, end. Squads of Union and ~ :~ Confederate patrols will eye ~: - ~. each other nervously. Just. , as likely will be the appear- ' ~. ance of some Old West · · gunfighters. Quilting and '~ - wood carving demonstra- '~ tions are also part of Old Town's celebration of west- ern heritage. SCHEDULE OF EVENTS 8 a.m.-noon: Farmer's Market, 3rd Street Noon-6 p.m.: Carriage and stagecoach rides through- out Old Town Noon: Gunfighters at Front and Main streets Noon-2 p,m.: Fashion show from A Little Luxury ' Southwest Boutique at the Silver Spoon Care /2:45 p.m.: Magician Stu McKinley on Front Street near Rosa's Cantina · 1:30 p.m.: Gunfighters in Antique Fair parking lot (Front Street by Gramma Audrey's) 2:30 p.m.: Magician Stu McKinley on Front Street near Rosa's Cantina , ., , 3 p.m.: Gunfighters at Chaparral Mall 4 p.m.: Wolf Valley band at Calico Coffee front porch Dlsolays and davlone activities: All day: Valley of the Mist Quilters at Butterfield Square All day: Woodcarvers at Butterfield Square, Antique Fair All day: 10th Georgia Volunteer Infantry Company A, Civil War re-en- actment group, at 4th and Front streets 11:30 a.m-3:30 p.m.: Live en- tertainment at Silver Spoon Cafe, Butterfield Square Noon: Gunfighters at Front and Main streets Noon to 6 p.m.: Carriage and stagecoach rides throughout Old Town 1:30 p.m.: Gunfighters at Longbranch Antiques 3 p.m.: Gunfighters at Butterfield Square Displays and daylon~ activities: All day: Valley of the Mist Ouilters at Butterfield Square All day: Sherifrs Mounted Posse throughout ODd Town All day: Woodcarvers at Butterfield Square, Antique Fair All day: 10th Georgia Volunteer Infantry Company A, Civil War re-en- actment group, at 4th and Front streets Source: City of Temecula WINCHESTER HILLS FINANCING AUTHORITY ITEM I MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA WINCHESTER HILLS FINANCING AUTHORITY APRIL 14, 1998 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Winchester Hills Financing Authority was called to order at 7:40 P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Comerchero presiding. PRESENT: 5 AUTHORITY MEMBERS: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone, and Comerchero. ABSENT: 0 AUTHORITY MEMBER: None. Also present were Executive Director Bradley, City Attorney Thorson, and Acting City Clerk Jones. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes 1.1 Approve the minutes of March 31, 1998 MOTION: Authority Member Ford moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. The motion was seconded by Authority Member Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PUBLIC HEARING 2. Formation of Community Facilities District No. 98-1 (Winchester Hills) 2.1 Conduct concurrent public hearings on the formation of the Winchester Hills Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 98-1 (Winchester Hills - the "District") and the levy of special taxes therein, and the issuance of bonded indebtedness of the Authority for the District; open the public hearings; accept any written protests and take any oral testimony; and close the public hearings. Minutes. WHFA~041498 Temecula Winchester Hills Financing Authoritv April 14, 1998 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. WHFA 98-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WINCHESTER HILLS FINANCING AUTHORITY OF FORMATION OF WINCHESTER HILLS FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 98-1 (WINCHESTER HILLS), AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN THE DISTRICT, PRELIMINARILY ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE DISTRICT AND SUBMITTING LEVY OF THE SPECIAL TAX AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE DISTRICT Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. WHFA 98-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WINCHESTER HILLS FINANCING AUTHORITY DETERMINING THE NECESSITY TO INCUR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS WITHIN THE WINCHESTER HILLS FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 98-1 (WINCHESTER HILLS) AND SUBMITTING PROPOSITION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE DISTRICT Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. WHFA 98-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WINCHESTER HILLS FINANCING AUTHORITY CALLING SPECIAL ELECTION Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. WHFA 98-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WINCHESTER HILLS FINANCING AUTHORITY DECLARING RESULTS OF SPECIAL ELECTION AND DIRECTING RECORDING OF NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN Minutes.WHFA\041498 Temecula Winchester Hills Financin~ Authoritv 2.6 April 14, 1998 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. WHFA 98-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WINCHESTER HILLS FINANCING AUTHORITY LEVYING SPECIAL TAXES WITHIN THE WINCHESTER HILLS FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 98-1 (WINCHESTER HILLS) In response to Chairman Comerchero, Acting City Clerk/Authority Secretary Jones advised that no property owners or individuals registered to vote in the District filed a written protest. Clarifying the purpose of the bond issue, City Manager Bradley presented the staff report (of record). MOTION: Authority Member Stone moved to adopt Resolution Nos. WHFA 98-07, 98-08, and 98-09. The motion was seconded by Authority Member Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. At this time, Acting City Clerk/Authority Secretary Jones opened the ballot and announced that the "Qualified Landowner Votes" were 549 and that all 549 votes were in support of the ballot measure. MOTION: Authority Member Stone moved to adopt Resolution No. WHFA 98~10. The motion was seconded by Authority Member Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. City Attorney Thorson read by title only Ordinance No. WHFA 98-01. MOTION: Authority Member Stone moved to introduce and read by title only Ordinance No. WHFA 98-01. The motion was seconded by Authority Member Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT None, AUTHORITY MEMBERS' REPORTS None. Minutes. WHFA\041498 3 Temecula Winchester Hills Financina Authority 0Z~l ADJOURNMENT At 7:49 P.M., the Temecula Winchester Hills Financing Authority meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, April 28, 1998, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ATTEST: Jeff Comerchero, Chairman Susan W. Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk/Authority Secretary Minutes. WH FA~041498 4 ITEM 2 ORDINANCE NO. WHFA 98-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WINCHESTER HILLS FINANCING AUTHORITY LEVYING SPECIAL TAXES WITHIN THE WINCHESTER HILLS FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIF. S DISTRICT NO. 98-1 (WINCHESTER HILLS) Vg][i~.~AS, on February 24, 1998, this Board of Directors adopted a resolution entitled "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Winchester Hills Financing Authority of Intention to Establish a Community Facilities District and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes Pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982" (the "Resolution of Intention") stating its intention to establish the Winchester Hills Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 98-1 (Winchester Hills) (the "District") pursuant to Chapter 2.5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5, commencing with Section 53311, of the California Government Code (the "Act"), to refmance certain assessment liens (the "Liens"); WltEREAS, notice was published as required by the Act relative to the intention of this Board of Directors to form the District and to provide for the refinancing of the Liens; WHEREAS, this Board of Directors has held a noticed public hearing as required by Act relative to the determination to proceed with the formation of the District and the rate and method of apportionment of the special tax to be levied within the District to refinance the Liens; WHEREAS, at said hearing all persons desiring to be heard on all matters pertaining to the formation of the District and the levy of said special taxes were heard, a community facilities district report was presented and considered by this Board of Directors and a full and fair hearing was held; WHEREAS, subsequent to said hearing, this Board of Directors adopted resolutions entitled "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Winchester Hills Financing Authority of Formation of Winchester Hills Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 98-1 (Winchester Hills), Authorizing the Levy of a Special Tax Within the District and Preliminarily Establishing an Appropriations Limit for the District" (the "Resolution of Formation"), "A Resolution the Board of Directors of the Winchester Hills Financing Authority Determining the Necessity to Incur Bonded Indebtedness Within the Winchester Hills Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 98-1 (Winchester Hills)" and "A Resolution the Board of Directors of the Winchester Hills Financing Authority Calling Special Election", which resolutions established the District, authorized the levy of a special tax with the District, and called an election within the District on the proposition of incurring indebtedness, levying a special tax, and establishing an appropriations limit within the District, respectively; and Orda.\98-01 I WHEREAS, an election was held within the District in which the eligible landowner elector approved said propositions by more than the two-thirds vote required by the Act. NOW, TI{EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Winchester Hills Financing Authority as follows: Section 1. By the passage of this Ordinance this Board of Directors hereby authorizes and levies special taxes within the District pursuant to California Government Code Sections 53328 and 53340, at the rates and in accordance with the method of apportionment set forth in Exhibit A to the Resolution of Formation (the "Rate and Method of Apportionment"). The special taxes are hereby levied commencing in fiscal year 1998-99 and in each fiscal year thereafter until payment in full of any bonds of the Authority issued for the District (the "Bonds"), and payment of all costs administering the District. Section 2. The Finance Director of the City of Temecula is hereby authorized and directed each fiscal year to determine the specific special tax rate and amount to be levied for the next ensuing fiscal year for each parcel of real property within the District, in the manner and as provided in the Rate and Method of Apportionment. Section 3. Properties or entities of the State, federal or local governments shall be exempt from any levy of the special taxes, to the extent set forth in the Rate and Method of Apportionment. In no event shall the special taxes be levied on any parcel within the District in excess of the maximum tax specified in the Rate and Method of Apportionment. Section 4. All of the collections of the special tax shall be used as provided for in the Act, the Rate and Method of Apportionment, and in the Resolution of Formation including, but not limited to, the payment of principal and interest on the Bonds, the replenishment of the reserve fund for the Bonds, the payment of the costs of the Authority and the City of Temecula in administering the District and the costs of collecting and administering the special tax. Section 5. The special taxes shall be collected from time to time as necessary to meet the financial obligations of the District on the secured real property tax roll in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem taxes are collected. The City Finance Director is hereby authorized and directed to provide all necessary information to the auditor/tax collector of the County of Riverside and to otherwise take all actions necessary in order to effect proper billing and collection of the special tax, so that the special tax shall be levied and collected in sufficient amounts and at the times necessary to satisfy the financial obligations of the District in each fiscal year until the Bonds are paid in full and provision has been made for payment of all of the administrative costs of the District. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Finance Director of the City may collect one or more installments of the special taxes by means of direct billing by the Authority of the property owners Ord~.\98-01 2 within the District, if, in the judgment of the Finance Director, such means of collection will reduce the administrative burden on the Authority in administering the District or is otherwise appropriate in the circumstances. In such event, the special taxes shall become delinquent if not paid when due as set forth in any such respective billing to the property owners. Whether the special taxes are levied in the manner provided in the first or the second preceding paragraph, the special taxes shall have the same lien priority, and be subject to the same penalties and the same procedure and sale in cases of delinquency as provided for ad valorem taxes. In addition, the provisions of Section 53356.1 of the Act shall apply to delinquent special tax payments. Section 6. If for any reason any portion of this ordinance is found to be invalid, or if the special tax is found inapplicable to any particular parcel within the District, by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the balance of this ordinance and the application of the special tax to the remaining parcels within the District shall not be affected. Section 7. The Chairperson shall sign this Ordinance and the Secretary shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Temecula. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the Board of Directors of the Winchester Hills Financing Authority at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of April, 1998. ATTEST: Jeff Comerchero, Chairperson Susan W. Jones, CMC Acting Authority Secretary/City Clerk [SEAL] Or'ds.\98-01 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, Acting City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinanc~ No. 98- 01 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 14th day of April 1998, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 28th day of April 1998, by the following roll call vote: AYES: BOARDMEMBERS: NOES: BOARDMEMBERS: BOARDMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk Onts.\98-01 4 ITEM 23 APPROVAl CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAI~E CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Manager/City Council Anthony J. Elmo Chief Building Official April 28, 1998 Urgency Ordinance and Regular Ordinance Amending Section 8.16.010 and 8.16.020 of the Temecula Municipal Code Allowing Weed Abatement on Non-Vacant Real Property RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Adopt an Urgency Ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 98- AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTIONS 8.16.010 AND 8.16.020 OF THE TEMECUI.A MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE DUTY TO ABATE HAZARDOUS VEGETATION ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT THERETO 2. Introduce by Title only an Ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 98- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTIONS 8.16.010 AND 8.16.020 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE DUTY TO ABATE HAZARDOUS VEGETATION ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA BACKGROUND: As a result of the extraordinary rainfall between November 1997 and April 1998, the City has experienced significant growth in hazardous vegetation. The Code Enforcement Division of the City, along with the City's weed abatement contractor, have identified a number of parcels of real property within the City which are not vacant and have significant growth of hazardous vegetation. Under the current provisions of Chapter 8.16, only R:\BROCKMEI\AGENDA\WEEDS.WPD 4/20/98 cb hazardous vegetation on vacant parcels can be abated pursuant to its provisions. The amendment to Section 8.16.010 and 8.16.020 simply deletes the language requiring that weed abatement occur only on vacant parcels. Government Code Section 39561, which authorizes weed abatement by the City, does not limit weed abatement to vacant parcels. It is essential that weed abatement proceed as quickly as possible given the hazardous vegetation growth resulting from the extraordinary rains since November 1997, in order reduce the risk of wildfires during the summer season. Without immediate adoption of the changes in this ordinance, the weed abatement process for non-vacant properties will be delayed. Accordingly, the changes to Sections 8.16.010 and 8.16.020 need to be adopted by urgency ordinance. [The proposed regular and urgency ordinances attached to this report show the changes in language by strike out type for deletions and underline type for additions.] FISCAL IMPACT: None. All weed abatement work is paid for by the property owners. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Urgency Ordinance 2. Proposed Regular Ordinance R:\BROCKMEI\AGENDA\WEEDS.WPD 4/20/98 cb ORDINANCE NO. AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTIONS 8.16.010 AND 8.16.020 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE DUTY TO ABATE HAZARDOUS VEGETATION ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT THERETO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 8.16.010 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "8.16.010 DeFinitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below: "Appeals board" means that body designated by the City Council pursuant to this chapter and consisting of one officer selected by the city fire chief, which such officer shall not be the officer issuing the order to abate, and two persons selected by the City Council. The appeals board shall hear any and all appeals regarding the determination by the city that hazardous vegetation exists on any vacam land or vamm parcel of real property in the city. "Hazardous vegetation" means all dry grass, stubble, Russian thistle (tumbleweeds), brush, weeds, rank grow, sagebrush, chaparral, or other vegetation which constitutes a fire hazard. Hazardous vegetation shall also mean weeds which when mature bear wingy or downy seeds, which will attain such a large growth as to become a fire menace when dry, or which are otherwise noxious or dangerous. "Hazard reduction office" means that physical location where the notice to remove and abate is generated. "Hazard reduction officer" means the designee of the city fire chief vested with the authority to enforce this chapter. "Vacant lot" m~d "vacm~t parcel" mcan a~y lot or parcel l~uger thm~ cnw..- quarter acre which does not have m~ improved, habitable building or shucture Section 2. Section 8.16.020 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "8.16.020 Duty to abate hazardous vegetation "It shall be the duty of every owner or person in control of any real property or interest therein which constitutes a "vac/u~t lot" or "vacant parcel" pursuant to Sextion 8.16.010 to abate therefrom, and from all sidewalks and parkways, except for those roads accepted into the city maintained system, all hazardous vegetation or other flammable vegetation that constitutes a fire hazard which may endanger or damage neighboring property. "A. In the case of any parcel or contiguous parcel of real property under the same ownership consisting of five or less areas upon which vegetation exists which may constitute a fire hazard, the requirements of this section shall be satisfied if the vegetation is removed by discing or mowing the entire acreage. "B. Where the acreage consists of more than five contiguous acres, the requirements of this section shall be satisfied if there is cleared a one-hundred- food-wide strip of land at the boundaries of such real property, and through such land so that there shall not be any portion of the real property larger than two and one-half acres which is not enclosed by itself within such a strip, which shall be a fire break. The city fire chief may require firebreaks exceeding this one-hundred-foot width or discing or larger than five-acre parcels if larger breaks or discing is deemed necessary by him/her for the protection of the public safety and welfare. "C. Where the parcel is improved or terrain is such that it cannot be disced or mowed, the city fire chief may require or authorize that other means of removal be used, and that specific standards be met as set forth in this code, Public Resources Code or other recognized fire codes." Section 3. