HomeMy WebLinkAbout020999 CC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to partialpate in this
meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-~.x.x.. Notification 48 hours pdor 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
FEBRUARY 9, 1999 - 7:00 P.M.
5:00 P.M. - Closed Session of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency pursuant
to Government Code Sections (Special Meeting for 5:00 P.M, Closed Session):
1. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government COde Section
54956.8 concerning the acquisition of real property located at 28721 FrOnt Street,
Temecula (APN 922-073-017 and 922-0046-022 and 922-073-024). The negotiating
parties are the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and First and Front,
LLP and Cleveland Investment Company. Under negotiation is the price and terms of
payment to the real property interests proposed to be acquired. The Agency/City
negotiators are Shawn Nelson, James O'Grady, and John Meyer.
2. Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(a) with respect to two matters of existing litigation involving the City
and/or the Agency. The following cases/claims will be discussed: a) Quality
Contractor's Network vs. Temecula Valley Museum and b) Claim of Westside City II
(Bill Dendy).
3. Conference with City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)
with respect to two matters of potential litigation. With respect to each matter, the
City Attorney has determined that a point has been reached where there is a
significant exposure to litigation involving the City and the Agency based on existing
facts and circumstances.
4. Discussion of" candidates for posiUon of City Manager pursuant to Government
Code Section 54957.
At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items
can be considered and acted upon pdor to 10:00 P.M. and may continue all other items on which
additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 P.M.
R:~Agenda~020999
1
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 99-07
Resolution: No. 99-10
CALL TO ORDER:
Prelude Music:
Invocation:
Flag Salute:
ROLL CALL:
Bethany Schrock
Reverend Lyle Peterson
Mayor Pro Tem Stone
Comerchero, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone, Ford
PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
Certificate of Special Achievement to Neil Everett Plummer for attaining Ea.qle Scout rank
Certificate of Special Achievement to Scott C. Robertson for attainin.el Eagle Scout rank
Certificate of Special Achievement to Robert Brian Slater for attaining Ea.qle Scout rank
Certificate of Appreciation to Honorable Arunia "Vic" Saravdarian
Certificate of Appreciation to the Assistance Leaclue of Temecula Valley
Certificate of Appreciation to Joseph Kicak
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Council on
items that appear within the Consent Calendar or ones that are not listed on the agenda.
Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on
an item which is listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a
pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all Public Hearing or Council Business matters on the agenda, a "Request to
Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Council addressing that item.
There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made
at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports.
R:~Agenda\020999
2
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 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of January 12, 1999;
2.2 Approve the minutes of January 21, 1999.
3 Resolution Approvin.cl List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
4 City Treasurer's Report as of December 31, 1998
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of December 31, 1998.
5 City Delegation to Voorburg, The Netherlands
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Approve an official City delegation to travel to Voorburg, The Netherlands in a joint
trip with the Temecula Sister Cities Association.
R:~Agenda\020999
3
6
8
9
10
11
First Amendment to Actin.q City Manager A.areement
RECOM MEN DATION:
6.1 Approve the First Amendment to the Employment Agreement.
Property Insurance Renewal
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Approve the City of Temecula Properly Insurance Policy renewal with Reliance
Insurance Company and Royal/Agriculture and Frontier Insurance Company for the
period of February 26,1999 through February 26, 2000 in the amount of $61,764.
Purchase of One ('1) City Vehicle (,Truck)
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Approve the purchase of one (1) 1999 Chevrolet full-size pick-up from Paradise
Chevrolet in the amount of $25,094.36.
Records Destruction Approval
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Approve the scheduled destruction of certain City records in accordance with the
City of Temecula approved Records Retention Policy.
State Historical Desi.clnation for Burnham Store (,Temecula Mercantile)
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1 Authorize the Mayor to sign the attached letter of support forwarding the Point of
Historical Interest Application for the Burnham Store to the State Office of Historic
Preservation.
Acceptance of Public Streets into the City-Maintained Street System (,within Tract No.
23142 - located northeasterly of the intersection of Meadows Parkway at Rancho
California Road)
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R:~genda\020999
4
12
13
14
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS INTO
THE CITY-MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACT
NO. 23142)
Accept Public Improvements in Tract No. 23142 ('located northeasterly of the intersection
of Meadows Parkway at Rancho California Road)
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 Accept the Public Improvements in Tract No. 23142;
12.2 Authorize the reduction in Faithful Performance security to the warranty amount and
initiation of the one-year warranty period;
12.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety.
Margarita Road/Overland Drive and Long Canyon Creek Improvements Reimbursement
Agreement with Rancho California Water District for Work Performed During Construction
- Project No. PW97-07
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1
Approve the attached reimbursement agreement with Rancho California Water
District (RCWD) for the cost to relocate existing water improvements necessary for
the construction of Margarita Road/Overland Drive and Long Canyon Creek
Improvements - Project No. PW97-07 - and authorize the Mayor to execute the
agreement;
13.2 Increase the Construction Contingency amount by $47,200.00 to cover the
additional work;
13.3 Approve an appropriation of $47,200.00 from Reimbursement Revenue to the
project account.
Rancho California Road at Interstate Route 15 - Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramp
Improvements - Project No. PW95-12 -Increase Construction Contin.qencv
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1
Authorize the Acting City Manager to approve change orders with Riverside
Construction Company for Rancho California Road at Interstate Route 15 - Bridge
Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements (Project No. PW95-12) in an
additional amount of $82,000.00 above the previously approved 10% contingency.
R:~Agenda\020999
5
15
Professional Services A.qreement with Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. for the
Final Design Southbound Off-Ramp and I-15 Widening north of Winchester Road -
Proiect No. PW98-07 - and Northbound On-Ramp Widenin.q
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1
Approve the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Temecula and
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. for the final design of the southbound
Off-Ramp, I-15 widening north Winchester Road - Project No. PW98-07 - and
additional widening to the northbound On-ramp from Winchester Road north 400
feet for $122,826.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract;
15.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of $12,282.00 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount;
15.3
Authorize the transfer of $60,226.00 from the construction budget to the design
budget for the additional design costs associated with a change to the project scope
of work.
16
Professional Services A.qreement with Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. for
Final Desi.qn Southbound Off-Ramp and I-15 Widening north of Rancho California Road -
Project No. PW98-08
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1
Approve the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Temecula and
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. for the final design of the southbound
Off-Ramp and I-15 widening north Rancho California Road - Project No. PW98-08 -
for $94,368.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract;
16.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of $9,436.00 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount;
16.3
Authorize the transfer of $48,000.00 from the construction budget to the design
budget for the additional design costs associated with a change to the project scope
of work.
17
Professional Services Aqreement for Pile Desi.qn Revisions and Review and Processing
of Retaininq Wall Chan.qes for the Overland Drive Overcrossing at Interstate Route 15 -
Project No. PW95-11
RECOMMENDATION:
17.1
Approve a professional services agreement with TYLINolnternationaI-McDaniel in an
amount not to exceed $35,500 for foundation pile redesign and review of revised
retaining walls for the Overland Drive Overcrossing at Interstate Route 15 and
authorize the Mayor to execute the contract;
17.2 Authorize the Acting City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of 10% of the agreement amount.
R:V~genda\020999
6
18
19
20
Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services A.qreement with Petra Geotechnical, Inc. for
the Rancho California Road/Interstate Route 15 Interchan.qe - Proiect No. PW95-12
RECOMMENDATION:
18.1
Approve Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement between the City of
Temecula and Petra Geotechnical, Inc. to provide additional Professional Inspection
Services for the Rancho California Road/Interstate Route 15 Interchange - Project
No. PW95-12 -in an amount not to exceed $29,000.00 and authorize the Mayor to
sign Amendment No. 1.
Professional Services A.qreement with Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. for
Additional Improvements for the Rancho California Road Interchan.qe
RECOMMENDATION:
19.1
Approve a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Temecula and
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. to provide additional design for the
Rancho California Road Interchange Improvements for $45,503.00 and authorize
the Mayor to execute the contract;
19.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of $4,550.30 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount;
19.3 Appropriate $50,100.00 from the General Fund Unreserved fund balance to
Consulting Services Line Item in the CIP Administration operating budget.
Authorization to Solicit Construction Bids for the Street Name Si.qn Replacement Project -
Proiect No. PW98-18
RECOMMENDATION:
20.1
Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works
to solicit construction bids for the Street Name Sign Replacement - Project No.
PW98-18.
21
Mar.clarita Road/Overland Drive Street Improvement Sewer Aqreement with Pacific
Century Homes for Work to be Performed durin.q Project No. PW97-07
RECOMMENDATION:
21.1
Approve the attached Agreement with Pacific Century Homes for the cost to install
certain sewer improvements within the Margarita Road/Overland Drive Street
Improvement - Project No. PW97-07 - that is necessary to serve the Pacific
Century Homes project and authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement;
21.2 Increase the Construction Contingency by $25,360.00 to cover this additional work;
21.3 Approve an appropriation of $25,360.00 from Reimbursement Revenue to the
project account.
R:~genda\020999
7
22 Professional Services A.qreement for Overland Drive Overcrossin.cl - Project No. PW95-11
RECOMMENDATION:
22.1 Approve a Professional Services Agreement for Construction Support Services for
Overland Drive Overcrossing - Project No. PW95-11 -to TYLIN International-
McDaniel for $38,270.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract;
22.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of $3,827.00 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount.
23 Acceleration of Budgeted Funds for Overland Drive Overcrossin.q - Project No. PW95-11
RECOM MEN DATIO N:
23.1 Approve the acceleration of $4,230,000.00 from the Capital Improvement Budget for
FY 1999-2000 to the current FY1998-1999 budget for the Overland Drive
Overcrossing - Project No. PW95-11.
24 Second Readin.q of Ordinance No. 99-05
RECOMMENDATION:
24.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 99-05
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING SECTIONS 9.14.010 AND 9.14.020
PROHIBITING THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES AND POSSESSION OF OPEN CONTAINERS OF
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN PUBLIC PLACES
RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF
THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
AND
THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
R:~Agenda\020999
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. CSD 99-01
Resolution: No. CSD 99-01
CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero
ROLL CALL:
DIRECTORS:
Ford, Lindemans, Roberrs, Stone, Comerchero
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Board of
Directors on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar.
Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of
Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to
Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk
Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit
for individual speakers.
Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink
"Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please
come forward and state your name and address for the record.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Crowne Hill/Tract No. 23143 - Prescribin.q Service Level B, Service Level C, and Service
Level D Rates and Char.aes (located on the east side of Butterfield Sta.qe Road, south of
Pauba Road)
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R:%Agenda\020999
9
RESOLUTION NO. CSD 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
ACKNOWLEDGING THE FILING OF A REPORT WITH
RESPECT TO PRESCRIBING SERVICE LEVEL B, SERVICE
LEVEL C, AND SERVICE LEVEL D RATES AND CHARGES
FOR TRACT NO. 23143 AND ITS SUBSEQUENT PHASES
BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 AND SETTING A TIME
AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH
Ratification of Election Results - Tract No. 26488
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. CSD 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
RECITING THE FACT OF THE SPECIAL TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MAIL-IN BALLOT
ELECTION HELD ON JANUARY 22, 1999, DECLARING THE
RESULTS AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY
LAW
DISTRICT BUSINESS
3 Potential Joint Use of County Flood Control Property for Recreational Facilities
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1
Approve a letter to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District expressing the City's interest in working jointly for the development of
Recreational facilities in the proposed detention facility adjacent to Murrieta
Creek.
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS
R:~Agenda\020999
10
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: City Council/Community Services District/Redevelopment Agency Workshop -
February 18, 1999, 6:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California.
Next regular meeting: February 23, 1999, scheduled to follow the City Council Consent Calendar,
City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
R:~genda\020999
11
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. RDA 99-01
Resolution: No. RDA 99-02
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Karel Lindemans presiding
ROLL CALL
AGENCY MEMBERS:
Comerchero, Ford, Roberrs, Stone, Lindemans
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the
Redevelopment Agency on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent
Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the
Board of Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk
Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit
for individual speakers.
Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink
"Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please
come forward and state your name and address for the record.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of January 26, 1999.
R:~Agenda\020999
12
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: City Council/Community Services District/Redevelopment Agency Workshop -
February 18, 1999, 6:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California.
Next regular meeting: February 23, 1999, scheduled to follow the Community Services District
Meeting, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
R:~Agenda\020999
13
RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public
Hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the Approval
of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any of the project(s) in
court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised
at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or
prior to, the public hearing.
25
Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of Planning Application No. PA98-0347
('Development Plan) -The desi.qn, construction and operation of 15 speculative
industrial/manufacturin.q/office buildin.qs totalin.q 81,885 s.quare feet located on two parcels
consisting of 6.02 acres with associated parkin.q and landscapin.q ('located on the west
side of Commerce Center Drive adjacent to Murrieta Creek north of Via Montezuma)
(Continued from the January 26, 1999, City Council meeting.)
RECOMMENDATION:
25.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AFFRIMING THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 98-
0347 DEVELOPMENT PLAN -THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION
AND OPERATION OF 15 SPECULATIVE INDUSTRIAL,
MANUFACTURING, OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 81,885
SQUARE FEET LOCATED ON TWO PARCELS CONSISTING
OF 6.02 ACRES WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND
LANDSCAPING LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE, ADJACENT TO MURRIETA
CREEK, NORTH OF VIA MONTEZUMA, KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 921-400-017 AND 921-400-044
26
Appeal of the Plannin.q Commission's Approval of Plannin.q Application No. PA98-0219
(Conditional Use Permit) - Cox Communications Wireless Personal Communications
System ('PCS) with antennas mounted atop a 60-foot hi.qh monopole dis.quised as an
ever.qreen pine tree ("monopine") at the Rancho California Water District water tank site at
3100 Rancho California Road
RECOMMENDATION:
26.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA98-0219;
26.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R:~Agenda\020999
14
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-
0219 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -APPEAL) UPHOLDING
THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0219 (CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT) TO CONSTRUCT A WIRELESS PERSONAL
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM (PCS) FACILITY CONSISTING
OF TWELVE (12) PANEL ANTENNAS, ONE (1) GLOBAL
POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS) ANTENNA, AND SIX (6)
CABINETS HOUSING A BASE TRANSCEIVER STATION (BTS)
UNIT AND OTHER ELECTRONIC AND BATTERY EQUIPMENT.
THE ANTENNAS WILL BE MOUNTED ATOP A 60-FOOT HIGH
MONOPOLE DISGUISED AS AN EVERGREEN PINE TREE
("MONOPINE") LOCATED AT THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA
WATER DISTRICT WATER TANK SITE AT 3100 RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. 953-060-022
COUNCIL BUSINESS
27
Award of Construction Contract for Pala Road Brid.cle Project - Project No. PW97-15 -
Federal Project No. BRLS-5459(003)
RECOMM EN DATION:
27.1 Receive an oral report on the bids received February 4, 1999;
27.2
Award a construction contract for the Pala Bridge Project - Project No. PW97-15 -
Federal Project No. BRLS-5459(003) and authorize the Mayor to execute the
contract;
27.3 Authorize the Acting City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of 10% of the contract amount.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: City Council/Community Services District/Redevelopment Agency Workshop -
February 18, 1999, 6:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California.
Next regular meeting: February 23, 1999, 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business
Park Drive, Temecula, California.
R:~Agenda\020999
15
PROCLAMATIONS
AND
PRESENTATIONS
The City of Temecula
Special Achievement Award
The City Council of the City of Temecula commends the outstanding achievement of
Nell Everett Plummer
and joins with Boy Scout Troop 301 in congratulating him for attaining Scouting's highest rank,
Eagle Scout
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
affuced my hand and official seal this 9th day of
February, 1999.
StevenJ. Ford, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
The City of Temecula
Special Achievement Award
The City Council of the City of Temecula commends the outstanding achievement of
Scott C. Robertson
and joins with Boy Scout Troop 301 in congratulating him for attaining Scouting's highest rank,
Eagle Scout
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
affixed my hand and official seal this 9th day of
February, 1999.
stevenJ. Ford, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
The City of Temecula
Special Achievement Award
The City Council of the City of Temecula commends the outstanding achievement of
Robert Brian Slater
and joins with Boy Scout Troop 337 in congratulating him for attaining Scouting's highest rank,
Eagle Scout
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
affixed my hand and official seal this 9th day of
February, 1999.
Steven J. Ford, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
City of Temecula
Certificate of Appreciation
To:
The Honorable Arunja "Vic" 5arayda an
The City of Temecula extends its deepest gratitude to the Honorable Superior Court Judge Vie Saraydarian for his
dedication and responsibility to Temecula and Riverside County. The recent election that elevated his position from
Municipal Court Justice to Superior Court Judge confirms the trust and confidence that this electorate has placed in him.
Honorable Judge Saraydarian has served the County of Riverside with honor and dedication. He has supported the
community of Temecula and its youth for many years and has earned the respect and admiration of all who know him.
The City of Temecula extends its congratulations to the Honorable Judge Saraydarian for his many achievements,
appreciates the fine work he has done on behalf of the City and Riverside County, and warmly wishes him continued
success in his new position.
In Wimess Whereof, I have hereunto affixed my
hand and official seal this 9th day of February,
1999.
Steven J. Ford, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
City of Temecula
Certificate of Appreciation
To:
The Assistance Leas. e of Temecda Valley
The City of Temecula extends its deepest gratitude to the Assistance League of Temecula Valley for the aid and comfort
they provided to Temecula's recent fire victims. The Assistance League is a nonprofit organization of volunteers
dedicated to addressing the specific needs of children and the community-at-large. When the generous community spirit
that Temecula is known for threatened to overwhelm City Hall with numerous donations of clothing, toys, and household
goods, the Assistance League quickly stepped in to help distribute items to the families in need. Through the efforts of
their thrift shop known as CastAways, and the Operation School Bell program, ALTV members were there to provide
a semblance of order to the shocked victims and their children, and give them the start they needed to rebuild their fives.
The City of Temecula is proud to commend the Assistance League for their tireless efforts to help those in need, and we
extend thanks and warm wishes to the many volunteers who donate their time to restore smiles, confidence, and faith
in times of adversity.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto affixed my
hand and official seal this 9th day of February,
1999.
Steven J. Ford, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
City of Temecula
Certificate of Appreciation
To:
;oseph Kicak
The Cily of Temecula extends its deepest gratitude to Joe Kicak for his dedication, commitment, and devotion
during his five year tenure as Temecula's Director of Public Works. Joe has been instrumental in all of
Temecula's major projects, from improvements on the Winchester Bridge, the modification of lhe building now
known as City Hall, and the Old Town Streelscape, Io negotiations and development of the Promenade Mall.
Joe's determination and lenacity proved worthwhile in acquiring granls and funding for road projects. His abilily
to complele transactions with agencies such as CalTrans, lhe State of California Deparlmenl of Fish & Game, the
Army Corps of Engineers, and lhe Bureau of Indian Affairs enabled Temecula Io consummale undertakings that
would have overwhelmed most cities.
The loyally, hard work, and dedication that Joe inspired of his staff allowed multiple projects to be worked on
and completed professionally and competently. His responsibility for $52 million in capital projects required him
to work effectively with many different factions, dealing with the City Council, staff, governmenial entities, and
sometimes constituents. Joe managed everything with poise, maintaining a sense of humor while showing his
skill in multitasking and his ability for perseverance and fortitude.
The Cily of Temecula commends Joe on his many achievements, appreciates the fine work he has done on behalf
of the Cily, and warmly wishes him the best in any future endeavors.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto affixed my hand
and official seal Ibis 9th day of February, 1999.
Steven J. Ford, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
ITEM
1
ITEM 2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 12, 1999
CLOSED SESSION
A meeting of the City of Temecula City Council was called to order at 5:00 P.M.
seconded to adjourn to Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Sections:
It was duly moved and
1. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
concerning the acquisition of real property located at 42049 Main Street, Temecula (APN
922-036-020), 28545 Front Street (APN 922-035-001), 28677 Front Street (APN 922-045-
017), 28735 Pujol Street (APN 922-062-019), 28731 Pujol Street (APN 922-062-016), 28725
Pujol Street (APN 922-0062-010), 42291 Sixth Street (APN 922-052-011), no situs (APN
922-053-080), 41830 Sixth Street (APN 922-031-018), 41858 Fifth Street (APN 922-031-
009), 41843 Fifth Street (APN 922-022-010). The negotiating parties are the City of
Temecula/parcels of Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and Lorraine Clark,
Ladd Penfold, Ladanyi Rutner, Corbin, Ciais, Otto lot, Pelonero, Valencia, and Eppenger.
Under negotiation is 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 northeast corner of La Paz Street and
Highway 79 South (APN 922-190-025). The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula,
County of Riverside and Moramarco. 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 the west side of Second and Front
Streets (APN 922-046-022 and 922-073-024). The negotiating parties are the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula, First and Front LLP, and Cleveland
Investment Co. Under negotiation is the price and terms of payment to the real property
interests proposed to be acquired.
4. Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a) with respect to two matters of existing litigation involving the City. The following
cases and claims will be discussed: a) Eli Lilly & Company and b) Claim of Westside City
LLC.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Councilmembers:
Absent: Councilmember:
PRELUDE MUSIC
The prelude music was provided by Justin Schultz.
Comerchero, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone,
and Ford.
None.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Youth Pastor Tyler Longness of Baha'i Community of Temecula.
ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Councilman Comerchero.
PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
Mayor Ford introduced Acting City Manager Nelson, Assistant City Manager O'Grady, and Deputy City
Manager Thornhill to the viewing audience.
Certificates of Valor/Certificates of Merit
In light of their efforts to aid the fire victims of the Sycamore Terrace Apartments, the following
individuals were honored for these efforts and were presented with either a Certificate of Valor or a
Certificate of Merit:
Certificates of Valor
Julie Westling
James Miller
Richard Allison
Rhonda LaFlamme
Johnathan Keimach
Certificates of Merit
Red Cross recipients
Wayne Hall
Margerie Munch
Julie Smith
Judy Lujan
Pauline Casta
Gayle Gerrish
Trauma Intervention Program recipients
Maria Gardea
Joe Ellis
Donna Cory
Gayle Gerrish
Mayor Ford commended and expressed appreciation for the overwhelming support and outpouring
of gifts from the community to the fire victims.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. and Mrs. Jim and Donna Gohl and their son, Kasdan Gohl, fire victims, extended great
appreciation to several organization, the community, and City staff for their aid during this crisis and
for the generous donations.
Mrs. Kamrhan Farwell and children, fire victims, as well extended great appreciation to those who
assisted her family during this difficult time and for the generations donations made to her family.
Mr. Sam Pratt, 40470 Brixton Cove, relayed his concerns with regard to impacts that traffic
stagnation has on the City as well as the County and proceeded with a detailed review of a plan
(copies provided to the Councilmembers) which he has designed in an effort to mitigate
associated impacts.
To assist Mr. Pratt in his efforts, Mayor Ford noted that a copy of his letter would be forwarded,
via Councilman Roberts, to the Riverside County Transportation Committee and to the
Riverside Transit Authority via Councilman Lindemans.
In response to Mr. Larry LeDoux's issues of concern, 32004 Merlot Crest, Councilman
Lindemans advised that he would be appealing the Planning Commission's approval of Cox
Communications Wireless Personal Communications System.
City Attorney Thorson noted that each Councilmember has the right to appeal without the need
to state any type of opposition or support and that the grounds for a Councilmember appealing
is generally because it is an important public issue which should be decided by the City Council,
noting that the appropriate documents will be drafted to implement the appeal.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Councilman Comerchero welcomed Acting City Manager Nelson on his return to the City
and wished him, Assistant City Manager O'Grady, and Deputy Manager Thornhill as successful
year.
B. Concurring with Mr. Pratt's concerns with regard to traffic stagnation, Councilman Roberts
noted that he will share Mr. Pratt's letter with the Riverside County Transportation Committee and
stated that the City has to be innovative in exploring future alternative transportation sources.
C. In response to Councilman Roberts' concern with regard to increased response times,
Mayor Pro Tem Stone advised that he and Mayor Ford had met with Fire Department personnel to
address this issue; advised that a meeting has been set with the American Medical Response; and
noted that a subcommittee has been formed and requested that he and Mayor Ford be appointed to
serve on this subcommittee. No objections were noted to his request.
D. Mayor Pro Tem Stone commended the Fire Department on its heroic efforts in preventing
the loss of life and the spread of fire within the various neighborhoods during this Holiday season.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the
agenda.
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of November 24, 1998;
2.2 Approve the minutes of November 30, 1998;
2.3 Approve the minutes of December 3, 1998;
2.4 Approve the minutes of December 8, 1998.
3 Resolution Approvinq List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 99-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
4 City Treasurer's Report as of November 30, 1998
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of November 30, 1998.
5 Amendment to Fire Protection Agreement for Fiscal Year 1998-99
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Approve the amended Fire Protection Agreement for Fiscal Year 1998-99 and
authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement, final form to be
approved by the City Manager and the City Attorney.
4
10
Purchase of two (2) City Vehicles
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Approve the purchase of two (2) 1999 Dodge regular sized vehicles from Norm
Reeves Chrysler/Jeep/Dodge in the amount of $39,874.48 (both).
Records Destruction Approval
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Approve the scheduled destruction of certain City records in accordance with the
City of Temecula approved Records Retention Policy
Accept Public Improvements in Tract No. 21067 (located northwesterly of the intersection
of Pala Road at Loma Linda Road)
RECOMMENDATION
8.1 Accept the Public Improvements including subdivision monumentation in Tract No.
21067;
8.2 Authorize reduction in the Faithful Performance Securities to the 10% warranty
amount, release of the Subdivision Monumentation security, and initiation of the
one-year warranty period;
8.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety.
(Consent Calendar Item No. 8 continued to a date uncertain.)
Accel3t Substitute Agreement and Security for Erosion Control in Tentative Tract Nos.
23143-2, -3, and -4 (located southeasterly of the intersection of Pauba Road at
Butterfield Sta.qe Road)
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Accept the substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Security for Erosion
Control in Tentative Tract Nos. 23143-2, -3, and -4;
9.2 Authorize the release of the Erosion Control Security posted by Crowne Meadows,
L.L.P., a Washington Limited Partnership;
9.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developers and sureties.
Authorize access to Rvcrest Drive from Lot 4 in Tract No. 22208 (located northeasterly of
Mar~arita Road at Solana Way)
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1 Authorize driveway access to Lot 4 in Tract No. 22208 from Rycrest Drive by
permitting an exception to the abutters access rights dedicated to and accepted by
the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approval of the final Tract Map;
10.2
Authorize the City Engineer to approve the specific location subject to the issuance
of an encroachment permit setting forth conditions of approval including slope
protection and landscape and irrigation relocation/restoration to the satisfaction of
TCSD staff.
11
12
13
14
Accept Public Improvements for the interior streets in Tract No. 23371-3(A) (located
northwesterly of the intersection of Rancho California Road at Meadows Parkway)
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 Accept Public Improvements for the interior streets in Tract No. 23371-3(A);
11.2 Authorize reduction in Faithful Performance security amounts to the 10% warranty
amount and initiation of the one-year warranty period;
11.3 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the developer and the surety.
Accept Public Improvements for interior streets in Tract No. 23371-3(B) (located
northwesterly of the intersection of Meadows Parkway at Rancho California Road)
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 Accept Public Improvements for interior streets in Tract No. 23371-3(B);
12.2 Authorize reduction in Faithful Performance security amounts to the 10% warranty
amount and initiation of the one-year warranty period;
12.3 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the developer and the surety.
Release Traffic Signalization Mitiqation and Labor and Materials Securities in Parcel Map
27714 (located east of Ynez Road between Solana Way and Rancho California Road)
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Authorize release of the Traffic Signalization Mitigation and Labor and Materials
securities in Parcel Map No. 27714;
13.2 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the Developer and surety.
Authorization to Preorder the Traffic Signal Poles for Winchester Road/Ynez Road -
Project No. PW97-06 - and Mar.qarita Road/Overland Drive - Project No. PW97-07
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1
Authorize staff to preorder the traffic signal poles for Winchester Road/Ynez Road -
Project No. PW97-06 - and Margarita Road/Overland Drive - Project No. PW97-07 -
from McCain Traffic Supply for an amount of $83,397.25.
15
Winchester Road at I-15 Off-Ramp Widening - Project No. PW97-03
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1 Approve Contract Change Order No. 1 for irrigation relocation in the amount of
$32,690.76.
16
17
Amendment No. 1 to Professional Service A.qreement with CHJ, Inc. for the Old Town
Streetscape Project- Proiect No. PW97-05
RECOM MEN DATIO N:
16.1
Approve Amendment No. 1 to a Professional Services Agreement between the City
of Temecula and CHJ, Inc. to provide additional Professional Inspection Services for
the Old Town Streetscape Project - Project No. PW97-05 - in the amount not to
exceed $18,284.50 and authorize the Mayor to sign Amendment No. 1.
(Mayor Pro Tem Stone abstained with regard to this Item.)
Completion and Acceptance of the Cosmic Drive and A.qena Street Sidewalk
Improvement Project No. 6 - Proiect No. PW97-02
RECOMMENDATION:
17.1 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;
17.2 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after the filing of the Notice
of Completion if no liens have been filed.
18
19
Parcel Map No. 28657-1 (located at the northwest corner of Diaz Road and Remington
Avenue)
RECOMMENDATION:
18.1 Approve Parcel Map No. 28657-1 in conformance with the Conditions of Approval;
18.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement;
18.3 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Letters of Credit as
security for the agreements.
(Consent Calendar Item No. 18 continued to a date uncertain.)
Award of Construction Contract for Installation of a Traffic Si.qnal at the Intersection of
Rancho California Road and Via Las Colinas - Project No. PW97-29
RECOMMENDATION:
19.1
Award a construction contract for the installation of a traffic signal at the subject
intersection to DBX, Inc. of Temecula, California, in the amount of $75,269.00 and
authorize the Mayor to execute the contract;
19.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve contract change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of $7,526.90 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount.
20
Approval of Cooperative A.qreement with the Temecula Redevelopment Agency for
Construction and Fundin.q of Front Street Improvements - south of Ranch California Road
to Moreno Road - Project No. PW98-06
RECOMMENDATION:
20.1
Approve an Agreement entitled Cooperative Agreement between the City of
Temecula and the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) of the City of Temecula for
construction and funding of Front Street Improvements south of Rancho California
Road to Moreno Road - Project No. PW98-06;
20.2 Authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of he City in substantially
the form attached to the Agenda Report.
(Mayor Pro Tem Stone abstained with regard to this Item.)
21 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 98-22
RECOMMENDATION:
21.1 Adopt an Ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 98-22
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN TO
REVISE THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE CORE OF
OLD TOWN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0472)
(Mayor Pro Tem Stone abstained with regard to this Item.)
MOTION: Councilman Lindemans moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 7, 9 -
17, and 19 - 21 (Item Nos. 8 and 18 were continued to a date uncertain). The motion was
seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the
exception of Mayor Pro Tem Stone who abstained with regard to Item Nos. 16, 20, and 21.
At 7:45 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the
Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 8:08 P.M., after a short recess, the City Council resumed
with regularly scheduled City Council business.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
22
Planning Application No. PA98-0397 (Zonin.q Amendment) - An Amendment to the City's
Zoning Map, adding Planned Development Overlay No. 2 (PDO-2) with Correspondin.q
Chan.qes to the Development Code
RECOMMENDATION:
22.1 Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-0397
(Zoning Amendment);
22.2 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 99-01
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO ADD A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY NO. 2 (PDO-2) TO THE
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARGARITA
ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1,400 FEET EAST OF MORAGA
ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-370-004,
AND ADDING SECTION 17.22.110 THROUGH 17.22.118 TO
THE DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
OVERLAY NO. 2 FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-
0397
By way of elevation drawings, Deputy City Manager Thornhill reviewed the staff report (of
record).
Councilman Comerchero extended his appreciation to the developer for his support with regard
to this amendment.
At this time, Mayor Ford opened the public hearing.
Ms. Patti Nahill of Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, relayed the owner's as well
the developer's support of staff's recommendation.
Mr. Art Montgomery, 3365 Country Rose Circle, Encinitas, representing the owner of the
property, reiterated her support of staff's recommendation.
There being no additional comments, Mayor Ford closed the public hearing.
Relaying his delight with the reduction in density, Mayor Pro Tem Stone offered the following
motion:
City Attorney Thorson introduced Ordinance No. 99-01 reading it by title only.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to approve staff recommendation, including the
introduction of Ordinance No. 99-01. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero
and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
23
Planning Application PA98-0318 and PA98-0449: (General Plan Amendment and Zone
Chan.qe) Corona Ranch
RECOMMENDATION:
23.1 Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application PA98-0318 and
PA98-0449;
23.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 99-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
MAP FOR A SITE LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND BUTTERFIELD
STAGE ROAD (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 952-150-001 AND
952-150-003)
23.3 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 99-02
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA FOR A SITE LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND BUTTERFIELD
STAGE ROAD (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 952-150-001 AND
952-150-003)
In light of Mayor Ford's abstention with regard to this issue, Mayor Pro Tem Stone presided over
this Item.
By way of exhibits, Deputy City Manager Thornhill highlighted the staff report (as per agenda
material).
Viewing the proposed project as innovative and attractive, Councilmembers Comerchero and
Lindemans relayed their support of the project.
Ms. Patti Nahill of Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, representing the owners of
the property, relayed the owners' concurrence with staff's recommendation and noted that the
portion of property located in the County is currently zoned for 2 - 4 dwelling units per acre.
City Attorney Thorson introduced Ordinance No. 99-02 reading the ordinance by title only.