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Section 4. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds, determines and declares that: a. As a result of the extraordinary rainfall between November 1997 and April 1998, the City has experienced significant growth in hazardous vegetation. R:\BROCKMEI\ORDS\WEEDS3. 4/20/98 cb b. The Code Enforcement Department of the City has identified a number of parcels of real property within the City which are not vacant and have significant growth of hazardous vegetation. Under the current provisions of Chapter 8.16, only hazardous vegetation on vacant parcels can be abated pursuant to provisions. c. It is essential that weed abatement proceed as quickly as possible given the hazardous vegetation growth resulting from the extraordinary rains since November 1997 in order to reduce the risk of wildfires during the summer season. Without immediate adoption of the changes in this ordinance, the weed abatement process for non-vacant properties will be delayed. d. Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 36934 and 36937, the City Council hereby finds and determines that a current and immediate threat to the public health, peace, safety and general welfare exists which necessitates the immediate enactment of this Ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public health, peace, safety and general welfare, based upon the facts set forth in this Ordinance and the facts presented to the Council. R:\BROCKlqEI\ORDS\WEEDS3. 4/20/98 cb Section 5. of the date is adopted. This Ordinance being an Urgency Ordinance shall be effective as Section 6. The Acting City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance as an urgency ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of April, 1998. ATTEST: Ron Roberts Mayor Susan Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk R:\BROCK?4EI\ORDS\WEEDS3. 4/20/98 cb STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan Jones, Acting City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 98- was duly adopted and passed as an urgency measure at a regular meeting of the City Council on April 28, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: C OUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: C OUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Susan Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk Peter M. Thorson City Attorney R:\BROCKMEI\ORDS\WEEDS3. 4/20/98 cb ORDINANCE NO. 98- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTIONS 8.16.010 AND 8.16.020 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE DUTY TO ABATE HAZARDOUS VEGETATION ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 8.16.010 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "8.16.010 Def'mitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below: "Appeals board" means that body designated by the City Council pursuant to this chapter and consisting of one officer selected by the city fire chief, which such officer shall not be the officer issuing the order to abate, and two persons selected by the City Council. The appeals board shall hear any and all appeals regarding the determination by the city that hazardous vegetation exists on any vacaiit land or vacant parcel of real property in the city. "Hazardous vegetation" means all dry gross, stubble, Russian thistle (tumbleweeds), brush, weeds, rank grow, sagebrush, chaparral, or other vegetation which constitutes a fire hazard. Hazardous vegetation shall also mean weeds which when mature bear wingy or downy seeds, which will attain such a large growth as to become a fire menace when dry, or which are otherwise noxious or dangerous. "Hazard reduction office" means that physical location where the notice to remove and abate is generated. "Hazard reduction officer" means the designee of the city fire chief vested with the authority to enforce this chapter. "Vacant lot" and "vacant parcel" mean any lot or [,arcel larger than onc~ quarter acre which does not have an improved, habitable building or shacturc Section 2. Section 8.16.020 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "8.16.020 Duty to abate hazardous vegetation "It shall be the duty of every owner or person in control of any real property or interest therein which constltates a "va¢~mt lot" or "vacant parcel" pursuant to S~tion 8.16.010 to abate therefrom, and from all sidewalks and parkways, except for those roads accepted into the city maintained system, all hazardous vegetation or other flammable vegetation that constitutes a fire hazard which may endanger or damage neighboring property. "A. In the case of any parcel or contiguous parcel of real property under the same ownership consisting of five or less areas upon which vegetation exists which may constitute a fire hazard, the requirements of this section shall be satisfied if the vegetation is removed by discing or mowing the entire acreage. "B. Where the acreage consists of more than five contiguous acres, the requirements of this section shall be satisfied if there is cleared a one-hundred- food-wide strip of land at the boundaries of such real property, and through such land so that there shall not be any portion of the real property larger than two and one-half acres which is not enclosed by itself within such a strip, which shall be a fire break. The city fire chief may require firebreaks exceeding this one-hundred-foot width or discing or larger than five-acre parcels if larger breaks or discing is deemed necessary by him/her for the protection of the public safety and welfare. "C. Where the parcel is improved or terrain is such that it cannot be disced or mowed, the city fire chief may require or authorize that other means of removal be used, and that specific standards be met as set forth in this code, Public Resources Code or other recognized fire codes." Section 3. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. R:\BROCKMEI\ORDS\WEEDS2. 4/20/98 cb Section 4. The Acting City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same or a summary thereof to be published and posted in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of April, 1998. ATTEST: Ron Roberts Mayor Susan Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk R:\BROC}fMEI\ORDS\WEEDS2. 4/20/98 cb STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) SS. I, Susan Jones, Acting City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 98- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 28th day of April, 1998, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of ,1998 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: C OUNCILMEMBERS: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Susan Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk Peter M. Thorson City Attorney R:\BROCKMEI\ORDS\WEEDS2. 4/20/98 cb ITEM 24 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FIN/~/I~,j~_ CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Gary Thornhill, Director of Community Development/~'"~' April 28, 1998 Proposed Annexation of Redhawk and Vail Ranch Communities PREPARED BY: John DeGange, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council review Staff's analysis of the proposed annexation of the Redhawk and Vail Ranch communities and provide direction to Staff as to whether or not to proceed with this annexation. BACKGROUND: During the June 10, 1997 meeting, the City Council directed Staff to conduct a cost impact analysis and to contact the Redhawk and Vail Ranch residents to determine their interest in annexation to the City of Temecula. Since that meeting, Staff has collected the applicable information to perform the annexation analysis, focusing on three areas: Fiscal Impact of Annexation to the City of Temecula II. Temecula Community Services Assessments which would replace County Service Area (CSA) 143 currently paid by residents of the two communities (Note: Since the Temecula Community Services Distdct (TCSD) is a self-sustaining operation, it is not included in the General Plan/Annexation fiscal impact analysis and is addressed separately. ) III. Annexation Survey of Redhawk and Vail Ranch Communities The following information summarizes Staff's analysis. I. FISCAL IMPACT OF ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA During a City Council Annexation Workshop held in October, 1995, Staff presented the City's fiscal impact model to the Council. This model was designed by Stanley R. Hoffman & Associates to provide Staff with the tools to predict the fiscal impacts to the City which would result from proposed future annexations. During the workshop, Council directed Staff to develop a checklist of guidelines which could be used to evaluate the viability of proposed annexations. These guidelines were presented to and approved by the City Council in April, 1996 (see Attachment A). The Annexation Guidelines Checklist provides evaluation criteria and benefits to be derived by the City if an annexation should occur. The primary component used in determining whether or not an annexation would be advantageous to the City is the fiscal impact model (see Guideline Number 8). Likewise, for the Redhawk/Vail Ranch (RH/VR) annexation, Staff ran the fiscal impact assumptions for the City and RH/VR areas both with and without the annexation. The results generated by the model are attached (see Attachment B). Currently, the number of units constructed in RH/VR is 2,393 units, and the population is approximately 8,160. At build out, the total number of units is projected to be 5,545 units, and the build out population is projected to be approximately 19,600. This analysis presents the net revenues, net costs, and net cumulative fiscal impacts reflecting the incremental cban~les to our existing/future operating budgets. Actual budget projections are not used for purposes of this analysis. For example, Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is zero for all years because we currently collect all the TOT available, and the future incremental changes are not based specifically on adding more hotels according to the General Plan. This does not mean that hotels would not be included in our retail component, because the retail classification is very broad and some areas designated as retail could include hotels; but, none are projected at this time. In order to generate our analysis, Staff used very conservative assumptions in the revenue generation factors, land use factors, and costs to provide services. The most significant general assumptions include the following: Promenade Mall starts generating sales tax revenue in FY 1999, and is completely on line in FY 2000 Police services are based on population, and fire services are based on response times Planning is considered a self-sustaining operation (zeros out) Some Public Works operations are offset by Measure A Funding · The Redhawk Golf Course is not included in the fiscal analysis since it is private To make the assumptions for the fiscal impact model, Staff used the best information available from both the County and development community as of April 1998. Based on the most realistic current development statistics, Staff developed three different market projections to reflect the most aggressive to most conservative scenarios. The fiscal impacts of these three different market scenarios are provided in Attachment B. The assumptions used in the rate of development for each scenario are provided in Attachment C. The three scenarios which have been prepared to consider in the analysis are: 1 - "General Plan only" scenario ("GP") 2 o "General Plan plus Redhawk/Vail Ranch" scenario ("Annexation") 3 o "Redhawk/Vail Ranch only" scenario ("RH/VR") Using these three build out scenarios, Staff further broke down the analysis for numbers 2 and 3 to consider three market projections: Market Projection A - Market based on current building trends Market Projection B - Conservative market, reducing the development per year Market Projection C - Conservative based on the market falling in the next few years but development being phased gradually to be completed by the year 2015 The different spreadsheets show that by looking at the Net Recurring Fiscal Impact, even if the most conservative approach is taken (Market Projection C), RH/VR will be completely self- sustaining when annexation occurs. Obviously, then, the most aggressive approach, which is based on actual building trends and land sales to date, also shows that VR/RH as a stand alone is self-sufficient from the start in 1999. To be realistically conservative, Staff focused on Market Projection B. Both tables (Annexation and RH/VR) under this market projection show that whether or not the City annexes these areas, there is always a positive net recurring fiscal impact. In fact, the analysis shows that by annexing RH/VR, the general fund has a net increase of $353,510 in the first year. In summary, based on taking a conservative approach using the best information available to date, annexation of the Redhawk/Vail Ranch communities is projected to provide a positive fiscal impact to the City of Temecula. II. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (TCSD) ASSESSMENTS The comparison of TCSD assessments and special taxes to County Service Area 143 assessments and special taxes in the annexation area has been a focal point throughout this annexation analysis process. In order to obtain the most comprehensive information available, Staff has spoken with representatives of CSA 143, collected financial and landscape/lighting maintenance data, and reviewed current funding levels for these services. Recently, the City and County shared funding for an in-depth study performed by Muni Financial to review and make recommendations regarding the spread of maintenance costs (see attachment D). Using the available information, Staff has analyzed the associated costs 3 for the City to provide maintenance of parks, slopes, and medians. Staff has also analyzed the costs to provide street lighting, trash, and street sweeping services in the proposed annexation areas. While these services were not addressed in the Muni Financial report, they are services which the City would provide to the annexation area. PARKS & RECREATION/SERVICE LEVEL A Currently, the City collects a special tax in the maximum amount of $74.44 per residential parcel for maintenance of parks, medians and arterial street lights. [Note: The parcels in the annexation area currently pay a special tax of $102 (Redhawk) and $199 (Vail Ranch) per residentialparcel.] Based upon the number of existing parks, medians, street lights, and traffic signals, as well as the number of equivalent dwelling units (EDU) in the annexation area, the amount of the special tax ($74.44 per residential parcel) would provide sufficient revenue to support the existing improvements; however, the specific method by which the taxes are apportioned and approved is being reviewed at this time. There is currently one 1.6 acre public park completed in Redhawk, and two completed public parks in Vail Ranch totaling 5.4 acres, as well as a 14.6 acre paseo/trail area. Based upon the Redhawk Specific Plan, there is an additional 28.4 acres of public parkland, as well as an additional 22.2 acres in Vail Ranch. The public parkland to ultimately be dedicated at build out within the annexation area is commensurate with the City's current level of service, which is 4 acres per thousand within the City limits. SERVICE LEVEL B The TCSD maintains residential street lights through Service Level B rates and charges paid by each single family residential parcel receiving benefit from the service. The TCSD rate is $25.68 per parcel per year. The assessments levied by CSA 143 for street lights (including arterial and residential lights) are $42.44 in Redhawk and $49.60 in Vail Ranch. Annexation into the TCSD would result in a reduction in cost per parcel in Redhawk of $16.76 and $23.92 in Vail Ranch. There would be sufficient TCSD rates and charges revenue from the proposed annexation area to support the existing level of service. SERVICE LEVEL C TCSD Service Level C pays for the maintenance of slopes in residential developments. Based upon existing improvements, the cost for TCSD to provide this service in Redhawk would be $223.35 per single family residential parcel, and $129.46 per single family residential parcel in Vail Ranch. There is currently not enough funding generated in the proposed annexation area to cover this service level. The current special tax in Redhawk and Vail Ranch of $102 and $199, respectively, pay for a combination of park, slope, and median maintenance. These special taxes are levied against all parcels within the annexation area, including vacant land. This results in a subsidy for slope maintenance provided by vacant landowners. The TCSD rate and charge for this service level is levied against only those properties receiving benefit from the improvements; that is, single 4 family residential parcels that are improved. The implementation of the changes is being reviewed at this time. SERVICE LEVEL D TCSD Service Level D provides for refuse, recycling, and street sweeping services in the City. Redhawk and Vail Ranch are currently assessed at $191 per single family parcel per year for refuse and recycling services. Redhawk also pays $7.88 per parcel per year for street sweeping once a month. The current TCSD rate and charge of $168.48 per year per single family residential parcel would result in an annual cost decrease to Redhawk and Vail Ranch of $30.04 and $22.52, respectively. In addition, the entire annexation area would receive weekly street sweeping services. In summary, the net annual change in a combination of Special Tax and rates and charges for all TCSD service levels is an estimated increase of $148.63 per residential parcel in Redhawk, and an estimated decrease of $41.54 per residential parcel in Vail Ranch (see Table in Attachment D). III. ANNEXATION SURVEY OF REDHAWK AND VAIL RANCH COMMUNITIES The final component in analyzing whether or not to go forth with an annexation is to determine what the residents in the annexation area want. At Council direction, Staff contracted with The Resource Group to conduct a survey of the residents in the affected communities. A copy of the survey document is attached (Attachment E). Dr. Esteban Soriano of the Resource Group presented to the Council the following information regarding the survey results during the December 9, 1997 City Council meeting. The results of the survey are overall very optimistic (Attachment F). The following key points summarize these results: Both communities showed a majority in favor of annexation with 67% overall (RH - 76%; VR - 58%) Very strong response rate - higher than goal of 300 for each community (RH - 375/39%; VR - 356/38%) Reasons in favor: Vote on City issues · Better police/fire services Reasons opposed: · Additional taxes/fees · More regulations/ordinances 5 Reasons undecided: Want more info on current taxes, HOA commitments, new/additional taxes, new services to be provided (City/Community/Recreational) Most common questions asked by both communities: · How would annexation affect