MOTION: Councilman Comerchero moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Lindemans and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the
exception of Mayor Ford who abstained.
At this time, Mayor Ford returned to the dais.
10
24
Pala Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO-1) Plannin.q Application PA97-0237 -
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
RECOMMENDATION:
24.1 Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0237;
24.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 99-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
MAP ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD SOUTH OF THE
INTERSECTION WITH RAINBOW CANYON ROAD (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA97-0237)
24.3 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 99-03
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD SOUTH OF
THE INTERSECTION WITH RAINBOW CANYON ROAD AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-110-018, 019,
020, AND 032 AND ADDING SECTIONS 17.22.100 THROUGH
17.22.108 TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT NO. I (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA97-0237)
Reviewing the staff report (as per written material), Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that
the property of discussion is heavily constrained and, therefore, limited in development; that the
proposed zone change is staff driven; and that properties located in the Flood Plane area will,
as well, be rezoned.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Stone's concern, City Attorney Thorson advised that specific
regulations within the Development Code deal with what types of structures/uses are permitted
in the area of discussion and that the permitted uses in the Flood Zone could be restricted and
indemnification could be considered.
Mayor Ford suggested restricting the use in the Flood Zone and that it be designated as such
on the map.
At this time, Mayor Ford opened the public hearing.
Mr. Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, representing the owners of Hazit Market and the
vacant property, reviewed the existing restrictions of the properties of discussion and relayed his
support of staff's proposal.
There being no additional comments, Mayor Ford closed the public hearing.
City Attorney Thorson introduced Ordinance No. 99-03 reading it by title only.
11
MOTION: Councilman Roberrs moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Lindemans and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
For those neighboring residents, Mayor Ford advised that the proposed action will lower the
allowable density as well as condition it and, thereby, lowering traffic volume and having the
ability to control future uses by way of a review/hearing process.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
25
Award of Construction Contract for Mall Improvements for Ynez Road - Winchester Road
to Overland Drive and Winchester Road/Ynez Road to Mar,qarita Road - Project No.
PW97-06
RECOMMENDATION:
25.1
Award a contract for the construction of Winchester Road and Ynez Road Street
Widening - Project No. PW97-06 -to Riverside Construction Company in the
amount of $999,999.00;
25.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of $99,999.90 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount;
25.3
Authorize the issuance of a purchase order in the amount of $25,900.00 for Caltrans
inspection costs per the encroachment permit submitted to the City on January 5,
1999.
Director of Public Works Kicak reviewed the staff report (as per agenda material including
supplemental material).
MOTION: Councilman Lindemans moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was
seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
26
Award of Construction Contract for Margarita Road, Overland Drive, and Lon.q Canyon
Creek Improvements - Project No. PW97-07
RECOMMENDATION:
26.1
Award a contract for the construction of Margarita Road, Overland Drive, and Long
Canyon Creek - Project No. PW 97-07 - to Riverside Construction Company in the
amount of $3,190,225.00;
26.2 Authorize the Acting City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of $319,022.50 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount;
26.3
Authorize a transfer of $666,000.00 from Account No. 210-165-683-5804,
$120,000.00 from Account No. 210-165-696-5804, and $629,000.00 from Account
No. 210-165-604-5804 to Account No. 210-165-681-5804.
Director of Public Works Kicak reviewed the staff report (of record), clarifying the need for
additional funds.
12
Mayor Ford requested that a report be presented to staff outlining the Mall completion
commitments as per the Development Contract for road improvements/structures.
In response to Councilman Lindemans, Mayor Ford noted that the possibility of overnight
construction for the Overland Overcrossing will be discussed in more detail at the upcoming City
Council Workshop.
MOTION: Councilman Lindemans moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was
seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
27 Selection of City Council Committee Assi.qnments
RECOMMENDATION:
27.1 Appoint a member of the City Council to serve on each of the following committees:
· Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency
· Riverside Transit Agency
· WRCOG (Western Riverside Council of Governments) Representative
· French Valley Airport Committee
· Temecula Sister City Corporation Board of Directors
· Temecula/M urrieta Joint Transportation/Traffic Committee
27.2 Appoint two members of the City Council to serve on each of the following
Committees:
· Economic Development Committee
· Finance Committee
· Old Town Steering Committee
· Public Works/Facilities Committee
· Joint City Council/TVSD Committee
· Murrieta Creek Advisory Board - appoint one member and one alternate
Community Service Funding Ad Hoc Committee
· Old Town Parking Incentives Ad Hoc Committee
· League of California Congress - Voting Delegates
· School Impact Mitigation Fees Ad Hoc Committee
· Riverside County Transportation Commission - appoint one member and one
alternate
· League of California Cities
27.3 Appoint a member of the City Council to serve as liaison to each of the City
Commissions and Committees and to the Pechanga Tribal Council.
MOTION: Councilman Comerchero moved to approve the City Council Committee
Assignments as noted below. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone and voice
vote reflected unanimous approval.
13
Appointed a member of the City Council to serve on each of the following
Committees:
· Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency - Mayor Ford
· Riverside Transit Agency - Councilman Lindemans
· WRCOG (Western Riverside Council of Governments) Representative -
Councilman Roberts
· French Valley Airport Committee - Mayor Pro Tem Stone
· Temecula Sister City Corporation Board of Directors - Councilman
Comerchero
· Temecula/Murrieta Joint Transportation/Traffic Committee - Mayor Pro Tem
Stone and Mayor Ford
Appoint two members of the City Council to serve on each of the following
Committees:
· Economic Development Committee - Councilman Roberts and
Councilman Comerchero
· Finance Committee - Councilman Lindemans and Mayor Pro Tem Stone
· Old Town Steering Committee - Councilman Lindemans and Mayor Ford
· Public Works/Facilities Committee - Councilman Roberts and Mayor Pro
Tem Stone
· Joint City CouncilFl'VSD Committee - Councilman Roberts and Mayor Pro
Tem Stone
· Murrieta Creek Advisory Board - appoint one member and one alternate -
Mayor Pro Tem Stone as the member and Mayor Ford as the alternate
· Community Service Funding Ad Hoc Committee - Mayor Pro Tem Stone
and Councilman Comerchero
· Old Town Parking Incentives Ad Hoc Committee - Councilman Lindemans
and Mayor Ford
· League of California Congress - Voting Delegates- Mayor Ford and Mayor
Pro Tem Stone
· School Impact Mitigation Fees Ad Hoc Committee- Councilman Roberts
and Mayor Pro Tem Stone
· Riverside County Transportation Commission - appoint one member and one
alternate - Councilman Roberts and Councilman Comerchero
· League of California Cities - Mayor Ford and Mayor Pro Tem
Appointed a member of the City Council to serve as liaison to each of the
City Commissions and Committees and to the Pechanga Tribal Council.
· Planning Commission - Councilman Comerchero
· Community Services District - Councilman Comerchero
· Public/Traffic Safety Commission - Councilman Roberts
· Old Town Local Review Board - Councilman Lindemans
· Old Town Redevelopment Advisory Committee - Councilman Lindemans
· Library Task Force- Councilman Roberts and Mayor Pro Tem Stone
· Pechanga Tribal Council - Mayor Ford and Councilman Roberts
14
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Acting City Manager Nelson relayed his pleasure with returning to the City of Temecula;
advised that he is looking forward to working with staff and the community and commended
former City Manager Bradley on a job well done.
B. Mr. Nelson briefly commented on the recent tumbleweed problem in the Wolf Valley area
and commended the Fire Department in particular Chief Wright and Captain Mason for their
efforts associated with this clean-up and thanked CR&R for their assistance as well as staff and
the community for their efforts associated with the clean-up.
In light of this recent tumbleweed problem, Mayor Ford requested that Code
Enforcement address the issue of weed abatement on vacant properties.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
With regard to Closed Session Item Nos. 1 and 3, City Attorney Thorson advised that the City
Council had provided direction to staff with respect to continuing negotiation; with regard to Item
No. 2, he noted that City Council had provided direction to him with respect to finalizing the
agreement; and with regard to the two litigation matters, Mr. Thorson advised that City Council
provided direction.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:00 P.M., Mayor Ford formally adjourned the City Council meeting to a Workshop on
Thursday, January 21, 1999, at 6:00 P.M.
ATTEST:
Steven J. Ford, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
15
MINUTES OF A JOINT TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL,
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WORKSHOP
MEETING
JANUARY 21, 1999
A joint meeting of the Temecula City Council, Community Services District, and
Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 6:03 P.M. in the City Council
Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Mayor Ford presiding.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Councilmembers:
Comerchero, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone*,
and Ford.
Absent: Councilmember: None.
* - Councilman Stone arrived to the meeting at 6:12 P.M.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CITY COUNCIL/COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT/AND REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY REPORTS
In light of a recent City Council discussion regarding the extension of Meadows
Parkway, Councilman Lindemans requested that the matter be discussed this evening.
No Council objection was noted with regard to discussing the Subsequent Need Item (as
noted below).
Agenda Item No. 2 was discussed out of order.
2 Acceptance of Grant of Easement for Traffic Siqnal Equipment
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
That the City Council authorize consideration of this Item as a Subsequent
Need Item pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2 because the
need to consider this Item arose after the agenda for this meeting was
posted (although this Item was posted 48 hours prior to the meeting), and
the City Council must act on this prior to the close of escrow for the sale of
the property which will occur prior to the next meeting;
2.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 99-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING A GRANT OF EASEMENT
FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION,
MODIFICATION, AND MAINTENANCE PURPOSES,
FACILITATING INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
RELATING TO THE PROMENADE MALL PROJECT
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks reviewed the staff report (as per agenda
material), advising that title reports have been checked to verify owners of record.
For Mayor Ford, City Attorney Thorson clarified that the Development Agreement with
Forest City granted Forest City the authority to assign portions of the Agreement and
that it had been anticipated that there would be other Forest City-related entities which
would be holding title to certain portions of this property.
MOTION: Councilman Lindemans moved to approve the staff recommendation. The
motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval with the exception of Mayor Pro Tem Stone who was absent.
At this time, discussion followed with regard to Agenda Item No. 1.
1 Workshop Discussion on Capital Improvement Pro.clram Priorities
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Provide Staff with direction as to project priorities;
1.2 Approve in concept a plan for staff resources for current construction
projects.
Acting City Manager Nelson reviewed the purpose of this Workshop, advising that a
status report will presented of the current $52 million Capital Improvement Projects; that
additional funding sources, which are currently not committed within the City's Capital
Improvement Projects, will be identified; that unfunded Capital Improvement Projects
will be presented for discussion ranging from Capital Projects, Public Facility Projects,
and Redevelopment Projects; that staff will provide a recommended Work Plan as it
relates to the Capital Improvement Projects which will then create the basis of
discussion as to prioritization; and that staff is requesting direction as to the Staffing
Plan in order to expedite the forthcoming projects. Considering the available resources,
Mr. Nelson commended the Public Works Department on an outstanding job.
As per PowerPoint, Senior Engineer Hughes proceeded with the Traffic Project Status
Report (copies of record), advising that a 24-hour work day for the Overland Drive
Overcrossing project would require Caltrans' approval and that the contractor for this
project has indicated an objection to a 24-hour work day.
In light of Senior Engineer Hughes' comments, Mayor Pro Tem Stone requested that
the 24-hour workday be further addressed to ensure the simultaneous completion of the
Overcrossing and the Mall. Mr. Stone suggested that additional incentives be explored
and offered to the contractor in order to provide for a 24-hour work day.
Acting City Manager Nelson noted that he has discussed the Overcrossing with Mr. Bob
Lopez, representing Southern California Edison, to ensure cooperation with the
contractor of the project as to the relocation of Southern California Edison facilities as
well as expeditious handling of the project and noted that staff will further pursue and
discuss the possibility of incentives with the contractor in an effort to provide a 24-hour
work day.
Noting that the contractor relayed confidence that he would be able to complete the
project within the specified time by working a 6:30 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. work schedule,
Senior Engineer Hughes noted that staff will continue discussions with the contractor.
To avoid any delays, Mr. Hughes advised that staff has been communicating with
Southern California Edison as to the relocation of SCE facilities. In an effort to further
expedite the project, Mr. Hughes informed the Councilmembers that staff has been
exploring other measures to reduce the project time such as an alternative retaining
wall design which would reduce the settlement period as well as the cost.
Councilman Comerchero concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Stone to provide reasonable
incentives to the contractor to provide a 24-hour work day.
It was the consensus of the City Council to provide an update as to the status of this
project.
Senior Engineer Hughes continued with his presentation by reviewing the recently
completed Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) and Capital Improvement Projects
currently being administered by the Public Works Department (as per written material of
record).
At this time, Finance Director Roberts provided information with regard to available
funding sources which are currently not committed to the Redevelopment Agency or the
City's General Fund and which could be utilized for various projects, advising that for
Redevelopment, staff has identified $4.7 million comprised of $1.17 million of
unallocated tax increments fund balance, $2.0 million proceeds from the sale of RDA
property, and $1.57 million existing Capital Project Funds.
In the General Fund, Finance Director Roberts advised that staff has identified $2.76
million of unallocated balance as of June 30, 1998, advising that in total approximately
$7.5 million would be available for traffic, public facility, or Redevelopment projects.
Of the recently completed Capital Improvement Projects, Senior Engineer Hughes
noted that no overages, which would require City Council, have occurred and that the
projects are being completed close the contract price.
At this time, Acting City Manager Nelson introduced the next Agenda Item - Traffic
Projects.
By way of handouts, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks reviewed the Traffic
Projects advising that they were divided into three categories as follows:
· Category I - projects which could be completed prior to Mall opening --
striping, signal modifications;
· Category II - projects which could be completed within 6 to 24 months -
minor roadway improvements - raised medians, road widening for right turn
lanes, etc.;
· Category III - projects which would required Capital Improvement Projects
process and require additional right of way or major street improvement
plans.
Reviewing Category I in more detail, Mr. Parks advised that 27 projects were identified
as a result of City Council input, staff input, and input from Mr. Bob Davis, noting that the
estimated cost would be $250,000.00.
City Attorney Thorson advised that Mayor Pro Tem Stone must abstain from issues
regarding Old Town projects including the First Street Bridge.
At this time, Senior Engineer Hughes further reviewed Category II projects (short-term
projects within a 2- to 5-year timeframe - as per agenda material of record - as well as
new transportation projects identified by City Council and new future transportation
projects identified during the Circulation Element process.
For Councilman Roberts, Senior Engineer Hughes provided clarification with regard to
the cost associated with the redesignation of I-15 to Urban Freeway with Councilman
Roberts suggesting that a letter be sent to the Riverside County Transportation
Committee (RCTC), requesting specific clarification as to the process of obtaining this
redesignation. Mr. Roberts advised that the Mayor of the City of Murrieta had noted no
objection to such a redesignation. Mayor Ford requested that a letter be sent to the
RCTC.
Mr. Hughes proceeded with an overview of those unfunded transportation projects which
would be the most financially viable projects and prioritized them as follows:
· First Street Bridge
· Diaz Road extension
· Murrieta Creek Crossing - north of Winchester Road at Date Street of Cherry
Street
· Murrieta Creek Crossing - south of Winchester Road between Rancho
California Road and Winchester Road
· Diaz Road realignment at Rancho California Road
· Pala Road Phase II
· Ynez Road widening from Rancho California Road to La Paz Street
· Pauba Road improvement- Phase II
· Santiago Road extension to Margarita Road
· Margarita Road widening from Pauba Road to Highway 79S
At the January 20, 1999, joint Planning Commission/Traffic/Public Safety Commission
meeting, Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that the two Commissions reviewed the
short-term projects and agreed with the forthcoming recommendation relative to these
projects but made some modifications to the prioritization. Mr. Thornhill clarified that the
connection between Rainbow Canyon Road and Pala Road at the tribal property has
been deleted and that staff will continue to investigate a connection between Rainbow
Canyon Road and Pala Road but that it will not involve the tribal property.
For Mayor Ford, Senior Engineer Hughes confirmed that the La Serena Way from
Margarita Road to Meadows Parkway has been funded.
By way of a worksheet, Assistant City Manager O'Grady reviewed the unfunded park
and public facility projects which include projects in the current Capital Improvement
Projects as well as future Capital Improvement Projects as well as projects in the Capital
Improvement Projects but ones which have not been fully funded.
Mr. O'Grady as well proceeded with a detailed overview of unfunded park projects such
as Margarita Park Community Center, Northwest Sports Complex (noting that staff will
investigate the Cathedral City park operations), and joint City/Temecula Valley Unified
School District pool project.
For Councilman Lindemans, Assistant City Manager O'Grady noted that financing
alternatives will be explored for the Library as well as the Performing Arts Center.
Advising that the Library Design Committee is proceeding with the design and location of
the future library, Councilman Roberrs noted that the design of such a facility or any
facility for which funding is requested must be completed prior to the City being able to
apply for Federal/State grants.
Advising that Councilman Roberts, Mayor Ford, and he will be traveling to Washington in
March to discuss several issues with the City's lobbyist including Library grants, Mayor
Pro Tem Stone noted his preference to obtain grants to construct such a facility versus
taxing the residents, advising that private donors have indicated an interest to donate
monies to a City of Temecula library.
Acting City Manager Nelson advised that the Performing Arts Center was addressed in
the City's Cultural Arts Center Master Plan and that this issue would be addressed by
the City Council at the February 23, 1999, meeting.
Recommending that Redevelopment Agency activities continue, Housing and
Redevelopment Manager Meyer highlighted the following three areas:
· Seismic retrofit of the Mercantile Building - now under Agency ownership
· Existing Agency properties in Old Town to provide additional public parking
· Continue the funding of the facade improvement program, land acquisition,
and related revitalization activities.
Referencing the previous comments, Mr. Meyer noted that staff would recommend that
$2 million be set aside for the continued renovation of Old Town.
In light of the aforementioned discussion, Acting City Manager Nelson relayed staff's
recommendation to utilize the identified uncommitted $7.5 million as follows with Deputy
Director of Public Works Parks providing additional clarification:
· $2.0 million for Redevelopment Agency projects
· First Street Bridge Crossing - reviewed the importance of this project as it
relates to the Circulation Element; advised of the three crossings at Murrieta
Creek - Winchester Road, Rancho California Road, and Main Street; noted
that Main Street is the only crossing into Old Town; that First Street Bridge
would replace the Main Street bridge and provide an alternative route into the
residential areas as well as provide a bypass of Front Street; that the
construction of First Street Bridge will allow traffic to cross the freeway at
Santiago Road and SR 79 and create more of a conduit from the industrial
park to relieve traffic congestion at Rancho California Road and Ynez Road;
that the project has been designed and that the City owns the necessary
right-of way; that all Environmental clearances have been completed; and
that the project, if approved, could go to bid and be completed within a two-
year period.
· Category I - $250,000.00
· Murrieta Creek Crossing - north and south - complete a feasibility study and
have design completed.
For Councilman Lindemans, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that the
construction of the First Street Bridge could, for the time being, be in lieu of constructing
the Western Bypass; advised that a study report for an interchange at Santiago Road
would take approximately 2 to 3 years after which the design phase and the construction
time would take approximately 4 to 5 years.
Reiterating the need to complete the design phase prior to the City obtaining any
funding, Councilman Roberts spoke in support of constructing First Street Bridge.
Although speaking in support of constructing the First Street Bridge, Councilman
Comerchero noted that the City Council must consider how the construction of the
project may potentially impact other projects such as extending Santiago Road to
Margarita Road.
In response to Mayor Ford, it was noted that if the City were to proceed with the First
Street Bridge that associated striping, signage, and signalization at Santiago Road/First
Street/Front Street has been incorporated into the project budget.
Mayor Ford requested that the Diaz Road realignment be placed on the proposed Work
Plan.
For Councilman Comerchero, Acting City Manager Nelson noted that the requested $2.0
million for Redevelopment Agency which would cover seismic retrofit of the Mercantile
Building, additional parking, and fa~:ade improvement program, land acquisition, and
related revitalization activities.
MOTION: Councilman Lindemans moved to approve an allocation of $2.0 million dollars
to the Redevelopment Agency and $3.85 million for the construction of First Street
Bridge. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval with the exce~ation of Mayor Pro Tem Stone who abstained.
Because the environmental process for the Circulation Element has not been completed,
Acting City Manager Nelson noted that the Council is not being requested to approve it
this evening. Further addressing the north/south interception and impact it may have on
the City of Murrieta, Acting City Manager Nelson encouraged creating an open dialogue
with the neighboring City to ensure the understanding of the mutual benefits of working
in together on such projects.
Mr. Bob Davis further commented on the Diaz Road connection at Vincent Moraga Road
and how such a connection would complement the First Street Bridge improvement.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to approve the Category I projects in the
amount of $250,000.00; approve the Murrieta Creek Crossing north in the amount of
$700,000.00; approve the Murrieta Creek Crossing south in the amount of $700,000.00;
approve the Diaz Road realignment in the amount of $810,000.00 (as it relates to RCTC
funding); and approve the redesignation of I-15 to Urban Freeway. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
Councilman Lindemans requested that the extension of Meadows Parkway be
addressed at the next City Council Workshop with Deputy Director Public Works Parks
advising that Lennar had completed design plans to construct the extension; that the
construction of this extension is to be split by Lennar and McMillan; that the construction
schedule for this project reflects a completion date of two years.
In order to clarify the City Council's intent, at a previous meeting, with regard to
Meadows Parkway, Acting City Manager Nelson suggested that the minutes as well as
the videotape be reviewed and that the matter be discussed in more detail at the next
City Council workshop.
In light of the additionally approved projects (as noted above), it was requested that the
City Council approve additional staffing as follows:
· 4 City full/time employees 1 Senior Engineer
1 Associate Engineer
1 Assistant Engineer
1 Senior Public Works Inspector
· 6 project employees
It was noted that the associated costs to fund these positions would be funded in total for
the next three years through the Capital Improvement budgets under Administrative
Section and that the cost to the City would be less than if the City were to contract these
services out.
MOTION: Councilman Lindemans moved to approve staff's request for the additional
staffing (as noted above). The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice
vote reflected unanimous approval.
7
In light of this evening's discussion and in light of the past and upcoming improvement
projects, Councilman Comerchero apologized to the Public Works Department for not
addressing the Department's staffing needs prior to now and commended the
Department on a job well done.
Acting City Manager Nelson commended the City Council for addressing these difficult
issues and relayed appreciation to the Council's for the support of the additional staffing
needs. For Mayor Ford, Mr. Nelson noted that additional information would be provided
to the Council at the next Workshop with regard to the redesignation of Iol 5 to Urban
Freeway and that a letter would be sent to RCTC requesting additional clarification as to
the redesignation process.
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:08 P.M., Mayor Ford formally adjourned the City Council meeting to Tuesday,
January 26, 1999, at 7:00 P.M.
ATTEST:
Steven J. Ford, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
ITEM 3
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS
SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND
ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the Office
of the City Clerk, have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the
amount of $2,666,202.15.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 9th day of February, 1999.
A'R'EST:
Steven J. Ford, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
Resos 99-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 99- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Coundl of the City of Temecula
on the 9th day of February, 1999 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
Resos 99-
CITY OF TEMECULA
LIST OF DEMANDS
01~189 TOTALCHECKRUN:
01/28/99 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
02/09/99 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
01/21/99 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN:
TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 02/09199 COUNCIL MEETING:
DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND:
CHECKS:
001 GENERAL FUND
165 RDA DEV-LOW/MOD SET ASIDE
190 COIVNUNITY 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
320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS
330 SUPPORT SERVICES
2~3 FACILITIES
380 RDA - DEBT SERVICE
100 GENERAL
165 RDA-LOW/MOD
190 TCSD
191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A
192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B
193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D
280 RDA-CIP
300 INSURANCE
320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS
330 SUPPORT SERVICES
340 FACILITIES
TOTAL BY FUND:
PREPARED BY RETA WESTON, ACC~U/NTING S~ECIALIST
// . ,, ,
GEN/iiE ROBERTS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
SHAWN NELSON, ACTING CITY MANAGER
831,325.48
32,579.97
70,062.85
17,422.91
24,928.64
16,363.47
403.15
93,173.65
383,657.85
5,732.01
20,617.71
2,763.11
9,091.65
996,875.00
1 ':, 6,523.50
3,505.27
26,868.24
68.21
171.83
2,139.91
941.87
1,520.32
685.53
2,997.91
1,921.79
3,560.32
, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
238,926.02
1,335,190.17
930,881.26
161,204.70
2,666,202.15
2,504,997.45
161,204.70
2,666,202.15
VOUCHRE2
01/21/99
10:25
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
PAGE
FUND TITLE
001 GENERAL FUND
165 RDA DEV- LOW/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
320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS
330 SUPPdRT SERVICES
340 FACILITIES
AMOUNT
46,912.07
18,246.52
18,640.99
17,044.34
24,857.19
1,580.32
25.00
12,645.13
75,478.86
4,650.59
12,722.38
459.87
5,662.76
TOTAL 238,926.02
VOUCHRE2
01/21/99
10:25
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
PAGE
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
CHECK . VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
53426
53739
53740
53741
53741
53741
53742
53743
53743
53743
53743
53743
53743
53743
53743
01/19/99 001573 INLAND EMPIRE TOURISM C
01/21/99 000724 A & R CUSTOM SCREEN PRI
01/21/99 001916 ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIAT
IETC MTGS:WOLNICK:1/20/99
AWARDS FOR SOFTBALL PRGM
OCT PROF. SVCS:O.T.STREETSCAPE
001-111-999-5270
190-183-999-5380
280-199-824-5801
01/21/99 001538 ALBERT GROVER & ASSOCIA PROF. SVCS:CITYWIDE ITMS 210-165-640-5802
01/21/99 001538 ALBERT GROVER & ASSOCIA PROF SVCS:CITYWIDE ITMS 210-165-640-5802
01/21/99 001538 ALBERT GROVER & ASSOCIA CREDIT:OVER CONTRACT AMOUNT 210-165-640-5802
01/21/99
001947 AMERIGAS PROPANE FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-162-999-5263
01/21/99 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV UNIFORMS FOR TCSD MAINTENANCE 190-180-999-5243
01/21/99 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV FLR.MATS/TOWEL RNTL.@ SR.CTR. 190-181-999-5250
01/21/99 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV FLR.MATS/TOWEL RNTL.@ CRC 190-182-999-5250
01/21/99 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV FLR.MATS/TOWEL RNTL.@ TCC 190-18/+-999-5250
01/21/99 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV FLR.MATS/TOWEL RNTL.@ CTY.HALL 340-199-701-5250
01/21/99 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV FLR.MATS/TOWEL RNTL.@MTNC.FAC. 340-199-702-5250
01/21/99 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV UNIFORMS FOR PW MAINT. CREWS 001-164-601-5243
01/21/99 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV CREDIT:DELIVERY CHARGE 001-164-601-5243
53744 01/21/99 003266 ARCUS DATA SECURITY DATA STORAGE CART CTR T20 ARCH 001-120-999-5277
53744 01/21/99 003266 ARCUS DATA SECURITY DATA STORAGE MICROBOX ARCHIVAL 001-120-999-5277
53744 01/21/99 003266 ARCUS DATA SECURITY APERTURE CARD BOX ARCHIVE 001-120-999-5277
53744 01/21/99 003266 ARCUS DATA SECURITY LEASED CTR CONTAINER T20 001-120-999-5277
53744 01/21/99 003266 ARCUS DATA SECURITY LEASED CTR MICROBOX #648 001-120-999-5277
53744 01/21/99 003266 ARCUS DATA SECURITY LEASED CTR APER.CARD BOX #686 001-120-999-5277
25.00
1,295.16
67,032.92
5,840.00
1,390.00
88.00-
84.32
35.00
46.20
112.70
64.60
104.25
42.75
100.15
18.10-
473.85
16.24
40.60
52.00
8.00
20.00
25.00
1,295.16
67,032.92
7,142.00
84.32
487.55
610.69
53745 01/21/99 002085 BARNEY & BARNEY
CHAPEL/MUSUEM INS. PREMIUM 300-199-999-5200
694.00
694.00
53746 01/21/99 002335 BENTLEY~S MAINTENANCE BUILDING MAINTENANCE:LOPEZ 165-199-999-5250
375.00
375.00
53747 01/21/99 003214 CAL MAT
SUPPLIES:CITYWIDE A/C REPAIRS 001-164-601-5218
796.94
796.94
53748 01/21/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, 2ND ANNUAL INST:LIABILITY INS. 300-199-999-5200
53748 01/21/99 -000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, PUBLIC OFFICIAL BOND:S.NELSON 300-199-999-5200
53749 01/21/99 001054 CALIFORNIA BUILDING OFF CALBO CONF:2/28-3/O3/99:ELMO 001-162-999-5258
53750 01/21/99 000486 CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL BU B/L APP/CERTIFICATION FEES:ZS 001-140-999-5261
3,523.00
350.00
340.00
120.00
3,873.00
340.00
120.00
53751 01/21/99 001590 CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMEN PUB:98 ADOPTED RDA LEGISLATION 165-199-999-5250
53752 01/21/99 001655 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY EQUIPMENT RENTAL FOR TCC 190-184-999-5301
53753 01/21/99 002803 CANTY ENGINEERING GROUP SEP-NOV ENG SVCS:OVERLAND 210-165-604-5804
53753 01/21/99 002803 CANTY ENGINEERING GROUP DEC ENGINEERING SVCS:OVERLAND 210-165-604-5804
53753 01/21/~9 002803 CANTY ENGINEERING GROUP DEC ENGINEERING SVCS:RANCHO CA 210-165-601-5804
53754 01/21/99 002534 CATERERS CAFE, THE REFRESHMENTS:OFFSITE STAFF MTG 001-161-999-5260
53754 01/21/99 002534 CATERERS CAFE, THE REFRESHMENTS:STAFF MTG 001-161-999-5260
20.47
10.10
400.00
220.00
500.00
38.79
10.47
20.47
10.10
1,120.00
49.26
VOUCHRE2
01/21/99
10:25
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
PAGE
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
CHECK
DATE
VENDOR
NUMBER
VENDOR
NAME
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
53755
53755
53755
53756
53757
53758
53759
53759
53760
53761
53761
53762
53763
53764
53765
53765
53765
53765
53765
53765
53765
53765
53765
53765
53765
53766
53767
53767
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/~9
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
001195
001195
001195
001193
003328
002106
001716
001716
002990
002954
002954
003489
001669
001544
001380
001380
001380
001380
001380
001380
001380
001380
001380
001380
001380
002128
001056
001056
CENTRAL SECURITY SERVIC
CENTRAL SECURITY SERVIC
CENTRAL SECURITY SERVIC
COMP USA, INC.
COMPEX LEGAL SERVICES,
DA FAMILY SUPPORT
DAN'S ROOFING
DAN'S ROOFING
DAVID TURCH & ASSOCIATE
DIAMOND GARAGE DOOR, IN
DIAMOND GARAGE DOOR, IN
DUIN CONSTRUCTION
DUNN EDWARDS CORPORAT[O
E L YEAGER CONSTRUCT[ON
E S
E S
E S
E S
ES
ES
E S
E S
E S
E S
E S
EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
ENGINEERING VENTURES, I
EXCEL LANDSCAPE
EXCEL LANDSCAPE
QTRLY FIRE SYS INSPECTION:CRC
JAN ALARM MONITORING:CRC
JAN ALARM MONITORING:SR CENTER
MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES
NOV LEGAL SERVICES - CLAIMS
002106 SUPPORT
RES.IMPROVEMENT PRG:CASTANEDA
CREDIT:OVER CONTRACT AMOUNT
JAN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
RES.IMPROVEMENT PRG:BULA
RES.IMPROVEMENT PRGM:RAMOS
RES.IMPROVEMENT PRGM:ANDERSON
MISC. PAINT SUPPLIES:PW MAINT.
EQUIP.RENTAL:OVERLAND OVRCROSS
TEMP HELP (2)W/E 1/01WILLIAMS
TEMP HELP (2)W/E 1/01WILLIAMS
TEMP HELP (2)W/E 1/01 MILES
TEMP HELP (2)W/E 1/01 MILES
TEMP HELP (2)W/E 1/01 MILES
TEMP HELP (2)W/E 1/01DONAHOE
TEMP HELP (2)W/E 1/01YONKER
TEMP HELP (2)W/E 1/01 MYERS
TEMP HELP (2)W/E 1/01DEGANGE
TEMP HELP (2)W/E 1/01 MCLEAN
TEMP HELP (2)W/E 1/01 HILLBERG
DEC PROF. SURVEY SVCS:PW95-11
IRRIG. REPAIRS:YNEZ/PREECE
IRRIG. REPAIRS:SANTIAGO/YNEZ
190-182-999-5250
190-182-999-5250
190-181-999-5250
320-199-999-5221
001-1990
190-2140
165-199-813-5804
165-199-813-5804
001-110-999-5248
165-199-813-5804
165-199-813-5804
165-199-813-5804
001-164-601-5218
210-165-604-5804
001-162-999-5118
001-161-999-5118
001-163-999-5118
001-165-999-5118
001-164-604-5118
001-161-999-5118
001-140-999-5118
001-171-999-5118
001-161-999-5118
280-199-999-5118
165-199-999-5118
210-165-604-5804
193-180-999-5212
193-180-999-5212
150.00
50.00
45.00
62.11
11.04
82.50
4,297.50
112.50-
2,000.00
690.00
155.00
750.00
145.53
1,800.00
348.48
348.48
293.60
293.60
293.60
2,509.82
1,223.20
1,891.80
2,250.99
903.04
1,869.00
1,575.00
180.74
41.54
245.00
62.11
11.04
82.50
4,185.00
2,000.00
845.00
75O.00
145.53
1,800.00
12,225.61
1,575.00
222.28
53768
53769
53769
53769
53769
53769
53769
53769
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
002148
000165
000165
000165
000165
'000165
000165
000165
EXPRESS TEL
FEDERAL EXPRESS
FEDERAL EXPRESS
FEDERAL EXPRESS
FEDERAL EXPRESS
FEDERAL EXPRESS
FEDERAL EXPRESS
FEDERAL EXPRESS
INC.
INC.
INC.
INC.
INC.
INC.
INC.
DEC LONG DISTANCE SVCS:STN #84
DEC:EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES
DEC:EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES
DEC:EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES
JAN EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES
JAN EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES
JAN EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES
JAN EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES
001-171-999-5240
190-180-999-5230
001-162-999-5230
001-164-604-5230
001-162-999-5230
001-140-999-5230
001-163-999-5230
001-164-604-5230
23.33
17.50
18.25
73.25
21.50
10.75
20.00
55.25
23.33
216.50
VOUCHRE2
01/21/99
10:25
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
PAGE
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
CHECK ·
DATE
VENDOR
NUMBER
VENDOR
NAME
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
53770
53771
53771
53771
53771
53771
53771
53772
53773
53773
53774
53775
53775
53775
53775
53776
53776
53777
53778
53778
53778
53778
53778
53778
53778
53778
53778
53778
53778
53778
53778
53778
53778
53779
53780
53780
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/~9
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
002832
003347
003347
003347
003347
003347
003347
001135
001989
000184
000184
000184
000184
001355
001355
002528
000177
000177
000177
000177
000177
000177
000177
000177
000177
000177
000177
000177
000177
000177
000177
002098
002098
FENCE BUILDERS
FIRST BANKCARD CENTER
FIRST BANKCARD CENTER
FIRST BANKCARD CENTER
FIRST BANKCARD CENTER
FIRST BANKCARD CENTER
FIRST BANKCARD CENTER
FIRST CARE INDUSTRIAL M
FOLEY, DEVIN
FOLEY, DEVIN
FOX NETWORK SYSTEMS, IN
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.
GLASS BLASTERS
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
HANEY, KELLI
HOUSE OF MOTORCYCLES
HOUSE OF MOTORCYCLES
RES.IMPROVEMENT PRG:HEDBERG
DEC:5477-2590-4220-7824:JC
DEC:5477-2590-3378-9277:RR
DEC:5477-2590-3379-6165:GY
DEC:5477-2590-3378-9830:RB
DEC:5477-2590-3378-9830:RB
DEC:5477-2590-3379-O432:AE
DEC PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT
ADD'L FACILITY ROOM RENTAL
DEC INTERNET CLIENT SERVICES
JAN:909-197-5072:GENERAL USAGE
JAN:909-506-1941:PTA CD TTACSD
JAN:909-699-2811:GENERAL USAGE
JAN:909-699-8632:GENERAL USAGE
JAN ACCESS-RVSD CO. OPEN LINE
JAN ACCESS-RVSD CO. OPEN LINE
CITY SEAL MUGS FOR NEW HIRES
DEC:MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES
DEC:MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES
DEC:MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES
DEC:MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES
DEC:MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES
DEC:MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES
DEC:MISC. OFFICE SUPPIES
DEC:MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES
DEC:MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES
DEC:MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES
DEC:MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES
VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION CERTS
SALES TAX
DEC:MISC. COMPUTER SUPPLIES
DEC:MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES
REFUND: PARK RENTAL
MOTORCYCLE REPAIR CITY POLICE
MOTORCYCLE REPAIR CITY POLICE
165-199-813-5804
001-100-999-5258
001-100-999-5258
001-110-999-5260
001-110-999-5263
001-110-999-5260
001-162-999-5242
001-150-999-5250
190-2900
190-183-4990
320-199-999-5248
320-199-999-5208
320-199-999-5208
320-199-999-5208
320-199-999-5208
320-199-999-5208
320-199-999-5208
001-150-999-5265
001-120-999-5220
330-199-999-5220
001-140-999-5220
001-140-999-5220
001-161-999-5220
001-161-999-5220
001-162-999-5220
190-182-999-5220
190-180-999-5220
001-170-999-5220
001-171-999-5220
280-199-999-5362
280-199-999-5362
320-199-999-5221
001-120-999-5277
190-183-4988
001-170-999-5214
001-170-999-5214
4,376.00
347.04
1,764.54
175.84
96,77
37.00
548.96
285.00
100.00
10.00-
3,847.50
4,683.81
55.85
1,337.73
28.52
320.00
320.00
15.09
332.82
113.11
230.48
301.30
94.09
23.66
177.82
27.93
229,75
14.00
15.06
200.15
15.51
7.27
60.95
25.OO
130.70
36.98
4,376.00
2,970.15
285.00
90.00
3,847.50
6,105.91
640.00
15.09
1,843.90
25.00
167.68
53781
53781
53781
53781
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
000194
000194
000194
000194
I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194
I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194
I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194
I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194
DEF COMP
DEF COMP
DEF COMP
DEF COMP
001-2080
165-2080
190-2080
280-2080
1,226.86
18.75
100.00
6.25
1,351.86
VOUCHRE2
01/21/99
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
53782
53782
53782
53783
53784
53785
53786
53786
53787
53788
53789
53790
53791
53791
53791
53791
53791
53791
53791
53792
53792
53792
53792
53793
53794
53795
53795
53795
53795
53795
53795
53795
53795
53795
53795
53795
53795
53795
10:25
CHECK
DATE
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/~9
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
VENDOR
NUMBER
001407
001407
001407
000199
003571
002140
000206
000206
001967
000217
002952
001384
001384
001384
001384
001384
001384
001384
002105
002105
002105
002105
001619
001958
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
VENDOR
NAME
INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL
INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL
INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVIC
INTERNATIONAL ASSOC. PL
JAGUAR COMPUTER SYSTEMS
KINKO'S, INC.
KINKO'S, INC.
MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV
MARGARITA OFFICIALS ASS
MEMBEARS OF THE VALLEY
MINOLTA BUSINESS SYSTEM
MINUTEMAN PRESS
MINUTEMAN PRESS
MINUTEMAN PRESS
MINUTEMAN PRESS
MINUTEMAN PRESS
MINUTEMAN PRESS
MINUTEMAN PRESS
OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER,
PERS LONG TERM CARE PRO
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
DEC:POOL SANITIZING SUPP:CRC
DEC:POOL SANITIZING SUPP:CRC
JAN:POOL SANITIZING SUPP:CRC
000199 IRS GARN
IAPMO '99 MEMBERSHIP:A.ELMO
QTRLY E-MAIL SUPPORT & MAINT.
DEC:PAPER/PRINTING SUPPLIES
DEC:PAPER/PRINTING SUPPLIES
TEMP HELP W/E 01/03 BELIAN
UMPIRES FOR ADULT SFTBLL GAMES
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT
FEB LEASE PMT:TCC COPIER
FOIL BUSINESS CARDS:S.NELSON
SALES TAX
FOIL BUSINESS CARDS:R.ROBERTS
SALES TAX
BUSINESS CARDS:BERG/SALAZAR
FOIL BUSINESS CARDS: ELHO,A.
BUSINESS CARDS:COLE, THOHAS
CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
QTR AD:OLD TWN HOLIDAY GUIDE
001958 PERS L-T
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
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
190-182-999-5212
190-182-999-5212
190-182-999-5212
001-2140
001-162-999-5226
320-199-999-5211
190-180-999-5220
190-180-999-5222
001-162-999-5118
190-183-999-5380
190-2900
190-182-999-5239
001-110-999-5222
001-110-999-5222
001-100-999-5222
001-100-999-5222
001-162-999-5222
001-162-999-5222
001-162-999-5222
001-163-999-5214
001-164-601-5214
001-162-999-5214
190-180-999-5214
280-199-999-5362
001-2122
001-100-999-5260
001-111-999-5270
001-140-999-5222
001-140-999-5242
001-150-999-5265
001-161-999-5260
001-162-999-5261
001-162-999-5263
001-165-999-5263
001-170-999-5214
001-171-999-5261
190-2920
190-180-999-5222
ITEM
AMOUNT
252.75
200.24
237.05
295.77
250.00
300.00
20.86
25.54
557.28
967.20
100.00
162.70
102.50
7.94
102.50
7.94
82.43
111.44
41.21
87.89
182.49
366.22
245.05
2,236.50
73.84
17.98
12.86
23.70
33.22
20.00
35.00
16.28
5.00
16.86
22.15
15.00
13.99
43.64
PAGE 4
CHECK
AMOUNT
690.04
295.77
250.00
300.00
46.40
557.28
967.20
100.00
162.70
455.96
881.65
2,236.50
73.84
VOUCHRE2
01/21/99
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
53795
53795
53795
53795
53795
53795
53795
53797
53797
53798
53798
53799
53799
53799
53800
53801
53801
53801
53801
53801
53801
53802
53803
53804
53804
53804
53804
53804
53804
53804
53804
53804
53804
538O5
53806
53807
53807
10:25
CHECK
DATE
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/~9
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
VENDOR
NUMBER
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000253
000253
000254
000254
002776
002776
002776
000947
000947
000947
000947
000947
000947
002176
002072
000262
000262
000262
000262
000262
000262
000262
000262
000262
000262
001428
001046
000418
000418
VENDOR
NAME
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
POSTMASTER
POSTMASTER
PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN
PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN
PRIME MATRIX, INC.
PRIME MATRIX, INC.
PRIME MATRIX, INC.
RALSTON, THOMAS A.
RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C
RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C
RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C
RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C
RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C
RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C
RANCHO CALIF BUS PARK A
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
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER
RANCHO TEMECULA WOMANS
REXON, FREEDMAN, KLEPET
RIVERSIDE CO. CLERK & R
RIVERSIDE CO. CLERK & R
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS
EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS
PUBLIC NOTICE: 26488
PUBLIC NOTICE: CITY HALL
SC-5001377-0 SR VAN
SC-5002330-8 CITY VAN
SC-5003948-6 [NFOR SYSTEM
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT
BLUEPRINTS AND MISC SUPPLIES
BLUEPRINTS AND MISC SUPPLIES
BLUEPRINTS AND MISC SUPPLIES
BLUEPRINTS AND MISC SUPPLIES
BLUEPRINTS AND MISC SUPPLIES
BLUEPRINTS AND MISC SUPPLIES
BUSINESS PK ASSOC/R.C.-DIAZ RD
2WTR MTRS:OLD TWN DRK FOUNTAIN
01-08-05837-6 CORTE CHRISTINA
01-06-26305-0 FRONT ST
VARIOUS WATER METERS
VARIOUS WATER METERS
VARIOUS WATER METERS
VARIOUS WATER METERS
VARIOUS WATER METERS
VARIOUS WATER METERS
VARIOUS WATER METERS
VARIOUS WATER METERS
98/99 COMM SVS FUNDING PRGM
DEC 98 PROF LEGAL SERVICES
APERTURE CARDS DUPLICATES
NOTICE OF SATISFACTION:DEV OBL
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
190-180-999-5260
190-183-999-5305
190-183-999-5370
190-180-999-5212
190-181-999-5301
280-199-999-5220
280-199-999-5362
001-120-999-5228
001-161-999-5228
001-120-999-5256
001-120-999-5256
190-180-999-5208
190-180-999-5208
320-199-999-5208
190-183-4990
210-190-155-5804
001-164-604-5268
001-161-999-5222
210-165-631-5804
210-165-631-5804
210-165-631-5804
001-164-604-5226
280-199-824-5804
165-199-999-5449
001-164-603-5240
190-180-999-5240
190-181-999-5240
190-182-999-5240
190-184-999-5240
191-180-999-5240
193-180-999-5240
340-199-701-5240
190-185-999-5240
001-101-999-5267
001-130-999-5247
001-163-999-5220
001-100-999-5250
ITEM
AMOUNT
4O.00
21.00
20. 68
58.03
9.84
13.34
63.03
19.40
60.00
5.50
25.30
53.67
30.28
27.76
100.00
90.67
45.79
28.21
305.82
305.82
305.82
1,263.63
2,588.00
31.86
50.59
3,315.03
103.44
616.60
135.54
124.24
1,324.86
383.61
67.17
5,000.00
37.00
6.00
40.00
PAGE 5
CHECK
AMOUNT
501.60
79.40
30.80
111.71
100,00
1,082.13
1,263.63
2,588.00
6,152.94
5,000.00
37.00
46.00
53808 01/21/99 000271 ROBERT REIN, WM FROST & OCT SVS:UPDATE RDA EIR REPORT 165-199-999-5248 1,155.00
53808 01/21/99 000271 ROBERT REIN, WM FROST & OCT SVS:UPDATE RDA EIR REPORT 280-199-999-5248 1,155.00
VOUCHRE2
01/21/99
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
53808
53808
53809
53810
53811
53811
53811
53812
53812
53813
53814
53815
53816
53817
53817
53818
53818
53818
53818
53818
53818
53818
53818
53818
53818
53818
53818
53818
53818
53818
53818
53819
53819
53819
53819
53820
10:25
CHECK
DATE
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/~9
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
VENDOR
NUMBER
000271
000271
000873
003566
002743
002743
002743
001484
001484
002191
003500
003002
000519
000519
000537
000537
000537
000537
000537
000537
000537
000537
000537
000537
000537
000537
000537
000537
000537
000537
001212
001212
001212
001212
002891
VENDOR
NAME
ROBERT BEIN, WM FROST &
ROBERT BEIN, WM FROST &
ROBERTS, RONALD H.
ROGER PITKIN LANDSCAPE
SAFE & SECURE LOCKSMITH
SAFE & SECURE LOCKSMITH
SAFE & SECURE LOCKSMITH
SAHARA WATERPROOFING
SAHARA WATERPROOFING
SAN DIEGAN
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CITY 0
SIMON & SIMON CONSTRUCT
SMOOTHILL SPORTS DISTRI
SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR
SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOOTHERN CALIF GAS COMP
SOUTHERN CALIF GAS COMP
SOUTHERN CALIF GAS COMP
SOUTHERN CALIF GAS COMP
STUDENT WORKS PAINTING
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
NOV SVS:UPDATE RDA EIR REPORT
NOV SVS:UPDATE RDA EIR REPORT
REIMB:LEAGUE OF CA CF:1/5-8/99
CLEAN-UP SERVICES:RDA PROPERTY
LOCKSMITH SVCS:DUPLICATE KEYS
LOCKSMITH SVS-SIXTH STREET PRK
LOCKSMITH SVS-R.C.SPORTS PRK
EXTERIOR WINDOW SEAL-CITY HALL
RETENTION W/H INV 6860
COLOR FULL PAGE DISPLAY AD
REVENUE-MGMT-DEPT PROCEDURES
RESIDENTIAL IMPROV PRGM: RAMOS
SKATE PARK EQUIPMENT
PEST CNTRL SVS: CRC
PEST CTRL SERVICES: SR CTR
2-17-214-0428 MEADOWS PRKWY TC
2-06-105-0654 VARIOUS METER
2-17-038-0802 MARGARITA
2-10-331-1353 PAUBA RD
2-11-577-1966 VIA EDUARDO
2-10-331-2153 TCC
2-09-330-3030 WINCH RD TC1
2-09-330-3139 WINCH RD TC1
2-02-351-5281RANCHO VISTA
2-15-671-5518 PALA TC1
2-18-348-6315 MARGARITA TC1
2-01-202-7330 VARIOUS METERS
2-01-202-7603 VARIOUS METERS
2-10-901-7962 YUKON TC1
2-05-791-8807 VARIOUS METERS
69-77-678-0218-01SNTIAGO RD
021 725 0775 4 SR CTR
095 167 7907 2 PAUBA RD
101 525 0950 0 TCC
133 040 7373 0 CITY HALL
RESIDENTIAL IMPROV PRGM:SILVA
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
165-199-999-5248
280-199-999-5248
001-100-999-5258
165-199-999-5250
190-180-999-5212
190-180-999-5212
190-180-999-5212
340-199-701-5610
340-2035
001-111-999-5270
001-140-999-5228
165-199-813-5804
190-183-999-5305
190-182-999-5250
190-181-999-5250
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
190-180-999-5240
001-171-999-5240
190-199-999-5240
190-184-999-5240
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
190-182-999-5240
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
192-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
190-181-999-5240
001-171-999-5240
190-184-999-5240
340-199-701-5240
165-199-813-5804
ITEM
AMOUNT
1,125.00
1,125.00
101.54
100,00
7.49
61.65
104.79
5,000.00
500,00-
4,704.00
30.92
1,680.00
216.90
252.00
174.00
184.21
1,725.72
78.94
747.07
109.58
570.86
158.80
192.19
4,123.47
145.76
95.56
24,854.69
9,436.94
160.63
4,281.47
538.82
221.24
238.33
129.00
182.20
1,330.00
PAGE 6
CHECK
AMOUNT
4,560.00
101.54
100.00
173.93
4,500.00
4,704.00
30.92
1,680.00
216.90
426.00
47,404.71
770.77
1,330.00
53821 01/21/99 000574 SUPERTONER HP TONER SUPPLIES 320-199-999-5221 1,004.23
53821 01/21/99 ' 000574 SUPERTONER HP LASER SERVICE/REPAIRS 320-199-999-5215 65.00 1,069.23
VOUCHRE2
01/21/99
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
53822
53822
53822
53822
53822
53822
53822
53822
53822
53822
53822
53823
53824
53824
53824
53824
53824
53824
53824
53824
53824
53824
53825
53825
53825
53825
53825
53825
53825
53826
53826
53826
53826
53826
53826
53826
53826
53827
53827
53827
53827
53827
53828
53829
10:25
CHECK
DATE
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/9~
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
01/21/99
VENDOR
NUMBER
000307
000307
000307
000307
000307
000307
000307
000307
000307
000307
000307
'000515
001065
001065
001065
001065
001065
001065
001065
001065
001065
001065
000389
000389
000389
000389
000389
000389
000389
000325
000325
000325
000325
000325
000325
000325
000325
001342
001342
001342
001342
001342
000339
000345
VENDOR
NAME
TEMECULA TROPHY COHPANY
TEMECULA TROPHY COMPANY
TEMECULA TROPHY COMPANY
TEHECULA TROPHY COHPANY
TEMECULA TROPHY COHPANY
TEMECULA TROPHY COHPANY
TEMECULA TROPHY COHPANY
TEMECULA TROPHY COHPANY
TEMECULA TROPHY COHPANY
TEMECULA TROPHY COMPANY
TEMECULA TROPHY COMPANY
TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER
U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF. C
U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF. C
U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF, C
U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF, C
U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF. C
U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF, C
U S C H/PEBSCO (DEF, C
U S C H/PEBSCO (DEF. C
U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF. C
U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF, C
U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA)
U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA)
U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA)
U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA)
U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA)
U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA)
U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA)
UNITED WAY
UNITED WAY
UNITED WAY
UNITED WAY
UNITED gAY
UNITED gAY
UNITED WAY
UNITED WAY
WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY,
WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY,
WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY,
WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY,
WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY,
WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY
XEROX CORPORATION BILLI
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
PLAQUES/RIBBONS:SANTAS PARADE
SALES TAX
WALNUT GAVELS FOR NEW MAYOR
ENGRAVING OF PLATES FOR GAVELS
CITY SEAL ENGRAVED ON GAVELS
SALES TAX
PLAQUES FOR TEAM BLDG WRKSHP
WALNUT GAVEL FOR COUNCILMEMBER
ENGRAVING FOR GAVEL
CiTY SEAL ENGRAVED ON GAVELS
SALES TAX
CONSUMER MKTG SEM:1/26:WOLNICK
001065 DEF COMP
001065 DEF COMP
001065 DEF COMP
001065 DEF COMP
001065 DEF COMP
001065 DEF COMP
001065 DEF COMP
001065 DEF COMP
001065 DEF COMP
001065 DEF COMP
000389 PT RETIR
000389 PT RETIR
000389 PT RETIR
000389 PT RETIR
000389 PT RETIR
000389 PT RETIR
000389 PT RETIR
000325 UW
000325 UW
000325 UW
000325 UW
000325 UW
000325 UW
000325 UW
000325 UW
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES - CRC
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES - TCC
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES - VARIOUS
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES - CRC
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL
JUDICIAL UPDATES:CITY CLERKS
OCT/DEC BASE CHRG 2510 COPIER
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
190-183-999-5370
190-183-999-5370
001-100-999-5220
001-100-999-5220
001-100-999-5220
001-100-999-5220
190-180-999-5261
001-100-999-5220
001-100-999-5220
001-100-999-5220
001-100-999-5220
001-111-999-5270
001-2080
165-2080
190-2080
192-2080
193-2080
194-2080
280-2080
300-2080
320-2080
340-2080
001-2160
165-2160
190-2160
280-2160
320-2160
330-2160
340-2160
001-2120
165-2120
190-2120
280-2120
300-2120
320-2120
330-2120
340-2120
190-182-999-5212
190-184-999-5212
190-180-999-5212
190-182-999-5212
340-199-701-5212
001-120-999-5228
330-199-999-5239
ITEM
AMOUNT
575,62
44.61
43.90
5.88
8.00
4.48
55.0O
21.95
3.96
4.00
2.32
35.00
10,780.44
210.23
1,359.16
2.5O
33.18
25.00
85.23
83.34
640.62
158.34
497.82
171.46
610.36
53.64
18.14
91.18
81.86
235.91
3,75
19.00
1.25
.25
3.84
5.00
2.00
43.26
54.41
324.20
283.71
207.75
521.94
250.58
PAGE 7
CHECK
AMOUNT
769.72
35.00
13,378.04
1,524.46
271.00
913.33
521.94
250.58
TOTAL CHECKS 238,926.02
ZL'O6L°~'L
00'~g'966
~'EOE'~
Z~'LgO'L
ZZ'gLg'9~L
99'0Z~'££
~9'~ZL'9
~'LZ
L~'gL£
6~'~69°~
1NFIOHV
IVIOI
33IAB]S IB3O - VOB OgE
S3111113VJ
S33IAB35 laOdd~B OEE
BW]lSAB NOIIVW~OJNI
ONRJ ]3NV~SNI
dI3 - X3N]gV IN]NdO13A]O]~ Ogg
ONRd road IN]H]AOBdWI 1VlIdV3 OLZ
O l]A]l 33IAa35 QS31 ~6L
3 13A]l 33IA~35 0531 £6L
8 13A31 331AB35 0531 g6L
V 13A31 331AB35 0531 L6L
131BlSIQ S33IA~38 XIIN~HH03 06L
3OISV 135 OOW/~O1 -A3O VOa 59L
ON~ 1Ve3N39 LO0
]DVd
S031a]d llV
B]ISIO]B ND]H3/M3HOF)C)A
V1RD]W]l ~0 All3
60:£L
66/LO/gO
Z3BH3~OA
VOUCHRE2
02/01/99
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
53427
53428
53429
53429
53429
53429
53837
70448
70448
70448
70448
70448
70448
70448
70448
70448
70448
70448
70448
70448
70448
70448
70448
70448
70448
70448
70448
70448
70448
70448
70448
70523
70523
70523
70523
70523
70523
70523
70523
70523
70523
70523
70523
70523
70523
70523
13:09
CHECK
DATE
01/21/99
01/22/99
01/22/99
01/22/99
01/22/99
01/22/99
01/27/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
VENDOR
NUMBER
000418
001314
001343
001343
001343
001343
000283
000283
000283
000283
000283
000283
000283
000283
000283
000283
000283
000283
000283
000283
000283
000283
000283
000283
000283
000283
000283
000283
000283
000283
000444
000444
000444
000444
000444
000444
000444
000444
000444
000444
000444
000444
000444
000444
000444
VENDOR
NANE
RIVERSIDE CO. CLERK & R
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSN.
HOWE WELDING & FABRICAT
HOWE WELDING & FABRICAT
HOWE WELDING & FABRICAT
HOWE WELDING & FABRICAT
SCPLRC
INSTATAX (IRS)
INSTATAX (IRS)
INSTATAX (IRS)
INSTATAX (IRS)
INSTATAX (ZRS)
INSTATAX (ZRS)
INSTATAX (ZRS)
INSTATAX (ZRS)
INSTATAX (ZRS)
[NSTATAX (ZRS)
INSTATAX (IRS)
INSTATAX (IRS)
ZNSTATAX (IRS)
INSTATAX (ZRS)
INSTATAX (ZRS)
INSTATAX (ZRS)
INSTATAX (IRS)
INSTATAX (ZRS)
INSTATAX (ZRS)
[NSTATAX (ZRS)
[NSTATAX (ZRS)
INSTATAX (IRS)
INSTATAX (ZRS)
INSTATAX (ZRS)
[NSTATAX (EDD)
INSTATAX (EDD)
INSTATAX (EDD)
INSTATAX (EDD)
[NSTATAX (EDD)
INSTATAX (EDD)
INSTATAX (EDD)
INSTATAX (EDD)
INSTATAX (EDD)
INSTATAX (EDD)
INSTATAX (EDD)
INSTATAX (EDD)
INSTATAX (EDD)
ZNSTATAX (EDD)
ZNSTATAX (EDD)
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
DEVEL NOTICE OF SATISFACTION
APA CF:THORNHILL:1/23/99
STEEL FABRICATION:O.T.ARCHWAYS
C/O #1 STEEL FAB:O.T. ARCHWAYS
C/O #2 STEEL FAB:O.T. ARCHWAYS
CREDIT:PENDING PURCHASE ORDER
16TH ANNUAL CF:ADAMS:1/28/99
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 MED]CARE
000283 MEDICARE
000444 SDI
000444 SDI
000444 SDI
000444 SDI
000444 SDI
000444 SDI
000444 SDI
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
ACCOUNT
NUHBER
001-100-999-5250
001-161-999-5258
280-199-824-5804
280-199-824-5804
280-199-824-5804
280-199-824-5804
001-110-999-5258
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
001-2070
165-2070
190-2070
280-2070
320-2070
330-2070
340-2070
001-2070
165-2070
190-2070
191-2070
192-2070
193-2070
194-2070
280-2070
ITEM
AMOUNT
40.00
120.00
106,950.00
10,695.00
7,726.70
7,726.70'
65.00
17,676.50
439.47
3,417.39
8.70
22.03
294.10
122.64
154.10
39.92
620.10
167.11
515.16
4,564.79
132.16
969.21
2.43
6.19
76.23
33.61
55.56
24.17
133.74
64.02
130.23
33.18
3.26
40.70
.85
1.21
6.08
5.46
4,699.33
145.33
704.22
1.48
3.53
55.74
20.10
56.45
PAGE 1
CHECK
AMOUNT
40.00
120.00
117,645.00
65.00
29,669.56
VOUCHRE2
02/01/99
13:09
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
PAGE
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
70523
70523
70523
70523
71399
71399
71399
71399
71399
71399
71399
100002
53840
53840
53840
53841
53841
53841
53841
53842
53843
53843
53844
53845
53846
53847
53848
53849
CHECK
DATE
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/26/99
01/28/99
01/28/99
01/28/99
01/28/99
01/28/99
01/28/99
01/28/99
01/25/99
01/28/99
01/28/99
01/28/99
01/28/99
01/28/99
01/28/99
01/28/99
01/28/99
01/28/99
01/28/99
01/28/99
01/28/99
01/28/99
01/28/99
01/28/99
01/28/99
VENDOR
NUMBER
000444
000444
000444
000444
000444
000444
000444
000444
000444
000444
000444
003228
002410
002410
002410
003568
003568
003568
003568
000101
000101
002085
002381
O02377
000933
003578
VENDOR
NAME
INSTATAX (EDD)
[NSTATAX (EDD)
INSTATAX (EDD)
INSTATAX (EDD)
INSTATAX (EDD)
INSTATAX (EDD)
INSTATAX (EDD)
INSTATAX (EDD)
INSTATAX (EDD)
INSTATAX (EDD)
INSTATAX (EDD)
U S BANK TRUST NATIONAL
A WOMAN'S TOUCH BUILDIN
A 14C)MAN'S TOUCH BUILDIN
A WOMAN'S TOUCH BUILDIN
ADVANTAGE BUSINESS EQU]
ADVANTAGE BUSINESS EQUi
ADVANTAGE BUSINESS EQU!
ADVANTAGE BUSINESS EQU[
ALOHA JOES
APPLE ONE, INC.
APPLE ONE, INC.
BARNEY & BARNEY
BEAUDOIN, LINDA
BERGER, ~ALTER & HELGA
BEST BUY COMPANY, INC.
CALIF DEPT OF TRANSPORT
CALIFORNIA DEPOSITION R
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
4TH QTR 1998 UI & ETT TAX
4TH QTR 1998 UI & ETT TAX
4TH QTR 1998 UI & ETT TAX
4TH QTR 1998 UI & ETT TAX
4TH QTR 1998 UI & ETT TAX
4TH QTR 1998 UI & ETT TAX
4TH QTR 1998 UI & ETT TAX
RDA TAX ALLOCATION BONDS DEBT
JAN JANITORIAL SVCS:VAR. PARKS
JAN JANITORIAL SVCS:VAR. PARKS
JAN JANITORIAL SVCS:~IN.CRK PK
COMPUTERIZED CHECK SIGNER
DOT MATRIX & LASER PRINTER
TRADE-IN CREDIT FOR MARTIN
SALES TAX
REFD:OVRCHRGE PERMIT B98-2266
TEMP HELP W/E 12/05 WILLIAMS
TEMP HELP W/E 1/09 WILLIAMS
PROPERTY INS:CORTE CRISTINA
REIMB:PERMIT TECH EXAM FEES
REIMBURSE:FACADE IMPROVE.PRGM
COMPUTER LOAN PROGRAM:B.BAKER
INSPECTION FEES:PW97-06
CLAIMS SERVICES:ALDER
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
300-2070
320-2070
330-2070
340-2070
001-2350
165-2350
190-2350
280-2350
320-2350
330-2350
340-2350
380-1040
190-180-999-5250
001-164-603-5250
190-180-999-5250
001-140-999-5610
001-140-999-5610
001-140-999-5610
001-140-999-5610
001-2660
280-199-999-5118
280-199-999-5118
300-199-999-5204
001-161-999-5261
280-199-813-5804
001-1175
210-165-683-5804
300-1990
ITEM
AMOUNT
12.45
142.84
30.49
96.49
727.02
107.18
1,717.37
111.35
30.17
137.26
7'5.09
996,875.00
1,722.00
211.00
105.50
1,895.00
100.00
50.00'
154.61
107.51
328.95
167.70
163.00
85.00
5,000.00
2,000.00
25,900.00
196.90
CHECK
AMOUNT
6,059.19
2,903.44
996,875.00
2,038.50
2,099.61
107.51
496.65
163.00
85.00
5,000.00
2,000.00
25,900.00
196.90
53850
53850
53851
53852
53853
53853
53853
01/28/99
01/28/99
01/28/99
01/28/99
01/28/99
01/28/99
01/28/99
001159
001159
003349
002534
000137
000137
000137
CALIFORNIA DEPT OF JUST
CALIFORNIA DEPT OF JUST
CAROUSEL FARM & CARRIAG
CATERERS CAFE, THE
CHEVRON U S A INC.
CHEVRON U S A INC.
CHEVRON U S A INC.