me/the property taxes/assessments I pay now? What are the pros and cons of annexation? Besides police and fire services, what changes will occur with annexation? · How would public services be affected? Additional information requested by residents: Advantages/disadvantages · Impact on taxes · Financial impact on fees and charges · Listing of services offered by City · General information on process of annexation · City police and fire protection · Listing of any tax increases because of annexation Listing of parks and recreation services · Road services and improvements with City · Building codes/zoning/permits issues RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information provided herein, Staff recommends that the appropriate information be provided to the residents of both communities to answer any questions or respond to any concerns they might have. This would be done through both newsletter type mailers and community meetings. After this phase, Staff recommends that a follow-up survey be conducted to ensure that the information has been received and understood by the residents, so that Staff can better predict the success of proceeding with the annexation. If the Council desires for Staff to continue the annexation process, the following is a tentative time line for critical elements of the process: TARGET COMPLETION ITEM DATE Initiate Annexation Proceedings May 1998 Disseminate additional information to Redhawk/Vail Ranch Communities May/June 1998 Conduct Follow-up Survey of communities June 1998 Complete Legal Descriptions/Maps for Area July 1998 Prezoning of Annexation Area to Council July 1998 Compile Package for LAFCO Application May - July 1998 6 Submit Application to LAFCO Conduct Annexation Public Hearing Vote on Annexation and related issues July 1998 February 1999 March 1999 FISCAl. IMPACT: The fiscal impact of the actual annexation is included as an attachment to this Staff Report (Staff recommends that Market Projection B be used to go forward.) If the election can be held in March 1999, and the results are favorable, then Staff can negotiate tax allocations with the County and annexation could feasibly be targeted to take place as of July 1, 1999. In addition to the actual annexation, Staff estimates that the cost to complete the annexation process for the Redhawk and Vail Ranch communities is approximately $20,000, including Staff time and Attorney fees. Costs which may require additional appropriations in the future include the following: Additional Survey Work $ 10,000 Election ~ 30,000 Legal Maps/Descriptions $ 3,000 Application Fees $ 7,000 $ 50,000 ATTACHMENTS: A. Annexation Guidelines B. Fiscal Impact Analysis C. Assumptions D. Preliminary Analysis of CSA 143 Landscape Assessments E. City of Temecula Annexation Survey F. City of Temecula Annexation Issues Study G. Concerns Raised by Redhawk Residents/City Staff Responses ATTACHMENT A r~ Z Z Z z © ~ Z Z Z ~ Z Z ANNEXATION PROCESS Applicant fries an application with the City requesting annexation to the City and the TCSD along with a prezoning application and a copy of a Fiscal Impact Report. Staff reviews the application for: Consistency with the General Plan ; Contiguity with the City Limits Consistency of the applicant's Fiscal Impact Report with the General Plan Fiscal Model Staff prepares the following: The Plan of Services The environmental documents in compliance with CEQA The Planning Commission conducts a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council conducts a public hearing and takes action on the following: The Plan of Services The environmental documents Property Tax Agreement with the County if there is no Master Property Tax Agreement Makes recommendation to LAFCO The applicant f'des an annexation application with LAFCO which takes the following actions: Conducts a Public Hearing (no public hearing is required if 100 % of the property owners within the annexation territory consent to the annexation). Takes final action on the annexation and approves/denies the request based on LAFCO policies. If approved by LAFCO, the annexation request is sent to the City by LAFCO and the City becomes the conducting authority to implement the LAFCO resolution in a noticed public hearing (If the City fails or refuses to initiate proceedings within 60 days, the Board of Supervisors is required to complete the proceedings). There are two types of annexations: R:'aNIAASI~H$gLNNEX.PRO 10/12/95 sn · FOR UNINHABITED ANNEXATIONS (11 OR LESS REGISTERED VOTERS RESIDING WITHIN THE ANNEXATION TERRITORY) THE CITY COUNCIL MUST TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: · Terminate annexation proceedings if: · The landowners owning 50 percent or more of the assessed value of land in the annexation territory ffie protests with the City. · Order the annexation proceedings if: · The landowners owning less than 50 percent of the assessed value of land in the annexation territory file protests with the City. · FOR INHABITED ANNEXATIONS (12 OR MORE REGISTERED VOTERS RESIDING WITHIN ~ ANNEXATION TERRITORY) THE CITY COUNCIL MUST TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: · Terminate the annexation proceedings if: · 50% or more of the registered voters residing in the annexation territory file protests. · Order the annexation proceedings subject to an election if: 1) At least 25% but less than 50% of the registered voters residing in the annexation territory trfie written protests, or 2) At least 25 % of the number of owners of land, who also own at least 25 % of the assessed value of land within the annexation territory fde written protests. · Hold an election within the annexation territory if: · The criteria 1 or 2 above are satisfied. · Hold an election within the annexation territory and the City if: · The criteria 1 or 2 above are satisfied and the assessed value or the number of registered voters in the annexation territory is 50% or more of that in the City. · Order the annexation 1oroceedings if the majority of the votes support the annexauon, · Terminate the annexation proceedings ff the majority of the votes do not support the annexation. · Order the annexation without an election if: · The protests are insufficient to satisfy the criteria I or 2 above. LAFCO prepares the Certificate of Completion and records it with the County Recorder. LAFCO issues a Statement of Boundary Change. Annexation is complete. R:'u'qAASEHS%MqN'EX.PRO 10/12/95 sn ANNEXATION PRIORITY MAP Environmental Study Area~ ! HIGH MEDIUM LOW of Influence of Temecula Sphere of Influence he City of FEMECULA General Plan Program THE PLANNING CENTFR ATTACHMENT B ~o~oo~ .... u ~oo .... ~o ATTACHMENT C DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE THREE MARKET PROJECTIONS MARKET PROJECTION A (Realistic. but slightly aggressive) Retail phasing for Redhawk: Retail phasing for Vail Ranch: Business Park for Vail Ranch: 28 acres in year 2003 32 acres in 1999 32 acres in 2000 24 acres in 2001 Year2000 The Redhawk residential specific plan has been reduced by 800 units based on actual build out. All units remaining to be built after FY 1999 will be brought in at 300 units each year for years 1999 - 2005, and 306 units for year 2006. Phase Vail Ranch homes at 200 per year for 4 years (1999 - 2002), and 220 in year 5 (2003). MARKET PROJECTION B (Realistically Conservative) ~ Retail phasing for Redhawk: 28 acres in year 2005 ~ Retail phasing for Vail Ranch: 22 acres each year - Years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 Business Park for Vail Ranch: Year2001 The Redhawk residential specific plan has been reduced by 800 units based on actual build out. All units remaining to be built after FY 1999 will be brought in at 300 units each year for years 1999 - 2005, and 306 units for year 2006. Phase Vail Ranch homes at 200 per year for 4 years (1999 - 2002), and 220 in year 5 (2003). MARKET PROJECTION C (Most Conservative, assumes Market decline) Retail phasing for Redhawk: 8.5 acres in Year 2000 14.3 acres in Year 2002 5.2 acres in Year 2005 Retail phasing for Vail Ranch: 23.4 acres in Year 2007 15.4 acres in Year 2009 32.3 acres in 2011 21.1 acres in 2015 Business Park for Vail Ranch: 17 acres in 2010 and 17 acres in 2015 The Redhawk residential specific plan has been reduced by 800 units based on actual build out. All units remaining to be built after FY 1999 will be brought in at 300 units each year for years 1999 - 2005, and 306 units for year 2006. Phase Vail Ranch homes at 200 per year for 4 years (1999 - 2002), and 220 in year 5 (2003). ATTACHMENT D REDHAWK (includes immediate anticipated future development) CURRENT ESTIMATED REDHAWK TCSD RATES RATES PARKS/VVATERFALL SLOPES SUB-TOTAL 102.00 74.44 223.35 297.79 A:recap.wb3 04/21/98 08:25 AM DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CURRENT RATES & TCSD increase/(decrease) 195.79 STREET LIGHTS* 42.44 25.68 (16.76) TRASH SERVICE* 191.00 168.48 (22.52) STREET SWEEPING* 7.88 0.00 (7.88) TOTAL 343.32 491.95 148.63 VAIL RANCH CURRENT ESTIMATED DIFFERENCE VAIL RANCH TCSD RATES BETWEEN CURRENT RATES RATES & TCSD increasel(decrease) PARKS/ 74.44 SLOPES 129.46 SUB-TOTAL 199.00 203.90 4.90 STREET LIGHTS* 49.60 25.68 (23.92) TRASH SERVICE* 191.00 168.48 (22.52) STREET SWEEPING* 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 439.60 398.06 (41.54) * NOT ADDRESSED IN MFS REPORT. RATES WOULD REMAIN THE SAME AS CURRENT CHARGED. MuniFinancial Corporate Office 28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92590-3661 Phone: (9091 699-399{} Fax: (909) 699-3460 *San t')'ancisc~ *A~vnonk. NY *,$'a~'ranzento *Chicttgo oH, hshington, D.C ,W. Palm Beach *Seattle February 27, 1998 Mr. Melvin T. Bohlken County Service Area Administrator Riverside County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 12'h Floor Riverside, CA 92501-3651 (909) 275-1110 RE: Preliminary Analysis of CSA 143 Landscaping Assessments Dear Mel: Included with this letter is a preliminary analysis report of CSA 143 landscaping assessments. This report contains a detailed analysis of the landscaped areas maintained within each of the existing CSA 143 zones; namely Hunter Road, Silverhawk, Redhawk and Vail Ranch. The goal of our preliminary analysis was to clearly identify all the landscape improvements maintained by CSA 143, the costs associated with those improvements and identify the properties that receive special benefits from each of the improvements as well as identify possible assessments for parcels associated with those improvements. This preliminary analysis, the method of apportionment applied therein and the resulting assessments are based on our experience with similar type districts and improvements and is designed to ensure full cost recovery both now and in the future in accordance with the special benefit each parcel receives from the improvements. This report and the analysis therein, has been presented for discussion purposes and does not obligate the district to take any specific action or modify the current assessments approved in Fiscal Year 1997-98. In fact, at the request of your office we will be reviewing various cost allocations over the next few weeks for future discussion and review. Please call me if you have any questions at (800) 755-6864. Very Truly Yours, MBIA MuniFinancial Jim McGuire, Manager Special District Services Attachment MunicipaiServices CSA 143 Preliminary Analysis of Landscaping Assessments FISCAL YEAR 1998/99 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CSA 143 MuniFinancial 714EI!/4 MunicipaiServices Corporate Office 28765 Single Oak Drive Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92590 Tel: (909) 69%3990 Tel: (800) 755-6864 Fax: (909) 699-3460 www.muni.com · San Francisco · Washington, D.C. · Armonk, NY · Chicago · W. Palm Beach · Seattle I. OVERVIEW A. Introduction This Report contains a preliminary evaluation of the special benefit assessments within the existing Zones of CSA 143 (District), namely: Hunter Road; Silverhawk; Redhawk; and Vail Ranch. The purpose of the evaluation was to research all improvements maintained by CSA 143, the costs associated with those improvements and identify the properties benefiting from those improvements in order to determine the appropriate assessments to be charged against each parcel for those improvements. Our initial study of the existing assessments within the District indicates an average cost of approximately $0.1625 per square foot of landscaping. This cost per square foot ($0.1625) includes administrative charges and over-heads. Although the actual cost of maintenance for a specific area may vary with the type of landscaping maintained, (i.e., Park maintenance, Slope maintenance, Turf maintenance, Open Space maintenance), it is reasonable to assume an average cost per square foot for all improvements. Maintenance contracts and the cost of maintaining improvements are typically negotiated on a District- wide basis and not specific to particular improvement or area. Therefore, there is usually no distinguishable cost variance for maintaining different types of improvements. Furthermore, the current assessment rate (cost) of $0.1625 per square foot is consistent with the assessments calculated and charged by other agencies in the area for similar type improvements, namely Temecula and Murrieta. Each of the existing Zones within the District were first audited, to ensure that all parcels within the District were accounted for, and that no parcels outside the District were being assessed. After confirmation of the District and Zone boundaries, the square footage and exact location of all landscaping improvements were reviewed and identified within each of the four existing Zones. This evaluation included existing improvements maintained by the District as well as new landscaping that will be brought on line in the near future as a result of current new development. All landscaping improvements were grouped and identified as: Park Landscaping -- Includes all parks, open space areas and channel ways that are associated with all properties in the area; · Median Landscaping -- Includes all median island landscaping that are associated with all properties in the area; Parkway/Slope Landscaping -- Includes all parkway and slope landscaping on the main streets that are associated with specific areas, including turf and groundcover; Tract Specific Landscaping -- Includes all open space, parkways and slopes that are either internal improvements (not on main streets), or improvements associated with a specific area of the Zone or tract. After the evaluation and inventory of all the landscaped areas maintained throughout the District, each of the specific areas of improvement were assigned to a region of each Zone based on the improvements provided in that area. These areas are identified as Sub-Zones, and typically are geographical in location. Each Sub-Zone includes specific parcels and subdivisions that receive special benefits from specific improvements. The following is a summary of the various Sub-Zones: · Hunter Road -- Consists of two residential tracts, but has been established with only one Sub-Zone. · Silverhawk -- This Zone has been divided into three (3) Sub-Zones; Zone A m includes all the existing residential subdivisions that benefit from specific parkway and slope improvements. Zone B -- includes all the subdivisions that benefit from specific parkway or slope improvements, but are not part of the existing residential developments. Zone C -- includes all other parcels within Silverhawk that currently have no parkway or tract specific improvements associated with the parcel. · Redhawk -- This Zone has been divided into seven (7) Sub-Zones; Zones A - C -- includes existing residential subdivisions that benefit from specific parkway and' slope landscaping, that are associated with the developments located in each of the respective areas. Zones D -- includes residential subdivisions that are currently being developed, that benefit from specific parkway and slope landscaping, associated with the residential developments located in the area. This includes some existing improvements and new improvements. Zones E -- includes existing residential subdivisions that benefit from specific parkway and slope landscaping, associated with the developments located in the area. Zones F -- includes residential subdivisions that are currently being developed, that will benefit from new parkway and slope landscaping associated with the developments. Zone G -- includes all other parcels within Redhawk that currently have no parkway or tract specific improvements associated with the properties. These parcels are typically large parcels planned for future development, commercial properties or golf course parcels. Vail Ranch -- This Zone has been divided into seven (7) Sub-Zones; Zones A - E -- includes both existing residential subdivisions and currently developing residential subdivisions that benefit from specific pa_rkway and slope landscaping, that are associated with the developments located in each of the respective areas. Zones F -- includes residential subdivisions that have not yet been developed, but will have specific parkway and slope landscaping associated with them when they develop. These parcels may not require an assessment for local improvements in Fiscal Year 1998-99, but have been identified with specific future improvements and costs anticipated for those improvements. Zone G --includes all other parcels within Vail Ranch that currently have no parkway or tract specific improvements associated with the properties. These parcels are typically large parcels planned for future development, commercial properties or golf course parcels. The last step of the evaluation, involved actually assigning assessments to each parcel within the District based on the improvements that are associated with the parcel and properties within each specific Sub:Zone. Hunter Road and Silverhawk were evaluated independently for all improvements. In both these Zones, the cost of maintaining the parks and/or medians (Regional Improvements) were spread to all properties within the respective Zone. All other improvements including parkway, slopes, tract- specific open space areas and other tract-specific improvements (Local Improvements) were spread proportionately to only the benefiting parcels. Redhawk and Vail Ranch were evaluated both as independent Zones and also as a combined Zone. Currently, the costs of regional improvements (parks and medians) are allocated separately to each Zone. However, there is no significant difference in the special benefit these improvements provide to parcels within both Zones. If there were no signs posted that designating the location of Vail Ranch and Redhawk, no distinction could be made between the two areas with respect to the regional improvements. However, because of their overall geographical location and use of the improvements, these regional improvements are clearly a special benefit to the properties in the area and provide no measurable general benefit to properties outside of the Zone. Although this report briefly summarizes the impact on individual assessments if the regional improvements were budgeted separately, this method of spread for special benefit would be much more difficult to support and argue. All other improvements including parkway, slopes, tract-specific open space areas and other tract-specific improvements (Local Improvements) are spread proportionately to only the benefiting parcels. B. General Findings The initial audit of the District identified one parcel that was assessed for the Silverhawk area in FY 1997-98, that is actually in the City of Temecula. This parcel is outside the boundary of CSA 143 and should not be assessed in the future. Parcel (911-150-047) was assessed in FY 1997-98 for $715.92. This parcel is in the City of Temecula and was also assessed for the City's CSD charges. The following tables list parcels that are within CSA 143 and were assessed in Fiscal Year 1997-98, however based on our review of the improvements and the land use of each parcel, these parcels do not currently receive special benefit from the existing improvements maintained by the District. APN Za-e Sub-Zme Tract ~ Imad Use FY 97-$8 95080~14 REDHAW RI-tG PM24332 0.13 NENIiLRDA~LE PARCEL vw_.st, rr~LAr,D 26.52 950822012 RHN--IA~ RIfF 23066~4 4.32 Ft.rlLRE Cr'ENSPACli 881.28 95~5XIH RI!EYz-IAWK RInD ~1 Z36 FUIIlm CI'~/SPACE 481.44 95C861016 REDHAYOK RFID 2306~1 ~76 Fbn'LRE CX'!