PROCESSING FEE:EMPLEE PRINTS
PROCESSING FEE:EMPLEE PRINTS
TROLLEY SVC:O.T. HOLIDAY PROMO
REFRESHMENTS:TEAM BUILDING MTG
FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES
FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES
FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES
001-150-999-5250
190-180-999-5250
280-199-999-5362
001-161-999-5260
190-180-999-5263
001-170-999-5262
001-162-999-5263
42.00
126.00
2,942.50
119.60
69.07
3.99
7.69
168,00
2,942.50
119.60
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA
02/01/99 13:09 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
PAGE
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
53853 01/28/99 000137 CHEVRON U S A INC. FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 340-199-701-5263 27.09
53853 01/28/99 000137 CHEVRON U S A INC. FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 280-199-999-5262 14.67
122.51
53854 01/28/99 002058 CHRISTIAN YOUTH THEATER FY 98-99 CSF PROGRAM AWARD 001-I01-999-5267 2,500.00
2,500.00
53855 01/28/99 002329 COMPULINK MANAGEMENT CE COMPUTER SOFTWARE 320-199-999-5221 45.00
53855 01/28/99 002329 COMPULINK MANAGEMENT CE SALES TAX 320-199-999-5221 1.94
46.94
53856 01/28/99 DELUZ RANCHOS ASSOC REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900 100.00
100.00
53857 01/28/99 001673 DIVERSIFIED TEMPORARY S TEMP HELP W/E 1/10 M. SMITH 001-140-999-5118 69.66
53857 01/28/99 001673 DIVERSIFIED TEMPORARY S TEMP HELP W/E 1/17 M. SMITH 001-140-999-5118 348.30
417.96
53858 01/28/99 DIXIELINE BUILDERS FUND REFUND: OVERPAYMENT LD98-063C0 001-1990 250.00
250.00
53859 01/28/99 001924 DMG MAXIMUS
1ST PART CM RECRUITMENT FEES 001-110-999-5248 3,525.61
3,525.61
53860 01/28/99 DROTMAN, MICHAEL REFUND:ROOM RENTAL/SEC.DEPOSIT 190-2900 100.00
53860 01/28/99 DROTMAN, MICHAEL REFUND:ROOM RENTAL/SEC.DEPOSIT 190-183-4990 194.00
53861 01/28/99 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP (2)W/E 1/15 ~ILLIAMS 001-162-999-5118 533.61
53861 01/28/99 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP (2)~/E 1/15 ~iLLIAMS 001-161-999-5118 533.61
53861 01/28/99 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP (2)~/E 1/15 GORMAN 001-162-999-5118 1,235.99
53861 01/28/99 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP (2)W/E 1/15 MILES 001-163-999-5118 285.03
53861 01/28/99 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVlC TEMP HELP (2)g/E 1/15 MILES 001-165-999-5118 285.03
53861 01/28/99 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP (2)W/E 1/15 MILES 001-164-604-5118 285.04
53861 01/28/99 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP (2)W/E 1/15 YONKER 001-140-999-5118 1,122.54
53861 01/28/99 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP (2)~/E DEGANGE 001-161-999-5118 2,858.40
294.00
7,139.25
53862 01/28/99 000395 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CO EDC QTRLY MTG:WOLNICK:2/02/99 001-1990 22.50 22.50
53863 01/28/99 000164 ESGIL CORPORATION NOV PLAN CHECK SERVICES 001-162-999-5248 5,900.16
53863 01/28/99 000164 ESGIL CORPORATION NOV PLAN CHECK SERVICES 001-162-999-5248 86.96
5,987.12
53864 01/28/99 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE LDSC MAINT:NICOLAS PARK 190-180-999-5212 400.00
53864 01/28/99 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE LDSC MAINT:NICOLAS PARK 190-180-999-5212 73.00
53864 01/28/99 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE LDSC MAINT:SPORTS PARK 190-180-999-5415 960.00
53864 01/28/99 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE MAINT:CALLE TAHOE 193-180-999-5212 180.00
53864 01/28/99 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE MAINT:CALLE TAHOE 193-180-999-5212 75.00
53864 01/28/99 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE CITY HALL LANDSCAPE MAINT. 340-199-701-5212 380.00
2,070.00
53865 01/28/99 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-140'999'5230 17.25
53865 01/28/99 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-162-999-5230 65.25
53865 01/28/99 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-164-604-5230 16.00
98.50
53866 01/28/99 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER DEC:JO:5477-2592-2107-0902 001-150-999-5260 42.62
53866 01/28/99 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER DEC:JO:5477-2592-2107-0902 001-110-999-5228 129.14
53866 01/28/99 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER DEC:JO:54T7-2592-2107-0902 001-1990 180.88
53866 01/28/99 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER JAN:SJ:5477-2590-4249-5288 001-120-999-5258 8.27
53866 01/28/99 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER JAN:SJ:5477-2590-4249-5288 320-199-999-5211 269.64
53866 01/28/99 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER JAN:SJ:5477-2590-4249-5288 001-120-999-5260 215.56
VOUCHRE2
02/01/99 13:09
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER
53866 01/28/99 003347
53866 01/28/99 003347
53867 01/28/99
53868 01/28/99 003579
53869 01/28/99 000184
53869 01/28/99 000184
53869 01/28/99 000184
53869 01/28/99 000184
53870 01/28/99 003531
53871 01/28/99 000173
53871 01/28/99 000173
53871 01/28/99 000173
53872 01/28/99 000177
53872 01/28/99 000177
53872 01/28/99 000177
53873 01/28/99 001343
53874 01/28/99 000863
53875 01/28/99
53876 01/28/99 001429
53876 01/28/99 001429
53877 01/28/99
53878 01/28/99 002166
53879 01/28/99 000283
53880 01/28/99 003563
53881 01/28/99
53882 01/28/99
53883 01/28/99 003469
53884 01/28/99 002890
53885 01/28/99 001967
53886 01/28/99
VENDOR
NAME
FIRST BANKCARD CENTER
FIRST BANKCARD CENTER
FLORES, FELIPE
FUGGER JR. f TBOMAS F.
G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM
G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM
G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM
G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM
GATEWAY
GENERAL BINDING CORPORA
GENERAL BINDING CORPORA
GENERAL BINDING CORPORA
GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
HOWE WELDING & FABRICAT
IPMA
I P M A - SAN DIEGO
INACOM INFORMATION SYST
INACOM INFORMATION SYST
INDIAN CHILD & FAMILY
INGRAM ELECTRIC
INSTATAX (IRS)
JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS
JONES, VICKIE
KERESTES, TRACY
LABAHN, PETER A.
LOS ANGELES CELLULAR TE
MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV
MAYA~S MANUFACTURING
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
JAN:SJ:5477-2590-4249-5288
DEC:DU:5477-2592-2370-1405
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT
CLAIM SERVICES:CLARK/12-20-96
JAN:909-676-O783:GENERAL USAGE
JAN:909-676-6243:PALA COMM PRK
JAN:909-694-4354:PALA COMM PRK
JAN:909-695-3564:ALARM
COMPUTER LOAN PROGRAM:J.SMITH
DESKTOP LAMINATOR FOR COPY CTR
FREIGHT
SALES TAX
DEC:MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES
DEC:MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES
DEC:MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES
C/O #2 PAYMENT:O.T.ARCHWAYS
IPMA MEMBERSHIP:2/1/99-1/31/O0
ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP:G.YATES
NETWORK CLIENT SERVICES
NETWORK CLIENT SERVICES
CONTRIBUTION:MEMORY OF B.TODD
LOCATE PHONE CONDUIT:MUSEUM
MEDICARE TAX:3RD PRTY SICK PMT
REPAIR GENERATOR AT STATION 84
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT
REIMB:POST EXPLORER PRGM:1/23
JAN:CELLULAR PHONE SVCS:P.D.
TEMP HELP W/E 12/13 D~ALESSAND
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
001-120-999-5261
001-161-999-5260
190-183-4990
300-1990
320-199-999-5208
320-199-999-5208
320-199-999-5208
320-199-999-5208
001-1175
330-1940
330-1940
330-1940
001-110-999-5220
001-150-999-5220
001-150-999-5220
280-199-824-5804
001-150-999-5226
001-150-999-5226
320-199-999-5250
320-199-999-5250
001-101-999-5285
210-190-808-5804
001-164-604-5104
001-171-999-5215
190-2900
190-2900
001-170-999-5235
001-170-999-5208
001-150-999-5118
190-2900
ITEM
AMOUNT
56.24
62.01
100.00
514.00
49.60
28.53
31.21
55.39
1,824.22
1,096.72
20.00
86.55
336.32
103.24
125.77
7,726.70
265.00
20.00
272.94
843.74
50.00
2,200.00
7.01
311.22
100.00
100.00
215.19
96.22
107.20
100.00
PAGE 4
CHECK
AMOUNT
964.36
100.00
514.00
164.73
1,824.22
1,203.27
565.33
7,726.70
265.00
20.00
1,116.68
50.00
2,200.00
7.01
311.22
100.00
100.00
215.19
96.22
107.20
100.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA
02/01/99 13:09 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
PAGE
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
53887 01/28/99 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS CITY STATIONARY LETTERHEAD 001-140-999-5222
53887 01/28/99 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS CITY STATIONARY ENVELOPES 001-140-999-5222
53887 01/28/99 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS WINDOW STATIONARY ENVELOPES 001-140-999-5222
53887 01/28/99 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS SALES TAX 001-140-999-5222
53887 01/28/99 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS TEM POLICE PRINTED ENVELOPES 001-170-999-5222
53887 01/28/99 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS SALES TAX 001-170-999-5222
176.14
265.23
257.49
54.16
65.05
5.04
823.11
53888 01/28/99 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO FUEL FOR CITY-POLICE VEHICLES 190-180-999-5263
53888 01/28/99 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO FUEL FOR CITY-POLICE VEHICLES 001-170-999-5262
53888 01/28/99 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO UNAUTHORIZED USE OF CARD #2 001-170-999-5262
15.39
416.71
320.05-
112.05
53889 01/28/99 000437 MORELAND & ASSOCIATES 1997-98 AUDIT SERVICES (CITY) 001-140-999-5248
53889 01/28/99 000437 MORELAND & ASSOCIATES 1997-98 SINGLE AUDIT 001-140-999-5248
53889 01/28/99 000437 MORELAND & ASSOCIATES 1997-98 AUDIT SERVICES (RDA) 280-199-999-5248
1,167.75
230.00
230.00
1,627.75
53890 01/28/99 003044 MURRIETA HIGH SCHOOL MURRIETA H.S.CHOIR PERFORMANCE 280-199-999-5362
300.00
300.00
53891 01/28/99 000233 NELSON, SHAWN
REIMB:CHAMBER DINNER:FEB 27 001-110-999-5260
85.00
85.00
53892 01/28/99 002037 NEXUS INTEGRATED SOLUTI DIGITAL REMOTE UNIT - OFF SITE 320-1970
53892 01/28/99 002037 NEXUS INTEGRATED SOLUTI COMMUNICATION EQUIP:MAINT FAC 210-190-158-5804
53892 01/28/99 002037 NEXUS INTEGRATED SOLUTI LABOR 210-190-158-5804
53892 01/28/99 002037 NEXUS INTEGRATED SOLUTI TRIP CHARGE 210-190-158-5804
53892 01/28/99 002037 NEXUS INTEGRATED SOLUTI SALES TAX 210-190-158-5804
4,559.00
413.61
1,500.00
40.00
32.05
6,544.66
53893 01/28/99 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES - AT DISPLAY ADS: CIP PRJTS
53893 01/28/99 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES - AT DISPLAY ADS: OLD TWN HOLIDAY
001'165'999'5256
280-199-999'5362
172.22
1,544.54
1,716.76
53894 01/28/99 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
53894 01/28/99 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
001-164-601-5214
001-161-999-5214
620.31
27.95
648.26
53895 01/28/99 002344 OSVOLD, HEIDA
REIMB:TECHNICIAN EXAM FEES 001-161-999-5261
85.00
85.00
53896 01/28/99 001383 P H W ASSOCIATES, INC. LOW MOD/RDA CONSULTANT SVCS 165-199-999-5248
53896 01/28/99 001383 P M W ASSOCIATES, INC. LOW MOD/RDA CONSULTANT SVCS 165-199-999-5248
53896 01/28/99 001383 P M W ASSOCIATES, INC. RDA CONSULTANT SVCS 280-199-999-5248
53896 01/28/99 001383 P M W ASSOCIATES, INC. APR-DEC PROF CONSULTING SVS 001-110-999-5248
53896 01/28/99 001383 P M W ASSOCIATES, INC. APR-DEC PROF CONSULTING SVS 001-161-999-5248
53896 01/28/99 001383 P M W ASSOCIATES, INC. LOW MOD/RDA CONSULTANT SVCS 165-199-999-5248
53896 01/28/99 001383 P M W ASSOCIATES, INC. LOW MOD/RDA CONSULTANT SVCS 280-199-999-5248
53896 01/28/99 001383 P M W ASSOCIATES, INC. LOW MOD/RDA CONSULTANT SVCS 280-199-999-5248
53896 01/28/99 001383 P M W ASSOCIATES, INC. LOW MOD/RDA CONSULTANT SVCS 165-199-999-5248
53896 01/28/99 001383 P M W ASSOCIATES, INC. LOW MOD/RDA CONSULTANT SVCS 165-199-999-5248
3,497.85
2,331.90
3,658.35
625.00
354.69
3,170.25
3,107.35
1,490.78
2,542.47
518.07
21,296.71
53897 01/28/99 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER DEC 9-JAN 8 CELLULAR PHONE SVS 001-140-999-5208
53897 01/28/99 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER DEC 9-JAN 8 CELLULAR PHONE SVS 280-199-999-5208
53897 01/28/99 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER DEC 9-JAN 8 CELLULAR PHONE SVS 190-180-999-5208
53897 01/28/99 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER DEC 9-JAN 8 CELLULAR PHONE SVS 001-163-999-5208
53897 01/28/99 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER DEC 9-JAN 8 CELLULAR PHONE SVS 001-164-601-5208
53897 01/28/99 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER DEC 9-JAN 8 CELLULAR PHONE SVS 001-164-604-5208
53897 01/28/99 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER DEC 9-JAN 8 CELLULAR PHONE SVS 001-165-999-5208
56.17
55.68
438.64
231.42
109.09
179.30
109.25
O0'5B['[
00'5B£'[
BL 'Z
[6'
9B'L
97'
Z6'
7B'
L5'L
50'
LB'~L
.ZB' I,
.ZB'TZ
~9' c~
LB'~
LO'
09'~9L
6~' 069
~g'O[L
~' LO~
[~'~6L
90' ~09
96 ' [[
g~'~L
~6'~6'[
~' ~69
70BS-LOg-59L-OL2
5L-!/'3'~:SAS lV3INH331039 AON
3NI 'IV3INH3]IO3D Val3d B6~ZO0
66/g2/LO Z0615
06[g-07£ aOAIA~nS 9~ZO00 9all]a ,S3]XOldH]) Sa]d 9~gO00 66/BZ/LO 006[5
06[~-0[[ aOAIA~RS 9~ZO00 9BI130 ,S33AO]dN3) S~gd 9~gO00 66/BZ/LO 006[5
06[2-02[ BOAlAWnS 9~ZO00 38113B ,S93AOldH3) S~3d 972000 66/BZ/LO 006[5
06£2-00[ BOAZA~RS 972000 ]~II]B ,S3]AOldH3) S~gd 972000 66/BZ/LO 006[5
06[g-Og2 ~OAZA~RS 972000 9~113~ ,S93AOldH]) S~3d 9~gO00 66/BZ/LO 006[5
06[Z-76L ~OAIA~RS 9~gO00 3~I19~ ,S]]AO~dH]) S~gd 9~gO00 66/gZ/LO 006[5
06[Z-[6L ~OAIA~nS 9~gO00 3~I13~ ,S3]AO]dH3) Sagd 9~ZO00 66/9g/LO 006£5
06[Z-Z6L ~OAIA~nS 9~gO00 3~]19~ ,S93AOldH]) S~gd 9~gO00 66/gg/iO
06[Z-L6L ~OAIA~RS 9~ZO00 3BI~9~ ~S]3AO~dN3) S~3d 9~gO00 66/9Z/LO 006[~
06£Z-O6L ~OAIA~nS 9~gO00 ]~ll3~ ~S33AO]dN3) S~gd 9~gO00 66/9Z/LO 006£5
06[Z-S9& BOAIA~RS 9~ZO00 9BIl3~ ,S]]AO~dN3) S~]d 9~gO00 66/gg/LO 006[5
06[Z-LO0 BOAlAiRS 9~gO00 3~I19~ ,S]gXO~dH3) S~]d 9~ZO00 66/gZ/LO 006[5
O[LZ-~6L ]~d-Sa]d 97Z000 3aIlgB ,S93AO~dH3) Sa]d 97Z000 66/B2/LO 006[5
O[Lg'[6L aSd-Sa]d 9~ZO00 ]aI~]a ~SaaAOldH3) Saad 9~gO00 66/gg/LO 006£5
O[LZ-g6L ]ad-Sa3d 9~gO00 ]al~]a #Sa3AO~dN3) Saad 9~ZO00 66/8g/LO
O[Lg-LO0 3Bd-Sa]d 9~gO00 301~30 ,SaaAO~dN]) Sa3d 9~ZO00 66/gg/LO
06[g-OZ[ 13~ Sa3d 9~ZO00 ]~IlaB ,S33AOldH3) Sa3d 9~gO00 66/gg/LO 006[5
06[Z-00£ l]~ S~gd 9~2000 ]~I19B ,S99AO3dN]) S~]d 9~gO00 66/BZ/LO
06[2-092 lg~ S~]d 9~000 ]~ll3~ ,S99AOldH3) S~]d 9~2000 66/BZ/LO
0612-~6L 19B S~gd 972000 ]~llgB ,S3]AO~dH3) S~gd 972000 66/BZ/LO 006[5
06[Z-[6L 19~ S~]d 97~000 3~IlgB ,S9]XO~dH]) S~gd 972000 66/BZ/LO 006[5
06[Z-Z6L 19B S~gd 9~gO00 9BII]~ ,S]gAO~dH3) S~3d 9~gO00 66/BZ/LO
06[2-L6L 13B S~3d 972000 3BI1]B ,S3]AO~dN3) S~3d 972000 66/BZ/LO
06£Z-O6L 13B S~3d 9~gO00 ]~ll]B ,S3]AO~dH]) S~]d 972000 66/BZ/LO 006[5
06[Z-59L 1]~ S~]d 9~ZO00 3~llgB ,S]3AO~dNg) S~gd 9~ZO00 66/9Z/LO 006£5
0612-L00 13~ S~gd 9~ZO00 3~I13~ ,Sg]XOgdNg) S~3d 9~gO00 66/gZ/tO 006[5
O[LZ-LO0 S~gd llH 9~2000 9~I13B ,S33AO~dN]) S~gd 9~gO00 66/BZ/LO
O0'SL
O0'5t
9509-66L-LO0 33d NOllVdRO30 9HOH :aNRJgB NIdV3SONV] SNOS ~ 3aOVd
66/gZ/LO 66g[5
00'095
00'06
00'002
O0'OgL
O0'OZL
ZLZS-666-ZBL-O6L
ZLZS-666-OgL-O6L
ZLZS-666-ZgL-O6L
ZLZS-666-ZgL-O6L
SBIVd3B 39VHVO:~VNOI~IQOV 383
9NI~]nV3 INIOr 099VNVO
~30B 3Allvao390 ]lVlSNl-ga
DNIN330 lOOd O]DVHVO B~B
II3RBISN03 IS3M 3Idl3Vd Og~[O0
II3nBISN03 ISgM 31~13Vd 087£00
!I3RBISN03 1S3M 31~I3Vd 09~[00
I13RBISN03 1S3M 3I~I3Vd OB)EO0
66/BZ/LO 969[5
66/BZ/LO 969[5
66/BZ/LO g6B[5
66/Bg/LO B6B[5
LS'ZB~'Z
OL'ZB
-6£'~
50'~
9B'EgL
97'£9
Lg'O~L
65'~9
ZB'OLL
50'905
066L-LO0
BOZg'666-66L-O2[
gO25'666-OO&-LO0
BOZS-666-OOL-LO0
066L'LO0
BOg5'666-66L'OZ[
BOZS-666'OZL'LO0
BOg5-666-LgL-LO0
BOZS-666-Z9L'LO0
AllOgB~O3NI a3IlddV SVM 110383
SAS ]NOHd ~VlRl193 B NVR-6
SAS ]NOHd ~Vl~ll]3 g NVr-6 390
SAS ]NOHd ~VlRll]3 g NVr-6 330
SAS 9NOHd BVIRl133 B NVP-6 330
SAS 9NOHd ~Vlnl133 B NVP-6 330
SAS ]NOHd aV1~ll]3 B NVP-6 390
SAS 3NOHd ~V~Rl~33 B NVR-6 390
SAS 3NOHd BV~R~33 B NVR-6 330
SAS 9NOHd ~VlR~33 B NVR-6 33Q
B3S ]liBOH ll3B 31JI3Vd LZO[O0
B]S 3IlBOW 19]B 31Jl3Vd LZO[O0
a3S 3liBOH llgB 31Jl3Vd LZO[O0
~]S ]IIBOH ll]B 31JI3Vd LZO[O0
B]S 911BOH 913B 31Jl3Vd LZOEO0
B3S 311BOW ll3B 3I&I3Vd LgO£O0
B3S 31IBOW llBB 3UI3Vd LZOEO0
BgS 911BOW llgB 3UI3Vd LgO[O0
B3S 3lIBON ll~B 31~I3Vd
BgS 911BOW llgB 3I~I3Vd LZO£O0
66/B2/LO L6gE5
66/BZ/LO Z6B[5
66/9Z/LO L6BE5
66/Bg/LO L6BE5
66/BZ/LO Z6BE5
66/9Z/LO Z6g£5
66/gZ/LO Z6915
66/BZ/LO Z6BE5
66/Bg/L0 Z6BE5
66/BZ/LO Z6B[5
INROWV
~33H3
INRONV
W]lI
INRO33V
NOIldI~3S3O
WglI
]HVN B]BNRN
~OON]A BOONgA
31VO B3BW~N
)33H3 )33H3
/a3H3ROA
99Vd
SOOI~]d llV BO~
BBISIO3B )3]H3/B]H3ROA
vln39wgl ~0 AII3
60:EL 66/LO/ZO
Z]aH3ROA
VOUCHRE2
02/01/99
13:09
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER
53903 01/28/99 000580
53903 01/28/99 000580
53903 01/28/99 000580
53904 01/28/99 000254
53904 01/28/99 000254
53905 01/28/99 002776
53906 01/28/99 002880
53907 01/28/99 000635
53908 01/28/99 000728
53909 01/28/99 000947
53910 01/28/99 000262
53910 01/28/99 000262
53910 01/28/99 000262
53910 01/28/99 000262
53910 01/28/99 000262
53910 01/28/99 000262
53910 01/28/99 000262
53911 01/28/99 001241
53912 01/28/99
53913 01/28/99 000418
53914 01/28/99 000678
53915 01/28/99 002743
53916 01/28/99 000278
53917 01/28/99
53918 01/28/99 000645
53919 01/28/99 000519
53920 01/28/99 000537
53920 01/28/99 000537
53920 01/28/99 000537
53920 01/28/99 000537
53920 01/28/99 000537
53920 01/28/99 000537
53921 01/28/99 002366
VENDOR
NAME
PHOTO WORKS
PHOTO WORKS
PHOTO WORKS
PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN
PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN
PRIME MATRIX, INC.
PRO-CRAFT SASH & SUPPLY
R & J PARTY PALACE
RAMSEY BACKFLOW & PLUMB
RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER
REED, JIM
REH, ALFRED
RIVERSIDE CO. CLERK & R
RIVERSIDE CO. HEALTH-VC
SAFE & SECURE LOCKSMITH
SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE
SCATLIFFE, MARlAN
SMART & FINAL, INC.
SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET C
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
FILM & PHOTO DEVELOPING
FILM & PHOTO DEVELOPING
FILM & PHOTO DEVELOPING
PUBL]C NOTICE: PW97-15
PUBLIC NOTICE: 26553-1
SC-5001339-0 KL
RESIDENTIAL IMPRO PRM:DEVEREUX
RENTAL OF TENTS/STAGE OLD TWN
REPAIR BACKFLOW DEVICES:PARKS
BLUEPRINTS AND M[SC SUPPLIES
01-17-80000-1 VIA EDUARDO
VARIOUS WATER METERS
VARIOUS WATER METERS
VARIOUS WATER METERS
VARIOUS WATER METERS
VARIOUS WATER METERS
VARIOUS WATER METERS
EMPLOYEE COMPUTER PURCHASE PRM
PARTIAL REFD:CITY PK TAX 98/99
APERTURE CARDS DUPLICATES
OCT-DEC VECTOR CONTROL SERVICE
LOCKSMITH SERVICES - CITY HALL
RECRUITMNT ADS:PLANNER/ENGINEE
REFUND: COOKING-WHATS COOKING
SET-UP SUPPLIES FOR MEETINGS
ADDITIONAL PEST CNTRL:RVRTN PK
2-18-363-1902 PAUBA TC1
2-13-079-Z3TT HGHWY 79 TC1
2-00-397-5059 VARIOUS METERS
2-02-351-6800 VARIOUS NETERS
2-18-3T3-9903 MARGARITA
66-77-795-0166-01 MORENO RD
CARPET CLEANING:SR CENTER
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
001'161'999'5220
001'111'999'5270
190'180-999-5301
001'120-999-5256
001-120'999'5256
001'100-999-5208
165-199'813'5804
280'199'999-5362
193'180-999-5212
190-180-999-5268
001-164'601-5250
190-180-999-5240
191-180-999'5240
193-180-999'5240
190'180'999'5240
191-180'999-5240
193-180'999-5240
001-1175
190-180-999-5375
001-163-999-5220
001-172-999-5453
340-199-701-5212
001-150-999-5254
190-183-4982
001-150-999-5260
190-180-999-5212
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
190-180-999-5240
191-180-999-5240
190-180-999-5240
001-164-603-5319
190-181-999-5212
ITEM
AMOUNT
9.44
105.60
21,72
35.25
22.31
53.96
750.00
1,925.00
1,376.00
40.38
27.46
959.26
12.03
2,849.91
674.27
76.28
2,000.00
6.00
402.47
208.18
532.89
6.00
132.84
68.00
73.97
160.32
5,148,35
27.22
978.27
186.57
85.00
PAGE 7
CHECK
AMOUNT
136.76
57.56
53.96
750.00
1,925.00
1,376.00
40.38
5,372.00
2,000.00
68.44
6.00
402.47
208.18
532.89
6.00
132.84
68.00
6,574.70
VOUCHRE2
02/01/99 13:09
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER
53921 01/28/99 002366
53922 01/28/99 000521
53923 01/28/99
53924 01/28/99 000305
53925 01/28/99 000307
53925 01/28/99 000307
53926 01/28/99 000515
53926 01/28/99 000515
53927 01/28/99 001687
53928 01/28/99 002111
53929 01/28/99 001483
53930 01/28/99 000332
53931 01/28/99
53932 01/28/99 002092
53933 01/28/99 000345
53933 01/28/99 000345
53933 01/28/99 000345
53934 01/28/99 000348
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIOOS
VENDOR
NAME
STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET C
STEWART, BRUCE M.
SUMBERA, BONNIE
TARGET STORE
TEMECULA TROPHY COMPANY
TEMECULA TROPHY COMPANY
TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER
TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
CARPET CLEANING:CITY HALL
DEC-JAN STREET ADDRESSING SVCS
REFUND: DYNAMIC KiDS
SUPPLIES FOR RECREATION PRGMS
4TH OF JULY PLAQUES:GOOD NEIGH
EMPLOYEE OF THE QTR PLAQUE
CHAM DINNER:O'GRADY-THORNHZLL
CHAM DZNNER:O'GRADY-THORNHILL
TEMECULA VALLEY PONY/CO 98/99 COMM SERV FUNDING PRGM
TOGO~S
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATE
WILMORE, TRACI
WINTER GRAPHICS SOUTH
XEROX CORPORATION BILLI
XEROX CORPORATION BILLI
XEROX CORPORATION BILL1
ZIGLER, GAIL
REFRESHMENTS FOR COUNCIL MTGS
DEC PROF SVS:REGIONAL CENTER
PLAN CHECK SERVICES
REFD: CRC MULTIPURPOSE ROOM
AD DESIGN: TEM ROD RUN
FAX TONER FOR PLANNING & C.M.
FAX DRUM FOR PLANNING & C.M.
SALES TAX
REIMB:BDGT WKSHP REFRESHMENTS
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
340-199-701-5212
001-162-999-5250
190-183-4982
190-184-999-5301
190-183-999-5370
001-150-999-5265
001-161-999-5260
001-110-999-5260
001-101-999-5267
001-100-999-5260
001-2620
001-162-999-5248
190-183-999-5330
001-111-999-5270
330-199-999-5220
330-199-999-5220
330-199-999-5220
190-180-999-5260
ITEM
AMOUNT
1,500.00
1,012.50
38.00
22.47
5.39
106.12
85.00
85.00
2,500.00
90.29
792.00
1,6/,1.04
135.00
230.00
282.00
39.68
316.81
PAGE 8
CHECK
AMOUNT
1,585.00
1,012.50
38.00
22.47
111.51
170.00
2,500.00
90.29
792.00
1,641.04
135.00
75.42
551.68
316.81
TOTAL CHECKS 1,335,190.17
VOUCHRE2
02/01/99
15:53
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
PAGE
FUND TITLE
001 GENERAL FUND
190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND
280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP
AMOUNT
687,077.86
26,727.27
8,657.50
47,057.86
161,360.77
TOTAL 930,881.26
VOUCHRE2
02/01/99
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
53935
53935
53935
53935
53939
53940
53941
53942
53943
53943
53944
53945
53945
53945
53945
53945
53945
53945
53945
53945
53945
53945
53945
53945
53945
53945
53945
53945
53945
53945
53945
53945
53945
53945
53946
53946
53946
53947
53947
53947
53947
15:53
CHECK
DATE
02/01/99
02/01/99
02/01/99
02/01/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/-99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
VENDOR
NUMBER
003577
003577
003577
003577
001916
001056
000711
003515
000820
000820
003463
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000406
000271
000271
000271
003473
003473
003473
003473
VENDOR
NAME
CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD
CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD
CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD
CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD
ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIAT
EXCEL LANDSCAPE
GRAPHICS UNLIMITED LITH
H C I, INC.
K R W & ASSOCIATES
K R W & ASSOCIATES
LARRY DONALD MASONRY
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF~S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFPS
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S
RIVERSIDE CO. SBERIFF'S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF~S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S
RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S
ROBERT BEIN, WM FROST &
ROBERT BEIN, WM FROST &
ROBERT BEIN, ~ FROST &
SHADE STRUCTURES
SHADE STRUCTURES
SHADE STRUCTURES
SHADE STRUCTURES
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
1998 SALES TAX REMITTANCE
1998 SALES TAX REMITTANCE
1998 SALES TAX REMITTANCE
1998 SALES TAX REMITTANCE
190-2135
001-2135
280-2135
190-180-999-5212
NOV PROF SVCS:RANCHO CA/I-15 210-165-601-5801
LDSC MAINT:TRADEWIND SLOPES 193-180-999-5212
PRINTING SVCS:TCSD W/S CATALOG 190-180-999-5222
ELECTRICAL SVCS:DUCK POND
210-190-143-5804
CREDIT:WORKERS COMP:INV~99.01 001-1182
PLAN CHECK CONSULTANT 001-163-999-5248
CONTRACTOR SVCS:O.T.ARCHWAYS 280-199-824-5804
LAW ENFORCEMENT: OCT 22-NOV 18 001-170-999-5288
LAW ENFORCEMENT: OCT 22-NOV 18 001-170-999-5299
LAW ENFORCEMENT: OCT 22-NOV 18 001-170-999-5298
LAW ENFORCEMENT: OCT 22-NOV 18 001-170-999-5294
LAW ENFORCEMENT: OCT 22-NOV 18 001-170-999-5289
LAW ENFORCEMENT: OCT 22-NOV 18 001-170-999-5291
LAW ENFORCEMENT: OCT 22-NOV 18 001-1230
LAW ENFORCEMENT: OCT 22-NOV 18
LAW ENFORCEMENT: OCT 22-NOV 18
LAW ENFORCEMENT: OCT 22-NOV 18
LAW ENFORCEMENT: OCT 22-NOV 18
LAW ENFORCEMENT:NOV 19-DEC 16
LAW ENFORCEMENT:NOV 19-DEC 16
LAW ENFORCEMENT:NOV 19-DEC 16
LAW ENFORCEMENT:NOV 19-DEC 16
LAW ENFORCEMENT:NOV 19-DEC 16
LAW ENFORCEMENT:NOV 19-DEC 16
LAW ENFORCEMENT:NOV 19-DEC 16
LAW ENFORCEMENT:NOV 19-DEC 16
LAW ENFORCEMENT:NOV 19-DEC 16
LAW ENFORCEMENT:NOV 19-DEC 16
CREDIT:OVRCHRGED FOR K.GARWOOD
CR~DIT:OVRCHRGED FOR K.GARWOOD
001-170-999-5281
001-170-999-5282
001-170-999-5262
001-170-999-5279
001-170-999-5288
001-170-999-5299
001-170-999-5298
001-170-999-5294
001-170-999-5289
001-170-999-5291
001-1230
001-170-999-5281
001-170-999-5262
001-170-999-5279
001-170-999-5281
001-199-4062
OCT SVS:SANTA GERTRUDIS TRAIL
OCT SVS:SANTA GERTRUDIS TRAIL
NOV SVS:SANTA GERTRUDIS TRAIL
210-190-147-5802
210-190-147-5802
210-190-147-5802
SHADE PROTECTION SYSTEM:RC SPT
INSTALLATION
FREIGHT
SALES TAX
190-180-999-5416
190-180-999-5416
190-180-999-5416
190-180-999-5416
ITEM
AMOUNT
48.00
7.92
2.52
266.56
15,644.20
8,657.50
17,519.55
13,330.00
96.32-
6,685.00
68,000.00
196,580.16
37,907.80
38,502.40
9,721.60
24,412.80
7,336.80
7,336.80
23,718.40
1,094.92
19,032.01
6,312.72
198 294.7/
38 559.96
38 502.40
9 726.40
24 412.80
3 586.88
3.586.88
23.242.39
18.880.71
6606.31
6254.96-
72 932.24-
4,300.00
3,035.89
10,747.77
6,815.00
1,250.00
300.00
528.16
PAGE 1
CHECK
AMOUNT
325.00
15,644.20
8,657.50
17,519.55
13,330.00
6,588.68
68,000.00
658,168.71
18,083.66
8,893.16
VOUCHRE2
02/01/99
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
53948
53949
53949
53950
53950
53950
15:53
CHECK
DATE
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
02/09/99
VENDOR
NUMBER
003331
003261
003261
000332
000332
000332
VENDOR
NAME
UNION BNK OF CA FBO:VLL
VALLEY CREST LANDSCAPE,
VALLEY CREST LANDSCAPE,
VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATE
VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATE
VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
REL RETENTION TO ESCROW ACCT
DEC PRGSS:OLD TWN STREETSCAPE
RETENTION W/H INV 440611
DEC PLAN CHECK SERVICES
PLAN CHECK SERVICES
PLAN CHECK SERVICES
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
280-1035
280-199-824-5804
280-2035
001-162-999-5248
001-162-999-5248
001-162-999-5248
ITEM
AMOUNT
4,667.91
93,358.25
4,667.91-
5,683.98
11,601.89
5,026.68
PAGE 2
CHECK
AMOUNT
4,667.91
88,690.34
22,312.55
TOTAL CHECKS 930,881.26
ITEM 4
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE~
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Genie Roberts, Director of Finance ~2'~
February 9, 1999
City Treasurer's Report as of December 31, 1998
PREPARED BY:
Tim McDermott, Assistant Finance Director
Jesse Diaz, Accountant
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of
December 31, 1998.
DISCUSSION: Reports to the City Council regarding the City's investment portfolio and
receipts, disbursements and fund balance are required by Government Code Sections 53646
and 41004 respectively. The City's investment portfolio is in compliance with Government
Code Sections 53601 and 53635 as of December 31, 1998.
FISCAL IMPACT:
ATTACHMENTS:
None
1. City Treasurer's Report as of December 31, 1998
2. Schedule of Assets, Liabilities, and Fund Equity as of December 31,
1998
3. Fund Equity Detail by Fund as of December 31, 1998
City of Temecula
City Treasurer's Report
As of December 31, 1998
Cash Activity for the Month of December
Cash and Investments as of December 1, 1998
Cash Receipts
Cash Disbursements
Cash and Investments as of December 31, 1998
54,408,235
3,249,159
(5,133,163)
52,524,231
Cash and Investments Portfolio:
Maturity/ Contractual/
Termination Market
Type of Investment Institution Yield Date Value
Petty Cash City Hall n/a $ 1,500 $
General Checking Union Bank n/a 254,742
Sweep Account Union Bank 4.050 % 194,532
(Ntoncy Market Account) (Highmark U.S. Treasury)
Benefit Demand Deposits Union Bank n/a 9,542
Local Agency Investment Fund State Treasurer 5,374 % 39,609,053
Certificate of Deposit Community Bank 5.000 % 369,310
(Retention Escrow)
Savings Account Grossmont Bank 4.950 % 140,203
(Retention Escrow)
Savings Account Union Bank 4.880 % 174,334
(Retention Escrow)
Checking Account Union Bank n/a 6,074
(Parking Citations)
Trust Accounts- CFD 88-12 U.S. Bank (First Am. Treasury) 4.292 % 3,087,531
(kloney Market Account)
Reserve Account- CFD 88-12 CDC Funding Corp 5.430 % 9/1/2017 1,531,469
(Investment Agreement)
Delinq. Main. Reserve Account - CFD 88-12 CDC Funding Corp 5.423 % 9/1/2017 500,000
(Investment Agreement)
Trust Accounts- CFD 98-1 U.S. Bank (First Am. Treasury) 4.292 % 1,045,570
(Money Market Account)
Trust Accounts - Measure A U.S. Bank (First Am. Treasury) 4.292 % 219,888
(Money Market Account)
Trust Accounts-TCSD COPs U.S. Bank (First Am. Treasury) 4.292 % 17,649
(Money Market Account)
Reserve Account-TCSD COPs Bayerische Landesbank 6.870 % 10/1/2012 502,690
(Investment Agreement)
Trust Accounts-RDA Bonds U.S. Bank (First Am. Treasury) 4.292 % 3,411,224
(Money Market Account)
Reserve Account-RDA Bonds Bayerische Landesbank 7.400 % 2/1/2013 1,448,920
(Investment Agreement)
$
Par/Book
Balance
1,500
254,742 (1)
194,532
9,542 (1)
39,609,053 (2)
369,310
140,203
174,334
6,074
3,087,531
1,531,469
500,000
1,045,570
219,888
17,649
502,690
3,411,224
1,448,920
52,524,231
(1)-This amount is net of outstanding checks.
(2)-At December 31, 1998 total market value (including accrued interest) for the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) was $34,697,798,706.
The C ity's proportionate share of that value is $40,110,741.
All investments are liquid and currently available.
The City of Temecula's portfolio is in compliance with the investment policy. Adequate funds will be available to meet
budgeted and actual expenditures of the City of Temecula for the next six months.
City of Temecula
Schedule of Assets, Liabilities, and Fund Balances
As of December 31, 1998
city (1)
Assets:
Cash and investments $ 35,209,702
Receivables 5,353,557
Due from other funds 734,696
Land held for resale
Prepaid assets 84,045
Deposits 506,850
Fixed assets-net 816,600
Total assets $ 42,705,450
Community
Services
District
$ 1,062,832
465,791
139,479
$ 1,668,102
Redevelopment
Agency
9,878,316
1,165,796
377,368
2,220,245
13,641,725
Community
Facilities
Districts (2)
6,373,381
2,674
1,124,300
$ 7,500,355
Total
52,524,231
6,987,818
1,251,543
2,220,245
84,045
1,631,150
816,600
65,515,632
Liabilities and fund equity:
Liabilities:
Due to other funds $ 563,588
Other liabilities 6,178,902
139,479
1,308,681
377,368
1,594,653
171,108
3,200,267
1,251,543
12,282,503
Total liabilities 6,742,490 1,448,160 1,972,021 3,371,375 13,534,046
940,770
276,422
(997,250)
Fund equity:
Contributed capital 1,281,781
Retained earnings 964,501
Fund balances:
Reserved (3) 8,185,092
Designated (3) 22,029,506
Undesignated 3,502,080
Total fund equity 35,962,960 219,942
Total liabilities and fund equity
7,388,463
4,281,241
11,669,704
13,641,725
1,124,300
3,081,428
(76,748)
$ 42,705,450 $
4,128,980
$ 7,500,355
1,668,102
1,281,781
964,501
17,638,625
29,668,597
2,428,082
51,981,586
65,515,632
(1) Includes General Fund, CIP Fund, Gas Tax Fund, and other special revenue funds.
(2) Includes CFD 88-12 (Ynez Corridor) and CFD 98-1 (Winchester Hills).
(3) Reservations and designations of fund balance are detailed on the following pages.
City of Temecula
Fund Equity Detail by Fund
As of December 31, 1998
City Funds
General Fund
Gas Tax Fund
R.C. Reimb. Dist.
Dev. Impact
CDBG
AB 2766
Measure A
CIP
Margaxita Rd. Reimb.
Insurance
Vehicles
Info. Systems
Support Services
Facilities
Contributed
Capital
500,000
214,539
473,065
94,177
Retained
Earnings
902,799
34,933
(30,329)
13,488
43,610
Encumbrances
587,355
4,685,566
48,029
54,884
31,684
Reserved
Deposits
506,850
Long-Term
Receivables
1,740,124
CityTotal 1,281,781 964,501 5,407,518 506,850 1,740,124
Land Held
for Resale
530,600
Designated
Continuing
Appropriations
144,444 (1)
291,222
185,133
6,437,784
5,499
268,714
8,458,871
Economic
Uncertainty
6,237,839
Undesi[:nated
4,682,569
(1,107,381)
(73,108)
Total Fund
Equity
13,922,931
291,222
185,133
6,437,784
5,499
268,714
8,458,871
4,085,035
(73,108)
1,402,799
249,472
490,765
162,549
75,294
530,600 15,791,667 6,237,839 3,502,080 35,962,960
(1) The General Fund designation for cominuing appropriations represents the amount ofunspent prior year
appropriations eatmarked for future librmy funding
City of Temecula
Fund Equity Detail by Fund
As of December 31, 1998
Reserved
Designated
TCSD
TCSD
Service Level A
Service Level B
Service Level C
Service Level D
Service Level R
TCSD Debt Service
Encumbrances
284,407
7,767
145,906
Debt Service
502,690
Cominuing
Appropriations
250,036
9,987
Debt Service
16,399
Undesignated
(37,158)
(82,763)
(32,334)
(844,995)
TotalFund
EquRy
534,443
(29,391)
(82,763)
113,572
(844,995)
9,987
519,089
TCSD Total 438,080 502~690 260,023 16,399 (997,250) 219,942
~0L'699' I I
960'P99'~
6~£'191'1,
Al!nb~t
pun,,t
9L I '~ I ~'£ ~90'990' [ 0Z6'8t~1,' I
9LI'~I~'~ 0E6'8~t,'[
g90'990'I
aoFuaS lqa(/
suo!l~pdoaddV
~u!nu!~uoD
paleu~!saG
~o!AJ~S ;qaG
000'~9£'~
000'Z9£'E
~m. snoH
poIAUA~O7
~6£'I~L
LL~'ILE
8 [ 8'69t~
uu~,L ~uoq
paAJ~s~}I
£g0'£0I'~
£~0'£0I'~
al~s~H
~oa pith ptreq
~60'CEL
~99'0~L
s~trg~qtun~u~
Inoi VG~t
lq~G V(I'd
dID
PoIAU~cq
V~
366I 'I
punzt Kq l!tnaG Ai!nb~I punA
~lnoam~.L Jo
City of Temecula
Fund Equity Detail by Fund
As of December 3 I, 1998
CFDs
CFD 88-12 CIP
CFD 88-12 Debt Service
Winchester Hills 98-1
CFD 88-12 Admin Fund
CFD 98-1 Admin Fund
CFDs Total
Reserved
Encumbrances
Designated
Continuing
Deposits Appropriations Debt Semite
1,124,300 3,081,428
1,124,300
3,081,428
Undesignated
(71,248)
(5,500)
(76,748)
TotalFund
Equity
4,205,728
(71,248)
(5,500)
4,128,980
City of Temecula
Fund Equity Detail by Fund
As of December 31, 1998
Contributed Capital
Retained Earnings
Reserved
Encumbrances
Deposits
L-T Receivable
Debt Service
Land Held for Resale
Low/Mod Housing
Designated
Continuing Appropriations
Economic Uncer~inty
Debt Service
Undesignated
Total Fund Equity
c~
1,281,781
964,501
5,407,518
506,850
1,740, 124
530,600
15,791,667
6,237,839
3,502,080
35,962,960
TCSD
438,080
502,690
260,023
16,399
(997,250)
219,942
RDA
733,095
741,395
1,448,920
2,103,053
2,362,000
1,066,065
3,215,176
11,669,704
CFDs
1,124,300
3,081,428
(76,748)
4,128,980
Toml
1,281,781
964,501
6,578,693
1,631,150
2,481,519
1,951,610
2,633,653
2,362,000
20,199,183
6,237,839
3,231,575
2,428,082
51,981,586
ITEM 5
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
City Council
Shawn Nelson, Acting City Manager
February 9, 1999
SUBJECT:
City Delegation to Voorburg, The Netherlands
PREPARED BY: Allie Kuhns, Senior Management Analyst(:~,,
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve an official City delegation to travel to
Voorburg, The Netherlands in a joint trip with the Temecula Sister Cities Association.
BACKGROUND: Each year, both of the City's two sister cities (Nakayama, Japan, and
Voorburg, the Netherlands) send a delegation to visit Temecula. The most recent delegation from
Voorburg consisted of their Police Chief, an accountant, a bank manager, and a teacher from the
Sister School.
While in Temecula, the Voorburg group concentrated on gathering information from their
counterparts here in Temecula. From the City's perspective, this delegation resulted in a solid
exchange of information and processes between the Temecula Police Department and that in
Voorburg. The visit also set a precedence for the manner in which future exchanges should be
made, particularly in the work/information gathering aspect of the visit.
In April 1999, the Temecula Sister Cities Association is planning a visit to Voorburg to coincide with
the tulips blooming and the Queen's birthday celebration. The dates for the trip are from Saturday,
April 24th (arriving in Voorburg on Sunday evening) through Monday, May 3~d. Prior to this visit, the
Voorburg Police Department is sending a delegation of 5 police officers, including the Police Chief,
h
tO Temecula from April 7t through the 15th. Thus, the TSCA trip provides a perfect opportunity to
reciprocate the two recent Voorburg visits, as well as an opportunity for the Temecula Police
Department to further solidify and advance their newly established relationship with Voorburg.
At this point, the City delegation is proposed to consist of the Mayor, two Councilmembers, four
members of the Temecula Police Department, and two City Staff. The estimated cost per person
is $1,500, which covers all transportation and estimated three nights of hotel expenses (Note: While
in Voorburg, all members of the delegation will be placed in homes of Voorburg families). The four
police representatives will be funded out of the Police departmental budget, and the five remaining
members will be funded from the Sister Cities budget line item.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $7,500 will be identified in the Mid-Year Budget under
the Sister Cities budget line item 001-101-999-5280, and in the amount of $6,000 under the Police
Department budget line item 001-170-999-5261 to cover the expenses for this delegation.
ITEM 6
APPROVAL
iiTY ATTORNEY
RECTOR OF FINA
TY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
February 9, 1999
First Amendment to Acting City Manager Agreement
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the "First Amendment to the Employment
Agreement."
BACKGROUND: On December 16, 1998 the City Council approved an Employment
Agreement with Shawn Nelson to serve as Acting City Manager. The Agreement provided that Mr.
Nelson's salary would include the normal car allowance afforded senior management employees
of the City.
The City Manager is frequently called out to emergency incidents within the City to direct the
deployment of City resources. Such incidents often occur after normal working hours and during
adverse weather conditions. Since incorporation, the City Manager has been provided with a four
wheel drive vehicle to assist in responding to these incidents because of the many areas of the City
which are inaccessible and the adverse weather conditions which often cause the emergency
incidents. The City currently has such a vehicle which if not used by the City Manager would be
part of the City's motor pool. Therefore, the proposed amendment will eliminate the car allowance
and provide a vehicle for the City Manager. Salary will remain the same.
FISCAL IMPACT: None. The current terms of the Employment Agreement provide for the
payment of vehicle allowance as part of Employee's salary without regard to of the amount of use
for City business, although the vehicle allowance would be treated differently for income tax
purposes depending on the amount of mileage driven on City business. The City's four wheel drive
vehicle would be maintained as part of the City's motor pool whether or not assigned to the City
Manager.
ATTACHMENTS: A.
B.
First Amendment to Employment Agreement of Shawn Nelson
Employment Agreement of Shawn Nelson
Agenda Reports~cting City Manager 1
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is made
and entered into as of February 9, 1999 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal
corporation ("City"), and Shawn Nelson ("Employee"). In consideration of the mutual
promises set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. This First Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and
purposes, which each of the parties hereto agree to be true and correct:
a. On December 16, 1998 the City and Employee entered into that
certain agreement entitled "Employment Agreement" setting forth the terms and
conditions of Employee's employment with the City ("Employment Agreement").
b. City has determined that it is necessary for-Employee to. be
assigned the City's four wheel drive vehicle in order to be able to respond to
emergency incidents and direct City resources.
as follows:
Section 4.B. of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to read
"Employee' s duties require that he shall have the exclusive and unrestricted use
of a vehicle at all times during his employment with the City as Acting City
Manager. Therefore, while serving as Acting City Manager Employee shall be
provided with a City vehicle for his use and City shall be responsible for paying
all liability, property damage and comprehensive insurance and for the
purchase, operation, maintenance, repair and regular replacement of said
vehicle. Employee shall be allowed unrestricted personal and professional use of
said vehicle, except that employee shall not use the vehicle for personal
purposes outside of the City."
3. Except as specifically provided herein,
Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
///
all other terms of the
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment as
of the date first set forth above.
CITY OF TEMECULA
Attest:
Steven J. Ford
Mayor
Susan Jones, CMC
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Peter M. Thorson
City Attorney
EMPLOYEE
Shawn D. Nelson
Acting City Manager
990129 11086-00001 pmt 1480973 0
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
THIS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into
as of December 15, 1998, by and between the CITY OF TEMECULA, a California Municipal
Corporation ("City"), and SHAWN D. NELSON, an individual, ("Employee").
RECITALS
A. City desires to engage the services of Employee, and Employee desires to
accept employment as Deputy City Manager of the City of Temecula.
B. At the time of entering into this agreement, the office of City Manager for
City is vacant. City also desires to engage the services of Employee and Employee desires to
accept assignment to temporarily serve as acting City Manager.
C. The City Council desires to encourage the highest standards of fidelity and
public service on the part of Employee.
D. The Parties desire to provide a reasonable degree of employment security
during the term of this Agreement, while providing a just means for terminating Employee's
services, should cause exist.
E. The parties further desire to establish certain benefits and certain conditions
of Employee's employment.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter
contained the parties agree as follows:
981203 11086-00001 rac 1510611 0 1 '
1. Duties.
A. City agrees to employ Employee as Deputy City Manager of City
to perform the functions and duties specified in the City's classification specification for Deputy
City Manager and to perform such other legally permissible and proper duties and functions as
may be assigned from time to time. Employee shall not consult or engage in other non-City
connected business without the prior knowledge and express written approval of the City
Council.
B. Employee shall concurrently serve as acting City Manager from the
commencement of this Agreement until such time as City appoints a new City Manager and such
person assumes the duties of office or as otherwise determined by the City Council. As acting
City Manager, Employee shall perform the functions and duties of City Manager as specified
in the Temecula Municipal Code, the California Government Code and such other legally
permissible and proper duties and functions as the City Council may from time to time assign.
C. Employee shall report to the City Council which shall also serve
as appointing authority for Employee until a new City Manager assumes duty. Thereafter, the
City Manager shall serve as appointing authority and may designate appropriate reporting
relationships, subject to any limitations imposed by this Agreement.
2. Term. This Agreement is effective for a term of one (1) year commencing
January 4, 1999 and continuing through and including January 3, 2000, unless sooner terminated
as provided in this Agreement.
///
981203 11086-00001 rac 1510611 0
-2-
3. Termination and Resignation.
A. City Council may terminate this Agreement and Employee's
employment as Deputy City Manager at any time without notice for "cause" and Employee shall
be entitled to only the compensation accrued up to the date of termination. As used in this
section, "cause" shall mean any of the following:
(D
(2)
Conviction of any felony.
Conviction of a misdemeanor
arising directly out of
Employee's duties as either Deputy City Manager or acting City Manager, pursuant to this
Agreement.
(3) Willful abandonment of duties.
(4) A pattern of repeated, willful and intentional failure to carry
out materially significant and legally constituted policy decisions of the City Council made by
the City Council as a body.
(5) Any other action or inaction by Employee that materially
and substantially impedes or disrupts the performance of the City and its organizational
component units, is detrimental to employee or public safety, violates properly established rules
or procedures or adversely affects the reputation of the City, its officers or employees.
B. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere
with the right of Employee to resign at any time from his position with City, subject only to
Employee providing thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City.
///
///
981203 11086-00001 rac 1510611 0 ' 3 '
4. Salary_.
A. City agrees to pay Employee for the services required by this
Agreement a monthly base salary of Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars and no
cents ($8,250.00) and payable on the City's regular paydays.
B. The base salary includes the normal car allowance afforded senior
management employees of City or employees with duties similar to Employee. The car
allowance is intended to reimburse Employee for the use of his private vehicle for City business.
City shall not be obligated to provide Employee with a vehicle.
C. Employee shall receive the same general salary increases provided
to employees included in the Executive Management group. In the event City grants different
salary increase amounts to different classifications within the group, Employee shall receive at
least the overall average of the increases provided to all members of the Executive Management
shall receive such increases without the necessity of amending this
group. Employee
Agreement.
5.
Hours of Work. Employee's duties may involve expenditures of time in
excess of eight (8) hours per day, forty (40) hours per week, and may also include time outside
normal office hours such as attendance at City Council and other meetings. Employee shall be
exempt from paid overtime compensation.
6. Retirement and Insurance Benefits.
Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, Employee shall receive
such retirement, insurance and other fringe benefits as are provided in the benefits package for
employees in the Executive Management group.
981203 11086-00001 rac 1510611 0 - 4 -
7. Leave and Holidays.
A. Leave. Employee shall accrue Comprehensive Annual Leave at the
rate of 10.67 hours per pay period, which is equivalent to the level provided to employees with
ten (10) years seniority in the Executive Management group. Employee shall be eligible for
increases in the rate of accrual, if any, as if he entered service on January 4, 1999 with ten (10)
years of service. Employee's Comprehensive Annual Leave shall otherwise be subject to the
same terms, conditions, limitations and restrictions as apply to other members of the Executive
Management group. Employee's seniority shall be calculated according to normal methods for
all purposes except Comprehensive Annual Leave or any successor leave program. Employee
shall be eligible for such other leave as is provided to employees in the Executive Management
group, if any.
B. Holidays. Employee shall be entitled to such paid holidays as are
provided to employees in the Executive Management group and Employee's salary includes
holiday pay. Accordingly, Employee shall not be entitled to any additional salary or
compensation for working on a holiday.
8. Memberships. City agrees to pay Employee' s membership dues in the
International City Managers Association and Employee shall have a reasonable fight to attend
meetings of such Association and of the California League of Cities at City expense with prior
approval.
9. General Expenses. City recognizes that certain extraordinary expenses of
a non-personal and job affiliated nature may be incurred by Employee.. City agrees to reimburse
Employee for reasonable expenses which are submitted according to City's normal procedures
981203 11086-00001 rac 1510611 0 ' 5 '
or such other procedure as may be designated by the City Council and which are supported by
expense receipts, statements or personal affidavits, and an audit thereof in like manner as other
demands against the City. To be eligible for reimbursement, all expenses must be submitted by
the last day of the month following the month in which they are incurred.
10. Other Terms and Conditions of Employment. The City may, from time
to time, fix other terms and conditions of employment relating to the performance of Employee
provided such terms and conditions are not inconsistent with or in conflict with the provisions
of this Agreement, Temecula Municipal Code, or other applicable law.
11. Employment Status at Expiration of Agreement.
A. Continued Employment. At the expiration of this Agreement on
January 3, 2000, Employee may continue in uninterrupted employment with City as its Deputy
City Manager. The classification of Deputy City Manager shall be included in the Executive
Management group.
B. Terms of Continued Employment. Any employment of Employee
that extends beyond the term of this Agreement shall be governed by the Temecula Municipal
Code, City's Personnel Rules and all other applicable rules and regulations of City as they may
apply to Employee's classification. Specifically, and without limitation to other provisions,
Employee and the classification of Deputy City Manager shall be exempt from the competitive
service under Temecula Municipal Code § 2.60.040, Paragraph A. Further, as provided
Temecula Municipal Code § 2.60.040 Paragraph B, Employee shall serve at the will of the
appointing authority and may be discharged without cause or fight of appeal.
///
981203 11086-00001 tac 1510611 0 - 6 -
12. General Provisions.
A. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the
parties relating to the obligations and benefits of the parties described in this Agreement. All
prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or
written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party
is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon
each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material.
B. If Employee dies or becomes incapacitated during the term of this
Agreement, any accrued and unpaid wages provided by the terms of this Agreement shall be
paid by City first to Employee's spouse and, if Employee has no spouse, then to Employee's
children.
C. If any provision or portion hereof contained in this Agreement is
held to be unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable the remainder of this Agreement or portion
thereof shall be deemed severable and shall not be affected and shall remain in full force and
effect.
D. This Agreement shall be effective as of January 4, 1999.
981203 11086-00001 rac 1510611 0 - 7 -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement as of the
day and year f'wst above written.
CITY OF TEMECULA
BY: RCf~~~~~
Mayor
Attest:
S.u~C~._.nes, CMC
Approved As to Form:
Peter M. Thorson
City Attorney
EMPLOYEE
Shawn D. Nelson
981203 11086-00001 rac 1510611 0 - 8 -
ITEM 7
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City ManagedCity Council
Genie Roberts, Director of Finance~'~
February 9, 1999
Property Insurance Renewal
PREPARED BY: Gus Papagolos, Senior Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the City of Temecula Property Insurance Policy renewal with
Reliance Insurance Company and Royal/Agricultural and Frontier Insurance Company for the
period of February 26, 1999, through February 26, 2000, in the amount of $61,764.
DISCUSSION: The City's general property insurance policy with Reliance Insurance
Company and Pacific Insurance Company, Ltd./Agricultural Insurance expires on February 26,
1999. Based on the current market conditions, staff directed the City's property insurance broker,
Barney & Barney, to market the City's property insurance policy. In response to this request,
Barney & Barney validated the comprehensive inventory of all City buildings and property requiring
coverage, and obtained two qualified proposals for basic property insurance from the following
companies in the amounts listed below. Additionally, Barney & Barney has provided a proposal
for earthquake and flood insurance from Royal/Agricultural and Frontier Insurance Company:
INSURANCE CARRIER
BASE TOTAL
PREMIUM EARTHQUAKE PREMIUM
Reliance Insurance $24,764 $37,000 $61,764
Crum & Forster $35,851 $37,000 $72,851
Two additional insurance companies that provided bids were not considered nor recommended by
Barney & Barney because standard insurance limits were insufficient and or unacceptable to the
City. The total property insurance premium of $61,764 is a decrease of $12,619 from the previous
year's policy premium of $74,383. The premium in general property insurance decreased by $5,869
and the City's earthquake premium decreased by $6,750 (from $43,750 to $37,000) from the
previous policy year. The City will maintain earthquake coverage in the amount of $10 million based
on the total value of all City property having been assessed at $19.8 million, and the fact that total
losses are not likely to occur in the event of a major earthquake or flood.
Both carriers are admitted carriers in the State of California. This means that if any of these
carriers were to become insolvent, then the City would have the benefit of the California Guarantee
Fund to pay all covered claims made during the policy period. The City's risk is minimal in using
Reliance because in addition to being an admitted carrier it has a financial size category between
$50 and $100 million of reported capital surplus and conditional reserve funds. The attached
proposals summarize the premium and coverage provided by Reliance, and Royal/Agricultural and
Frontier Insurance Company. The City will receive the same overall coverage and deductibles as
were received in the prior year policy.
FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate revenues are available in the Insurance Internal Service Fund.
Attachments:
1. Reliance Proposal Summary
2. Earthquake Coverage to be provided
RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY PROPOSAL SUMMARY
TERM: February 26, 1999 - February 26, 2000
FORMAT: Occurrence
NAMED INSURED: City of Temecula
BLANKET PROPERTY COVERAGE
LOCATION BUILDING DEDUCTIBLE
ALL $19,882,564 $5,000 per
occurrence
ADDITIONAL COVERAGE INCLUDED:
COVERAGE
Accounts Receivable
Arson & Crime Reward
Claim Expense
Collapse - Direct
Debris Removal
Electric or Magnetic Injury
Extended Warranties
Antennas, including Satellite Dishes, Masts and
Towers
Blanket Coverage Limits
Broad Named Insured
Computer Virus
Detached Outdoor Signs
EDP
Extended Period Of Indemnity
Extended Water Damage
Fine Arts
Fire Department Services Charges
Foundation and Underground Pipes
LIABILITY LIMIT
$100,000
$25,000
$10,000
Included
25% plus $10,000
$25,000
$25,000
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
1 Year
Included
Included
Included
$250,000
ADDITIONAL COVERAGE INCLUDED (CONTINUED)
COVERAGE
Incompatibility of Software
In-ground Sprinklers
Lessor's Master Key
Lessor's Tenant Move Back Expenses
Lessor's Loss of Leases
Newly Acquired Property, including BI/EE, (180
days)
Outdoor Plants
Portable Office Property- Worldwide ($500
Deductible)
Recharging
Temporary Locations
Transit
Unnamed Locations
No Coinsurance Clause
Ordinance or Law
Personal Effects
Pollution Cleanup
Valuable Papers
Employee Dishonesty
Money & Security (in & out)
Forgery or Alteration
LIABILITY LIMIT
$50,000
Included
$10,000
$10,000
Included
$2,000,000
$100,000
$25,000
Included
$10,000
$50,000
$50,000
Included
Included
Included
$100,000
Included
$25,000
$25,000
$25,000
INLAND MARINE COVERAGE PROVIDED BY RELIANCE
DEDUCTIBLE:
COINSURANCE:
VALUATION:
$1,000
Agreed Amount
Replacement Cost
SCHEDULED EQUIPMENT:
1991 Massey Ferguson Trailer
2 Utility Trailers
1992 Flexo Arrow Trailer
Speed Limit Sign
John Deere 310D Backhoe
Police Command Trailer
2 Cairnsiris Helmets (each $25,350)
High Density Mobile Storage Sys
Traffic Signal modification
Walk Behind Patch Truck
Total
$31 500
$ 7910
$ 5 500
$10 000
$64 760
$45 000
$50 700
$18 750
$14,590
$11,167
$259,877
ADDITIONAL COVERAGES
Borrowed Property on Any One Item
Employee Tools and Clothing/Any One Employee
Misc Tools and Equipment
Any One Item
Newly Acquired Property
Rental Reimbursement
LIMIT
$1,500
$5,000/$1,000
$204,610/$15,000
$25,000
$10,000
Equipment Breakdown
COVERAGE
Equipment Breakdown Limit
Property Damage
Extra Expense
Service Interruption
Perishable Goods
Computer Equipment
Demotion and ICC
Expending Expenses
Hazardous Substances
CFC Refrigerants
Newly Acquired Locations (180 days)
LIMIT
$16,311,000
$16,311,000
Included with B.I.
$222,000
$25,000
Covered on Property
Included
$25,000
$25,000
$25,000
$2,000,000
EARTHQUAKE COVERAGE TO BE PROVIDED BY
ROYAL/AGRICULTURAL AND FRONTIER INSURANCE COMPANY
PERILS INSURED:
INTERESTS COVERED:
LIMITS OF LIABILITY:
UNDERLYING
LIMITS/DEDUCTIBLE
EXCLUSIONS:
VALUATION:
Difference In Conditions including earthquake, earthquake sprinkler
leakage, and flood.
Real property, personal property, business income, extra expense,
valuable papers, EDP hardware, EDP software, EDP extra expense,
stock tenants improvements, and betterments, and equipment.
$10,000,000 per occurrence, and in the annual aggregate as respects
earthquake sprinkler leakage subject to earthquake aggregate.
$25,000
per occurrence, except
5%
per unit of insurance (including time element) subject
to a minimum of $50,000 per occurrence for
earthquake
Pollution, contamination, asbestos, flood zone 'A' and Y2K
Replacement cost, except actual loss sustained on time element
ITEM 8
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIR. OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Genie Roberrs, Director of Financ~'~
February 9, 1999
Purchase of One (1) City Vehicle (Truck)
Prepared by: Gus Papagolos, Senior Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the purchase of one (1) 1999 Chevrolet full size pick-up from
Paradise Chevrolet in the amount of $25,094.36.
DISCUSSION: The adoption of the 1998/99 annual Operating Budget approved the funding for
the purchase of one (1) truck to be used by the Community Service District. The maintenance staff will
use this new truck.
On January 11, 1999, the City mailed eighteen (18) Requests for Proposal (RFPs) to surrounding
vendors for the purchase of one (1) truck (see attached vendor list). Of the eighteen (18) RFPs that
the staff sent out seven (7) proposals were received. Despite minor specification differences between
biding dealerships, all seven (7) vehicle bids would satisfy the City's vehicle requirement. The price
difference between the two lowest bids is minimal, but after taking into consideration the 1% price
reduction for sales tax credit, Paradise Chevrolet has the lowest bid. Below are the listed bid proposals:
Dealer
Paradise Chevrolet
Advantage Ford
Vehicle/model
Full size, pick-up truck
Full size, pick-up truck
Price
$24,843.42
(After 1% reduction)
$24,878.40
Gunderson Chevrolet
Full size, pick-up truck
$25,726.39
Villa Ford Full size, pick-up truck $25,751.17
Plaza Motors
Full size, pick-up truck
$26,390.41
Norm Reeves
Full size, pick-up truck
$26,675.67
College Ford
Full size, pick-up truck
$27,052.80
FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available in the Vehicle Internal Service Fund for vehicle
depreciation expense for this fiscal year.
Attachment: Vehicle Vendor List
Vehicle Vendor List
Quality Chevrolet
1550 Auto Park Way
Escondido, CA 92591
Paradise Chevrolet
26845 Ynez Road
Temecula, CA 92591
Folsom Lake Ford
9479 Madison Avenue
Folsom, CA 95630
Dick Dickenson City Chevrolet
P.O. Box 85345
San Diego, CA 92186
Fuller Fleet Center
560 Auto Park Drive
Chula Vista, CA 91911
Temecula Valley Toyota
26631 Ynez Road
Temecula, CA 92591
Norm Reeves Super Group
26755 Ynez Road
Temecula, CA 92591
Plaza Motors
290 N Indian Canyon Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Ted Jones Ford
6211 Beach Boulevard
Buena Park, CA 90621
Inland Chevrolet-Geo
2505 West Florida Avenue
Hemet, CA 92545
Riverside Chrysler Plymouth
7979 Auto Drive
Riverside, CA 92504
Gosch Ford-Lincoln
150 Carriage Circle
Hemet, CA 92545
Villa Ford
2550 North Tustin Avenue
Orange, CA 92865
Fritz Ford
8000 Auto Drive
Riverside, CA 92504-4118
Gunderson Chevrolet
3333 Santa Anita Avenue
El Monte, CA 91731
Advantage Ford
1031 Central Avenue
Duarte, CA 91010
Heller Ford
1717 Auto Park Way
Escondido, CA 90229
Escondido Jeep Eagle
1501 Auto Park Way South
Escortdido, CA 92029
ITEM 9
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City ManagedCity Council
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
February 9, 1999
Records Destruction Approval
APPROVAL ~.~
CITYATTORNEY
FINANCE DIRECTOR
CITYMANAGER i~?(F
PREPARED BY: Gwyn R. Flores, Records Coordinator
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the scheduled destruction of certain City records in accordance
with the City of Temecula approved Records Retention Policy.
BACKGROUND: On March 22, 1992, the City Council approved Resolution No. 92-17 which
authorizes the destruction of certain City records which have become outdated, obsolete or are
excess documents, in compliance with State of California Government Code, Sections 34090
through 34090.7.
Attached Exhibit A, lists records from the Building and Safety Department, plans of completed jobs.
These records have been identified within Group XV of the retention schedule.
The City Attorney has reviewed this request and has signed the Exhibit, as provided for in
Resolution No. 92-17.
ATTACHMENTS:
Destruction of Records Request, Building and Safety Department
Exhibit A, List of Records recommended for destruction
r:\fiores\destroy.ar
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
Gwyn R. Flores, Records Coordinator
February 9, 1999
Destruction of Records Request
Attached is a listing of records maintained in the Building and Safety Department that
are eligible for destruction in accordance with the City of Temecula approved Retention
Policy.