~N~E 155.04 4 APN 911140018 911140023 911140025 911140033 911140034 911140035 911140036 911140037 911140038 911140040 911140041 911150025 911150031 911150033 911150041 911150045 911150046 911150047 911150058 911150059 957020002 957020004 957080001 957080009 957080010 957080011 9570800t2 957080013 957080020 957383001 957393027 957394002 Zone Sub-Zone Tract SILVERHAWK SH-C PM26913 SILVERHAWK SH-C PM26913 SILVERHAWK $H-C PM26913 SILVERHAWK SH-C PM26913 SILVERHAWK SH-C PM26913 SILVERHAWK SH-C PM26913 SILVERHAWK SH-C PM26913 SILVERHAWK SH-C PM26913 SILVERHAWK SH-C PM26913 SILVERHAWK SH-C PM26913 SILVERHAWK SH-C PM26913 SILVERHAWK $H-C PM26913 SILVERHAWK SH-C PM26913 SILVERHAWK SH-C PM26913 SILVERHAWK SH-C PM26913 SILVERHAWK SH-C PM26913 SILVERHAWK SH-C PM26913 SILVERHAWK TCSD PM26913 SILVERHAWK SH-C PM26913 SILVERHAWK $H-C PM26913 SILVERHAWK SH-C PM10054 SILVERHAWK SH-C PM10035 SILVERHAWK SH-C PM10038 SILVERHAWK $H-C SILVERHAWK SH-C SILVERHAWK SH-C SILVERHAWK SH-C PM 10037 SILVERHAWK SH-C PMI0037 SILVERHAWK $H-C SILVERHAWK SH-A 23249-B 1 SILVERHAWK $H-A 23249-82 SILVERHAWK SH-A 23249-84 Levy Land Use FY 97-98 12.11 VACANT,RESIDENTIAL 1,380,54 2.77 VACANT,OTHER 315.78 14.50 UNDER DEVELOPED, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE5 57.00 46.44 VACANT,RESIDENTIAL 5,294.16 7.15 VACANT,RESIDENTIAL 815.10 41.94 VACANT,RESIDENTIAL 4,781.16 17.30 VACANT,RESIDENTIAL 1,972.20 4.38 VACANT,RESIDENTIAl 499.32 1.75 VACANT,RESIDENTIAL 199.50 13.10 VACANT,RESIDENTIAL 1,493.40 0.37 NON BUILDABLE PARCEL, VACANT RESll)ENTIAL 42.18 8.83 VACANT,RESIDENTIAL 1,006.62 15,00 VACANT,RESIDENTIAL 1,710.00 0.27 NON BUILDABLE PARCEL, VACANT RESIDENTIAL 30.78 3.34 VACANT,RESIDENTIAL 380.76 7.52 VACANT,RESIDENTIAL 857.28 3.98 VACANT.RESIDENTIAL 453.72 6.70 VACANT,ILESIDENTIAL ~ THE CITY OF TEMECULA) 715.92 1.24 rAGANT,RESIDENTIAL 141.36 3.42 VACANT,RESIDENTIAL 389.88 5.03 VACANT,RESIDENTIAL 573.42 18.30 VACANT,RESIDENTIAL 2,086.20 11.00 SCHOOL SITE 682.86 8.66 VACANT,OTHER 987.24 6.78 VACANT,RESIDENTIAL LAND 772.92 2.83 VACANT.RESIDENTIAL 322.62 4.72 VACANT~ESIDENTIAL 538.08 3.24 VACANT,RESIDENTIAL 369.36 0.98 VACANT,OTHER 111.72 0.03 LANDSCAPE EASEMENT 57.00 0.20 OPEN SPACE 57.00 0.05 lANDSCAPE EASEMENT 57.00 Total For Silverhawk: $29,152.08 Total For District: $31,524.60 The following tables contains a list of parcels that are within CSA 143 and were not assessed in Fiscal Year 1997-98, however-based on our review of the improvements and the land use of each parcel, these parcels receive special benefit from the improvements maintained by the District. This list includes the "Proposed Assessments" based on the reengineering of the District. Local Regiona Total APN Zone Sub-Zone Acres Imnd Use Levy Levy . levy 950131002 REDHAWK RH-A 0.20 RES~glNGLEFAMILYRESR)ENCES 239.77 75.03 314.80 950703007 REDHAWK R.H-E 0.16 RES,SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES 222.41 75.03 297.44 Total For R~dhawk 462.18 150.06 $612.24 APN Zone 95704O0O1 SILVERHAWK 95704O0O2 SILVERHAWK 957040004 SILVERHAWK 95704OOO6 SILVERHAWK 957330O01 SILVERHAWK 957330002 SILVERHAWK 957330003 SILVERHAWK 957330004 SILVERHAWK 957330005 SILVERHAWK 95733O006 SILVERHAWK 95733OOO7 SILVERHAWK 957330008 SILVERHAWK 95733OOO9 SILVERHAWK 957330010 SILVERHAWK 957330O11 SILVERHAWK 95733OO12 SILVERHAWK 957330013 SILVERHAWK 957330014 SILVERHAWK 957330015 SILVERHAWK 957330O16 SILVERHAWK 957330017 SILVERHAWK 957330O18 $ILVEKHAWK 95733OO19 SILVERHAWK 957330020 SILVERHAWK 957330021 SILVERHAWK 957330022 SILVERHAWK 957330023 SILVERHAWK 957330024 SILVERHAWK 957330026 SILVERHAWK 957330027 SILVERHAWK 95733OO28 SILVERHAWK 957330O32 SILVERHAWK 957330034 SILVERHAWK 957371OO1 SILVERHAWK 957371OO2 SILVERHAWK 9573710O3 SILVERHAWK 957371OO4 SILVERHAWK 957371005 SILVERHAWK 957371006 SILVERHAWK 9573710O7 SILVEKHAWK 957371008 SILVERHAWK 957371009 SILVERHAWK 957371010 SILVERHAWK 957371011 SILVERHAWK 957371012 SILVERHAWK 9573720O1 SILVERHAWK 9573720O2 SILVERHAWK 957372OO3 SILVERHAWK 957372004 SILVERHAWK 9573720O5 SILVERHAWK 957372006 SILVERHAWK 957372007 SILVERHAWK 957372008 SILVERHAWK Sub. Zone Acres Land Use SH-B SH-B SH-B SH-B SH-B SH-B SH-B SH-B 12.08 V^CAN2 SH-B 8.05 VAGAN~ SH-B 2.25 VACAN'I SH-B 7.03 VACAN'I SH-B 5.44 VACAN'I SH-B 3.95 V^CAIVI SH-B 2.62 V^GAN~ SH-B 1.77 VAC_AN~ $H-B 0.84 VACAN~ SH-B 1.63 VAC~ SH-B 1.76 VAC. A~ SH-B 4.24 VACtu'~ SH-B 1.47 VAGANI SH-B 2.24 VAC2a~ SH-B 2.20 VAGAhrr SH-B 5.13 vAcAhrr SH-B 2.66 VAC~,,rr SH-B 1.12 VAC~-,rr SH-B 1.21 VACAN~ SH-B 1.41 VACANT SH-B 4.55 VACANT SH-B 0.92 VAC2aX'T SH-B 1.67 VACAN~ SH-B 2.79 VAC~VT $H-B 1.93 VACtu'Cr $H-B 1.07 VACANT $H-B 6.63 VACAN'r SH-B 4.05 VACaUqT SH.B 1.30 VACANT SH-B 1.30 VAC,Sa'qT SH-B 3.64 VACANT SH-B 2.69 VACANT SH-B 2.40 VACANT SH-B 1.46 VAC~WT SH-B 1.2I VACANT SH-B 1.51 VACANT $H-B 1.47 VACAN'I SH.B 4.36 VACAN1 SH-B 3.49 VACAN2 SH-B 4.42 VACAbrI SH-B 7.66 VAC2u~ SH-B 5.74 VAC2u'q3 SH-B 1.45 VACta~ $H-B 1.16 VACAN2 SH-B 1.12 VACAN~ SH-B 1.10 VACANI 2.25 VA~,COMMERCTa~ LAND 360.18 29.61 389.79 2.71 VAC_..ANT,~ 433.82 35.66 469.48 1.03 VACAbFF, RESlDENTIAL 164.88 13.55 178.43 30.97 VACANT,RESIDENTIAL 4,957.68 407.57 5,365.25 15.49 VACANT, COMMERCIAL LAND 2,479.64 203.85 2,683.49 5.65 VACANT, COMMERCIAL lAND 904.45 74.35 978.80 6.16 DEVELOPED COMMERCIAL 5,916.56 243.20 6,159.76 7X3MMERCIAL LAND 1,933.77 158.97 2,092.74 EO~H~CL~L LAND 1,288.64 105.94 1,394.58 .COMMERCIAL LAND 360.18 29.61 389.79 COMMERCIAL LAND 1,125.36 92.51 1,217.87 COMMERCIAL LAND 870.84 71.59 942.43 COMMERO~L LAND 632.32 51.98 684.30 COMMERCIAL LAND 419.41 34.48 453.89 COMMERCIAL LAND 283.34 23.29 306.63 COMlvlERCIAL LAND 134.47 11.05 145.52 COMMERCIAL LAND 260.93 21.45 282.38 COMMERCIAL LAND 281.74 23.16 304.90 COIV~II~ClAL LAND 678.74 55.80 734.54 COMMERCIAL LAND 235.32 19.35 254.67 COMME~CL~ LAND 358.58 29.48 388.06 COM~RC~L L~WD 352.18 28.95 381.13 CO~ERC~AL LAND 821.21 67.51 888.72 COI~k~ERC~L LAND 425.81 35.01 460.82 CObtMERCIAL 1.2uND 179.29 14.74 I94.03 CO~RCIAL LAND 193.70 15.92 209.62 COMM]D~.C:DU,.. LAND 225.71 18.56 244.27 CO~RCIAL LAND 728.36 59.88 788.24 COMmeRCIAL LAND 147.27 12.11 159.38 CO~RCL~[ L~qD 267.33 21.98 289.31 COMMERC2AL LAND 446.62 36.72 483.34 COMMERC2AL LAND 308.95 25.40 334.35 COMMERCIAL LAND 171.29 14.08 185.37 COM~CIAL LAND 1,061.33 87.25 1,148.58 COM~a~RC2~L LAND 648.32 53.30 701.62 COMMERCIAL LAND 208.10 17.11 225.21 CO~m~RCL~L LAND 208.10 17.11 225.21 CO~RC~L LAND 582.69 47.90 630.59 CO~ERC~AL LAND 430.62 35.40 466.02 COMMERC~L LAND 384.19 31.58 415.77 COmmeRCIAL LAND 233.72 19.21 252.93 COMMERC~L LAND 193.70 15.92 209.62 CO~CL~L LAND 241.72 19.87 261.59 COiv~C70kL LAND 235.32 19.35 254.67 ZO~,~C:L~L LAND 697.95 57.38 755.33 COMM~CL~L LAND 558.68 45.93 604.61 ZOMMERCIAL LAND 707.55 58.17 765.72 3OMMImC~L LAND 1,226.21 10O.81 1,327.02 :OMMERCL~ LAND 918.86 75.54 994.40 :OMMERCIAL LAND 232.12 19.08 251.20 :O)v~dERC~ LAND 185.69 15.27 200.96 ,COMMI~CIAL LAND 179.29 14.74 194.03 :Ob~VIERCIAL LAND 176.09 14.48 190.57 Total For 5liverhay, k: 37,658.82 2,852.71 $40,511.53 APN Zone 950160026 VAIL RANCH Total Sub.Zone Acres Land Use Levy Levy Levy VR-F 3.00 VACANT;RE~DENTL~L 0.00 450.18 450.18 Total For Vail R.anc.~ 0.00 450.18 $450.18 TotalForD i strict: 38,121.0O 3,452.95 $41,573.95 II. SUB-ZONES The Following tables list the Sub-Zone designations identified for each Zone, the tract numbers associated with the Sub-Zone(s), and the Assessor's Parcel Map Numbers that are associated with the parcels included within the Sub-Zone(s): A. Hunter Road Tract Assessor's Zone Sub Zone Number Map Page HUNTER ROAD HR-A 21957-00 956-15- HUNTER ROAD HR-A 21560-01 956-16 B. Silverhawk Tract Assessor's Zone Sub Zone Number Map Page SILVERFIAWK SH-A 23249-A1 957-05 SILVERI'LAWK SH-A 23249-A0 957-06 SILVERHAWK SH-A 23249- CO 957-10 S]'I .VERt-IAWK SH-A 23249-C0 957-11 SILVER_HAWK SH-A 23249-B 1 957-38 SILVERHAWK SH-A 23249-B2 957-39 SILVERHAWK SH-B PM26913 913-16 SILVERHAWK SH-B 957-03 SILVERHAWK SH-B 23249-D 957-04 SILVERHAWK SH-B PM23248-01 957-33 SILVERHAWK SH-B PM23248-02 957-37 SILVERHAWK SH-C PM26913 911-14 SILVERHAWK SH-C PM26913 911-15 SILVERHAWK SH-C PM10054 957-02 SILVERHAWK SH-C PM10054 957-03 SILVERHAWK SH-C PM10038 957-08 SILVERHAWK SH-C PM23851-01 957-35 7 C. Redhawk Zone REDHAWK REDHAWK REDHAWK REDHAWK RED HAWK RED HAWK RED HAWK RED HAWK REDHAV;K REDHAV;K REDHAV;K REDHAWK REDHAWK REDHAWK REDHAWK REDHAWK REDHAWK REDHAWK REDHAWK REDHAWK REDHAWK REDHAWK REDHAWK REDHAWK REDHAWK REDHAWK REDHAWK REDHAWK REDHAWK REDHAWK REDHAWK REDHAWK REDHAWK REDHAWK REDHAWK Sub Zone RH-A RH-A RH-A kH-A RH-A RH-A RH-B RH-B R.I-I-B RH-B RH-B RH-B 1LH-C RH-C RH-C RH-C RH-D RH-D RH-D RH-D RH-D RH-D RH-F KH-F RH-F RH-F RH-F RH-F RH-F RH-G RH-G RH-G RH-G Tract Number 23063-01 23063-01 23063-01 23063-06 23063-06 23063-06 23063-02 23063-02 23063-02 23063-02 23063-03 23063-03 23063-04 23063-05 23063-05 23063-05 PM24387 23064-01 23064-01 23065-01 23064-03 23064-03 23063-07 23063-07 PM24387 PM24387 23063-08 23063-08 2306~04 23066-04 PM24387 PM24332 PM24387 PIVi24332 PM24387 Assessor's Map Page 950-13 950-14 950-15 950-25 950-26 950-27 950-19 950-20 950-21 950-22 950-23 950-24 950-28 950-29 950-30 950-31 950-81 950-84 950-85 950-86 950~0 950-91 950J0 950J1 950-17 950-18 950-72 950-73 950-82 950-83 952-23 950-12 950-17 950-80 950-81 (Portion oO From 950-170-013 From 950-170-013 (Portion of) (Portion of) (Portion of) (Portion of) D. Vail Ranch Zone VAIL RANCH VAIL RANCH VAIL RANCH VAIL RANCH VAIL RANCH VAIL RANCH VAiL RANCH VAIL RANCH VAIL RANCH VAIL RANCH VAIL RANCH VAIL RANCH VAIL RANCH VAiL RANCH VAIL RANCH VAIL RANCH VAIL RANCH VAIL RANCH VAIL RANCH VAIL RANCH VAIL KANCH VAIL RANCH VAIL RANCH VAIL RANCH VAIL RANCH VAIL RANCH VAIL RANCH VAIL RANCH VAIL RANCH VAIL RANCH VAIL RANCH VAIL RANCH VAIL RANCH VAIL RANCH Sub Zone ~-A ~-A ~-A ~-A ~-B ~-B VR-C VR-C VR-C VR-C VR-C VR-C VR-C VR-C VR-D VR-D VR-D VR-D VR-D VR-D VR-E VR-E VR-E VR-E VR-E VR-E VR-E VR-E VR-G VR-G VR-G VR-G Tract Number 23174-04 23174-04 23174-05 23174-05 23174-06 23174-06 PM23780 23174-01 23174-01 23174-02 23174-01 23174-03 23174-03 23174-03 23173-03 23173-04 23173-04 23173-04 23173-04 23173-00 PM23780 23173-01 23173-01 23173-01 23173-01 23173-01 23173-02 23173-02 23174-00 23174-03 PM23780 23172-00 23172-00 23172-00 Assessor's MapPage 950-59 950-60 950-61 950-62 950-63 950-64 950-16 950-49 950-50 950-51 950-52 950-74 950-75 950-76 950-39 950-40 950-41 950-42 950-43 950-44 950-16 950-32 950-33 950-34 950-35 950-36 950-37 950-38 950-16 950-75 950-16 950-77 950-78 950-79 (Portion ot) (Portion oO (Portion of) (Portion III. IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE SUB-ZONES The tables on the following pages identify the specific improvements associated with each Sub-Zone designation and the corresponding square footage applicable in each case. 10 CSA 143 Detail Of The Specific Improvements By Sub-Zone Zone H~*A Sq Ft 940 945 7,305 871 25,264 26,136 61,461 32,963 32,963 0 94,424 HUNTER ROAD Description of Improvements 956-161-001:(0.02 AC) PORTION OF PARKWAY-HUNTER ROAD 956-161-030:(0.02 AC) PORTION OF PARKWAY-HUNTER ROAD 956-162-001:(0.17 AC) PORTION OF PARKWAY-H-LINTER ROAD 956-164016:(0.02 AC) PORTION OF PARKWAY-HUNTER ROAD 956-152-035:(0.58 AC) PORTION OF OPEN SPACE BEH[IND HLTNTER ROAD DEVELOPMENT 956-164-015:(0.60 AC) PORTION OF OPEN SPACE BEI-ffND I-IUNTER ROAD DEVELOPMENT Total Local Landscaping for Zone 956-152-005:(0.76 AC) HUNTER ROAD PARK SITE Total Parks Total Medians Total All of Hunter Road 11 CSA 143 Detail Of The Specific Improvements By Sub-Zone RH-A RH-A RH-A RH-A RH-A RH-A KH-B RH-B RH-B RH-B RH-B R~.B RH-B RH-B RH.B KH-B I~H-B KH-B RH-B RH.B RH.B RH.B RH-B RH.B Zone RH-C KH-C RH-C R~-C KH.C l'd-l-C RH-C RH.C KH.C Pd-I-C RH.C RH-C RH-C Sq Ft 20,473 1,742 67,518 102,g01 34,848 57,390 284,772 Sq Ft 139,827 10,018 4,356 5,227 8,276 871 3,049 10,454 17~424 23,086 78,408 54,450 48,351 20,908 10,018 6,969 7,405 10,454 459,551 Sq Ft 37,026 34,845 18,295 27,878 25,264 13,503 25,264 5,662 435 13,939 11,761 63,597 20,908 298,380 ~EDHA'~K De~criptlon of Improvements 950-150021:(0.47 AC) PARKWAY SLOPE-REDHAWK PKY(SS) WEST OF PASEO PARALLON 950-251402:(0.04 AC) PARKWAY- REDHAWK PARKWAY (NS) WEST OF VIA CORDOBA 950-252-001:(1.55 AC) PARKWAY/SLOPE- REDHAWK PARKWAY (NS) BETWEEN REDHAWK PARKWAY R VIA CORDOBA 950-273-024:(2.36 AC) PARKWAY/SLOPE-REDHAWK PARKWAY(WS) @ PASEO PARALLON(SS) 950-273-025:(0.80 AC) PARKWAY/SLOPE-PASEO PARALLON(SS) BETWEEN REDHAWK PARKWAY & CAMINO PALENCIA 950-150-041 (.01 AC OPS PER MAP)-ACTUALLY A LARGE SLOPE (1720x30) BEHIND TRaY 23063.01 (950-13,14,15) Total Local Landscaping for Zone RH-A Description of Improvements 950-231.028:0.21 AC) OPEN SPACE-BEI-ffND TR~ 23063-02 & 03, NOT ID'D AS CSA143 OR HOA MAINTAHqED 950-231.029:(0.23 AC) OPEN SPACE-BEHIND TR~ 23063-02 & 03, NOT ID'D A5 C5A143 OR HOA MAINTAINED 950-191-016 (0. lO AC) PARKWAY4~ REDHAWK PARKWAY & WOLF VALLEY 950-191-017 (0.12 AC) PARKWAY.REDHAWK PARKWAY(WS) BETWEEN WOLF VALLEY & VIA SALTIO 950-191-018 (0.19 AC) PARKWAY-REDHAWK PARKWAY(WS) BETWEEN WOLF VALLEY & VIA SALTIO 950-192.011:(0.02 AC) PARKWAY.REDHAWK PARKWAY(WS) NORTH OF VIA SALTIO 950-192-012:(0.07 AC) PARKWAY-REDHAWK PARKWAY(WS) NORTH OF VIA SALTIO 950-194-010:(0.24 AC) PARKWAY-WOLF VALLEY RD(NS) WEST OF CAMINO SAN JOSE 950-241.036:(0.40 AC) PARKWAY.ON WOLF VALLEY RD(NS) BETWEEN CAMINO ROSALES & CAMINO SAN JOSE 950-241-037:(0.53 AC) PARKWAY-ON WOLF VALLEY RD(N$) BETWEEN CAMINO ROSALES & CAMINO SAN JOSE 950-243.021:(1.80 AC) PARKWAY/OPEN SPACE-ON WOLF VALLEY RD WEST OF CAMINO ROSALE5 950-231.027:(1.25 AC) OPEN SPACE-BEHIND TR~ 23063.02 & 03, MAI]N'TAINED BY CSA143 950-231-030:(1.11 AC) OPEN SPACE-BEHIND TR# 23063-02 & 03, MAINTAINED BY CSAI43 950-243-022:(0.48 AC) OPEN SPACE-BEHIND TR~ 23063-03, MAINTAINED BY CSA 143 950-241-038:(0.23 AC) INTERNAL PARKWAY-ON CAMINO ROSALES, N/O WOLF VALLEY RD 950-241-039:(0.16 AC) INTERNAL PARKWAY-ON CAMINO ROSALES, N/O WOLF VALLEY RD 950-241-040:(0.17 AC) INTERNAL PARKWAY-ON CAMINO ROSALES, N/O WOLF VALLEY RD 950-243-020:(0.24 AC) INTERNAL PARKWAY/OPEN SPACE-ON CAMINO ROSALES N/O WOLF VALLEY RD Total Local Landscaping for Zone RH-B Description of Improvements 950-311-057:(0.85 AC) INTERNAL OPEN SPACE-BEHIND TR//23063-05, MAINTAIAIED BY HOA 950.311-058:(0.80 AC) INTERNAL OPEN SPACE-BEHIND TR9 23063-05,MAINTAINED BY HOA 950-283-034:(0.42 AC) PARKWAY/SLOPE-WOLF VALLEY RD(S$) BETWEEN CAM[NITO OLITE & REDHAWK PARKWAY 950.283-035:(0.64 AC) PARKWAY/SLOPE-WOLF VALLEY RD($$) BET~/EEN CAMIiNITO OLITE & REDHAWK PARKWAY 950-283-036:(0.58 AC) PARKWAY/SLOPE-WOLF VALLEY RD(SS) & CAMINITO OL1TE(ES) 950-292-030:(0.31 AC) PARKWAY-REDHAWK PARKWAY(WS) BETWEEN WOLF VALLEY RD AND VIA ALMAZAN 950-292-031:(0.58 AC) PARKWAY-REDHAWK PARKWAY(WS) BETWEEN WOLF VALLEY RE) AND VIA ALMAZAN 950-293-004:(0.13 AC) PARKWAY-REDHAWK PARKWAY(W$),$/O WOLF VALLEY RD & $/O VIA ALMAZAN 950-293-009:(0.01 AC) PARKWAY.REDHAWK PARKWAY(WS),S/O WOLF VALLEY RD & S/O VIA ALMAZAN 950-301-023:(0.32 AC) PARKWAY-REDHAWK PARKWAY(SS),BETWEEN VIA ALMAZAN & CALLESITO VALLARTA 950-301-024:(0.27 AC) PARKWAY.REDHAWK PARKWAY($S),BETWEEN VIA ALMAZAN & CALLESITO VALLARTA 950-282-018:(1.46 AC) PARKWAY-WOLF VALLEY RD($S) W/O CAMIN]TO OLITE & OPEN SPACE BEHIIqD TR# 23063-04 950-283-037:(0.48 AC) INTERNAL PARKWAY/SLOPE- ON CAMINITO OLITE(NS) Total Local Landscaping for Zone RH-C 12 CSA 143 Detail Of The Specific Improvements By Sub-Zone RH.E RH.E RH.E RH-E RH-E RH-E RH-E RH-E RH.E RH-F RH-F KH-F RH-F KH-F KH-F KH-F RH-F RH-F Sq Ft 85,950 46,000 13,939 99,316 102,801 33,105 21,840 402,951 Sq Ft 35,000 10,450 10,450 12,60O 56,192 50,000 12,450 19,800 13,200 220,142 Sq Ft 30,056 25,140 2,600 2,613 6,534 12,632 77,536 188,179 30,492 375,752 REDHAWK Description of Improvements 950-170-013 VALID APN FY9798-> PGS 95~90(55 SFRs+20PS)&95(~91(27 SFRs+20PS)IN FY989 950-810-008 VALID APN FY9798-> PG 950-92 (27 SFRs + 2 OPS) FOR FY9899 950-863-013 (0.32 AC) FUTURE PARKWAY-N/O DEEK HOLLOW WAY,BETWEEN VIA LA COLORADA & VIA PERALES 95~842-031 (2.28 AC) FUTUKE OPEN SPACE-~ CORTE'SABRINA & VIA LA COLOKADA, BEHIND TR~ 23064-01 950-852-025 (2.36 AC) FUTURE OPEN SPACE- W/O VIA LA COLORADA,BEHIN'D TI~ 23064-01 950-861-016 (0.76 AC) FUTURE OPEN SPACE- W/O VIA LA COLORADA & N/O DEER HOLLOW,BEHiND TP~ 23065-01 950-810-006 VALID APN FY9798-> PGS 950-88(48 SFRs+ 10PS)&950-8906 SFRs)&950-810-010CPARK) 11~ FY9899 Total Local Landscaping for Zone KH-D Description of Improvements 950-701-039:(0.80 AC) INTERNAL PARKWAY-E/O REDHAWK PARKWAY ON CAMINO SANTIAGO;MAINT _AINED BY HOA 950-711~01:(0.24 AC) ENTRYWAY-KEDHAWK PARKWAY(ES) @ CAMINO BROZAS; MAINTAINED BY HOA 950-712-026:(0.00 AC) ENTRYWAY-REDHAWK PARKWAY(ES} @ CAMINO BROZAS; MAINTAINED BY HOA 950-701-036:(0.29 AC) PARKWAY-REDHAWK PARKWAY(ES),S/O CAMINO CARMARGO & N/O CAMIN'O BROZAS 950-701-037:(1.29 AC) pARKWAY-REDHAWK PARKWAY(ES),S/O CAMINO CARMARGO & N/O CAMINO BROZAS 950-701-038:(I.50 AC) PARKWAY-REDHAWK PARKWAY(ES),S/O CAMINO CARMARGO & ON CAMINO CARMARGO 950-711-005:(0.24 AC) PARKWAY-REDHAWK PARKWAY(ES),5/O CAMINO BROZAS 950-712-016:(0.00 AC) PARKWAY-REDHAWK PARKWAY(ES),S/O CAMINO CARMARGO & N/O CAMINO BROZAS 950-712-017:(0.0O AC) PARKWAY-REDHAWK PARKWAY(E$),S/O CAMINO CARMARGO & N/O CAMINO BROZAS Total Local Landscaping for Zone RH-E Description of Improvements 950-730-018 (0.69 AC) FUTURE PARKWAY-REDHAWK PARKWAY(NS),@ CAMINO AVILA & CALLE LOS MOCHI$ 950-730-045 (0.58 AC) FUTURE PARKWAY.REDHAWK PARKWAY(NS),W/O CAMINO AVILA 950-730-046 (0.06 AC) ~ PARKWAY-REDHAWK PARKWAY(NS), @ CAMINO AVILA 950-730-047 (0.06 AC) FUTURE PARKWAY-REDHAWK PARKWAY(NS), @ CALLE LOS MOCHIS 950-730-048 (0.15 AC) FUTURE PARKWAY-REDHAWK PARKWAY(N$),E/O CALLE LOS MOCHIS 950-821-011 (0.29 AC) FUTURE PARKWAY-REDHAWK PARKWAY(SS),E/O VIA PUEBLA 950-830-014 (1.78 AC) FUTURE PARKWAY/OPEN SPACE-REDHAWK PARKWAY(SS),E./O VIA PUEBLA 950-822-012 (4.32 AC) FUTURE OPEN $PACE-S/O REDHAWK PARKWAY WI~ TR/t 23066-04 950-830-015 (0.70 AC) FUTURE OPEN SPACE-S/O REDHAWK PARKWAY WITHIN TR~ 23066-04 Total Local Landscaping for Zone KH-F Sq Ft Description of Improvements 0 NO LOCAL LANDSCAPING ASSOCIATED ~ ZONE G 0 Total Local Landscaping for Zone R.H-G Sq Ft 70,567 87,120 84,942 242,629 71,015 2,355,222 Description of Improvements 950-194-009:(1.62 AC) PARK SITE-@ CORTE BONILIO & CAMINO SAN JOSE 950-810-006 VALID APN FY9798-> PGS 950-88(48 SFRs + 10PS)&950-8906 SFRs)&950-g 10-010(PARK) IN FY9899 950-170-025 (1.95 AC) REDHAWK WATERFALL Total Parks Total Medians Total MI of Redhawk 13 CSA 143 Detail Of The Specific Improvements By Sub-Zone SH-A SH-A SH-A SH-A SH.A SH-A SH-A SH-A SH-A SH-A SH-A SH-A SH-A SH-A Sq Ft 1,742 15,246 2,613 4,791 8,712 1,306 1,306 $,712 5,250 7O0 27,878 $,712 2,178 5,227 94,373 Zone Sq Ft SH-B 43,560 SH-B 17,g59 SH-B 19,602 SH-B 60,112 SH-B 33,250 SH-B 35,750 SH-B 54,O00 264,133 SILVERHAWK Description of Improvements 957-051-010 (0.04 AC) PARKWAY/SLOPE- MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ILD(SS),FJO CALISTOGA DR 957-053-030 (0.35 AC) PARKWAY/SLOPE- MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS RD(SS),W/O CALISTOGA DR 957-111-016 (0.06 AC) PARKWAY-WILLOWS AVE (SS) BETWEEN GENERAL KEARNY RD & SALINAS 957-112-009 (0.11 AC) PARKWAY-WILLOWS AVE (SS) BETWEEN SALI~AS 6~ RIDGE CREST ST 957.351.001 (0.20 AC) PARKWAY-TOWN VIEW DR(ES),S/O MLrRRIETA HOT SPI2qGS RD 957-393-001 (0.03 AC) PARKWAY-TOWN VIEW DR(ES),S/O SAVANNA OAKS DR 957-392-012 (0.03 AC) PARKWAY-WILLOWS AVE0xlS),BETWEEN BRAINBRIDGE CR & SAIXNAS DR 957-392-013 (0.20 AC) PARKWAY-WILLOWS AVE(NS),BETWEEN BKAINBRIDGE CR & SALINAS DR 957-061-*~* ADDED TO DATABASE TO IDEN 111-Y' LANDSCAPED AREA THAT DOES NOT HAVE AN APN 957-065-*** ADDED TO DATABASE TO IDENTII. Y LANDSCAPED AREA THAT DOES NOT HAVE AN APN 957-101-043 (0.64 AC) PARKWAY-WILLOWS AVE (SS) W/O RIDGE CREST ST, & OPEN SPACE BEHI]qD TR~ 23249-C0 957.393-027 (0.20 AC) PARKWAY-TOWN VIEW DR(ES),S/O SAVANNA OAKS DR & OPEN SPACE BEHIND TR~ 23249-B2 957-394402 (0.05 AC) PARKWAY-WILLOWS AVE(NS),W/O BRAINBRIDGE CR & OPEN SPACE BEHIND Ti~ 23249-B4 957-393-026 (0.12 AC) OPEN SPACE-BEHIND TPoY 23249-B4 N/O AMBERCORN DR, W/O BRAINBRIDGE CR Total Loc-I L~dsc~ping for Zone SH-A Description of Improvements 957-330-025 (34.41 AC) OPEN SPACE-ONLY ABOUT 1.0 AC IS BEING MAINTAI]xlED-THE REMAEqDER IS NATURAL 957-330-030 (0.41 AC) OPEN SPACE-AREA ALONG WATER CHANNEL(ES), N/O M~TA HOT SPiNGS RD 957-330-033 (0.45 AC) OPEN SPACE-AREA ALONG WATER CHANNEL(WS), N/O MU'RRIETA HOT SPINGS RD 957-372.009 (1.38 AC) PARKWAY-CALISTOGA RD(ES)~N/O MURRIETA HOT SPI~/GS RD 957040-*** ADDED TO DATABASE TO IDEN 117Y LANDSCAPED AREA THAT DOES NOT HAVE AN APN 957-330.