The attached list of records has been identified within Retention Group XV, as outlined
in "Exhibit AI", Schedule A, of Resolution No. 92-17.
The undersigned have reviewed and approved this destruction request.
Pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 34090.5, I hereby give my
consent to the destruction of records under the direction of the City Clerk pursuant to the
City of Temecula's adopted Destruction of Obsolete Records Policy.
Date '..
.= ii ' · "' ':
·:.... .:Nii:: ~.. , . . .
.......... · :;~..~
. ~.= ..=~ ........... %: .=::;..~; ~: .: =...= ,.: .:~:~.,~.~:~;=: . ...: ....... .. . ;. ~,.;..~..~:..~;.; .:.:~,~.. "';.'::%',.
::~ ,, · , .... .....~.:.. ~:~.~:~.~:~....~ .~...
R:\forms\destruct.rqs
EXHIBIT "A"
REQUEST FOR DESTRUCTION OF OBSOLETED CITY RECORDS
Department name: Building &Safety
City Council Meeting Date: February 9, 1999
Description: Plans of Completed Jobs - Tuff No. 805
Retention Group XV
(See attached listing of 3 pages)
Department Name:Building & Safety
Storage Location:Building & Safety Plan Room
Final/Expire Date Pennit No.
3-11-95 B95-1828
4-4-96 B95-2156
5-15-96 B95-1941
7-17-96 B96-1124
6-28-96 B96-0249
5-30-96 B96-0199
11-2-95 B95 - 1346
5-21-96 B95-1978
7-8-96 B95-0552
7-27-96 B95-1012
2-21-96 B95-1343
3-19-96 B95-2141
5-9-96 B96-0187
6-27-96 B96-0296
12-29-95 B95-0660
2-12-96 B95-1741
8-27-96 B96-0193
10-11-93 B93-1481
10-26-95 B95-1415
12 - 14-96 B95-1909
6-17-96 B96-0454
8-9-96 B96-1029
6-14-96 B96-0318
12-20-95 B95-2143
3 -6-96 B95-1874
1-30-96 B95-1757
Are records ready for microfdming:
Person taking inventory: J. RODRIGUF. Z
RECORD INVENTORY
Department No. 162 Type of Records:B&S plans for completed jobs
Box No. 23
Description
Status:Inactive
Address
42145 LYNDLE LN
28710 LAS HACIENDAS
41971 MAIN
29379 RANCHO CALIF RD
30680 RANCHO CALIF RD
29760 RANCHO CALIF RD
29588 RANCHO CALIF RD
29760 RANCHO CALIF RD
41986 ROANOAK
30378 RED RIVER
20445 SHANANDOAH
40125 STARLING
31122 SHICAL
30985 SANTIAGO
30260 SANTIAGO
31307 SANTIAGO
41163 VIA PUERTA
26671 YNEZ ~':o~-':-",-',.
41715 WINCHESTER
25475 YNEZ RD
26493 YNEZ RD
27450 YNEZ RD
26631 YNEZ
27453 YNEZ
30195 YNEZ
27531 YNEZ
Destruction: X
Dept. Manager Approval:
T.I.
T.I.
T.I.
SINKS
T.I.
T.I.
T.I.
T.I.
ROOM ADD
ROOM ADD
ROOM ADD
ROOM ADD
ROOM ADD
ROOM ADD
GARAGE
ROOM ADD
GARAGE
T.I.
T.I.
T.I.
T.I.
T.I.
DECK
ELECT
FIRE REPAIR
T.I.
Department Name:Building & Safety
Storage Location:Building & Safety Plan Room
Final/Expire Date Permit No.
Expired 96-225 1
Expired 93-0179
12-10-96 95-0578
12-15-97 96-1461
Expired 95-102 1
Expired 96-1185
5-9-97 97-0548
7-17-97 97-0475
Expired 97-0973
10-15-97 97-1686
Expired 96-0976
Expired 96-2117
4-11-97 95-2169
Expired 96-2017
Expired 96-1949
1-13-97 96-2154
Expired 97-0411
3-26-97 96-972
8-8-97 97-0138
9-10-97 ~7-1264
7-15-97 97-0664
9-10-97 97-0656
5-16-97 97-0470
2-25-97 97-0082
5-16-97 97-0470
2-25-97 97-0082
Are records ready for microfilming:
RECORD INVENTORY
Department No. 162 Type of Records:Fl&S plans for completed jobs
Box No. 25
Status:Inactive
Address
27455 Tierra Vista
30363 Santa Cecilia
43615 San Fermin
39536 Oak Cliff
42136 Sarah
28780 Single Oak
39494 Seraphina
30026 Santiago
41687 Temeku
31862 Via Barraza
40167 Valeriana
32145 Via Bande
29887 Via None
4 1593 Winchester
40465 Winchester
40465 Winchester
42299 Winchester
40435 Winchester
40941 Winchester
42299 Winchester
[i735 Winchester
42299 Winchester
41593 Winchester
41735 Winchester
41593 Winchester
41735 Winchester
Destruction: X
Description
Mezzine
Rm Add
Patio
Rm Add
Storage
Partition Wall
Patio
Shed
Electrical
Rm Add
Rm Add
Rm Add
Garage
Truss
Awnings
Truss
Freezer
Electrical
Bathrooms
TI
TI
Person taking inventory: i. RODRIGUEZ Dept. Manager Approval:
Department Name:Ruilding & Safety
Storage Location:Building & Safety Plan Room
Final/Expire Date
Permit No.
11-12-97 97-1573
Expired 97-0362
Expired 97-0669
5-6-96 95-2083
Expired 97-0160
Expired 9%0469
6-4-97 97-0228
Expired 97-1702
7-28-97 97-0549
6-11-97 97-0665
8-28-97 96-2330
Expired 97-2065
Expired 97-0601
97-0498
6-30-97 97-0161
7-30-97 96-2130
Expired 95-2056
Expired 97-1861
2-5-98 97-1347
94-305 ~ixpired
RECORD INVENTORY
Department No. 162 Type of Records:B&S plans for completed jobs
Status:Inactive
Box No._2,.5.
Address Description
27546 Ynez TI
41005 Winchester Signs
42299 Winchester Racks
26531 Ynez Canopy
26471 Ynez Racks
31813 Highway 79 So Truss Calcs
31805 Highway 79 So TI
31685 Highway 79 So Sewer
31829 Highway 79 So TI
31813 Highway 79 So TI
3182 1 Highway 79 So TI
31837 Highway 79 So. TI
31821 Highway 79 So. TI
31821 Highway 79 So TI
31821 Highway 79 So TI
31821 Highway 79 So TI
27645 Jefferson TI
31940 Highway 79 TI
27529 Ynez TI
27517 Ynez TI
Are records ready for microfilming:
Person taking inventory: J. RODRIGU'EZ
Destruction: X
Dept. Manager Approval:
ITEM 10
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
APPROVAL E~
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Manager/City Council
John Meyer, Housing and Redevelopment Manager
February 9, 1999
State Historical Designation for Burnham Store (Temecula Mercantile)
Prepared By:
Joyce Powers, Senior Redevelopment Analyst
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached letter of
support forwarding the Point of Historical Interest Application for the Burnham Store to the State
Office of Historic Preservation.
BACKGROUND:
On December 31, 1998, the City closed escrow on the purchase of the Temecula Mercantile
Building at 42029 Main Street, also know by its historic name, Burnham Store. Subsequently,
staff has prepared an application for registration of the building as a California Point of Historical
Interest, which requires a letter of support from the Mayor.
Staff is pursuing the earthquake retrofit and rehabilitation of the structure, which will not be
effected by the pending application. The State Office of Historic Preservation has confirmed
that the designation of the structure as a Point of Historical Interest will not alter the
requirements for future rehabilitation as long as the exterior character is preserved.
The application must reach the State Office of Historic Preservation by February 22, 1999, to be
scheduled for review at the Commission's next quarterly meeting in April.
FISCALIMPACT:
There are no fees, and, therefore, no fiscal impact.
ATTACHMENTS:
Letter of Support
Application for Registration as a California Point of Historical Interest
,: City of Temecula
"~,, .. ~ T~5'CT "'7~2 43200 Business Park Drive · Temecula, ~ 92590 · ~ilingAddmss: P Q Box 9033 · Temecub, ~ 92589-9033
Steven J. Ford
Mayor
Jeffrey E. Stone
Mayor Pro-Tern
Jeff Comerchero
Councilmember
Karel F. Lindemans
Councilmember
Ronald H. Roberts
Councilmember
(909) 506-5100
FAX 694-6499
February 9, 1999
State of California
Office of Historic Preservation
P.O. Box 942896
Sacramento, CA 94296-0001
Subject: Request for Designation as a Point of Historical Interest
Enclosed is an application for the designation of a City-owned structure as a Point
of Historical Interest. The City of Temecula recently purchased the Burnham Store
at 42051 Front Street, and I, on behalf of the City, respectfully request your
consideration of this application, which has my and the City Council's full suppod.
The City of Temecula has an exciting history to share with both local residents and
tourists. Temecula's Native Village appears in mission records as early as 1785,
describing exploration and settlement by the Spanish. Dudng later years, from 1882-
1905, many retail and service establishments evolved as the railroad was planned
and built, and as support for Army troops and trappers as well. Burnham Store was
pad of this boomtown era.
We are very proud of our history and appreciate this opportunity to further recognize
it through the State's Historical Resource Registration Programs. Because the City
of Temecula holds title to the property, I am authorizing a waiver of the required 60-
day comment period.
Thank you very much for your consideration of our application. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact me at (909) 694-6444, or Joyce Powers, Senior
Redevelopment Analyst, at (909) 693-3918.
Sincerely,
Steven J. Ford
Mayor
APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION
CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL LANDMARK
(Results in automatic ~stz~g in the CaJifomia Register)
CALIFORNIA POINT OF HISTORICAL INTEREST
~ OF H~TCR/C PROPE.R'FT
Burnham Store
42049 Main Street
C'I"Y/~'TATE/IP C~OE , _
Temecula, CA 92589
Riverside
~ OF CNVNE,R OF HI,%l'ORIC i:q~QPF,.R'I'"Y
City o~ Temec~la, a Municipal Gorpora~io~
4~200 Business Park Dr., P. O. ~ox 90~
Temecu~a, CA 92589-90~
Cit~ o£ Temecula (Attn: Joyce
4~;z00 ~us~ess ~ar~ Dr., ~.O. Box 90~
C:TY/5'TATE/TJP
Temecula, CA 92~89-9033
~ES,.~CR'S PARCF_L NO.
922-036-0Z0-8
Powers, Sr. Redevelopment Analyst)
RECOMMENDED BY CHAIR, STATE HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
APPROVED BY DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
(909) 694-6412
DATE
DATE
DESIGNATION NO.
State of California --The Resources Agency
DEPARTMEIfr OF PARKS AND RECREATION
PRIMARY RECORD
Primary#
HRI #
! ~ Trinomial
:; ' - - -:: -, -- NRHP Status Code 7
:OtherLlsUngs local
Review Code 'Reviewer
Date
Page ] of ] 'Resource Name or#: (Assigne~ Dy recorder) Burnham Store
P1. Other Identifier: City of Temecula
· P2. Location: FI Not for Publication I~ Unrestricted 'a. County Riverside
and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location MaD as necessary.)
· b. USGS7.5'Quad Temecula Date1975 T8S; R3W ;S__W'/~of SW~/~ofSeclk;aS~c~i~oerrb~M.
c. Address 42051 Main Street CiW Temecuia 7ip92%qD
d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone ; mE/ mN
e.Other Locationat Data; (e.g.. parcel #, direc~ons To resource, elevation, etc.. as appropnate)
APN: 922-036-020-8
· P3a. Description: (DescnDe resource and its rnaior elements. Include design, matenals, condition. alterations, size, setting, and boundanes)
Rectangular in plan with a composition flat roof, the vernacular brick store
has a cement capped parapet, four painted brick battlements, multi-paned plate
glass windows in front, a recessed entry with a wood framed glass door, and
a porch with a wood shingle shed roof, four square porch posts, and decorative
brackets. Two lamps are attached to the building at the corners. The
building is 28 feet wide and 80 feet long.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
°P4. Resources Present:
HP6 i-3 Story Commercial
~Building
DStructure FIObject rlSite [:]District FIElement of District [:]Other (isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (View,
date, accesson #) SE view
1/6/99, frame 2
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: :lL:N-listonc
[:]Prehistoric [:]Both
1891
*p-i_1_. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none." n o D e
*Attachments: NON"E IZ]Location Zv[ap L'nSketch Map i'lCont~nuat~on 5heet J~lBuiJdLn~;, 5tructuze, and Object Record
mA~chaeo|o~ica! Reco=d mDLstri_ct Record r"ILLnea~ Feat-~e Record mMjLLLng 5tat~on ~eco~d mRock/~-t Record
rlAJ-t~factRecord R'lPhotogTaphRecord :Z:ZOtherlCLLst) Hist:orica3 Resources Tnven~c~ry
DPR 523A (1/95) 'Required Information
*PT. Owner and Address:
City of T~mecui~
43200 Business Park Dr~ve
Temecula, CA 92589
*~8. Recorded by: (Name,
Senior Redevelopment Anaiys
City o£ Temecula
*Pg. Date Recorded: i.- 10-99
State ot California -- The Resources Agency Primary
DEPARTMENT OF'PARKS AND RECREATION HRIt
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 1 of i *NRHP Status Code
*Resoume Name or # (Assigned by recor0er)
81. Histonc Name: Burnham S tore
B2. Common Name: None AKA: Temecula Mercantile
B3. Original Use: general store 84. Present Use: vacant
*B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular Brick
*86. Corlstructiol~ History: (Cons~ucuon Oate. altera~ons. ann date of Nterauons}
Original construction occurred during 1891.
to the structure.
*87, Moved? ~No z-lyes r'lUnknown Date: Original Location:
*88, Related Features:
No~e
/
Burnham Store
There is no record of alterations
B9a. Architect: unknown b. Builder. Philip Pohiman
*B10. Significance: Theme Commercial Development Ares Temecuia
Peried of Significance 1890 - 1950 property Type Retail Store Applicable Criteria
(Discuss ~mOortance m terrns of histoncat or arcn~ecturaJ context as defined Dy ~eme, period, and geographic scoOe. Also aadress integrity.)
The brick structure was built in 1891 by Philip Pohlman with brick hauled from a
brickyard abandoned due to a change in the railroad route. Pohiman's store,
opened in 1891, was the first brick building in Temecula and the only one built
with native bricks. The store evolved as an outpost for Army units and
trappers. It was later purchase8 by George Burnham; the Burnham family
operated the store for 60 ye~r~.
The building appears to be structurally sound but is constructed of unreinforced
masonary.
811. AdditionalResoume A~nbmes:(~sta~bmesandcodes) HP6
*812. Refemnces:
Phil Brigandi, interviewed 1/4/99
La Verne Parker, Interviewed 1/5/99
Newspaper articles: Temecula Week, 9/24/92
813. Remarks: The Californian, 7/19/89
Pohlman acquired the parcel o~ land
through a lottery.
'814. Evaluator:
'Date of Evaluation:
(This space reserved for official comments.)
DPR 5238 (1/95)
1-3 story commercial building
(Sketch Map wit~ n rth arrow required.) a
N
/
· Re~ulre{l information
ITEM 11
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
February 9, 1999
Acceptance of Public Street into the City Maintained-Street System (Within
Tract No. 23142) (Northeasterly of intersection of Meadows Parkway at
Rancho California Road)
PREPARED BY: ~-~ Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works
7~ Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREET INTO THE
CITY MAINTAINED-STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACT NO. 23142)
BACKGROUND: The City Council approved Tracts No. 23142 on February 25, 1992, and
entered into Subdivision Agreements for construction of street and drainage, and water and sewer
system improvements, and subdivision monumentation with Costa Development Corporation, a
California Corporation.
On February 9, 1999, the City Council accepted the public improvements for this tract.
The public street now being accepted by this action is a portion of Merlot Crest.
FISCAL IMPACT:
ATTACHMENT:
Periodic surface and/or structural maintenance will be required every 5 to 8
years.
Resolution No. 99- with Exhibits "A-B", inclusive.
r:\agdrpt\98\1110\tr241312.sts
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREET INTO THE
CITY MAINTAINED-STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACT NO. 23142)
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 lot for street and public utility purposes made by Costa Development Corporation, a California
Corporation, with the recordation of Tract Map No. 23142: and,
WHEREAS, The City of Temecula accepted the improvements within Tracts No 23142 on
February 9, 1999.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Temecula
hereby accepts into the City Maintained-Street System that portion of street 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 9th day of February, 1999.
Steven J. Ford, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
r:\agdrpt\98\111 O\tr241312,sts
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution
No. 99-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular
meeting thereof held on the 9th day of February, 1999, by the following vote:
AYES: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
r:\agdrpt\98\1110\tr241312.sts
EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION NO. 99-
Accepting the public street offered to and accepted by the City of
Temecula as indicated on Tract Map No. 23142, and accepting
subject public street into the City Maintained-Street System as
described below:
That lot described as Lot "A", as shown on Tract Map No. 23142,
filed 28 February 1992, in Book 237 of Maps, Pgs 60-62 Incl.,
further described as follows:
Lot "A"
Portion of Merlot Crest
r:\agdrpt\98\1110\tr241312.$ts
EXHIBIT "B" TO RESOLUTION NO. 99-
SUBJECT ACCEPTANCE-PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY
MAINTAINED-STREET SYSTEM AS INDICATED BELOW:
Pk'OZECT SITE
VICINITY bY,~P
4
9
/9
ZD 17 /~
STREETS OR PORTIONS OF STREETS
TO BE ACCEPTED INTO CITY
MAINTAINED-STREET SYSTEM
P'/////////A
NOTE: MAPS NOT TO SCALE
ITEM 12
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
L:',,,~,, Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
" February 9, 1999
Accept Public Improvements in Tract No. 23142. (Northeasterly of Intersection
of Meadows Parkway at Rancho California Road)
PREPARED BY.'~ Ronald J. Parks, Principal Engineer- Land Development
Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council
1. ACCEPT the Public Improvements in Tract No. 23142
2. AUTHORIZE the reduction in Faithful Performance security to the warranty amount,
and initiation of the one-year warranty period.
3. DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety.
BACKGROUND:
On February 25, 1992, the City Council approved Vesting Tract Map No. 23142, and entered into
subdivision agreements with:
Vineyard Crest Development Partners, L.P.,
a California Limited Partnership
1784 La Costa Meadows Drive, # 106
San Marcos, CA 92069
for the improvement of streets and drainage, installation of sewer and water systems, and
subdivision monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were Instruments of
Financial Obligation (set-aside letters) issued by Bank of the West as follows:
1. In the amount of $255,500 ($187,000, $31,500, $28,500, and $8,500, respectively) to cover
faithful performance for streets and drainage, water, and sewer improvements, and for
subdivision monumentation.
2. In the amount of $127,500 ($93,500, $16,000, and $14,500, respectively) to cover labor and
materials for streets and drainage, water, and sewer improvements.
R :~ag d rpfi99\0209\tr23142. A C C
Vineyard Crest Development Partners, LP., sold the property subsequent to recording the tract map.
The new developer for the subdivision is:
Vineyard Crest, LLC
2201 Martin Street, Suite 107
Irvine, CA 92612
The new developer submitted replacement agreement and securities for the contractual work, which
the City Council accepted on May 13, 1997. The substituted securities are bonds posted by
Developer Insurance Company as follows:
Bond No. 453332S in the total amount of $247,000 ($187,000, $31,500, and $28,500,
respectively, for streets and drainage, water, and sewer improvements) to cover faithful
performance.
Bond No. 453332S in the total amount of $123,500 ($93,500, $16,500, and $14,500,
respectively), for streets and drainage, water, and sewer improvements) to cover labor and
materials.
3. Bond No. 453333S in the amount of $8,500 to cover subdivision monumentation.
Public Works Staff has inspected and reviewed the public improvements in the field. Eastern
Municipal and Rancho California Water Districts has accepted their respective improvements.
Therefore Staff recommends acceptance of the public improvements, initiation of the one-year
warranty period, and reduction in the Faithful Performance security to the following ten-percent (10%)
warranty amount:
Bond No. 453332S in the amount of $24,700 ($18,700, $3,150, and $2,850 for streets and
drainage, water system, and sewer system improvements, respectively) for Faithful
Performance warranty purposes.
The Labor and Materials security for the public improvements will be retained for the contractual six-
month lien period which follows City Council acceptance of the public improvements.
The subdivision monumentation will be reviewed and approved by Staff and will be recommended
for City Council release of the Subdivision Monument security when appropriate.
The affected street will be accepted into the City Maintained-Street System by Resolution No. 99-
__ at this time. The street to be accepted is a portion of Merlot Crest.
FISCAL IMPACT:
ATTACHMENT:
None
Location Map
R :',agdrpt~99\0209\tr23142.ACC
ITEM 13
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City ManagedCity Council
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
February 9, 1999
Margarita Road/Overland Drive and Long Canyon Creek Improvements
Reimbursement Agreement with Rancho California Water District for Work
Performed During Construction Project No. PW97-07
PREPARED BY:
William G. Hughes, Senior Engineer - Capital Projects
Ward B. Maxwell, Associate Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
Approve the attached reimbursement agreement with Rancho California Water District
(RCWD) for the cost to relocate existing water improvements necessary for the construction
of Margarita Road/Overland Drive and Long Canyon Creek Improvements, Project No.
PW97-07 and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement.
2. Increase the Construction Contingency amount by $47,200.00 to cover the additional work.
Approve an appropriation of $47,200.00 from Reimbursement Revenue to the project
account.
BACKGROUND: During the design of the Margarita Road/Overland Drive and Long
Canyon Creek Improvements Project, it was determined that there were conflicts between existing
RCWD Improvements along Margarita Road and the Box Culvert at Overland Drive. Trans-Pacific
Consultants (TPC) provided plans and specifications to relocate the existing RCWD water facilities
and the City incorporated them into the Margarita Road/Overland Drive and Long Canyon Creek
Improvements construction documents.
This Reimbursement Agreement requires RCWD to reimburse the City one hundred percent (100%)
of the costs of the relocation and adjustments of existing water improvements included in this
project. RCWD agrees to provide and pay for inspection of all existing facilities retocations that are
needed as part of the Margarita Road/Overland Drive and Long Canyon Creek Improvements. The
amount of reimbursement is based on the bid price as specified under the contract awarded by the
City to Riverside Construction Company for the Margarita Road/Overland Drive and Long Canyon
Creek Improvements Project. This reimbursement agreement states that RCWD will reimburse the
City one hundred percent (100%) of their cost forty~five (45) days after RCWD receives notice from
the City that the relocation of the existing water facilities is complete.
On January 7, 1999, the bids were opened and the total cost of the water facility bid items to be
reimbursed by RCWD is estimated at $47,200.00.
r:\agdrpt\99\O209\rcwd2agrmt-pw97-07
1
FISCAL IMPACT: The additional costs associated with these improvements will be offset by the
reimbursement by Rancho California Water District. An appropriation to the Margarita Road, Ynez
Road and Overland Drive Street Widening Project Account No. 210-165-681-5904 is necessary from
the Reimbursement Revenue to fund this agreement.
ATTACHMENT:
Rancho California Water District Reimbursement Agreement
r:\agdrpt\99\O209\rcwd2agrrnt-pw97-O7
2
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
CITY OF TEMECULA
MARGARITA ROAD/OVERLAND DRIVE AND LONG CANYON CREEK
IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO. PW97-07
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of February 9, 1999, between the CITY OF
TEMECULA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and Rancho California Water
District, a California Water District and existing and operating under Division 13 of the California Water
Code, hereinafter referred to as "RCWD". In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained
herein, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
Section I. PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENT. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish
reimbursement to CITY by RCWD for the cost of relocation of certain water improvements made necessary
by the Margarita Road/Overland Drive and Long Canyon Creek Improvements, Project No. PW97-07,
hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT".
Section II. RCWD shall reimburse CITY for one hundred percent (100%) of the costs
(hereinafter referred to as "REIMBURSEMENT"), for the relocation and adjustments of certain water
improvements within the PROJECT area that are affected by the PROJECT. The costs for the
REIMBURSEMENT to CITY by RCWD shall include the following items as shown within the attached Bid
Result Spreadsheet:
A. Water Items
Extended Bid Amounts
Bid Items W-3, W-7, W-8, W-10-W-16
and I/2 the cost of W-17
$ 47,200.00
Section HI. Costs are based on construction bids received for the PROJECT under "Rancho California Water
District Items" shown within the attached Bid Result Spreadsheet. CITY has evaluated and analyzed all bids
received and selected the lowest responsible bidder for the PROJECT as Riverside Construction Company
(herinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR"). RCWD has reviewed the bids and approved CITY's selection
of CITY's CONTRACTOR prior to the commencement of the work on the PROJECT.
CITY shah make payment to CONTACTOR for work performed. Actual costs shall be identified and
billed to RCWD for payment on the following basis:
A,
The Construction Schedule for PROJECT provides that the water facilities relocation shall
occur on or about ten (10) days after the Notice to Proceed when the PROJECT has been
issued. One Huntiered Percent (100%) of the REIMBURSEMENT shall be due and payable
to CITY forty-five (45) days after RCWD receives notice from the CITY that relocation of
the water facilities is complete.
r:\cip\projects\pw97\pw97-O7\rcwdagrmt
1
Section IV. It is acknowledge that RCWD has reviewed and approved all CITY plans and
specifications for the relocation of the water facility improvements and has approved the bid amount as
reasonable. Management and administration of the terms expressed herein shall be performed by CITY for
the PROJECT. CITY agrees to designate Mr. William G. Hughes, Senior Engineer, Capital Projects, as the
contact for CITY in regards to this agreement. RCWD agrees to designate Mr. Steve Brannon as a point of
contact for RCWD to facilitate the reimbursements identified herein.
Section V. INSPECTION RCWD shall provide and pay for inspection of all new and relocated
facilities specifically, Bid Items W-3, W-7, W-8, W10-WI6 and one half the cost of Wo17.
Section VI. NOTICES All notices under this Agreement shall be sent as follows:
RCWD:
Rancho California Water District
42135 Winchester Road
Temecula, CA 92590
Arm: Steve Brannon, Development Engineering Manager
CITY:
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Arm: William G. Hughes, Senior Engineer, Capital Projects
Either party may change its address for notices by notifying the other party. All notices given at the most
recent address specified shall be deemed to have been properly given.
r:\cip\projects\pw97\pw97-O7\rcwdagrmt
2
This Agreement is dated as of the date set forth above.
District:
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
By:
By:
City:
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
Steven J. Ford, Mayor
By:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
r:\cip\projects\pw97\pw97-O7\rcwdagrmt
3
ITEM 14
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
February 9, 1999
SUBJECT:
Rancho California Road at Interstate Route 15 ~ Bridge Widening and
Northbound Ramp Improvements, Project No. PW95-12
increase Construction Contingency
PREPARED BY: ?y~/William G. Hughes, Senior Engineer - Capital Projects
Steven W. Beswick, Project Engineer - Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council Authorize the Acting City Manager to approve
change orders in an additional amount of $ 25,000 above the previously approved 10% contingency.
BACKGROUND: On October 28, 1997, the City Council awarded a contract to
Riverside Construction Company in the amount of $3,907,776.00 for said project and
authorized the City Manager to approve change orders that are within the 10% contingency.
On April 28, 1998, The City Council also increased the contract by $300,000 to accelerate the
schedule.
The contract change orders will now exceed the 10% construction contingency by $10,038.
Other extra work is still pending that is estimated to exceed the 10% contingency by
approximately $25,000.
A detailed list of each change order to date is available in the Public Works Department.
FISCAL IMPACT: This project is funded primarily by Measure "A" loan from RCTC. Adequate
funds are available in Account No. 210-165-601-5804.
R :~agd rpt~9\O2Og\R C C. C C 013/pw95-12
ITEM 15
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANC
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
City Manager/City Council
.~Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
February 9, 1999
SUBJECT:
Professional Services Agreement with Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade &
Douglas, Inc. for the Final Design Southbound Off-Ramp and 1-15 Widening
north of Winchester Road, Project No. PW98-07, and Northbound On-Ramp
Widening
PREPARED BY: zl~William G. Hughes, Senior Engineer- Capital Projects
Scott Harvey, Associate Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
Approve the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Temecula and Parsons
Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. for the final design of the Southbound Off-Ramp, 1-15
Widening north Winchester Road, Project No. PW98-07, and additional widening to the
northbound on-ramp from Winchester Road north 400 feet, for $122,826.00 and authorize
the Mayor to execute the contract.
Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount
of $12,282.00, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount.
Authorize the transfer of $60,226.00 from the construction budget to the design budget for
the additional design costs associated with a change to the project scope of work.
BACKGROUND: The City Council awarded a contract to Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade
& Douglas, Inc. on September 22, 1998 to provide professional preliminary engineering services for
the Southbound Off-Ramp and I-15 Widening north of Winchester Road, Project PW98-07.
Based on the finding of the study, Staff recommends that Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas,
Inc. provide the following final design services (see exhibit "A"):
Design an auxiliary lane on 1-15 by widening the southbound 1-15 approximately 1,600 feet
north of the off-ramp,
,
Add an additional lane to the southbound 1-15 exit ramp by widening the Santa Gertrudis
Creek Bridge to the west including reconstructing the channel to provide adequate water
flow capacity.
r:\agdrpt\99\O209\PW98-OTfin2.agr
Widen the northbound on-ramp from Winchester Road north 400 feet to improve access to
the northbound ramp. (This work was not apart of the original capital project scope of
work. This work was identified in the preliminary engineering study and at the
November 1998 City Council workshop). This work is being added to meet the intent of
the City Council to construction congestion relief projects as soon as possible.
The consultant will submit the preliminary design to Caltrans for their review and approval. Once
the preliminary design is approved, then the final design plans, specifications, and estimate will be
submitted to Caltrans, Riverside County Flood Control, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and
Game, and the City for review.
FISCAL IMPACT: This project is funded through Capital Project Reserves and Redevelopment
Agency funds. The total cost for the design including the northbound on-ramp widening is
$122,826.00, and the 10% contingency is $12,282.00 for a total amount of $135,108.00. A transfer
of $60,226.00 from the Construction Account No. 210-165-697-5804 to the Design Account No. 210-
165-697-5802 for the necessary design work to be done. Due to the additional work and use of
construction funds for the northbound on-ramp design, an additional appropriation for construction
will be likely at the time of construction. The construction cost is estimated to range from $750,000
to $900,000.00.
Attachments:
Exhibit "A"
Professional Services Agreement
r:\agdrpt\99\O209\PW98-O7fin2.agr
LO-BOMd lgqPOBd
a~oB BqlSqHgNIM @ BN~B--I-tO aNflOBHlflOS gl-I
,,V,, IlBIHX]
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGREEMENT
FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
1-15 SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMP WIDENING AT WINCHESTER ROAD
PROJECT NO. PW98-07
Temecula, a
("Consultant").
ti311ows:
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of February 9, 1999, between the City of
municipal corporation ("City") and Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.,
In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as
1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on February 9, 1999, and shall remain
and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than February 9, 1999,
unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.
2. SERVICES. Consultant shall per/brm 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 pertbrmance which is also set forth in Exhibit A.
3. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times ti~ithfully, competently and to the
best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, pertbrm 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 ti>rth 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 One Hundred Twenty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Six Dollars and No Cents
($122,826.00) tbr 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 attthorized 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 pertbrmance 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 twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). Any additional work in excess of this amount
shall be approved by the City Council.
c. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall
be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month.
Payment shall be made within thirty (30) clays of receipt of each invoice as to all nondisputed t~es. If the City
disputes any of consultant' s t~es it shall give written notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice
of any disputed tees set forth on the invoice.
- 1- r: ~,cip\projccl.s\pwg~\PW98-07\pbqd 1. agr
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
perfi~rmed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consullant
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 dethult. In the event that Consultant is in default tbr cause under the terms of this Agreement, City
shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work pertbrmed after the date
of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure
bv the Ctmsultant to make progress in the pertbrmance 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 pertbrmance. 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 intbrmation required by City that relate to the pertbrmance 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 Ix~oks 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. Ulx~n 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 pertbrmed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the
sole prt~perty 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,
ctm~piling, transferring and printing ct~mputer files.
c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not be liable
tbr an.,,' injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location other than that specified
in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant.
8. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and
hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims,
demands. losses. defense costs or expenses, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers,
agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of
persons. or damage to property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions in
perthfining or thiling to per/brm 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 tbrm CG 0001).
(2)
Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering
Automobile Liability, code I (any auto).
(3)
Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of Cali/brnia 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 tbr bodily injury, personal
injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or
other ti~rm 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 clamage.
(3) Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for tx~dily injury or disease.
(4) Errors and ornissions liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence.
c. Deductibles and Self-lnsured 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 anti defense expenses.
- 3 - r: \cip\projec~\pw98\PW98-O7\pbqd 1. agr
d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are
to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the ti~llowing provisions:
(1)
The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered
as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on
behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the
Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or
automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The
coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection
afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
(2)
For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage
shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials,
employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the
City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the
Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
(3)
Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies
including breaches of warranties shall not afti~ct 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 Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current
A.M. Best's rating or' no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.
f. Verification or' Coveratze. 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 it.s 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 eft~cting the coverage required by these specifications.
10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent
contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all
times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees
or agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees or
agents, except as set/i~rth 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.
4- r: xcipxprojcct.s\pw98\PW98-07\pbqdl .agr
b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the
performance of this Agreement. Except for the t~es paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City
shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant tbr performing services hereunder for City.
City shall not be liable tbr compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out
of pertbrming 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
perti~rmance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply
with all such laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in
equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section.
12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION.
a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be
considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written authorization.
Consultant. its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the
City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support,
testim~mv at deposititms. response to interrogatories or other infi~rmation concerning the work performed
under this Agreement in' relating to any prt~ject in' property located within the City. Response to a subpoena
,n' ct ~urt order shall not be considered "vt~luntary" prt~vided 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 tbr 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 reslxmse 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 t>f the party as set tbrth below or at any other address as that
party may later designate by Notice:
City:
City of Temecula
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, Cali/brnia 92590
Attention: City Manager
To Consultant:
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
685 East Carnegie Drive, Ste. 2 10
Sin Bernardino, CA 92408-3507
Phone: (909) 888-1106
AIm: Rick Simon, Project Manager
-5- r: \cip\proj¢cts~pu-,98\PW98-O7\pbqd I .agr
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 Rick Simon
shall perform the services described in this Agreement. Rick Simon may use assistants, under their direct
supervision, to perfi~rm some of the services under this Agreement. Consultant shall provide City fourteen
(14) days' notice prior to the departure of Rick Simon 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 ti3r 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 eftbet, all licenses required of it by law tbr 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 ti~deral 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
contemlx~raneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into
this Agreement and shall be of no further three 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 Ctmsultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the pertbrmance
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
Steven J. Ford, Mayor
Attest:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
Approved As to Form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
-6- r: \cip\projects\pw98\PW98-O7\pbqd 1. agr
CONSULTANT
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc
685 E. Carnegie Dr., Suite 210
San Bernardino, CA 92408-3507
(909) 888-1106
By:
Bedros Agopovich, Area Manager
- 7- r: \cip\project.s\pw98\PW98-O7\pbqd I .agr
EXHIBIT A
TASKS TO BE PERFORMED
' S' r: xc~p\projccLsxpw98\PW9g-O7\pbqd I .agr
!Thursday January 28, 1999 6:1613 -- From #909 889 1884' -- Page 2~
01/28/99 20:02 FAI 909 889 1884 PARSONS BRINCK.
~002
1oo
~,~
January 29, 1999
Mr, Scott Harvey
City of T.en~__jla
43200 Business Drive
P-O- Box 9033
Tentecula, CA 92589-90~
Subject:
Proposals for Engineering Design Services
We are pleased to submit four proposals to provide engineering design services for the City of
Temecula. The costs r~--tecl on the atf'-~_hed pages reflect the following scope of wodc
Project I - Entrance Ramps a~. Rancho California Road
We wffi prepare plans for a conslfij~on cfiange order to be issued to widen the southbound
entrance ramp to a two-lane widlh at the ~n with Rarv:t~ Califorrda Road. The widened
ramp wr11 ban/on from two lanes at Rancho CaEfomia R_n-~_ to one lane atthe e~bance gore to
southbound 1-15. Revisions to the b~fi'g: skjnal at the ramp terminal will be required.
Modifications to the existing landscaping irdgati3n system wffi also be required. These plans wi
be ready for issuance to the contractor within two weeks d ~.
We wm also prepare separme plans for a construction change order to add one ~ to
wesffiound ~ CaJifomia Road between Ynez Road and the northbound 1-15 farrip terminal,
The h*~.T~: signal at Yne,7, mtd Rancho California will be m0dled in the norlinNest comer of the
m~. The tmf~ signal at Rancho California and the northbound ramp terminal w~ll be
tooriffled. The northbound entrance ramp wi be widened to two lanes at the ramp terminal. The
widened ramp wig transition to one lane at the enlrance gore to northbound 1-15, Modifications
to existing landscaping and irrigation systems will be required, It is assumed tha~ a slope
easement will be obtained from the adjacent properly owner and that a retaining waft wi~ not be
necesstzy. These plans wi be ready for issuance to the conb-acmr within four weeks of notice-
Pm_ject 2 - Southbound Exit Ramp to Rancho California Road
This project will construct an auxiary lane along southbound 1-15 approaching the exit romp to
Rancho C_,alffi3mia Road. The exit will be ~ to be a two-lane exiL The widening wil
stop where the ramp is aJready two lanes wide,
Construction of the auxzTary wi require widening of the slmc,,hjre carrying southbound 1-15 over
Empire Creek, We wm cooformate with Carfare and other appropriate agencies to gain approval
for this widening. Hydraulic analysis of the creek wig be performed to arrive at a design solution
which is acceptable to all pardes. The bridge design wig include a geotechnical investigation as
well as final sh'uctural plans aplyoved by Caltrans, Becl~cai design wi be limited to the
rekx:ation of the existing luminaims along 1-15. Landscaping and imgation facilities will be
idP, ntified and designed b3 be relocated as n..ece~sary..
F ~f-" · g
(Thursday January 28, 19~9 6:14m -- From ~909 889 1884~ -- Page 3~
01/28/90 20:02 FAX 909 889 1884 PARSONS BRINCK.
~003
Project 3 - Southbound F_nt Ramp to Winchester Road
This project wt construct an auxtary lane along soulhbound I-15 approaching the exit ramp to
Winchester Road. The ex~ wi be rec~ured to be a two-lane exit. The widening will stop
C~ of the aLNirm_6/wil require widening of the stmdum canying the exit ramp over
Santa Gemdis Creek. We w~i coordirm~e with Calbu~,~ and other appropriate agendes to gain
approvai for this widenmg, It is anl~ipatecl that we wi widem b'm structure to the lowsida of the
superelm on the ramp, requiring a lowering of the channel bottom to mainlain adequate
hydraulic capacity. Permils win be obtained from the Coq~ of Engineers and Riverside County
Rood Control as necessary to gain approval for the channel modifications. The bridge design wig
include a 9eotechnicai investigation as well as ~rml ~ plans appmved IW Caltrans.
Eiedricai design will be ruqqited to the rei~ of the exisling lumi-m~es along 1-15,
landscaping and in~ facities w~l be identified and desb2ned to be miocalad as necessary.
Project 4 - Northbound Entrance Ramp at W'mches~er Road
This project will widen the norffibound entrance ramp to 1-15 at Winchester Road. The ramp wil
bewidened toatwo-ianewidth at W~ndester Road and will taper back to meet. the exlsljng one-
lane width just prior to me bridge carrying me ramp over Santa Gemdis Creelc No modtcatjons
to the bridge or the creeic will be required for this project. ~ modircations at the ramp
len'ninal with VVmchestEr Road will be included jR the pmjed. ~ V%/mchesler Road will
Tasks Common to All Four. Projects
The attached pmp~_,=b: i~rrj,.~de erne for meetings and co0Krmation with Caltrans and ot~er
agencies to gain approval for the designs. The proposals include the effort required to complete
final piarls, speci;'K;,~ns, and estimates ready for bid advediseme~L The proposals also irK:Jude
limited I~me for ~ support during the construction phase of the project. It is =L~-,=urned
that no new right-of-way Or temporal/easements wi be requblld for Projects 2, 3, and 4. It is
assumed that one siQpe e,3semem wig be required for Project l and that we wi prepare a legal
description and a plat for this item.
The four proposals _-qtP~ed arc two pages each. The first page is a cost summary page and the
second is a table of hours requked for the m lasks immived, Also affiached following the
Should you have any questions on these proposals pip _~___ call me at 888-1106.
su~cereJy.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF QUADE & DOUGLAS, INC,
Rick Simon, P.E.
Project Manage
!Thursday January 28, 1999 6:lz, pe -- From '909 889 188/,' -- Page 6J
01/28/99 20:03 FAI 909 889 1884 PARSONS BRINCK,
11004
Construction Change Ordes at Rancho California
Cost E~t~ma~t~ Summary
TOTAL AVE. RAGE
STAFF TITLE STAFF NAME HOURS HOURLY COSTS
RATE
PIC 0 $45.00 $0
PROJ MGR 32 $45.00 $1,440
OA/QC O $38.00
CWIL 80 $35.00 $2:800
STRUCTURES 0 ~t4.00 $0
STRUC ENGR 0 $27.0O ~0
ENGR SUPP 81 ~21.00 $1,827
CADD OPER 172 ~20,00 $3,44O
PRQJ ADMIN 0 $15,50
DIRECT LABOR SUBTOTALS
371 $9,507
OVERHEAD (150% PROVISIONAL)
OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODC'S):
CADD 172 hfs a $151v
PC 43,5 ias a~ $5~ S218
MILEAGE 600 miles at $0~31/mie
REPRODUCTION $100
POSTAGE/DELIVERIES $50
PHONE
MISCm m 4NEOUS $0
SUBCONSULTANTS:
S'r8 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
LARRY EISENHART
ENGINEERING VENTURES
SUBTOTAL SUBCONSULTANT COSTS
$16.175
prop1
i 1NO,LIilIlII iJOH~I])I3NIItl3' BNOIUVd
:Allvii IIII$ LClirOIldr41VHd/INO~lillfi
I i le/i~tl NDI~9Q
IN!IIAIII :I/'iC3 ~lldl:~ dO idO~,l
O IllV. L4~ I TII J
t tnursday January 28, 19~ 6:14Fe -- From '909 889 188~' -- Page 6J
01/28/09 20:04 FAZ g09 889 1884 PAILSONS BRINC~.
Southbound Exit to Rancho Califomia
Cost Esthl~lte ,..Smry
TOTAL AVERAGE LABOR
STAFF TITLE STAFF NAME HOURS HOURLY COSTS
RATE
PIC '" 0 $45.00 $0
PROJ MGR 8,t $45.00 $3.780
Q.ajQC 0 ,I;38.00 $0
C.N~L ~ $35.00 $8.26O
STRUC ENGR 128 $27.00 $3,456
ENGR SUPP 120 $21.00 $~..520
PROJ ADMIN 0 ;15.50 ~)
DIRECT LABOR SUB'TOTALS
948 S26.736
OVERHEAD (150% PROVISIONAL) $40,104
OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODC*S):
CADD 150 hr~ at $15,h- $2,250
PC 60 hrsa~.~hr $300
MILEAGE 600 miles at $0.31/mile $186
REPRODUCTION $t00
POSTAGF_.~EMVE~IES $,.50
PHONE it0
MISCELLANEOUS $0
SUBCONSULTANTS:
ST13 LANELSCAPE ARCHITECTS
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERING VENTURES
SUBTOTAL SUBCONSULTANT COSTS
$14,900
I
Irt 0 0 0 DIP
II~K'l~i~
i'&,C 0 O~ O 0
~1, 0 I O ~1.
~4 0 16 9 tt 0 0 O CI1~
COIP ~) 4:el OIL Of O O O
'~" I~J. ""~ ' ":;!' ;.~/." .,~' 1,1:1" '~'!.' . . ....
l aNOj.gg llW JJOHblg)C:)NIIJQ gNOl'IJVd VINHOdr'N:30I4ONVm,I D_ ..UXI QNfilC/BH].IlmDE
IXtlyWfi rll .I.:31roldd,!lYHd. rlNoLli'lll'i U.:)lfOed
I. ~ Mllr.,m$ NOIS:aQ WNI=I ml.mlOHV3NONIIdmm RNOi'b'Vd
~NO~IIAIW ....... :iL'IQ MliOM.aOidO:)l :ANVdINO3
Thursday January 28, 1999 6:l/+Fe -- From '909 889 188z,' -- Page 81
01/28/99 20:06 FAI 909 889 1884 PARSONS BRINCK.
~008
Southbound Exit to Winchester Road
Cost Estimate Summary
TOTAL
STAFF TITLE STAFF NAii4E HOURS
PIC O
PROJ MGR 68
QAn3C 0
CIVIL '192
STRUCTURES 80
STRUC ENGR 128
ENGR SUPP 120
CADD OI:,F_R 300
PRCU ADMIN 0
AVERAGE LABOR
HOURLY COSTS
RATE
$15,50
DIRECT LABOR SUBTOTALS
888 t24,476
OVERMEAD (150% PROVISIONAL)
1;36,714
OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODC'S):
CADD 150 Iv3 at $15/ht $2,250
PC 60 m~$,.%q'v' $300
MILEAGE 600 rrd'lef, at $O.;,'111mile $188
REFI~ODUCTION $100
POSTAGF_JOF_LIVERIES
PHONE
MISCELLANEOUS
SUBCONSULTANTS:
SI'B LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERING VENTURES
SUBTOTAL SUBCONSULTANT COSTS
$14,500
!Thursday January 28, 19~ 6:l/,pm -- From '909 889 1884' -- Page 101
01/28/99 20:01 FAX 909 889 1884 PARSONS BRINCK,
I~iOlO
Northbound Entrance at Winche~;.er Road
Cost Estimate Summary
TOTAL AVERAGE LABOR
STAFF TfTLE STAFF NAJ~ HOURS HOURLY COST~
PIC 0 $45.00 $0
PROJ MGR 44 $4~00 $1,980
QA/QC 0 $38.00 $0
STRUCTURES 0 $34.O0 $0
STRUC ENGR 0 $27.00 $0
ENGR SUPP ' 80 $2'1.00 $1.680
CADD OPER 160 $20.00 $3,200
PRQJ ADMIN 0 $15.50 $0
DIRECT LABOR SUBTOTALS
OVERHEAD (150% PROVISIONAL)
$14~37o
OTHER DLRECT COSTS (ODC~:
CADD 80 hm
PC 40 h~at$5/ht $200
MILEAGE 600 miles at $0,31/mie $188
REPRQDUCTION $100
POSTAGE/DEUVEPJES
MISCELLANEOUS
SUBCONSULTANTS'.
STB LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
LARRY EISEHHART
ENGINEERING VENTURES
SUBTOTAL SUBCONSULTANT COSTS
$10,500
I-,I
0 0 0 ~S 0
O 0 0 0 0
t,K e O~t OI r.e D 0 O 1,3 O
| :INDJ,SIIIP/ ,
IXtlV¥lHtlt .L~irO:iddrlllqid/lNOJ.1311H
tNOIIIAIW I,tl. VO
~Thursday January 28, 1999 6:1/,13 -- From '909 889 1884# -- Page 125
01/28/99 20:08 FAX 909 889 1884 PARSONS BRINCX.
~012
~;~STB . .'., , :',': ~'."~ :."
':,. :.:~ .
~~:,!~: LANDSCA .-' ARCFIFFEO T~'
";'r,~.S~~~N "..: . :..
: .....- ,,
.. -
" ~ L~~.~~~": "' '. v '
. ...,:·
-. .. : : .
-. , :.-. ,, .:,. .... ·
La~da~p~
~i~D~--
S=~r.c~ryi -'
IThursctay January 28. 1999 6:lt. pm -- From '909 889 1884, -- Page 13~
01/28/99 20:09 FAI 809 889 1884 PARSONS BRINCI.
JRN--28--9~ ltlt ::~4 ~IPI EHGIHEERIHC VEHTURES9119
Q/IIIGINEERING
VENTURF. S, INC.
LAND PLANNING · CIVIL ENGINEEleING, LAND SUEVEY1NG
1~013
SCHEDULF_ OF HQLTRI ,Y RATF-,~
September 1.1998
pRI. NCTPA!
Principal F_,x~izter (TLC.E.) .................................. $115.O0/]4dur
P!-,4 .NNING
Planner .................................................. $ 8~.00rHour
Agency Pn~cssing ......................................... $ 65-001Hour
F-NGf,'VI-.-ER/NG
Pro br l Enginccx(R.cy.) ................................ s
Project Coordinator .........................................
Project ~er ........................................... $
Design Engineca' ........................................... $
DcsignTcclm~iau .......................................... $
Consxructina Munagcr .......................................
DraRsman ................................................ $
Sccr~larial ................................................ $
95,00/Hour
90,00/IIour
80,0Gq~our
75.00/Huur
65.00/Hour
65.00/llour
55.OOaloar
45.00/Hour
~URVEYING
Dizcctot of Su~ey~ng (P,l_S-) ................................. · 7S.00/Hour
Three-Man Ct~'w. .......................................... $140,00/Hoac
Two-l~{un CAtw ............................................ $ [ 20.0(l/Hour
MLqi'CFI # ANE_OU,¢; COST~¢;
Lodging .................................................. Direct Cost + 10%
Long DLstancc Telephone Calls ................................ Direct Cosa + i 0%
Messenger CPick-up/Delivcry) ................................. $ 30.00/llour
MBcagc F. xpcmsc .......................................... $ 0.45/M11c
Per Diem ......................... : ...................... $ 25.00/Day/Man
Rcpmductkm Expense ....................................... Dir~t Cost + 10%
43500 Riage pane DFive, Suite 202 - Ternecul3, Ca 92590 · lSl~J| 699-6450 Fax: ~09) 69g-]569 * E-M31I: engrvent@llner_com
LO-g6Md I3:lPO~d
avo~ ~::ILS:!HDNIM @ dNV~-.-I-IO aNNOeHINOS gl-I
3rlN3AV ~ NOSW3333r
~m DNIN~IalM dNV~-,-I,.-IO 'dO~ld
~ a]~:lMOq ~e oj. ~nJ. sn~.Ls
_-------- ~ dora lqNNVH3 ~Iq~3NO3 ONIISIXq
~ ONIN:qOIM qOalBB aqSOdO~d
3~/OD ~IX3 :INVI llX:q ]AIS~lgXq ::qsoaoua aNv~d-_4Jo o j,
O~IaNZLX9 ~80J.
9NV'{ dOHa 9NIJ-SIXq
· ~3
~ ~ Z_t~"'~~-
,,V,, IISIHX:I
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
-9- r:\cip\projects\pw9g\PW98-O7\pbqdl .agr
~Thursday January ~8, 1999 6:lApram -- From '909 889 188A' -- Page 16~
0~/28/9g ZO:lO FAX 909 889 1884 PARSONS I~RZNCK. ~]016
1998 PROFESSIONAL FEE SCHEDULE
GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES (Cont'd)
LABORATORY CHARGES'
w/Extra Load. Add (per load): ........
R-Value {Untrealed) ................................................
R-Va!~ (Tm, attL-d) .................................................... - .........................................
CBR (Untreated) Pi Poinf~.._
Sulfa~ {:~tenl ...............................
pH
pHand Resis~ ..................................
CALTRANS 216 ......
........ 175
._ 175
150
4~
......... 27
110
Laboratory samples will be maint~inecl fot g0 days, A nmnltdy dara3e fee o~$Z.50 per I~1.00 pe~ mg wtl be es~e'~ed if
Ionget storage is mqui'eaL
Laboratary Staff Fee~_ (per hour)
Lalx~abry Tech I
~ Tech mm sss.oo
Ser~or Technician
Senio~ St~lf Enginee/Sd~tist S/ZOO
included,
ITEM 16
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
February 9, 1999
SUBJECT:
Professional Services Agreement with Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade &
Douglas, Inc. for Final Design Southbound Off-Ramp and I-15 Widening nodh
of Rancho California Road, Project No. PW98-08
PREPARED BY:
William G. Hughes, Senior Engineer ~ Capital Projects
Scott Harvey, Associate Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
Approve the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Temecula and Parsons
Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. for the final design of the Southbound Off-Ramp and 1-15
Widening north Rancho California Road, Project No. PW98-08, for $94,368.00 and authorize
the Mayor to execute the contract.
Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount
of $9,436.00, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount.
Authorize the transfer of $48,000.00 from the construction budget to the design budget for
the additional design costs associated with a change to the project scope of work.
BACKGROUND: Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. recently completed the
preliminary study to add an auxiliary lane for south bound traffic along the freeway and widen the exit
ramp north of Rancho California Road (see Exhibit "A"). The consultant's report has determined that
it is feasible to widen the southbound exit ramp from Rancho California Road to 1-15 and add an
auxiliary lane along the I-15 freeway.
This design (see Exhibit "A"), will provide a southbound exclusive exiting lane off the 1-15 to increase
the vehicle storage capacity on the southbound exit ramp. This design will also require the extension
of the existing Empire Creek Bridge box culvert, which will require hydraulic reports to be reviewed
and approved by Caltrans.
The consultant will submit the design to Caltrans, Riverside County Flood Control, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Fish and Game for their review and approval.
r:\agdrpt\99\O209\PW98*OBfin.agr
FISCAL IMPACT: This project is funded by Capital Project Reserves. The total cost for
professional design services is $ 94,368.00, and the 10% contingency of $ 9,436.00 for a total
amount of $103,804.00. A transfer of $48,000.00 from the Construction Account No. 210-165-605-
5804 to the Design Account No. 210-165-605-5802 is necessary for the design work to be done.
Additional funds will be required for the construction. A request for construction funding will be
presented after the final designs are completed. The construction cost is estimated to range from
$550,000 to $700,000.
Attachments:
Exhibit "A"
Professional Services Agreement
r:\agdrpt\99\O209\PW98-OBfin.agr
80-86Mcl .LOqPOaa 'avoa VlN~IO_-II'lV30HDNV~I IV
9NINqGIM aNva--4-~o C]NFIOSHIFIOS GI-I
]C]IM dl,4V~l-adO 'dO~d
Q3QN31X3 38 Ol l~3Aq~3 X08
qNV"I IIX::I ::IAISFI'I3X:I ::lSOdO~Jd
,,V,, IISIHXq
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGREEMENT
FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMP AND 1-15 WIDENING NORTH OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
PROJECT NO. PW98-08
Temecula, a
("Consultant").
follows:
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of February 9, 1999, between the City of
municipal corporation ("City") and Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.,
In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as
1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on February 9, 1999, and shall remain
and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than February 9, 2000,
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 tbrth 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 thithfully, competently and to the
best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, per/brm 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
re6erence as though set li~rth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount shall not
exceed Ninety Four Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Eight Dollars and No Cent,~ ($94,368.00) for the total
term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement.
b. Consultant shall not be compensated fi~r any services rendered in connection with its
perfi,'mance 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 tbr 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 twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). Any additional work in excess of this amount
shall be approved by the City Council.
c. Consultant will submit invoices monthly fi~r actual .services pertbrmed. Invoices shall
be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, tbr 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 t~es it shall give written notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice
of any disputed fees set tbrth on the invoice.
R:\cip\prc~iccts\pwgS\pw98_08\pbqdbr3.agr
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
perti~rmed 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 ti3r 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
bv 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
perti.'mance 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 uFxm it of said notice in which to cure
the default by rendering a satisfactory pertbrmance. 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 pertbrmance 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 [x~oks and records, shall give
City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom
as ncces~ry, 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 fin' a period of three (3)
years after receipt tit' 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 tither documents
prepared in the course of providing the services to be pertbrmed pursuant to this Ageement shall become the
sole prttperty of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission
,,f 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.
R:\cip\proj~:cts\pwgg\pw98_08\pbqdbr3 .agr
c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not be liable
tBr any in uries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location other than that specified
in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant.
8. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and
hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims,
demands. losses, defense costs or expenses, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers,
agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them tbr injury to or death of
persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions in
performing or thiling to pertbrm under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the
negligence of the City.
9. INSURANCE REOUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the
durati~m of the contract insurance against claims tbr injuries to persons or damages to property which may
arise from or in connection with the per/Brmance 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 ~rm CG 0001).
(2)
Insurance Services Office fi~rm number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering
Automobile Liability, code I (any auto).
(3)
Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of Caliti~rnia and
Employer's Liability Insurance.
(4)
Errors and o;nissions liability insurance appropriate to the consultant's
profession.
b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:
General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal
injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or
other t~rm 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 tbr bodily injury and
property damage.
(3) Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident tier h~dily injury or disease.
(4) Errors and on~issions liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence.
c. Deductibles anti Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions
must bc declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City Manager, either the insurer
shall rednee or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its ofticers, officials,
employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related
investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
R:\cip\projects\pwgg\pwgg_08\pbqdbr3.agr
d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are
to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered
as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on
behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the
Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or
automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The
coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection
aflbrded 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 thilure 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 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.
t'. Verification of Coveratze. Consultant shall furnish the City with original
endorsements eft~cting c~verage 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 tbrms provided by
the City. All endorsen~ents are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an
alternative to the City' s t'orms, the Consultant's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required
insurance policies, including endorsements eftcoring 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 perfi~rming 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 ctmtrol over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees or
agenk,4. except as set tbrth 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.
R:\cip\projects\pwgg\pw98_08Xpbqdbr3 .agr
b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this
Agreement. Except tbr the t~es paid to Ctmsuhant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries,
wages. ~r other compensation to Consultant for pertbrming services hereunder for City. City shall not be
liable t'or compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of pertbrming
services hereunder.
11. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep it,ll 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 ob~rve and comply
with all such laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in
equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section.
12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION.
a. All information gained by Consultant in pertBrmance of this Agreement shall be
considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written authorization.
Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the
City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support,
testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other intbrmation concerning the work performed
under this Agreement or relating to any 13roject or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena
or court order shall not be considered "vtfiuntary" provided Ctmsultant gives City notice of such court order
,n' subl~{~ena.
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
docnments, interrogatories, request fi>r admissiorts 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 oplx~rtunity to review any reslx~nse to discovery requests provided by Consultant.
However, City's right to review any such reslx~nse does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct,
,~l' 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,
rettn'n receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set ti~rth below or at any other address as that
party may later designate by Notice:
To City:
City of Ternecula
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, Calitbrnia 92589-9033
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: City Manager
To Consultant:
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
685 East Carnegie Drive, Ste. 210
San Bernardino, CA 92408-3507
Phone: (909) 888-1106
Attn: Rick Simon, PrQiect Manager
R:\cip\prQiects\pwgg\pw98_08\pbqdbr3 ,agr
5
14. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this
Agreement. nor any part thereof, nor any mimics due hereunder, without prior written ct~nsent of the City.
Because of the perstmal nature of the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement, only Rick Simon
shall perti~rm the services described in this Agreement. Rick Simon may use assistants, under their direct
supervision, to perform some of the services under this Agreement. Consultant shall provide City tburteen
(I 14) days' notice prior to the departure of Rick Simon from Consultant's employ. Should he or she leave
Ctmsultant's employ, the city shall have the option to immediately terminate this Agreement, within three (3)
days ~t' 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 li3rce and eft~ct, all licenses required of it by law tbr the pertbrmance 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 t~es 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, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into
this Agreement and shall be of no further fi~rce or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based
solely upon the representations set fi~rth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any
and all t~cts such party deems material.
'18. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons
executing this Agreement on behalf of Ctmsuhant warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to
execute this Agreement tin behalf of the Ctmsultant and has the authority to bind Consuhant to the pertbrmance
,~l its ~fiMigations hereunder.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day
and vcar first above written.
CITY OF TEMECULA
By
Steven J. Ford, Mayor
Attest:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
Approved As to Form:
Peter M. Thorson. City Attorney
R:~cip\prqject,,,\pwg~\pw98_08\pbqdbr3 .agr
CONSULTANT
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
685 East Carnegie Dr., Suite 2 I0
San Bernardino, CA 92408-3507
(909) 888-1106
Bedros Agopovich, Area Manager
R:\cip\projccts\pwg14\pw98_08\pbqdbr3.agr
EXHIBIT A
TASKS TO BE PERFORMED
R:\cip\pr~iccts\pwgg\pw98_08\pbqdbr3.agr
!Thursday January 28, 1999 6:l~,pn -- From ~909 889 188~' -- Page 21
0]./28/99 20:02 F/LI: 909 889:1.884 PAILSONS BRXNCK.
January 29, 1999
Mr. S,~__tt Havey
City of Temecula
43200 Bu~ess Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 9258~
SubiecC
Proposals for Engineering Design Services
We are i~eased to submit bur proposals to provide engineering design services for the City or
Temecula. The costs fm~ad on the aff--L,-hed pages reflect the illowing scope of wodc
Project I - Entrance Ramps at Rancho Califomia Road
tamp w~] transition from two lanes at Ranctlo CaEfornia Rn=d_ to one lane atthe e, bdnce gore to
southbound 1-15. Revisions to the bu,'; signal at the rdrnp terminal wil be required.
Modifications to the existing landscapin9 in~jation syslem w~ll also be required. These plans
We wt also prepare separate plans for a constmclion change order to add one ~ to
westlx~Jnd Rancho Califomia Road between Ynez Road and the northbound 1-15 ramp terminal,
The ;~'~uTK: signal at Ynez ate[ Rancho California wal be modired in Itm northwest comer of the
in_ter~N~_'nn. The traffic signal at Rancho Califomm and the northbound rarr~ ternreal will be
modifed. The ~d entrance ramp wi be widened to two lanes at the ramp terminal. The
widened ramp will ~ to one lane at the enf~-~,e gore to northbound 1-15, Modificalions
to existing landscaping and irrigation systems will be required, It is assumed that a slope
easement wal be obtained from the adjacent property owner and that a retaining w-riB Wi~ not be
necessan/. These plans wi be ready for issuance to the contractor within four weeks or netice-
Prg_ject 2 - Southbound Exit Ramp to Rancho California Road
This project will construct an auxiary Lane along soulhbound 1-15 approadling the exit romp to
Rancho Cagomia Road. The exit will be reconr~cjumd to be a two-lane exit. The widening wil
stop where I~le ramp is already two lanes wide.
Construction of the acoaTBry wi require widening of the structure carrying southbound 1-15 ov~
Empire CreeK. We wig coonimam with Carttans and other appropriate agencies to gain approval
for this widerang. Hydraulic analysis of the creek wig be performed to arrive at a design solution
which is acceptable to all parties. The bridge design w~'ll include a geotechnical investigation as
well as final structural plans approved by CalUans. Bec/ncal design wi be limited to the
mlocalion of the existing lurninaires along I-15. Landscaping and imgation facilities will be
idemti~ed and designed to be relocal~d as n~nry.
iThursday January 28, 1999 6:16m -- From #909 889 188/,' -- Page 3t
01/28/99 20:02 F,~T. 909 889 ].884 PAILSONS BRLNCK.
~]003
Project 3 - Southbound Exit Ramp to Winchester Road
This project will ~ an auxtary lane along southbound 1-15 approaching me ~ ramp to
VVindesterRoacL The exit wi be recon~gurecl to be a two-lare exit. Thewidemngwfilstop
where the ramp ls ak~ady two lanes wide,
Consb'uctjQn of Ihe a, ~r~_n/wi require widening of the stnjd3ae c3nying the exit ran~ over
Santa Gemdis Creek. We wll coordinate wiffi Calba,s and other appropriate agendes to gain
supeelevatio~ oR the ramp, recluiring a mg of the channel bottom to mareram adequate
hydraulic capacity. Permits will be obtained from me Corps of Engineers and betside County
RouJ Control as necessa~ to gain approval for the channel rnodtcabons. The bridge design will
include a geotechnjcal investigation as well as final stnx:tur& plans approved W Caltrans.
Eiedrk:~ design w~ll be ~T~ited to the re/~ of the e3dsl~ng luminab'es along 1-15.
Landscaping and migalion factties ~nli be idenfiRed and designed to be rekx:amd as necessan/.
Project 4 - Northbound Entrance Ramp at W'mchester Road
This project will widen lhe norffibound entrance i-amp to 1-15 at Winchester Road. The ramp will
be widened to a two-iane width at Winchester Roaci and wi tapet back to meet lhe existjng one-
lane width just prior to me bridge carrying me ramp over Santa Gemdis Creek. No modifications
to the bridge or 1~e creek will be mq,,~red for U~S project Signa modffications at the ramp
~ w~lh V~ Road will be blduded ili the pn3jpH VVestl)ound ~nd~sler Road will
be res~ped to Fovide two lanes turning right onto the ram. Landscaping and krigatjan faca16es
Tasks Common to All Four Projects
The atl3ched plOF'R~k iricJt~a,~!e I~111e for ~~ ~ cocN'ffnll~tiofi ~ ~ and other
agerides to gain approval for the designs. The ~ include the effort requzred to complete
final plans. spedF,;,~jns, and estimates ready for bid adverlisernent. The proposals also include
limited lime for censtP_~u:~-Jn support during the consmJction I:)hase of the project. It is =L~,=urned
that no new right-of-way ortempomry easermmts wi be required f0r PrOjects2, 3, and4. It is
assumed that one slope easeme~wig be requked f~-Project l and that we wi prepare a legal
descziption and a ~ for this item.
The four proposals ntf-~thed arc two pages each. The first page is a cost sum man/page and the
second is a table of hours requbed fo~ the vakx~ tasks involved. Also attached following the
Should you have any questions on these proposals please cal me at 888-1106.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF QUADE & DOUGLAS, INC,
Rick Simon, P.E
Project Manager
Thursaay January 28, 1<~ 6:16m -- From #909 889 188Z,~ -- Page 4~
01/28/99 20:03 FAI 909 889 1884 PARSONS BRI~TCK.