*'* ADDED TO DATABASE TO IDEN 1~¥ LANDSCAPED AREA THAT DOES NOT HAVE AN APN 957.370-*** ADDED TO DATABASE TO IDEN 111~I LANDSCAPED AREA THAT DOES NOT HAVE AN APN Totad Local l.mdsc~ping for Zonc SH-B Zone Sq Ft Description of Improvemenu SH-C 0 NO LOCAL LANDSCAPING ASSOCIATED WITH ZONE C 0 Total Local Landscaping for Zone SH-C 0 Total Parks 39,178 Total Medians 397,684 Total All of Silverh~wk 14 CSA 143 Detail Of The Specific Improvements By Sub-Zone Zone Sq Ft VR-A 98,445 VR-A 97,138 VR-A 12,196 VR-A 10,018 VR-A 6,969 VR-A 1,306 VR-A 6,996 VR-A 43,560 276,628 Zone Sq Ft VR-B 9,147 VR-B 4,356 VR-B 5,662 VR-B 6,534 VR-B 3,049 VR.B 8,712 VR-B 14,450 VR-B 4,356 VR-B 8,7O0 64,966 Zone Sq Ft VR-C 10,454 VR-C 25,700 VR-C 19,166 VR-C 6,098 VR-C 6,534 VR.C 19,602 VR-C 13,503 VR-C 3,049 VR-C 6,4OO ! 10,506 Zone Sq Ft VR-D 7,000 VR-D 2,160 VR-D 5,720 VR-D 9,300 VR-D 31,798 VP,-D 20,908 VR-D 23,522 VR-D 50,529 VR-D 81,02I VR-D 37,461 269,419 VAIL RANCH Description of Improvements 950-591-010 (2.26 AC) CHANNEL/PARKWAY EgO REDHAWK PARKWAY,N/O VAIL RANCH PARKWAY:ASS'D AS PARK 950-603-005 (2.23 AC) CHANNEL/PARKWAY EgO REDHAWK PARKWAY,S/O OVERLAND TRAIL:ASS'D AS PARK 950-5934320 (0.28 AC) PARKWAY-VAIL RANCH PARKWAY(NS),EgO REDHAWK 950-6024319 (0.23 AC) PARKWAY-OVERLAND TRAIL(SS),EgO REDHAWK 9504114306 (0.16 AC) pARKWAY-OVERLAND TRAIL(SS),EgO BANANAL 950-6124328 (0.03 AC) PARKWAY-OVERLAND TRAIL(SS),W/O BANANAL 950-612-029 (0,16 AC) PARKWAY-VAIL RANCH PARKWAY(WS),S/O NICLYN DR 950-6214327 (1.00 AC) PARKWAY-SURRONDIIqG TR/~ 23174-05 ON VAIL KANCH PARKWAY(WS) & OVERI. AND TRAIL(SS) Total Local Landscaping for Zone VR-A Description of Improvements 950-6324323 (0.21 AC) pARKWAY.VAIL RANCH PARKWAY(NS),E/O TERZICH DR & W/O SILKY PASS 950-633-053 (0.10 AC) PARKWAY-VAIL RANCH PARKWAY(NS),W/O TER.ZICH DR 950-634407 (0.13 AC) PARKWAY-VAIL RANCH PARKWAY(NS),E/O SILKY PASS 950441-042 (0.15 AC) PARKWAY-VAIL RANCH PARKWAY(NS),F-/O SUNBEAM TRAIL 950442-004 (0.07 AC) PARKWAY-VAIL RANCH PARKWAY(NS),W/O SUNBEAM TRAIL 950-6334352 (0.20 AC) INTERNAL OPEN SPACE-ACCESS TO SLOPES BEHIND TI~ 23174-06;ON ALIGHCHI WAY 950433-054 (0.09 AC) INTERNAL OPEN SPACEgSLOPES-LOCATED BE~ TRt/23174436;(1,445x10) 950-641-041 (0.10 AC) I~4TERNAL OPEN SPACE-ACCESS TO SLOPES BEHI]',ID TR# 23174-06;ON TULLEY RANCH RD 950641-043 (0.02 AC) INTERNAL OPEN SPACE/SLOPES-LOCATED BEH]]NrD TRff 23174-06;(870x10) Total Local l. amtscaping for Zone VR-B Description of Improvements 9504914330 (0.24 AC) PARKWAY-VAIL RANCH PARKWAY(NS),W/O CAMIi'qO PIEDRA ROJO,EgO SUNBEAM TRAIL 9504954323 (0.59 AC) PARKWAY-VAIL RANCH PARKWAY(NS),E./O CAMINO PIEDRA ROJO,W/O JOHNSTON DR 950-511-035 (0.44 AC) PARKWAY-VAIL RANCH PARKWAY(ES),N/O NIGHTHAWK PASS,S/O JOH~/$TON DR 950-511-036 (0.14 AC) PARKWAY-NIGHTHAWK PASS(NWS),E/O VAIL RANCH PARKWAY,W/O CALLE BANUELOS 950-513-011 (0.15 AC) PARKWAY-NIGHTHAWK PASS(NWS),EgO CALLE BANUELOS 950-523-012 (0.45 AC) PARKWAY-VAIL RANCH PARKWAY(ES) & CORNER OF JOHNSTON DR(SS);N/O NIGHTHAWK PASS 950-740-030 (0.31 AC) PARKWAY-BUTERFIELD STAGE RD(SWS),EgO WELTON WAY 950-750-024 (0.07 AC) PARKWAY-NIHGTHAWK PASS(WS),S/O BUTERFIELD STAGE RD ALONG TR~ 2317443 950-524-*** ADDED TO DATABASE TO II)E~ LANDSCAPED AREA THAT DOES NOT HAVE AN APN Total Local Landscaping for Zone VR-C Description of Improvements 950.403-'*' ADDED TO DATABASE TO IDENTIFY LANDSCAPED AREA THAT DOES NOT HAVE AN APN 950411-'*' ADDED TO DATABASE TO IDENTIFY LANDSCAPED AREA THAT DOES NOT HAVE AN APN 950421-*** ADDED TO DATABASE TO IDENT~Y LANDSCAPED AREA THAT DOES NOT HAVE AN APN 950432-*** ADDED TO DATABASE TO IDENTIFY LANDSCAPED AREA THAT DOES NOT HAVE AN APN 950-391-013 (0.73 AC) PARKWAY-VAIL RANCH PARKWAY(SS),BETWEEN HARMONY LN & MILL RUN CT 950-392-012 (0.48 AC) PARKWAY.VAIL RANCH PARKWAY(SS),E/O MiLL RUN CT TO TRACT BOUNDARY 950401407 (0.54 AC) PARKWAY-VAIL RANCH PARKWAY(WS),FROM TRACT BOUNDARY SOUTH TO CAMI]qO RUBANO 950403-014 (1.16 AC) PARKWAY-VAIL RANCH PARKWAY(WS),FROM CAMINO RUBANO SOUTH TO TRACT BOUNDARY 950411-023 (I.86 AC) PARKWAY-VAIL RANCH PARKWAY(WS),S/O MILL RUN CT & N/O CAMINO RUBANO 950441-016 (0.86 AC) PARKWAY-VAIL RANCH PARKWAY(WS),S/O CAMINO RUBANO TO TEHACHAPI PASS Total Local l~ndscaping for Zone VR-D 15 CSA 143 Detail Of The Specific Improvements By Sub-Zone ~-E ~-E ~-E ~-E ~-E ~-E ~-E Sq Ft 59,677 44,866 22,651 160,736 138,956 26,571 33,I05 486,562 Zone Sq Ft VR-F 5,227 VR-F 43,995 49,222 VAIL RANCH Description of Improvements 950321-030 (1.37 AC) PARKWAY-VAIL RANCH PARKWAY(SES),BETWEEN VALETINO WAY & CINON DR 950-332-028 (1.03 AC) INTERNAL PARKWAY-VALENTINO WAY(NS),BETWEEN TIBURCIO DR & REGINA DR TRff23173.01 950-382.021 (0.52 AC) PARKWAY-VAIL RANCH PARKWAY(E$),N/O CINON DR 950-342.018 0.69 AC) PARKWAY/OPEN SPACE-VAIL RANCH PKWY(SS),W/O VALENTIIqO WAY,Sz BEI-flIxlD TR/~ 23173-01 950-333-023 0.19 AC) OPEN SPACE-BEHIND TI~ 23173-01,S/O VALENTINO WAY & E/O TIBURCIO DR 950-341.010 (0.61 AC) INTERNAL PARKWAY.VALENTINO WAY(NS) & HUPA DR(SS),BETWEEN TIBURCIO DR & HUPA DR 950-381-030 (0.76 AC) INTERNAL SLOPE-JOSHEROO DR(SS) TR//23173-02; AN EXTENTION OF PASEO PARK Total Local Landscaping for Zone VR-E Descrlp~on of Improvements 950-750-023 (0.12 AC) F'7.JTURE PARKWAY-BUTERFIELD STAGE RD(SS) & NIGHTHAWK PASS(WS):FUTURE MAINT. 950-160-028 (1.01 AG) OPEN SPACE-N/O VAIL RANCH PK~Y,EdO OVERLAND TRAIL;PART OF FUTURE TK~ 23174-00 Total Local Landscaping for Zone VR-F Zone Sq Ft Description of Improvements VR-G 0 NO LOCAL LANDSCAPING ASSOCIATED WITH ZONE G 0 Total Local [andscaping for Zone RH-G Zone Sq Ft VR 98,445 VR 97,138 VR 95,396 VR 99,316 VR 8,712 Via. 9,583 VR 106,722 VR 2,178 VR 719,175 1,236,665 211,39.t 2,705,361 Description of Improvements 950-591.010 (2.26 AC) CHANNEL/PARKWAY E/O REDHAWK PARKWAY,N/O VAIL RANCH PARKWAY:ASS'D AS PARK 950-603-005 (2.23 AC) CHANNEL/PARKWAY E/O REDHAWK PARKWAY,S/O OVERLAND TRAIL:AS$'D AS PARK 950-511.034 (2.19 AC) PARK SITE-N/O NIGHTHAWK PASS,EgO VAIL RANCH PARKWAY 950-352-001 (2.28 AC) PARK SITE-S/O REGINA DR, W/O GAROLi PASS 950-382.011 (0.20 AC) PART OF PASEO PARK;WALK-THROUGH FROM JOSHEROO DR 950-160-023 (0.22 AC) PAB. KWAY/PARK-REGINA DR(NS),E/O GAROLI PASS,PART OF PASEO PARK 950-160-033 (2.45 AC) LANDSCAPED CHANNEL E/O REDHAWK PARKWAY ~: N/O OVERLAND TRAIL:TREATED LIKE PARKS 950-160-034 (0.05 AC) LANDSCAPED CHANNEL E/O REDHAWK PARKWAY & N/O OVERLAND TRAIL:TREATED LIKE PARKS 950-160-037 (16.51 AC) PASEO PARK-LOCATED BETWEEN VAIL RANCH PARKWAY AND REGINA DR Total P~rks Total Mcdiam Total All of vail Ranch 16 ANALYSIS OF THE IMPROVEMENTS BY SUB-ZONE The tables on the following pages identify the specific improvements, the costs associated with the improvements and the resulting assessments for each Sub-Zone designation within the District, based on the specific costs associated with each improvement. Also contained in this analysis is the average assessment for the entire Zone. The proposed assessment analysis for Redhawk and Vail Ranch contain two possible options: The first option reflects an assessment that assumes the regional costs ~arks and medians) are spread proportionately to all parcels in both Zones. · The second option reflects an assessment that assumes the regional costs (parks and medians) are spread proportionately to only the parcels in each of the respective Zones. Based on our evaluation of the Zones and the improvements, option 1 is the most practical and reasonable method of spreading the regional costs within the two Zones. 17 o o o o o o °°~ ,.#.. 0 ooooooooooooo~ oo~ oo$8 oo~8 °°8.8. U oo~ ..... ~.oO 0088 oooooooooooooooooo oo28 ooooooooooooooooo~ oo~8 ooooooooo ooooooooo oo~ o088 oo8 o oo~ °°~ I I I oooooooo~ oo~8 I I i I 0 ,14 0 .,4 Z oo~ oo~ oo~ I I I I I I oo~ oooooooo~ ooDD ooooooooo OO~o~ ooooooooo~ AA8~<~8°°° A~8~- ~ h~A< 0 0 0 oo88 oooooo~ oo~og oo oooooooo~ o oooooooo~ o Z Z V. COMPARISON OF ASSESSMENTS BY ZONE The tables on the following pages summarize the existing assessment information compared to the proposed assessments. The tables provide specific information including square footage calculations, revenues and average assessments within the District. These tables indicate the average assessment in each Zone. Refer to Section IV for a detailed analysis of the assessments applicable in each Sub-Zone. 27 L~. h~ ZZ 0 Hunter Road (One Zone) Total Revenues Average Rate CSA 143 Comparison of Costs and Assessments By Zone Existing Rate Revenue 19,350 19,350 Proposed Assessmcnts Based On Audit Local ] Regional [ Total Rate Revenue Rate Revenue Rate Revenue 44.39 9,988 23 81 5 3571 68.20 15,345 9,988 5,357j 15,345 44.39 23.81 68.20 32 Silverhawk Zone A (Residential) Zone B (Non-Residential) CSA 143 Comparison of Costs and Assessments By Zone Existing Rate Revenue 57.00 22,743 57.00 3,747 Proposed Assessments Based On Audit Local Regional I Total Rate Revenue Rate Revenuel Rate Revenue 38.82 15,337 6.58 2,445 45.40 17,782 160.08 42,920 6.58 3,286 166.66 46,206 Zone C (Unimproved Areas) Total Revenues Average Rate 57.00 33,904 60,394 0.00 0 6.58 629 6.58 629 58,257 6,360 64,617 87.86 6.58 94.44 33 CSA 143 Comparison of Costs and Assessments By Zone Redhawk Proposed Assessments Based On Audit Existing Local Regional Total Rate Revenue Rate Revenue Rate Revenue Rate Revenue Zone A (Option 1) 102.00 19,584 239.77 46,276 60,756 Zone A (Option 2) 239.77 46,276 52,901 75.03 14,480 314.80 34.33 6,625 274.10 Zone B (Option I) 102.00 33,966 224.26 74,675 75.03 21,422 299.29 ZoneB (Option 2) 224.26 74,675 34.33 9.802 258.59 ZoneC (Option I) 102.00 26,214 143.22 36,808 75.03 19,283 218.25 Zone C (Option2) 143.22 36,808 34.33 8,823 177.55 Zone D (Option 1) 102.00 26,534 200.86 65,480 75.03 20,816 275.89 Zone D (Option 2) 200.86 65,480 34.33 9,524 235.19 ZoneE (Option 1) 102.00 12,138 222.41 26,689 75.03 8,591 297.44 ZoneE (Option 2) 222.41 26,689 34.33 3,93I 256.74 Zone F (Option 1) 102.00 140,305 430.03 61,064 75.03 96,951 50_5~06~_: Zone F (Option 2) 430.03 61,004 34.33 44,360 4~4.36 Zone G (Option 1) 102.00 38,385 0.00 0 75.03 28,216 75.03 Zone G (Option 2) 0.00 0 34.33 12,910 34.33 Total Revenues (Option 1) 297,126 310,992 209,759 Average Rate (Option 1) 238.54 75.03 313.57 Total Revenues (Option 2) 310,992 95,9754 Average IL~te (Option 2) 238.54 34.33 1272.87 96,097 84,477 56,091 45,631 86,296 75,004 35,280 30,620 158,015 105,424 28216 12,910 520,751 406,967 Option l-- Assumes the Medians and Parks within Redhawk and Vail Ranch are shared benefits. Option 2-- Assumes the Medians and Parks within Redhawk and Vail Ranch are separate benefits. The Total 'Proposed Revenue' shown above includeds new maintenance areas for FY 98-99 34 Vail Ranch Zone A (Option l) Zone A (Option 2) CSA 143 Comparison of Costs and Assessments By Zone Existing Rate Revenue 199.CO 50,745 Zone B (Option 1) 199.00 43,780 Zone B (Option 2) Zone C (Option 1) 199.00 75,222 Zone C (Option 2) Zone D (Option 1) 199.00 70,645 Zone D (Option 2) Zone E (Option 1) 199.00 67,461 Zone E (Option 2) Zone F (Option 1) 199.00 1,968 Zone F (Option 2) Zone G (Option !) 199.00 7,828 Zone G (Option 2) Total Revenues (Option 1) 317,649 Average Rate (Option I) Total Revenues (Option 2) Average Rate (Option 2) Proposed Assessments Based On Audit Local Regional Total Rate Revenue Rate Revenue Rate Revenue 58.72 14,974 75.03 19,133 133.75 34,107 58.72 14,974 146.33 37,315 205.05 52,289 47.99 10,556 75.03 14,256 123.02 24,812 47.99 10,556 146.33 27,803 194.32 38,359 47.51 17,955 75.03 25,848 122.54 43,80t 47.51 17,955 146.33 50,411 193.84 68,366 123.33 43,782 75.03 22,660 198.36 66,442 123.33 43,782 146.33 44,193 269.66 87,975 233.23 79,068 75.03 13,395 308.26 92,463 233.23 79,068 146.33 26,124 379.56 105,192 388.85 7,988 75.03 5,213 463.88 13,201 388.85 7,988 146.33 10,167 535.18 18,155 0.00 0 75.03 19,226 75.03 19,226 0.{30 0 146.33 37,496 146.33 37,496 174,323: 11%731 294,054 111.21 75.03 186.24 174,323 233,510 407,833 111.21 146.34 257.54 Option 1-- Assumes the Medians and Patlu within Redhawk and Vail Ranch are shared benefits. Option 2-- Assumes the Medians and P~ks within Redhawk and Vail Ranch are separate benefits. The Total 'Proposed Revenue' shown above includeds new maintenance areas for 1%' 98-99 35 ODOOODO~ ~'"& ..... oi o' '6'-'6, o o.ol ,~ ~ o~o o OLO.O o~ ! .......... ' ' : .........8: ' o o o o.o'o'd 0 0 0 0 0,0 ..... :o:o.o o-o. .~ 0,o00,0o8 ~ o ,no o o'o~m, ~0 ~. 0 0.0 01~[ 0 ~ 0 0.0'0 ~,.~ ~,: , ,~, :; 'd ~ d d d d , -. · ~ - ~ ...... k. ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 01~' '. i~ ~ ~ ' I i -:~... ', ....... . I~ ~ ~o< ~ - r '~ ~ -' · t .............. 0 · 4D 0 0 0 0 oooog ~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~dddd~ ' 0888000 0 0 0 0 ~ddd~dd~ o o o o do ~ qqqqqq~ oooooo~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ :]:~:~::~:~:~::~:~] ......... ~ o o o o ~ ~ :~,o ' P'] ~ I o o ' c'~ o; o '"'~--~TTM ........... ~""': ....... · . : ~ i 00000000~ o 000000oo~ q dddddddd~ o 88888~~ ~^ ~0 qqqqq . 0000000 qqqqqqq 0000000 888. oU (,,/'3 :~ ....~.8D~888o~ o ~ O' 00 ~ ~ 888 ~ ~ ~ 8d o o 0~0000~0 ~ 0~0000~ . 0~0000~o ~ ~ ~0 0~0000~ (,",) (',) (") ¢') ¢,') ¢,) o ........."~ ...................... c.') o o ¢) ¢) (:) (,.) (' :) '~ ('.'.) (.') C.) C.~ ~'~ '~'. (:.) f". 0 C ) r,, t' .) ¢' .) ~% ¢..) 0 0 ooo,oooo 0000000 I%. 8 -,- ° ~. 0 I'-. 0 0 {30 0 0 I',- ~ ~ ~ 0 ~' ~-~ ~-I (30 ~ ~,1 0~0000~0 ~ ~ ~0 C' ')I",(.~)C'~.)f~,(':)C.) ~',~ ~ I '00~00~ 8 00~00~ dd~dddd~ d ~0~00~ 00~000~ dd~Jdd4~ 0 0 ~ 0 N 8888°oo ~ ~ ~zo oo~oo~~ ~E 00~00~0 ddK dd4 ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~0 88~°°°~ 000 dd~ddd4~ ooooooo qqqqqqq 00~000~ ~ ~ ddd ~' 88o. q88 0 0 0 0 : A' ~ o o.o c.3lo ,.0 ,o' ~oi ~ "-' o o.o o.o ~ ~. : i oooo~oo~ ~A 00000~0 0 888°000 ...qqqq~ ~8°°°888 000 i '. . ...... $..:...L.....L.....:.._...': 0~0000~0 ~ ~ ~0 ggggggg~ ddddddd~ ooooooo m~> 0~00000 dd~ddd~ ~ o'o "~"'d~"o'o oi ::.~ oio '~' o olo o o o,oi :,,~: : ,~. d:did d d.dJdl'~::~'~! ,-- ~1'~'~ ~ · __~ ~ ;: .: ~ · . : . I i ...... i ~ , ] ~ ~,, ' ';0 0 0 0 010 ~ ~, ~'0 ~ 0'o o,~[ I ...... ' ~ d . ~. o~o o',n~ :~ ~' 'o~'o~ooo818 ~:~ ~ C),010 0 0 ~'~ ~ ~.~ ~ o'~"'o'o o~ · ~o;oo~ ~ '0 0 0 0 0 o 0 :o 0 o o o 0 0 ] , °0oo0o g~ oooooo ggg d~ddd~ -.- o~000~ d~dd~ ~ ooooooo ~ g g 000o000 ~ d~ddd~ ~ ~ g ~ ~o ~ ~d ooooooo ~ qqqqqqq 88 ~oo ~ ooooo~.~ ~ 00000000 d d d d d ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ 00000~ ~ ddddd~ 8~'888ooo~ ~ ~ 800088°0 ..... o.o.U 0 ddddddd o o o o o 8 8: OlO 0:0 0 ~:~ ~i~ old'd d d d d ~i~: '~ ~ o olo o o o ol-- ~*~ o "~-'*"~' ~, t~'O:~ 0 0 0 ~ ..... [ ~o'6'""M o ~'-~'~'~ . ~ 0'0 0 0 ~,~ ~ ~ u 000~~0 o~=~o~ ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 00 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 000 0000~0~000 0~0~00~ ~0 00~ ~0000 0 U < U b~O 0 t~l o ~ ~ d ~0 0 o ~00~ ~o00 ATTACHMENT E JLL-22-1cJCJT 12:l'TPH FRI3~ TIE RE,.,~OLJRCE ~ TO 6c-~1649cJ P.E~ City of Temecula Annexation Issues Survey Very ~mportam '- where you live formally become part of ttto CRy of Temecula through an annexation ~ This txle~ three minute, official, and oonfide~al survey is your opportunity to let us know your views on this topic. If an election were held today, would you va~ in favar of or be againat annexing your neighl:x~o~ to rite City of Temecula? C/mckon/vone ofU~e~,/~//n U~ereason fcrthafans~ver, then go ~o Ouest/oni~?. ~ in favor of ...... What is the main m~r'~,n,t you would vol:e to be annexed? Against .........What is the main reason you would vote against ann~atJon of your neigh~ Undecided .... What are one or two topic areas y~f'd like more b do.,~.~n abo~t so that you would be able to make e~ informed ~ on th~ Issue? 2. Am you registered to vole? Yes Fly. CINo Not =our~ing you. how many oU~r registered voter~ live in your residence In this development? __ One other (=1) Two othem (--2) Tluee or rn~m (=3+) 4. How do you think they would vote on the annexation ;_r~__,e? How many would be in favor or agalnst? # in favor ~ # against 5. Street you live on: Cross Survey Contact: City of Temecula, Office of City Manager:. 8B4-6412 If ~u ~t~d b~s ~m~y by ma;, pease ream b ~he ~ mw~pe_ ~ a b rr~3 ma~ ~ Sur~ C~r~r, 50~5 Cmym G~t Dr. Rvemide, CA a2507 ATTACHMENT E ATTACHMENT F City of Temecula Annexation Issues Study Redhawk And Vail Ranch Developments Vail Ranch oo CITY OF TEMECULA The Resource Group Riverside, California © August 1997 City Of Temecula Annexation Issues Study Redhawk And Vail Ranch Developments Executive Summary The Study: The purpose of the study was to identify the levels of support or opposition by residents in Redhawk and Vail Ranch to the question of annexation to the City of Temecula. The study sought to identify what types of information and educational data undecided and other residents in the two developments indicated were essential to formulating an informed position on the topic of annexation. The two developments contain approximately 1,556 households where the homeowners of record reside. Approximately 3,112 voting age individuals reside in these households. This effort surveyed residents in some 600 of the 1,556 households, or 38% of all households. Exactly 731 residents were surveyed, or 24% of all projected voting age individuals in the two developments. Findings For The Overall Redhawk/Vail Ranch Area: · 67%, or two in three, residents from the combined developments would vote in favor of annexation. · 11% of residents in the two developments are opposed today to annexation. · 22% are undecided and require additional information. · 70% of other voting age household members would vote in favor of annexation, say heads of household. · For those in favor, being able to vote on City issues and access to the "better" services of City are key. · For those opposed, the prospect of additional taxes, increased fees, more ordinances were top reasons. · For the undecided, they request more information on the affects of annexation, what happens to current tax and HOA commitments, anticipated increases/decreases in taxes and user fees, how police/fire services will work, and a listing of what city, community, and recreational services await them. · Nearly 9 in 10 voting age residents are currently registered to vote. Findings For The Redhawk Area: · 76%, or three in four, Redhawk residents would vote in favor of annexation. · 11% of residents in the development are opposed today to annexation. · 13% are undecided and require additional information. · 75% of other voting age household members would vote in favor of annexation, say heads of household. · For those in favor, being able to vote on City issues and police/tire services are key. · For those opposed, the prospect of additional taxes and use fees were main reasons for their opposition. · For the undecided, they request more information on the affects of annexation on current tax and HOA commitments, listing of any new taxes and user fees, and a listing of what city, community, and recreational services await them. · 91% of voting age residents are registered to vote; 9 in 10 of non-registered would register to vote on issue. Findings For The Vail Ranch Area: · 58% of residents from the development would vote in favor of annexation in an election today. · 10% of residents in the development are opposed today to annexation. · 32% are undecided and require additional information. · 63% of other voting age household members would vote in favor of annexation, say heads of household. · For those in favor, being able to vote on City issues and access to City police/fire services are key. · For those opposed, the prospect of additional taxes, increased fees, more regulations were top reasons. · For the undecided, they request more information on the affects of annexation on current tax and HOA commitments, anticipated new taxes and user fees, listing of what city and recreational services await them, and how annexation will improve their roads and infrastructure. · 89% of voting age residents are registered to vote; 9 in 10 of those not registered would register to vote on issue. City Of Temecula Annexation Issues Survey © The Resource Group City Of Temecula Annexation Issues Study Redhawk And Vail Ranch Developments TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND ...............................................................................................................................................1 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................1 Response Rates ..............................................................................................................................................2 I. FINDINGS FOR THE REDHAWK/VAIL RANCH AREA ...................................................... 3 How Residents Would Vote Today On The Issue Of Annexation .................................................................4 How The Household Might Vote ...................................................................................................................5 Analyzing Support For Annexation ..............................................................................................................6 Analyzing Opposition To Annexation ...........................................................................................................6 Information Needed By Undecided Residents And Others ...........................................................................7 II. FINDINGS FOR THE REDHAWK AREA ............................................................................... 9 Voter Registration Status And Future Registration Activi~ ........................................................................9 How Residents WouM Vote Today On The Issue Of Annexation ...............................................................I 0 Views By Sub-Areas Of Redhawk ...............................................................................................................12 How The Household Might Vote .................................................................................................................J3 Analyzing Support For Annexation ............................................................................................................14 Analyzing Opposition To Annexation .........................................................................................................14 Information Needed By Undecided Residents And Others .........................................................................! 5 III. FINDINGS FOR THE VAIL RANCH AREA ....................................................................... 16 Voter Registration Status And Future Registration Activity ......................................................................16 How Residents Would Vote Today On The Issue Of Annexation ...............................................................17 Views By Sub-Areas Of Vail Ranch ............................................................................................................J 9 How The Household Might Vote. ................................................................................................................20 Analyzing Support For Annexation ............................................................................................................20 Analyzing Opposition To Annexation .........................................................................................................2I Information Needed By Undecided Residents And Others .........................................................................22 RESEARCHERFOREWORD The Resource Group (TRG) served as research counsel to this effort on the part of the City Council and staff of the City of Temecula to better learn of the interest in and issues surrounding the question of annexing Redhawk and/or Vail Ranch developments to the City. The Office of the City Manager provided TRG with every latitude to develop, administer, and deliver an independent, third-party study. Questions regarding the focus of the study should be directed to the Office of the City Manager, City of Temecula. The Resource Group can be reached at (909) 682-5020. City Of Temecula Annexation Issues Survey © The Resource Group INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND In June 1997. the CiD' Council of Temecula approved a study to identify the issues and views of residents on the topic of the potential annexation of the Redhawk area. and surrounding development. to the City of Temecula. This action was prompted. in part, by the continued request of a group of Redhawk area residents to have the annexation issue considered by City leadership. In carIv July 1997. the Office of the City Manager commissioned The Resource Group (TRG) to undertake an independent. third party survey of residents in the Redhawk and Vail Ranch neighborhood developments. The Resource Group is a certified market research and data collection organization used by many municipalities and companies to conduct objective. independent research. The question of annexation is deternfined by voters in an election. A major purpose of the study was the identification of the current views toward annexation by residents in these two developments. as well as the identification of topics around which residents required additional information or analysis in order to formulate an informed decision on the issue. Working with City administration and staff. TRG finalized a survey instrument designed to achieve the following data collection goals: 1. Measure the current support for or opposition or indecision regarding annexation by residents in the Redhawk and Vail Ranch areas. 2. Identi~, the primary. reasons of those in support of annexation and those opposed to annexation. 3. Identify the major topics and themes that residents undecided on the issue say they need information about in order to form an opinion or make a decision. 4. Estimate the percentage of households in the two developments with registered voters as well as how many currently non-registered residents would tend to register in order to vote on the annexation issue. Above all. the study was designed to identify issues and information needs of residents on the question of annexation. Knowing the topic areas about which residents have questions and uncertainties will enable City staff to better focus information-sharing and educational initiatives. METHODOLOGY This study effort was designed to collect the views of a significant sample of residents in the Redhawk and Vail Ranch residential developments. The City had another consultant organization prepare a listing of o~vners of record for each developed address in both developments. This was not a simple task given that the two neighborhood areas are still in their initial development phases. and the number of domiciles change as housing units are initiated, completed, sold. etc. The listings provided TRG indicated approximately g00 addresses in Redhawk and 900 in Vail Ranch. This research effort was designed to interview current homeowners: that is, individuals who had purchased their homes. closed escrow, and were now residing in their house in that development. About 50 of the addresses in the Redhawk inventoD' were still listed under the ownership of the development company and. thus, were excluded from the sample. Therefore. some 772 addresses in Redhawk comprised the universe for the study. City Of Temecula Annexation Issues Survey C:~ The Resource Group Using these same criteria, 784 addresses in the Vail Ranch area were combined to comprise the study universe for that development. l'he study team created an instrument designed to be completed in a three to five minute time frmne. The instrument asked identical questions of Redhawk and Vail Ranch residents, allowed the research team to identify responses by development and by specific neighborhoods within the two developments. Finally, responding residents were provided the option of indicating their name and specific street address to facilitate directing any follow up information requested. The survey was designed to be self-administered or given by a survey researcher from TRG. During the first week of August 1997, ever),,' address in the Redhawk and Vail Ranch survey universes were mailed a survey form. Each form was accompanied by a transmittal letter from the Cit3.~ Manager indicating the official, confidential, and objective nature of the study. Residents receiving a survey form were as well provided a postage-paid, pre-addressed envelope to facilitate returning their completed instrument, a toll-free telephone number to request additional information (answered by TRG staff), and the name and telephone number of a City staff member for verification of the project. The direct mail campaign was supplemented with substantial telephone surveying and limited in-field direct contact. Response Rates To ensure the utility and reliability of the findings, respondent goals of 350 were set for each development. Those goals were surpassed. For the Redhawk development. some 375 residents responded. These respondents reside in nearly 300 of the 772 households currently in the Redhawk development. This represents a response rate of nearly 39% of all current domiciles in the development. Exactly 356 Vail Ranch residents responded, residing in just under 300 of the 784 occupied households currently in that development. This translates into a response rate of 38% of all current domiciles in the Vail Ranch community. These are very strong response rates and provide for a substantial degree of statistical validity of the findings. City Of Temecula Annexation Issues SurYey © The Resource Group I. Findings For The Redhawk/Vail Ranch Area Just over 700 residents were surveyed from the combined Redhawk and Vail Ranch areas. This section presents the findings of the overall, combined area. Annexation Issues Study Redhawk And Vail Ranch Developments [ '. Vail Ranch Redhawk 28 City Of Temecula Annexation Issues Survey C; The Resource Group How Residents Would Vote Today On The Issue Of Annexation if a vote were held today on the issue of annexing both the Redhawk and Vail Ranch areas to the City of Temccula, two in three residents (67%) would vote in favor of annexation. One in ten, or nearly 11%, would be opposed. Some 22% indicate they are undecided and need more infbrmation. How Residents Would Vote Today In Regard To Annexation To The City Of Temecula In favor 67.0% ., --._ Undecided ~--- ~ ~ ~- 22.3% / Against 10.7% If An Election Were Held Today, How Residents Would Vote In Regard To Annexation To The City Of Temecula Aggregate Redhawk Vail Ranch in favor 67.0% 76.0% 57.6% Against 10.7 11.2 10.1 Undecided 22.3 12.8 32.3 Three in four, or 76%? of Redhawk residents would vote in favor of annexation. Nearly six in ten, or 58%, of Vail Ranch residents would vote in favor of annexation. Nearly three times as many Vail Ranch residents are undecided. compared with Redhawk residents (32 % versus 13 %). In both residential communities, nearly nine in ten respondents are registered voters. Comparing registered voters with the very, small percentage of non-registered voters, registered voters in each development tend to be more in favor of annexation, and non-registered voters tend to be more undecided. City Of Temecula Annexation Issues SurYey ,~' The Resource (Jroup In favor Against Undecided If An Election Were Held Today, How Residents Would Vote In Regard To Annexation To The City Of Temecula By Voter Registration Status Aggregate Redhawk Vail Ranch Registered To Vote? Registered To Vote? Registered To Vote? Yes No Yes No Yes No 68.3% 60.6% 76.8% 68.8% 59.0% 53.8% 10.8 11.3 11.5 9.4 10.0 12.8 20.9 28.2 11.8 21.9 31.0 33.3 Overall. just over 68% of currently registered voters from both developments would vote in favor of annexation if there were an election today on the issue. How The Household Might Vote Throughout the two residential communities. a typical household has two voting age members. Responding residents were asked to project how other voting age residents in their household might vote on the issue of annexation. How Residents Think Other Registered Voters In Household Would Vote In Regard ToAnnexation To The City Of Temecula In favor 70.3% . ......... ~Undecided Against 12.4% How Residents Think Other Registered Voters In Household Would Vote In Regard To Annexation To The City Of Temecula Aggregate Redhawk Vail Ranch In favor 70.3% 74.9% 62.6% Against 12.4 12.3 12.6 Undecided 17.3 12,8 24.8 City Of Temecula Annexation Issues Survey © The Resource Group Responding residents project that an aggregate 70% of residents from the combined two residential developments would vote in favor of annexation. Responding residents in the Redhawk area project that 75% of the other voting age members of their households would be in favor of annexation. For Vail Ranch. responding residents believe that nearly 63% of their voting age house mates would vote in favor. Analyzing Support For Annexation As indicated in the following graph. the primary. reason residents are in favor of annexation is that it would allow them "voting rights" on city issues. Being served by the City's police and fire services is a strong feature for those in support of annexation. Access to additional and better city, social, recreational, and community services is viewed as very important for those in support of annexation. Top Reasons Residents Would Vote In Favor Of Annexation To The City Of Temecula By Area Percent of residents Voting rights ......... Additional/better services ............... Lower taxes/no tax increase Police and fire protection Parks and recreation services Local government 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% While not an issue for Redhawk residents, those in Vail Ranch believe that annexing to the City of Temecula will result in lower taxes, or at minimum. no additional taxes beyond those they now pay as County residents. Finally. be proximate and having access to local government is viewed as an important reason for those in favor of annexation. Analyzing Opposition To Annexation For those opposed to annexation, the prospect of additional taxes or costs for services was the main reason for opposition, irrespective of which community they live in. Residents shared such thoughts as "I don't want to pay Tcm¢cula taxes," "I think taxes will increase once we are part of the City," and "annexation will bring more taxes and ordinances without more benefits." City Of Temecula Annexation Issues Survey 0 The Resource Group Top Reasons Residents Would Vote Against Annexation To The City Of Temecula By Area Tax/cost increase No benefits ' ["'~. Do not want change-like it now ~ Disadvantages Financial impact More government Poor government I;~.. .................... Percent of residents 0 0% 20.0% 40 0% 60.0% 80 0% I ,~23Vail Ranch E~Redhawk~ Information Needed By Undecided Residents And Others One in eight Redhawk residents and one in three Vail Ranch residems are undecided on the issue and say they require additional information on which to form a decision. There are two main topic areas that residents indicate the need for substantial information. The first area is a detailing of the general advantages and disadvantages of annexation on current services, police and fire protection, trash, taxes, and regulations. Information Needs Of Undecided Residents By Area Percent of residents Advantages and disadvantages ~' Impact on taxes ! ........ Financial impact ~ Listing of additional/better services ig~ ...,~ Need more general information Description of police & fire protection Identification of any tax/cost increase 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% City Of Temecula Annexation Issues Survey ,~; The Resource Group Some of the views and requests of undecided residents were: "How would annexation affect me?" "What are the pros and cons of a~mexation?" "Besides police and fire services, what changes will occur with annexation?" "How would public services be affected?" "What are the benefits? What are the cons'?" "How would annexation make things different from the way they are now?" The impact on taxes is a topic area very important to most undecided voters. Potential voters simply are unaware ofthe consequences of annexation ontheir current taxes. Some representative comments included: ~'How will annexation affect the taxes I now pay?" "How will it affect my property taxes? Will they be higher or lower?" "How would my assessments be affected?" '~Will current special assessments be eliminated?" "How much more will our taxes increase because of annexation?" "What happens to CSA taxes?" Undecided residents further indicate they need objective information on any' financial impact of annexation. They ask what will happen to their HOA fees and current special assessments. They are unsure how police and fire protection will work under annexation. They request additional information regarding what services they will receive if part of the City of Temecula. Some of the undecided voters would like a general discussion on what annexation is, its process, and timing. Finally~ a number of undecided residents indicate there would be benefit to a listing of any specific taxes, assessments, fees, or costs associated with annexation and access to City services. City Of Temecula Annexation Issues Survey ~,~ The Resource Group II. Findings For The Redhawk Area Some 375 residents in the Redhawk area were surveyed. This section presents the findings for this specific residential area. Redhawk Voter Registration Status And Future Registration Activity Over 91% of voting age residents in the Redhawk development indicate they are currently registered to vote. For that veD' small percentage that are not now registered. nearly nine in ten say they would definitely register to vote in order to participate in any election considering the annexation issue. The rate of registered voters in the Redhawk area is somewhat larger than for Vail Ranch. Ci~ Of Temecula Annexation Issues Survey ~, The Resource Group If you are not now registered to vote, would you register to vote in a future election on the annexation issue? Redhawk Residents Voters 91.4% ~-- ~Non-voters "" - ,.~ 8.6% Yes 86.7% No 13.3% How Residents Would Vote Today On The Issue Of Annexation If a vote were held today on the issue of annexing the Redhawk area to the City of Temecula, three in four residents (76%) would vote in favor of annexation. One in nine, or 11%. would be opposed. Only 13% indicate they are undecided and need more information. How Residents Would Vote Today In Regard To Annexation To The City Of Temecula Redhawk Residents In f,~vor Undecided 12.8% Against If An Election Were Held Today, How Residents Would Vote In Regard To Annexation To The City Of Temecula Redhawk Residents In favor 76.0% Against 11.2 Undecided 12.8 City Of Temecula Annexation Issues Sun'ey (¢) The Resource (Jroup 10 The relativeIv low undecided rate and higher "in favor" rate may be the result of the year long discussion among many Redhawk residents of the issue of annexation. Comparing the view of registered voters in the Redhawk area with the very. small number of non-registered residents, the data indicate that residents currently registered to vote have a higher tendency to be in favor of annexation and have fewer questions regarding annexation compared with residents not currently registered to vote. If An Election Were Held Today, How Residents Would Vote In Regard To Annexation To The City Of Temecula By Voter Registration Status Redhawk Residents Registered To Vote? Yes No In favor 76.7% 68.8% Against 11.5 9.4 Undecided 11.8 21.9 Among the small number of residents not registered to vote. some one in five are undecided and m~o in three are in favor of annexation. Less than one in ten (9.4%) are opposed to annexation. How Registered Voters Would Vote Today In Regard To Annexation To The City Of Temecula Redhawk Residents Non-voters 8.6% ". Voters 91.4% In favor Undecided 11.8% Against 11.5% City Of Temecula Annexation Issues Survey ~_:,~ The Resource Group 1! Views By Sub-Areas Of Redhawk To determine any difference according to specific sub-neighborhoods within the Redhawk development, the area was arbitrarily divided into four sub-areas (generally following logical arterials and surface street perimeters). In the graphic on the following page, the data indicate some substantial differences depending on the specific sub-area in which a resident resides. Overall, the data have noted that an overwhelming number of Redhawk residents favor annexation. Analysis by sub-area suggests that Redhawk residents residing in Sub-Area 1 are most in favor of annexation. For these residents, some 83% would vote in favor of annexation today. Less than 2% are undecided on the issue. These findings can be compared with Redhawk residents living in Sub-Area 4. Some 69% of Sub-Area 4 residents are in favor of annexation and nearly 18% are undecided and require additional information. How Residents Would Vote Today In Regard To Annexation To The City Of Temecula By Sub-Areas Of Redhawk Redhawk Residents Sub-Area 4 In favor 69.4% Against 12.9 Undecided 17.6 :i.-:.'?: /'i'.': ~'.?:::'r.': Sub-Area 3 In favor 78.1% Against 7.6 k~.,decided 14.3 .; ' "'i" Sub-Area 2 In favor 76.2% Against 11.$ Undecided :i::i:i' ~'!-':~-i-?:-'r-i. :i-: } '::.: :~-?:': :!....~.~.q.~... Redhawk '~' -'..~:':.i..- :-.- ::~iii! :.'; ~ ..,'?t' ........:~' : ':.-':: ~: ~:*~[~:'~:~ -~ ~ :..:::..~i.' '..~.: Sub-Area 1 In favor 83.3% Against 14.8 Undecided 1.9 City Of Temecula Annexation Issues Survey ~) The Resource Group 12 Certainly the data suggest that any possible information and education campaign directed at Redhawk residents should consider giving additional attention to those sub-areas featuring higher percentages of undecided voters. How The Household Might Vote On average, households in the Redhawk area contain two voting age members. Responding residents were asked to indicate how other voting age residents in their household might vote today on the issue of annexation. Their projections compare favorably with their ovm specific views. Responding residents project that 74.9% of other registered voters in their households would vote in favor of annexation if an election were to be held today. They further project that one in eight would be opposed and one in eight would be undecided, thus requiring additional information. How Residents Think Other Registered Voters In Household Would Vote In Regard To Annexation To The City Of Temecula Redhawk Residents In f~vor 74.9% ,.. ....... Undo¢ided 12.8% Against 12.3% How Residents Think Other Registered Voters In Household Would Vote In Regard To Annexation To The City Of Temecula Redhawk Residents In favor 74.9% Against 12.3 Undecided 12.8 City Of Temecula Annexation Issues Survey © The Resource Group 13 Analyzing Support For Annexation Most residents in favor of annexation indicate that having the right to vote on ciW issues is a major factor in their support. They are impressed with City fire and police services and want more access to City parks and recreational activities. MAIN REASONS RESIDENTS WOULD VOTE FOR ANNEXATION Right to vote on city issues Police and fire protection Additional/better services Local government Parks and recreation services Redhawk residents in favor of annexation simply believe that the City offers additional and better overall services compared with what they now receive. And, they are impressed with the quality of local governmental leadership. Analyzing Opposition To Annexation For those Redhawk residents opposed to annexation, the prospect of additional taxes or costs for services was the main reason for opposition. They perceive that annexation absolutely will lead to higher taxes and increased charges to access City services. MAIN REASONS RESIDENTS WOULD VOTE AGAINST ANNEXATION Belief that taxes/costs will increase View that Temecula has a poor government See no significant-added benefits Don't want more government Don't want to pay for additional services A small number of residents say they are opposed to annexation because they believe the City is not run efficiently or otherwise offers poor services or leadership. Smaller percentages say that annexation will not add sufficient or significant new benefits and that they would not like to have to pay for City services they do not intend to use. City Of Temecula Annexation Issues Survey ~9 The Resource Group 14 Information Needed By Undecided Residents And Others Lcss than 13% of Redhawk residents indicate they are undecided on the issue of annexation. For this group of residents, the most vital information they need in order to form an opinion is an analysis of what annexation will do to their current level and array of taxes. Similarly, some residents would like a listing of any new taxes or costs associated with being part of the City. Overall, undecided residents would like a general discussion on t)3~ical advantages and disadvantages of annexation. They would like to know what new services they can expect compared with what they now receive as County residents. INFORMATION RESIDENTS NEED TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT ANNEXATION Impact on taxes Advantages and disadvantages Additional services to be provided Financial impact General information about process City police and fire protection services Listing of any tax/cost increases Parks and recreation services Undecided residents would like to ~ow more about police, fire, parks, and recreational services associated with being a resident of the City. Finally, they would like information on what will happen to their CSA, HOA. and trash contract obligations if annexation were successful. City Of Temecula Annexation Issues Survey C~ The Resource Group 15 III. Findings For The Vail Ranch Area Some 356 residems in Vail Ranch were surveyed. This section presents the findings for this specific residential area. · Vail Ranch Voter Registration Status And Future Registration Activity Just under 89% of voting age residents in the Vail Ranch development indicate they are currently registered to vote. For one in nine residents that are not now registered. over nine in ten say the~ would defit(itely register to vote in order to participate in any election considering the annexation issue. The rate of registered voters in the Vail Ranch area is slightly less compared with Redhawk (89% versus 91% in Redhawk). City Of Temecula Annexation Issues $un,ey ~' The Reso~¢rce (ko:~p 16 If you are not now registered to vote, would you register to vote in a future election on the annexation issue? Vail Ranch Residents Voters 88.8% on-voters 11 2% Yes 91.9% .~No 8.1% How Residents Would Vote Today On The Issue Of Annexation If an election on the issue of annexing the Vail Ranch area to the City of Temecula were held today, nearly 58% of current residents would vote in favor of annexation. Only 10% would be opposed. One in three residents, or 32%, say they are undecided and would need more information before they could vote on the issues. How Residents Would Vote Today In Regard To Annexation To The City Of Temecula Vail Ranch Residents In favor 576% Against ~_ /~, 101% Undecided 323% If An Election Were Held Today, How Residents Would Vote In Regard To Annexation To The City Of Temecula Vail Ranch Residents In favor 57.6% Against 10.1 Undecided 32.3 City Of Temecula Annexation Issues Survey C:' The Resource Group 17 The relatively high undecided and lower "in favor" rates of Vail Ranch compared with Redhawk residents certainly reflect the absence of any substantive annexation discussions among Vail Ranch residents in recent times. By contrast. the much higher "in favor" rates and lower "undecided" rates in Redhawk may reflect the year-long move by some residents in that cmmnunity to bring forward the issue of annexation. Only residents of voting age were sampled. and nearly all of those sampled were owners of record. Some 89% of respondents. or nine in 10, indicated they are registered to vote. Looking at the views of this small sample of unregistered residents compared with registered voters, the following table indicates there are some slight, modest differences in responses. Residents not currently registered to vote tend to be slightly less in favor of annexation (54%) and more prone to be undecided. If An Election Were Held Today, How Residents Would Vote In Regard To Annexation To The City Of Temecula By Voter Registration Status Vail Ranch Residents Registered To Vote? Yes No In favor 59.0% 53.8% Against 10.0 12.8 Undecided 31.0 33.3 Residents who are currently registered to vote tend to be more in favor of annexation (59%) and slightly less undecided (31% versus 33 % among non-registered residents). How Registered Voters Would Vote Today In Regard To Annexation To The City Of Temecula Vail Ranch Residents Non-voters 11.2% Voters 88.8% - _ _ in favor 59.13% Undecided 31.0% _Against 10.0% City Of Temecula Annexation Issues Survey (C,~ The Resource Group 18 Views By Sub-Areas Of Vail Ranch As with the Redhawk area, to determine any difference according to specific sub-neighborhoods within the Vail Ranch development. the area was arbitrarily divided into four sub-areas (generally following logical arterials and surface street perimeters). In the following graphic, the data indicate some substantial differences depending on the specific sub-area in which a resident resides. Recall that the aggregate data for the Vail Ranch area indicate that 58% of residents favor annexation today. Analysis by sub-area suggests that Vail Ranch residents have dramatically different views on the issuc depending in which part of Vail Ranch they reside. In Sub-Area 1, only 46% of residents favor annexation today, while 44% are undecided. Just to the west of this location, in Sub-Area 2. nearly 63% of Vail Ranch residents would vote in favor of annexation. with 29% undecided. How Residents Would Vote Today In Regard To Annexation To The City Of Temecula By Sub-Areas Of Vail Ranch Vail Ranch I~esidents In favor 61.7% T~ Against 11.7 U.,ec,ded Sub-Area ~ In favor 46.4% Against 10.1 Undecided 43.5 For residents in Sub-Area 4, immediately adjacent to the Redhawk development, nearly 62% favor annexation and only 27% are undecided. While the bare majority of Vail Ranch residents would vote in favor of annexation today, there is demonstrated strong and va~ing differences in levels of support according to what neighborhood of Vail Ranch is being considered. City Of Temecula Annexation Issues Survey '~) The Resource Group 19 How The Household Might Vote The heads of households surveyed for this research indicated there is an average of one additional voting age resident in their household. When combined with the responding resident, the t,vpical household in Vail Ranch contains two individuals of voting age. Nearly nine in ten of these individuals are registered to vote. If they knew with some certainty? responding residents were asked to indicate how other voting age household residents might vote today' on the issue of annexation. Responding residents project that 63% of other registered voters in their households would vote in favor of annexation if an election were to be held today'. They further project that one in eight would be opposed and one in four (25%) would be undecided. How Residents Think Other Registered Voters In Household Would Vote In Regard To Annexation To The City Of Temecula Va# Ranch Residents In favor 62.6% '-~ ~ Undecided 24.8% Against 12.6% How Residents Think Other Registered Voters In Household Would Vote In Regard To Annexation To The City Of Temecula Vail Ranch Residents In favor 62.6% Against 12.6 Undecided 24.8 Analyzing Support For Annexation For the 58% of Vail Ranch residents in favor of annexation today, most indicate that having the right to vote on city issues is a major factor in their support. The5' are impressed with City' fire and police services and want more access to City parks and recreational activities. City Of Temecula Annexation Issues Survey © The Resource Group 2O MAIN REASONS RESIDENTS WOULD VOTE FOR ANNEXATION Right to vote on city issues Additional/better services Lower taxes/no tax increase Police and fire protection services Parks and recreation services They perceive that being part of the City will allow them to access more and better governmental services. They believe there will be no substantive tax increases and that taxes might even go down somewhat if their community is annexed. Analyzing Opposition To Annexation For those Vail Ranch residents opposed to annexation. the prospect of additional taxes or costs for services was the main reason for opposition. They perceive that annexation absolutely will lead to higher taxes and increased charges to access City services. MAIN REASONS RESIDENTS WOULD VOTE AGAINST ANNEXATION Belief that taxes/costs will increase Belief that no real benefits will accrue Do not want change - like it now General disadvantages to lifestyle Negative financial impact due to higher fees A small number of residents say their opposition is based on the belief that there will be no real additional benefits accrued from a~mexation. Some simply are satisfied with the status quo and do not want change. A small percentage believe that annexation. in general, is a disadvantage to their lifestyles because of increased regulations, laws, etc. City Of Temecula Annexation Issues Survey ~) The Resource Group 21 Information Needed By Undecided Residents And Others A substantial 32'~ of Vail Ranch residents indicate they are undecided on the issue of annexation.! For this group of residents. the most vital information they need in order to form an opinion is a plain discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of annexation on such issues as city services, fees, taxes. regulations. and emergency services. Many undecided residents want to know more about the impact of annexation to their current mix and level of taxes (including CSAs). Similarly. some residents would like a listing of any new taxes or costs associated with being part of the City. Overall, undecided residents would like to know what new services they can expect compared with what the), now receive as County residents. They ~vould like a listing of what services await them related to parks, recreation, road improvements, and other city services. INFORMATION RESIDENTS NEED TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT ANNEXATION Advantages and disadvantages Impact on taxes Financial impact on fees and charges Listing of services offered by City General information on process of annexation City police and fire protection Listing of any tax increases because of annexation Listing of parks and recreation services Road services and improvements with City Building codes/zoning/permits issues Some representative information needs include the following: "Need information on tax assessments, benefits, rates. and liabilities." "What will happen to my current taxes and assessments." "What is the purpose of annexation and what benefits will I receive?" "What would change in my day to day life if annexation happened?" Overall, Vail Ranch residents would appreciate additional, objective information on what annexation will do to taxes, fees, costs. current assessments, current HOA obligations, their access to community and recreational services, how they will be able to participate in local governance, a listing oft~pical services that will be accessible to them as City residents. and what rules and regulations will be assumed as a citizen of the City. City Of Temecula Annexation Issues Survey © The Resource (Jroup 22 ATTACHMENT G Concerns Raised by Redhawk Residents on Annexation and City Staff Responses 1. What are the steps Redhawk must follow to be annexed by the City? RESPONSE: See attached "Steps to be followed to be annexed to the City of Temecula." 2. Is there a printed sheet that explains the process of annexation? RESPONSE: See attached "Steps to be followed to be annexed to the City of Temecula." 3. What is the time frame on annexation? What is the soonest it could occur?. RESPONSE: The annexation process takes anywhere from 6 to 18 months. With this particular annexation, the issue with the community park must be resolved prior to the City moving forward. 4. Could annexation be pursued and prepared for, but the actual date be put back 18 months to give a better chance for a resolution of the park issue beforehand? RESPONSE: It will be City Staff's recommendation that the annexation not proceed prior to the park issue being resolved. 5. Given our canvass of Redhawk that shows 96% of the residences for the community park and opposed to the commercial park, do you see any advantage to tabling the question until the park issue is resolved? RESPONSE: It would be City Staff's recommendation that annexation proceedings be delayed until the issues relating to this park have been resolved. 6. When will the City's questionnaire on annexation be sent out to the people of Redhawk? RESPONSE: The questionnaire (see attached) was sent out starting on Monday July 28th. 7. Is that questionnaire available for us to look at? RESPONSE: Yes (see attached). 8. Is there any flexibility in the questions that will be asked? RESPONSE: There is no flexibility in the questions that will be asked because the survey has already been established and distributed. 9. When will you know, what do you now know about the economics of annexation? RESPONSE: The City intends to have a fiscal analysis report to present to the City Council at the September 23rd meeting. Staff is currently in the data collection stage. Prior to September 23rd, staff expects to have all information necessary for the ATTACHMENT G Council to decide if they want to take the annexation forward. 10. What part does LAFCO play in the annexation? RESPONSE: See attached. 11. Is there any way the people of Redhawk can obtain a vote on the matter? RESPONSE: As part of the annexation process, the City assumes the role of conducting authority. If, during this period, there is a protest by 25 - 50% of the registered voters, then there can be a vote taken. If there is a protest by more than 50% of the registered voters, then the annexation process terminates. Staff is in the process of verifying the particulars of this with LAFCO. Please note that if a ballot measure is required for Prop 218 issues (slope maintenance, etc.) and the measure fails, then the City will likely not consider annexation. 12. What respect would the City pay to the sanctity of our master plan and its call for a non- commercial community park? RESPONSE: As was done during incorporation, the City would honor all specific plans recorded with the County. If a particular specific plan identifies a park as a public park, then the City would honor that unless these entitlements with the County have been modified or superceded by some type of amendmdnt which would change this status. 13. What is the City's attitude towards "pay to play" parks? RESPONSE: "Pay for play" parks are, in general, a policy which the City has not implemented to date. 14. If annexation takes place and Ford's Minor Plot Plan is still on the books, does the City have a record for going along with County plans? RESPONSE: The City will accept whatever rests with the County as of the annexation and will annex the property under its current status as established by the County. This is consistent with what the City practiced during incorporation. 15. If annexation takes place after the Minor plot Plan has expired, what protections are in place for the residents on any park plans for site F? RESPONSE: The City would expect development of the site as a park in accordance with the Specific Plan, recognizing that the City's current policy is not to construct "pay for play" public parks. 16. If annexation takes place and the minor plot plan is still in place, will Supervisor Buster still be able to hold up permits on the project? RESPONSE: If annexation takes place, then the properties in the annexed area will fall under the Temecula City Council's jurisdiction. 2 17. Mr. Ford seemed to be a master of getting what he wanted from the County Planning Department. Should not Redhawk residents be concerned then that if site F becomes City ground Mr. Ford, as past head of the Temecula Planning Commission, might be able to use his know-how and connections to make a similar deal on the City level? RESPONSE: No comment. 18. Does the City insist on having bathrooms in all of its parks? RESPONSE: It has been the City's experience that wherever there are active recreation amenities, such as athletic fields or tot lots, there is generally a need for restroom facilities. Any specific parks would have to be evaluated on a case- by-case basis. 19. Does the City insist on parking lots in its parks? RESPONSE: Seeing the alternative to parking lots as parking on residential streets, for a 14.9 acre park site, the City would envision a need for parking facilities. The uses at the park will ultimately dictate the number of parking stalls required. 20. If a park were to be built and deeded to the County and the voters of Redhawk vote on paying $50 a year to maintain the park through CSA, will this expense continue if we are part of the City? RESPONSE: If the park becomes part of the City, the park would no longer be a part of CSA 143. It would either be maintained by the City, HOA, or private entity. 21. If Ford were to deed this ground to the City, would the City honor the specifics of the Specific Plan? RESPONSE: The City Council would ultimately accept the entitlements established with the approval of the Specific Plan by the County. The City's policy is that parks within a specific plan be developed by the developer and not by the City. 22. What do you think we should know about our park situation relative to the question of annexation? RESPONSE: Although Staff cannot speak for the City Council, Staff recommends that the City not annex this area until the park issue and any other issues are resolved with the homeowners. 23. Can the City give the people of Redhawk any assurances that would allow them to look at the question of annexation without anxiety as to the fate of their main community park? RESPONSE: Staff can only assure the people of Redhawk that Staff will recommend to the City Council that the annexation not go forward until the park issue is resolved. 3 Steps to be followed to be annexed to the City of Temecula City determines if residents favor annexation with survey City studies feasibility of annexation of Redhawk and Vail Ranch areas by conducting a Fiscal Impact Analysis and preparing a Municipal Plan for Services If it is determined by the survey that the majority of the residents seem to be in favor of annexation and that it is riscally feasible for the City to annex these areas, the City would follow the required procedures for annexation which would include the following: The City would prepare environmental documentation for the project The City would prepare a map and legal description of the area The City Council would adopt zoning for the area (pre-zoning) The City Council would adopt a Resolution for the Commencement of Proceedings to annex If the City Council adopts the environmental document, the Resolution for the Commencement of Proceedings and the pre-zoning Ordinance the City would then prepare an application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) If the LAFCO Commission approves the annexation at a public hearing it is returned to the City for final consideration (the City acting as the Conducting Authority would hold a public hearing and notify all residents in the annexation area that the City plans to annex the area and notifies each resident that they have the right to protest the annexation) If at or before the Conducting Authority hearing 50% or more of the registered voters in the annexation area file written protest the annexation proceedings are terminated If at or before the Conducting Authority hearing less 25 % of the registered voters or landowners in the annexation area file written protest the annexation is complete without an election If at or before the Conducting Authority hearing at least 25 % but less than 50% of the registered voters or 25 % of the land owners who own 25% of the assessed value of the land within the annexation area file written protest an election is to be held JUL-22-199? 12:l?PM FROM TIE RESOURCE ~OL~ TO 6946499 City of Temecula Annexation Issues Survey Very Important ............... P!eese check f:he development In wh/ch you i/re: (-~ Redhawk or (~ VaJ! R.tnch Reoerd~y, some residents in your neighbod~ood have begun (~.~;.~sing the ._~,~,__,es relatecl to po~i134y having the area where you live formally become part of thin Clty of Temecul& through an annexation vola. This brief three rr~nute. ;~cial. and confidential survey is your opportunity to let us know your views on this topic. 1. If an elec5on w~re held today, would you vo~e in favor of or be against annexing your neighborhood ~ ~ C~ of Temecul,~ C,/~c~on/voneof/he/a//ow~g, ~//n~gereason/~rthet ansts~r, l~hengo to QuestionS.. In favor of ...... Wtmt is the rna~n re;~a~n you would vol= to be armexed? Agairmt ......... What is the maln reason you w~uld vote agalrrst cnr~.xa§on of your neighbodtood? Undecided .... What are one or two topic ames y~u'd like rnore b'E'ormatl(m about so lhat you would be able to make an informed declek:m ~*t this Issue? 2. Am you registered to vole? i~ Yes 1~ No ..... #you em not now ~, wo~yauregf,~r ~ omW to vote/n a future arecabn on th/s/s,stm? I"1Yee I'lNo counting you. how many other registered votem live in your residence In this development? ~ One omer (='~) Tw~ othem (--2) Three c.' more (=~.) 4. How do you think they would vo~e o~ the annexation ~? How many would be in favor or agalnst? # in favor ~ # al~n~ · undecided 5. 8tree~ you live on: Cross street Your Name: Phone: Your Street Adckess: . Temecu/a. CA Suwey Contm~ City of Temecula, Office of City Manager: 8lN-6412 If ~u received tNs =ce, ey by mail, please return in ee er~,..,,~. ~ mveiope. if it b n'~"~ ma~ b: Sun~/C..~, 5016 Cmym Cr~ Dr., Rver.Jde, CA 92507 ITEM 25 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director April 28, 1998 Adoption of Ordinance Prohibiting Parking of Oversized Vehicles (Including Buses, Trucks, RVs) and Unattached Trailers on City Streets Prepared by: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt an urgency ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 98- AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING SECTION 10.16.042 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING THE PARKING OF CERTAIN MOTOR VEHICLES IN EXCESS OF TWENTY FIVE (25) FEET IN LENGTH OR NINETY (90) INCHES IN WIDTH, MOTOR VEHICLES IN EXCESS OF 10,000 POUNDS, CERTAIN COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES, AND TRAILERS DETACHED FROM A MOTOR VEHICLE FROM PARKING ON CITY STREETS EXCEPT UNDER CERTAIN DEFINED CONDITIONS 2. Introduce a regular ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 98- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING SECTION 10.16.042 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING THE PARKING OF CERTAIN MOTOR VEHICLES IN EXCESS OF TWENTY FIVE (25) FEET IN LENGTH OR NINETY (90) INCHES IN WIDTH, MOTOR VEHICLES IN EXCESS OF 10,000 POUNDS, CERTAIN COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES, AND TRAILERS DETACHED FROM A MOTOR VEHICLE FROM PARKING ON CITY STREETS EXCEPT UNDER CERTAIN DEFINED CONDITIONS 3. Authorize and direct the Director of Public Works to purchase and install the necessary signs notifying the motoring public of the parking restrictions set forth in the proposed ordinance and authorize the City Manager to execute such agreements as may be necessary to implement the sign program. R: ~4 GENDA.RPT~RVPARKNG. RPT 4/23/98 BACKGROUND: On April 21, 1998, the City Council directed the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance prohibiting the parking of oversized motor vehicles and trailers on City streets. Many persons spoke at this meeting expressing concerns about the safety of large motor vehicles parked on City streets, particularly in residential areas. These types of vehicles make it difficult for cars to pass each other, create sight problems for vehicles and pedestrians, and create hazards for children playing in front yards. The proposed ordinances would prohibit the following types of vehicles from parking on City streets at any time: Motor vehicles of a leng(h in excess of twenty five (25) feet or a width in excess of ninety (90) inches, which width is measured from the widest portion of the body of the motor vehicle, not including mirrors; 2. Motor vehicles of a weight in excess of ten thousand (10,000) pounds; Motor vehicles and vehicles used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit, and designed and used, or maintained for the transportation of property, including, but not limited to, buses, motor trucks, trailers, semitrailers, trailer coaches, or truck tractors as defined in the Vehicle Code and similar vehicles with a width in excess of ninety (90) inches as measured at the widest portion of the body not including mirrors; or 4. A non-motorized vehicle (including, but not limited to, a trailer, camper trailer, boat/watercraft trailer, farm machinery, construction equipment or other nonmotorized vehicle), regardless of length or width, when it has been detached from its motor vehicle. The vehicles subject to these parking restrictions would include most large RVs, buses, large trucks, and unattached trailers. Since the proposed ordinance covers all large vehicles and many types of large vehicles and trucks will have legitimate business in residential neighborhoods and commercial areas, the ordinance includes a series of exceptions to the parking restrictions for trucks and trailers to provide services to residences and businesses. These exceptions provide that the parking restrictions do not apply to vehicles which are: Engaged in the immediate and active loading or unloading of persons and/or property; Parked in connection with, or in the aid of the performance of a service to or on a property in the block in which such vehicle is parked; or Parked or left standing as a result of a mechanical break down so as allow the performance of emergency repairs on the vehicle for a period not to exceed forty eight (48) consecutive hours." R:IAGENDA.RPTIRVPARKNG. RPT 4/23/98 This ordinance is specifically authorized by Vehicle Code Section 22507 and the appellate case of Peol~le v. Rarth, 234 Cal. App. 3d 1797 (1991). The Vehicle Code does, however, require that sufficient notice of the parking restrictions be given to the motoring public. This requirement will be satisfied by the posting of signs at each entrance to the City. The signs will be approximately 36" by 48" with the letters warning of the restriction being 3" high. The Director of Public Works is preparing an estimate of the cost of installing the signs and the time for installation. FISCAL IMPACT: The City will incur an initial cost to purchase and install the signs at entrances to the City and on going costs of investigating violations, writing citations and administering the citation process. R:IAGENDA.RPTtRVPARKNG. RPT 4/23/98 ORDINANCE NO. 98- AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING SECTION 10.16.042 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING THE PARKING OF CERTAIN MOTOR VEHICLES IN EXCESS OF TWENTY FIVE (25) FEET IN LENGTH OR NINETY (90) INCHES IN WIDTH, MOTOR VEHICLES IN EXCESS OF 10,000 POUNDS, CERTAIN COlVIMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES, AND TRAILERS DETACItFI} FROM A MOTOR VEHICLE FROM PARKING ON CITY STREETS EXCEPT UNDER CERTAIN DEFINED CONDITIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. to read as follows: Section 10.16.042 is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Code "10.16.042. Prohibition of Oversized Vehicles Being Parked on City Streets; Exceptions. "A. No person shall park or leave standing upon any public street, highway, or right of way within the City limits of the City of Temecula any of the following: "1. Motor vehicles of a length in excess of twenty five (25) feet or a width in excess of ninety (90) inches, which width is measured from the widest portion of the body of the motor vehicle, not including mirrors; "2. Motor vehicles of a weight in excess of ten thousand (10,000) pounds; "3. Motor vehicles and vehicles used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit, and designed and used, or maintained for the transportation of property, including, but not limited to, buses, motor trucks, trailers, semitrailers, trailer coaches, or truck tractors as defined in the Vehicle Code and similar vehicles with a width in excess of ninety (90) inches as measured at the widest portion of the body not including mirrors; or A non-motorized vehicle (including, but not limited to, a trailer, camper trailer, boat/watercraft trailer, farm machinery, construction equipment or other nonmotorized vehicle), regardless of length or width, when it has been detached from its motor vehicle. "B. The prohibitions described in Subsection A. shall not apply to motor vehicles and vehicles which are: Engaged in the immediate and active loading or unloading of persons and/or property; Parked in connection with, or in the aid of the performance of a service to or on a property in the block in which such vehicle is parked; or "3. Parked or left standing as a result of a mechanical break down so as allow the performance of emergency repairs on the vehicle for a period not to exceed forty eight (48) consecutive hours. * Section 2. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Section 3. and declares that: The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds, determines a. The testimony of citizens of the City of Temecula at a special City Council meeting on April 21, 1998 indicated that an immediate implementation of the restfictions in this ordinance would reduce the potential for accidents. b. Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 36934 and 36937, the City Council hereby finds and determines that a current and immediate threat to the public health, peace, safety and general welfare exists which necessitates the immediate enactment of this Ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public health, peace, safety and general welfare, based upon the facts set forth in this Ordinance and the facts presented to the Council. Section 4. the date is adopted. This Ordinance being an Urgency Ordinance shall be effective as of Ord,\98- 2 Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance as an urgency ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 28th day of April, 1998. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W./ones, CMC Acting City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan Jones, Acting City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 98- was duly adopted and passed as an urgency measure at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 28th day of April, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk Ord~,\98- 3 ORDINANCE NO. 95- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING SECTION 10.16.042 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING THE PARKING OF CERTAIN MOTOR VEHICLES IN EXCESS OF TWENTY FIVE (25) FEET IN LENGTH OR NINETY (90) INCI-IF3 IN WIDTH, MOTOR VEHICLES IN EXCESS OF 10,000 POUNDS, CERTAIN COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES, AND TRARY_RS DETACHED FROM A MOTOR VEHICLE FROM PARKING ON CITY STREETS EXCEPT UNDER CERTAIN DEFINED CONDITIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. to read as follows: Section 10.16.042 is hereb~ added to the Temecula Municipal Code "10.16.042. Prohibition of Oversized Vehicles Being Parked on City Streets; Exceptions. "A. No person shall park or leave standing upon any public street, highway, or right of way within the City limits of the City of Temecula any of the following: Motor vehicles of a length in excess of twenty five (25) feet or a width in excess of ninety (90) inches, which width is measured from the widest portion of the body of the motor vehicle, not including mirrors; "2. Motor vehicles of a weight in excess of ten thousand (10,000) pounds; "3. Motor vehicles and vehicles used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit, and designed and used, or maintained for the transportation of property, including, but not limited to, buses, motor trucks, trailers, semitrailers, Wailer coaches, or track tractors as defined in the Vehicle Code and similar vehicles with a width in excess of ninety (90) inches as measured at the widest portion of the body not including mirrors; or "4. A non-motorized vehicle (including, but not limited to, a trailer, camper trailer, boat/watercraft trailer, farm machinery, construction equipment or other nonmotorized vehicle), regardless of length or width, when it has been detached from its motor vehicle. "B. The prohibitions described in Subsection A. shall not apply to motor vehicles and vehicles which are: Engaged in the immediate and active loading or unloading of persons and/or property; "2. Parked in connection with, or in the aid of the performance of a service to or on a property in the block in which such vehicle is parked; or Parked or left standing as a result of a mechanical break down so as allow the performance of emergency repairs on the vehicle for a period not to exceed forty eight (48) consecutive hours." Section 2. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Section 3. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same of a summary thereof to be published and posted in the manner required by law. Ords\98- 2 this PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula day of May, 1997. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, Acting City Clerk of the City of Temeeula, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 98- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the ~ day of , 1997, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the ~ day of ,1997 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk Ords\98- 3 ITEM 26 ORAL PRESENTATION