~004
Consmjction Change Orders at Rancho California
Cost Estimate Summary
TOT,4~I. AVERAGE LAB43R
STAFF TrTLE STAFF NAME HOURS HOURLY COSTS
RATE
PIC 0 $45.00 $0
PROJ MGR 32 $4,5.00 $1,440
QA/QC 0 $;38,00 $0
STRUCTURES 0 $34.00 $0
STRLIC ENGR 0 $2'/.00 $0
ENGR SUPP 81 $21.00 $1,827
CADD OPER 172 $20.00 $3,440
PROJ ADMIN 0 $15.50 $0
DlitECT LABOR SUBTOTALS
371 $9,507
OVEF~IEAD (150% PROVISIONAL) $14~6t
OTHER DSP,.ECT COSTS (ODC'S'):
CADD 172 hrs~$15/hr $2,580
PC 43,5 hrs .-, $5/ta- $218
MILEAC-~ 600 n~les a;t $0.31/mile $"186
REPRODUCTION $100
POSTAGE/DELIVERIES
PHONE
MISCm l NMEOUS $0
SUBCONSULTANTS:
5"TB LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
LARRY E]SENHART
ENGINEERING VENTURES
SUBTOTAL SUBCONSULTANT COSTS
$16,175
prop1
PA,qBONI BRINCKERHOIt~ FIIqAI. DL~81QN
CON$'TRUCq'IQN CHAddOE QR"IERB AT RA, NCHO ~ PARION00RINCKERHOFF
1 O1 RC/,DVVAY PL.A~'I I, 32 0 0 O 1O
D&/I: RIVIIION;
I
MIL!I TQNI/PHAIFJPROJFeT ILIM MARy:
MILIITONE I
I?1 O
t tnurs~ay January 28, 1999 6:14pm -- From '909 889 188~~ -- Page 6!
01/28/99 20:04 FAI 909 889 1884 P,~,SONS BRIXCK.
I~lO(
Southbound Exit to Rancho California
Cost Estimate Stmry
TOTAL AVERAGE LABOR
STAFF TITLE STAFF NAME HOURS HOURLY COSTS
RATE
PIC Ca $45.00 $0
PROJ MGR 84 $,4,5.00 $3,780
QA/QC 0 $38.00
$TRUC ENGR 128 $27.00 $3,4,56
ENGR SUPP 120 $21o00 1Q,,520
PROJ ADMIN 0 SiS.SO
DIRECT )R SUBTOTALS
OVERHEAD (150mA, PROVISIONAL) $40,104
OTHER DIRECT COSTS (QDC'S):
CADD 150 hm at St.Mr $2250
PC 60 hrsat$Sar $300
MILEAGE 600 mass at SO.31/m~ $186
ItF,.PRODUCTION $100
POSTAGE/DF_!,.IVE~|ES
M!$CELLANEOU,S $0
SUBCONSULTANTS:
STB LANDSC/V~E ARCHITECTS
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERING VENTURES
SUBTOTAL SUBCONSULTANT COSTS
$t4.9(30
I llV I
I
!
O
o
,t 0
COk o
o
O
e
o
o
o
o
Dk
0
I, iiNOJ,,ig IlVI ],lOHk~:J)l::X, qll~JI gNOrUVd VINMOJI"NO ONONVU Q,, uXi ON('IC,~HLFIO9
IAWYRW nl l:31rOid~llYt4d)!NOtlrllW U, QBFOUW
L ~ IM,Ig/| NOI$:IO "lVNId J.:IOI-1¥aXONIitE BNOib"Vd
JNOIIIA!Id IBLVO HNC)M 40 idO~)l :ANYdlNO3
.t ~H~)PJO/~,~ .VJ'lOftNVZq
Thursday January Z8, 1~ 6:16pm -- From '909 889 188/,' -- Page 8i
01/28/99 20:06 FAI 909 889 1884 PARSONS BRINCK.
~OO8
Southbound Exit to Winchester Road
Cost Estimate Summary
TOTAL
STAFF TEI"LE STAFF NAME HOURS
PIC O
PROJ MGR 68
QA/QC 0
CIVIL 192
STRUCTURES 80
STRUC ENGR 128
ENGR SUPP 120
CADD 0PER ~
PROJ ADMIN 0
AVERAGE LABOR
HOURLY CO~TS
$15.50 $0
DIRECT LABOR SUBTOTALS
888 $24,478
OVERHEAD (150"/. PROVISIONAL)
$36.714
OTHER DIRECT COSTS (OOC~'):
CADD 150 m at $15/ht $2250
PC 60 hesat$5/hr $300
MILEAGE 800 roles at $O,11/mie $188
RI~PRODUCTION $100
POSTAGE/D~IF,,S
MISCB_!_ANEOUS $0
SUBCONSULTANTS:
ST13 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERING VENTURES
SUBTOTAL SUBCONSULTANT COSTS
$t4,500
el O ~ ~ 09 · o · I 0 811fikF:Jd
I
'!IgAIYI'IV gO'i,
Ok' e 5 0 OIP 0 a o 4. o :)II(1Y~I~A~4] ,,
tit O Ol, l O O I~l Ca 0 ,O · lIW'ld ;DOIEIQ I,O'i
~1 0 0 0 x-r, 0 O 0 O l) !)Nl'l'~)HJ. Od
·
I ~iHOlJJll Jl :IalOItI~:I~::)NI~6 '9NOIliVel 13VDII ii JLOil HONIM O..L J. IXJ aNn0e,.ulo 9
IAIlYjl ~fll .L"~!l"ClldfBIVHdflNOll*JllVI L,L~lf'OVd
| J 4g. rlCtl NOiS3a 1YNI.."1 .I..IONI:I])4ONIUU 9NOgWYd
:NnlllAlll . . . .~J. VC) )4ilO~ dO idO~ IANVdVNOO
!Thursday January 28, 19~ 6:14pm -- From '909 889 188~' -- Page 10~
61/28/99 20:01 FAX 909 889 1884 PA2SONS BRINCX.
~]010
Northbound Entrance at Winche=i~r Road
Cost Estimate Summary
TOTAL AVERAGE LABOR
STAFF TFI'LE STAFF NAME HOURS HOURLY COSTS
PtC 0 $4~.00 $0
PROJ MGR 44 $45.00 $1,980
QA/QC 0 $38.00 $0
STRUCTURES 0 $34.00 $0
STRUC ENGR 0 $27.00 $0
ENGR SUPP 80 $21,00 $1,680
CADD OPER 160 $20.00 $3,200
PROJ ADMtN 0 $15,50 $0
DIRECT LABOR SUBTOTALS
OVERHEAD (150% PROVISIONAL)
$14j370
OTHER DIFUSCT COSTS (ODC'S):
CADD 80 Itm ~ $15/hr $1 200
PC 40 hrsat$5/ht $200
MILEAGE 6Q0 ~_'__b~_ a~ $0_31/mae $18~
REPRODUCTION $100
POSTAGE/OF_LIVERIES
MISt'-F~ U~IEOUS $0
SUBCONSULTANTS:
S'i"B LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
LARRY FJSENHART
ENGINEERING VENTURES
SUBTOTAL SUBCONSULTANT COSTS
$10,500
~i. 0 0 0 [l O 0 D O 0
QNrmOliJ. O,d
,3~N'.'U.LN3 CI~rrlOI{HI~JON
z.L:~JrON'd
jJOHId3)4DNlUB $NDEUV~I'
sAN, Vdl~lO'n
I. '~NO. LBB'ilN :lJOHIJiN'JNIIJ6 91~0iNVd QVOW 113LI31i:)NIM J.
m.Aili, lmli~$ .LDIf~Wd/'IIlFNW/INO.I~lIH
~ I e~BllF../I 1'4~163(] TVNIJ
tNOllRlli tl],VI3 )dWOM dO Id~l
!Thursday January 28, 1999 6:1~,m -- From '909 889 188~' -- Page 12~
01/28/99 20:08 FAI 909 889 1884 PAILSONS BRINCK.
~012
~.. .,. ~ ..... : :: .' :.:, :.
· . .:'-.'..;::-.- .--... :- , :. , :: ":....
*. . :".' ·
.'. .; '... ·
"" ': :'-.-:.': "'':""" ....:' '-:'"'--
PO.<:tTtON OR CLASSIFICA OF. - ': :... '... : ,'. ': ::..': *--.-
_ . . . . - .. · ... · , .. ,,.., ',.-'.~.., ~.
· ::2 -"j'. ' ':" '*"": · ':.. *.-, .-"'" ** ' "
Landsc:q~ Demgn~. $LS.00 ~.r -hoUr ::,' · '. '.'
· · '.'.. :. .: .' :. "..~..:' . '
s.ea~ryi-''s2s-00~:~.~=' ::'-. · :. ',".'. ' ".':::-:i-'.. :.~ i:-,: ':~
· . :.': ' ., · ... . -..
~U1LSABI F. COSTS: : '. : .....:. ..
· : .-. ...:.,: . -
Th-fo,o~-g~,~u'b~,b~b,~,',;,~'~i~,>.: ':".:.' · :'-':~ ".::"':'.'.:. ~--'..!.:?!:.-
' ' ' ' ' -". ' '- "" .' .:.: ,,/: ' ' '.:':: ': ' '; ' ", :. ' '.C ' i ":'
'cimnectionwi~thew0ttc,~-fl~~:'.'?;."~:'~'-.:~ :' .:. ::-:':~': .':-':"'"' -~:','~' ':.'"""
· ' - · .,... ·..-::: -:~ .... .. ".- --, · .,' .:t ': .
· B, ~ of postage ~ .shipping '~.o~.'th~- ~rat' Clas~ inYm"L '" .: '.., .-:. -"......
· Fees.for addition~ .. :.~ .~ .... . .. . ...... , :. ':: ", .: -'.. ....
· .. ,..- :.:...'..'~:: .:,~. .. .... : . · .., . . · :":?.'
~XT~-. SERVlC~ - '-'. ':': . .' ", '. '-: '. ....'--""
: " ; '.':".:"': ' "' ' '' ;-'. ~'.-,"i. ', .' .':
: . · .,':',..-- .. .-.. - ..... ,: , · .. ..- . · .
.... .. ;.. · ., .,: .... .,.'.. -...- . . . - ,.,., ,.. ,,... . ..- . · .. ..... ...'
TA2 '~ 12
· ' ' , ' " :·',-,;.'....-'5 ',"'.'.'. " ' '""~:.-."- " "'.' ~' '.~' " ' ,~.,
s ~ ~tm ~oc~r~ ~,~~: ;i'/' ';i": '...."' -:."~. ;... '::... .,.' ..
.. · . . . ...- . ..-...--.-..:.-..: ?.'..':.. · .;: · ,,. .-; .-:. ~ '-.' ... -'; .,.:..
ofth~projecL '- :'" ~.": .. "" '~"-': ...."" ' '·' "" ' : ' '.' -' :-: .'-."' 7:.: .' '~,""'
· . · .; -.;.,: .. · .- , .
· -' .: ·:: ..: ~' ...';,,.'.-.., .. .- .... - , . .' ,- , '.'.'
ACCOUNTS: "": '- · ' "' ':'~:' :""" ""'
· ' " ' . ,.' ....", --.,Z'.-".'
.': .;. . '. . '.., . . . · .., -.
=,~s ,,or ~,i ~ithin ~o'.~..'ot ~;~i~ ~;,~ :.',.i ~:: .: ".".-.''. ': ." .' .' '. '.. ".' .:. '~..., -.',....
-. . ... "-.°.., ,.,..-.-,-: , . .' · . ~ .... . - ~, .- ..-..
.. . ] ; ... . .:. .- .-
~ ~,: .':.,' . . . , -. .,
'...- ~ ..
'. ~. '., ; :-'
..... : , .. ;.....!'....,~ ";' ..
· . . - . - .~.~.. ',... , :. .:- . · . , . -
· · : -.. -_- .. · . ,
i'Thursday January 28, 1999 6:l/,Fxn -- From '909 889 188/,' -- Page
01/28/gQ 20:Og FAX 90Q 889 1884 PARSONS BRINCI[,
JAN--28--94/ eli :~q AM EEH{;IHEERIHC; VEHTURES
ENGINEERING
VENTURE, INC.
LAND PLANNING · C:IVIL F.,NGINFr. Ei~IN(~ · LAND S~.J;~VL=Y1NG
p,el2
SCHT:.DULF. OF HOURLY
September t. I99g
pRINt!Ira.41 .¢;
Principal Engineer (ILC.E.) .................................. $a 1 $.O0/I-l,,~
pIAb'NI,N~G
Planr~ .................................................. $ 85.00fi-lour
Agency Pnx'cssing ......................................... $ 65.O0/Hour
FNGINEERrNG
l f=ssionat Eu inccr (R.C.E.) ................................$
Projt:d Coordinator ........................................$
~ Eng~ ........................................... $
~T~~ .......................................... $
~~t~a M~g~ ....................................... $
95.00/Hour
90.00/llour
80.0(X/Hour
75.00/IIour
65.00/Hour
65.00alour
5 5.00II Iour
45.00,q-lour
SURVEYING
DirccWr of Surveying (PJ,.S-) ................................. · 75.0 0/Hour
Three-Man Crew. .......................................... $140.00/ltodc
Two-Man Crrw ............................................ $120,0(l/Hour
MI,~'CF-I-1,4 NEO U, q; COST:c;
Lodging .................................................. Dit~t Cost 4 10%
Long DLstancc Telephone Calls ................................ Direct Cost + ! 0~
Messenger [Pick-up/Delivery) ................................. $ 30.00/IIour
MBcagc Expemsc .......................................... $ 0.4S/Mile
Per Diem ........................... . ..................... $ 25,00/Day/Man
Reproductkm 'Expen.~ ....................................... Direr Cost + 10%
43500 Ridge Parl¢ Drive, $ulte 202 - Ternecula. CA 92590 · (9091 699-6450 Fax: (91:)9} 6,g9-3.~9 - E-Ni3II: engrvent@.ner_con
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
R:\cip\projccts\pw98\pw98_08\pbqdbr3 .agr
;Thursaay January 28, 1999 6:lApm -- From '909 889 188/,' -- Page 16~
01/28/99 20:10 FAX 909 889 1884 PARSONS BRINCK.
~016
1998 PROFESSIONAL FEE SCHEDULE
GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES (Conrd)
LABORATORY CHARGES'
TEST
Mo~ture C, ofen( .........................................................................................................$ 8
Moisuu-e and Density (Ring Sam~es) .............................................................................~S
Moisture and l;)ensity (~ Tube) ................................................................... 45
Maximum Dqf Density (Optirrtam Moisture Cor~ .............................................. ~25
Maximum Oens.y Checkpoint ................. - ..............................50
uo~e and Betairy (Chuni Sampes) .....
Specific Gravity - Fine AcJgmgate ..........
~ Gravel - C, GaP~ AgUregaze ..........................
skwe A, udy.~,_ ..............
h'yd, amete ~ahr~ .....
Sieve and Hydrometer Analysis ...................
Percent Passing rio. 2no Sieve ..........................................................
~ion Index ...........
okect Shear (Remcdaed) ........................
Direct Shear (R~ or UndislufoetL Slow)
Single Point Shear .............
Totsionai Shelit .........
Consoii~;a~;.n (w/o Tm~e-Ftat~_e) __
Coaapse Test
W/rime Ram. Add (per tK:mmem): ...............
W/ExVa Load. Add (per load): .......
R-Velue (Unlreated) .................
R-Value (1'maecd) ...............................................
CBR (Untreated) Per Point_.._
Surf ate Contenl
pH ....................................................
pHandF, er, i~ ..................................
CALTRANS 216 ........
Chlodde Contenl ...................
......................................... 175
150
...................... ._. 46
110
........................................ 135
....................................... 46
Labomtorys,~pleswiilbema;-,~-;,edforg0day~. Amonlhlyduragefeeo~$Z.50perbag/$1.00Perringwibe&tsessedif
kmge~ slotage it, mquked,
Laboratory Staff Fees (per hour)
Seruor Staff Enginee/Scient~ S73,00
Theabaveratesincbxlepedonningtheestandprodt~r~rawtabotmeymstms- No da~ redudion or investigmton is:,...
indudecL
ITEM
APPROVAL ,/~'
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Cit Manager/City Council
seph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
February 9, 1999
SUBJECT:
Professional Services Agreement for Pile Design Revisions and Review and
Processing of Retaining Wall Changes for the Overland Drive Overcrossing
at Interstate Route 15, Project No. PW95-11
PREPARED BY: William G. Hughes, Senior Engineer - Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
Approve a professional service agreement with TYLIN-InternationaI-McDaniel in an amount not
to exceed $35,500 for foundation pile redesign and review of revised retaining walls for the
Overland Drive Overcrossing at Interstate Route 15, and authorize the Mayor to execute the
contract.
2. Authorize the Acting City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency
amount of 10% of the agreement amount.
BACKGROUND: On December 15, 1998 the City Council authorized the City Manager to award
a construction contract to C.C. Meyer to construct the Ovedand Bridge Crossing subject to Caltrans
approval. Caltrans approved the award and the acting City Manager completed the award on
December 29, 1998.
Staff is investigating construction methods to expedite the project and resolve foundation pile driving
impacts to Guidant Corporation who are located adjacent to the Ovedand Project. One method of
saving considerable time and money, as well as reducing the impacts to Guidant is to replace the
current cast-in-place retaining walls with Mechanically Stabilized Embankment (MSE) retaining walls.
This wall type will not require piles to be driven for the wall foundations, will reduce a required 60
days soil settlement period necessary for the previous retaining wall fill and save money.
This type of retaining wall was considered during the design process, but had been dismissed
because the overhead utility relocations were planned to be installed underground in the approach
fill and in the new bridge. The overhead utilities conversion was abandon due to excessive costs
and limited City conversion funds. MSE walls can not be used if utilities are placed in the roadway
fill. The overhead utilities are now staying overhead and the MSE wall is again a viable alternative.
Caltrans has conceptually agreed to the change, as long as no future underground utilities will be
place in the roadways.
This agreement will authorize our design consultants to evaluate alternative pile construction method
still needed for the bridge foundations and to review and process approvals necessary for the MSE
retaining walls. This agreement is based on hour rates of only the time needed to complete the
work.
R:\AGDRPT%99iO209\PWg5-11 agr.wallspdes/ajp
FISCAL IMPACT: The Bridge Improvement Project is funded with CFD 88-12, ISTEA/STP,
Capital Project Reserves, Redevelopment Agency (RDA), and Developer Impact Fees. Adequate
funds are available for this work in Account No. 210-165-604-5801.
ATTACHMENTS: Agreement
R:\AGDRPT\9910209\PWg6-11 agr.wallspiles/ajp
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGREEMENT
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANT SERVICES
OVERLAND DRIVE OVERCROSSING
PROJECT NO. PW95-11
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of February 9, 1999, between the City of
Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and TY LIN International-McDaniel, ("Consultant").
In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as
follows:
1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on February 9, 1999. And shall remain
and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than
February 9, 2000, 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 Thirty Five Thousand Five Hundred Dollars
and No Cents ($35,500.00) 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 twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). Any additional work in excess of
this amount shall be approved by the City Council.
c. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices
shall be submitted 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 an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice.
- 1-
R:\cip\projects\pw95\pw95-11 \agree\mcdanielpileagrmt
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 Consultanrs 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 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 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 an~l hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling,
transferring and printing computer files.
- 2-
R:\cip\projects\pw95\pw95-11 \agree\mcdanielpileagrmt
c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the consultant shall not be
liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location
other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant.
8. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and
hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any
and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, or liability of any kind or nature
which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be
imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of
Consultant's negligent or 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 ).
(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 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.
(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 Retention's. 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.
- 3-
R :~cip\projects\pw95\pw95-11 \agree\mcdanielpileagrmt
d. Other insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies
are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be
covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities
performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed
operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the
Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the
Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the
scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or
volunteers.
(2)
For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance
coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers,
officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured
maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall
be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
(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 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 Covera.qe. Consultant shall furnish the City with original
endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed
by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to
be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the
City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer
may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including
endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications.
10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent
contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of
Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City
nor any of its officers, employees or agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or
any of Consultant's officers, employees or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement.
Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers,
employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant
shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City,
or bind City in any manner.
- 4-
R :\cip\projects\pw95\pw95-11 \agree\mcdanielpileagrmt
b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the
performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the
Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for
performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or
indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
11. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of State
and Federal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way
affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all
times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and
employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to
comply with this section.
12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION.
a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be
considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written
authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without
written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily
provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or
other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project
or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be
considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees,
agents or 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 be 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
Attn: City Manager
To Consultant:
TY LIN lnternational-McDaniel
5030 De La Siesta, Suite 204
San Diego, Califomia 92108
Attn: Jack A. Abcarius, Vice President
R:\cip\projects\pw95\pw95-11 \agree',mcdanielpileagrmt
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 Jack A. Abcarius, P.E., Vice President shall perform the services described
in this Agreement Jack A. Abcarius 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 Jack A. Abcarius 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, representations and statements, oral or
written are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is
entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon
each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material.
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 above written.
CITY OF TEMECULA
By
Steven J, Ford, Mayor
Attest:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
R:\cip\projects\pw95\pw95-11 \agree\mcdanielpileagrmt
Approved As to Form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
CONSULTANT
TY LIN International-McDaniel
5030 De La Siesta, Suite 204
San Diego, CA 92108
(619) 692-1920
By:
Mark Ashley, Senior Vice President
- 7-
R:\cip\projects\pw95\pw95-11 \agree~mcdanielpileagrmt
EXHIBIT A
TASKS TO BE PERFORMED
- 8-
R:\cip\prolects\pw95\pw95-11 \agree\mcdanielpileagrmt
IFriday January 29, 1999 8:t, Bam -- From ~619 692 063/d -- Page 21
01/29/99 FRI 10:32 FAX 619 692 0634 T,Y. LIN INT*L/Mcl)ANIEL
12]002
"I: -LININTERNATIONAL-Mc-DANIEL
Jamraft 27, 1999
SuNed:
Dear Bill:
city of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Mr. Bill Hughes
Overland Drive Overflossing
We am subutitting this proposal to provid~ bridge engixgeting servict~ fat tedesign of the abutment
and bent foundations, and for checking the dea~gn and detail-~ oft!~ Contractor pmposod
Mechanically Stabilizzd F-mbankment (MSE) walls in lieu of Type I fOtaipin_o walls for the Ov~fiaad
Drive Overcrossing projeeL
PROJECT DL~JI'TION
Porsuant to the pile driving t~ts which wex= completed test year in the vicinity of the Guidant
Systems building, it was delr~,,~;ned that a]tanafivc found_ __~_'_ons must be utili~L Guidant Symcms
facility runs highly sensitive equipment for tnan~ wiring syst,-m-~ for hl~ut opraat~ona. This
equipment is unable to withstand the v~txations caused during pfie driving, It was further determined
that shutling down their ope,,-atioas is not a viable solution ~nan~ally. Therefore, a~ alternative
foundatkm type such as cast-in-drill~ hole (CIDI-I} piles must be eonsidea~i.
Due to tl~ presence of water table and polgntial for caring soils, CIDH cona=te piles will need to be
construeled using either a casing method, at a slurry-disptaca~ent method.
In addition, the Contractor is preparing a Cost Reduction lnce, ntivc Proposal (CR. IP) to r~vlse the
otigina!|y d~i~mxed Calltans Type 1 re~aining wnll% that were foundod on driven piles, to MSE type
retaining waILs that do not w,,qttirc piles.
It ia muka-stood that the City will be monitoring the inspection wirt~ of the MSI~ xmdl as part of their
maintfnance program. R is also undm'tood that no utilitie~ or fulure utilities will be placed in the
bridge or appr~a~ fills.
5030 Cami~o De La Siesta, Suite 204. San Diego, Califorrda 92108 - Facr~r~lle (619) 6924)634 Telephone (619) 692-19Z0
i Friday January
0]/2g/gl~
1999 8:/~8aa1 -- Froem '619 692 06;54' -- Page 31
FEI 10:33 FAI 619 692 0634 T.Y.
LIN INT'L/MCDANIEL
Cuy d Tm
1~003
SCOPE OF SgRVICES
T .Y. Lin Inttnational · McDanlcl's scope shall include the fo~owin8 task
1. Coozdina~withAGRAEm'th&Environmcntaltoredcsigntheabutmemandbcnt
foundations in accordance with Caltzans "Bridge Design S~oas" aad Fovidc
sU'uctural cakalafions.
2. AGRAEarlh&Envirnnm~lwillbepafiofourteamtoreviewg~fotmd~tion
a,f~ and prepa~ recommendations for alternative types of fosmdnfiot~. They Witi aLqo
review the v~rgion monitoring restfits and esthna~ relative teveb of vibration at the Guidant
plnnt for various distances between pile locWjons and the facility.
3. Perform an independent slructmnl check of the abutment and bent foundation redesign and
4. Revise the bridge plans to show the new pile type and layout. All c,~ and/or revisions
will be done in accordance with Caltrans policies on 'Revisions to Conlract Plans" shown in
the ~Bridge Design Details" Manual, Section 1-20, dated November 1992.
5. Revise the quantity and quantity check calculations for ik'ms affected by the abutment and
bent foundation change. This does not include quantifies for the MSE walls.
6, Upd~e the special ptovisious to include specifications for the revised foundation type, This
does not include updating all of the SSP's to the current RSP'S,
7. Update ~ Engineer's e~ij~zte.
8, Submit the x~luired number of copies of the revised ptans, slructutal calctdations, structm~
check calcdation~ quantifies, estimate, and special provisions for agency review.
9. Respond to agency ¢nmmenls and make plan revisions and resutnnit as necessary.
10, Review ltz design and details ofthe MSE walls as provided by the Cordractor and submit to
Calltans for their review.
ITEMS TO BE FUitNISns'-n BY OTHERS
1. Original mylars of bridge plans.
2. MSE wall plans and design calculations.
{Friday January 29, 1999 8:68am -- From '619 692 0636' -- Page 4{
01/29/99 FRI 10:34 FAI 619 692 0634 T.Y. LIN INT'L/Mcl)ANIEL
~004
WORK NOT ]NCLUDKD
L Design and plan preparation of MSE walls.
2. VolL~ne printing and reproduction.
SCBEDULE
We e~m=t~- a sdaedule of two weeks to complete the fotmd~_t!on tedesign and te~ubmit PB&E for
review by Caltrans and the City, and e~fin~- a schedule of two weeks to review the M. SB wall plans.
This work can be done concorrenfly. The schedule is contingent upon receipt of a no~ce-to-proceea__,
the original bridge plan mylats, the necessary foundation recommendations and the MSE wall plans
and design calculations.
BRIDGE ENGINEERING FEB
We propose to provide these services on a time-and-m~__~_~ basis, For this project, we e~t~-~.~- total
chaigu will not exceed
Please feel free to contact me if questions should arise after review of this proposal
ac~T.~~/~r Abtarpreside~s'P'E'
· Lin Inttm~onal · McDaniel
3LA:cb
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
-9-
R:\cip\projects~pw95\pw95-11 \agree\mcdanielpileagrmt
[Friday January 29, 1999 8:68em -- From '619 692 0636' -- Page S I
01/29/99 F'RI 10:34 FA.[ 610 692 0634 T.Y. LIN INT'L/Ifcl)ANI1ZL
~005
ESTIMATE OF FEES
Overland Drive Overcrossing - Foundation Redesign i MSE Wall Review
T,Y- I.in IntemaGonaJ. McDANIEL
1/28/99
Ovedand Ddve Overcmedng
TASK i RATE:
CoorWnaewehC, eowch. Engr. SmnkwResxxt
N:mbmm Fowuaem Oesk;n
AbutmentPileAnalysis&Oesign
Bent Foundalia Design
:ndepeee~CheckCak:LAndF~anRe, bw II
General Plan .a.
Foundsdoe Plan
Abut. 1 Pie layout - ~ .~.:.'.','::_.I~,'::I,IT~.;.'.~'L.:,'~.I
~ 9 Pie Layout and Fo~ng Plan Revisione
Sealion A-A Footing Details
Bent Pile Layout ~ Footb~ Plan Revisions
Rem°veUffiWesfTeT~altaffectedsheeb
QuanUtMs & F_stbnata
Revise ~Quant~fes
fieviewMSEWaiRansandCaiculatJons
SUBTOTALS:
Gec~c~nk:al En~neehng &
~'rOTAL FEE:
CLASSIFICATION il
|
" s.o.ool s1~'1 ....'semi s--mR
I
I
24.0]
I
I
8.0I
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
I
I
I
!
I
16.0
8.0
98.0
8.0
4.oi
16.C
16.0
4.(]
4,C
4.0
20.0
8.0
60.0
128.0 108.£~
II
FEE
S4277_0o
$544.0O
S272.00
$1.0~8.0O
$t ,0M.00
$1,068.00
$1,780.00
$t,360.00
~.00
St,860.0O
$I ,344.00
S3,.120.0O
Ss00.oo
S.12,416.00
r~,oeo.oo
$35,416.0~
ITEM
18
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE (~
CITY MANAGER j
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO,'
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE:
February 9, 1999
SUBJECT:
Rancho California Road at Interstate Route 15 - Bridge Widening and
Northbound Ramp Improvements, Project No. PW95-12
Increase Construction Contingency
PREPARED BY: ~Nilliam G. Hughes, Senior Engineer - Capital Projects
Steven W. Beswick, Project Engineer - Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council Authorize the Acting City Manager to
approve change orders with Riverside Construction Company for Rancho California Road at
Interstate Route 15 - Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements (Project No. PW95-
12) in an additional amount of $82,000.00 above the previously approved 10% contingency.
BACKGROUND: On October 28, 1997, the City Council awarded a contract to
Riverside Construction Company in the amount of ~3,907,776.00 for said project and
authorized the City Manager to approve change orders that are within the 10% contingency.
The current contract change orders will now exceed the 10% construction contingency by
$74,370.67. Other additional costs forthcoming are anticipated to be approximately $7,629.33.
Generally the changes required to date have resulted from quantity increases, drainage
corrections, safety fencing, relocations of private facilities, utility relocations/upgrades, and
Caltrans requests to meet recent changes of Caltrans standards.
A detailed list of each change order to date is available in the Pubic Works Department.
FISCAL IMPACT: This project is funded primarily by Measure "A" loan from RCTC. Adequate
funds are available in Account No. 210-165-601-5804.
R:~agdrpt~99\0209\RCC. CCO13&14/pw95-12
The amount of the additional inspection costs is $29,000.00.
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
Petra letter
R :~agdrpt\99\O209~petra.amd/pw95-12
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
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 February 9, 1999 by and between the
City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. ("Consultant").
In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. This Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes:
On 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.
Compensation shall be for all services as described in this Amendment and shall not exceed
Twenty Nine Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($29,000.00).
Exhibit "C' is added to the Agreement, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as
though set forth in full.
Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day
and year first above written.
CONSULTANT
CITY OF TEMECULA
Petra Geotechnical, Inc.
27620 Commerce Center Drive, Suite 103
Temecula, California 92590
(909) 699-6193
BY:
Steven J. Ford, Mayor
ATTEST:
BY:
By: Mark Bergmann
Title: Office Manager
BY:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
Approved As to Form:
BY:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
R:Xcip~proJec~s~pw95Xpw95-12~tmena'~.eaa~men.agr/~tjp
PETRA
COSTA MESA · SAN DIEGO · TEMECULA · LOS ANGELES
January 6, 1999
J.N. 472-97
CITY OF TEMECULA
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: Mr. Bill Hughes
Subject:
Revised Supplemental Work Authorization, Rancho California
Road Widening Over Interstate 15, Project P.W. 95-12, City of
Temecula, Riverside County, California
This letter has been provided to address cost overruns that have occurred during
Petra Geotechnical, Inc.'s (Petra's) field observation and testing services during
construction of the on ramp, off ramp, and road widening over Interstate 15 (I-15)
for the City of Temecula, project number P.W. 95-12.
Petra has been providing observation and testing services for soils and construction
materials as requested by the City of Temecula representatives in accordance with
California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) requirements. We are
continuing to provide these testing services on an as-needed basis as requested and
scheduled by city representatives, although we have exceeded the estimated budget.
Presented herein is a breakdown of the estimated costs, actual charges occurred,
and a cost estimate to complete the testing services.
BACKGROUND
Petra submitted a proposal and cost estimate to the City of Temecula for your
review on September 29, 1997. City representatives reviewed the proposal and
concurred with the estimated time frames and associated costs for our testing
services. However, some work items were deleted from our original scope of
PEIRA GEOIECHNICAL INC. work and the costs were reduced accordingly in a revised proposal dated October
27620 Commerce Center Dr. Ste. 103
Temecula, CA 92590
Tel: (909) 699-6193
Fax: (909) 699-6197
Petrate@ibm.net
15, 1997.
can only
CITY OF TEMECULA January 6, 1999
Rancho Cal. Rd. & 1-15, Temecula J.N. 472-97
Page 2
Please note that based on a review of the plans and specifications, we
estimate time frames and testing requirements and the city's
representatives concurred with the estimates provided in our proposal. Our costs
are controlled by the contractors work progress, quality of work, amount of
failing tests, retests, and the number of times that our personnel are requested
to be onsite to conduct testing. Petra does not schedule the testing ourselves but
responds to the requests for these services from the City of Temecula and their
representatives. Therefore, testing costs are beyond our control and we simply
conduct the testing as requested by the City and as required by Cal Trans
specifications. We have continued to provide these services in accordance with Cal
Trans requirements to meet the accelerated schedule as requested by the city.
We have reviewed the project charges to date and provided a summary of the
individual categories and associated costs. Table 1 below is a summary of our
original estimates and charges to date.
TABLE 1
ORIGINAL COST SUMMARY
ITEM
Pre-Grade Meetings
Review Plans
Field Observation/Testing
(Rough grading, Utility Trenches, Subgrade,
Base, Tieback and Retaining walls)
Field Reintbrcing Steel
Footing Observation
Field Test Asphalt
Field Observation Piles
Concrete/Shotcrete Compression Testing
Concrete/Shotcrete Sampling
Laboratory Testing (less concrete/shotcrete)
Meetings
BUDGET ACTUAL COST
($) ($)
345.00 460.00
460.00 95.00
32,175.00 35,710.00
1,375.00 --
1,100.00 165.00
1,100.00 --
6,600.00 7,400.00
1,395.00 1,120.00
5,610.00 4,133.00
5,910.00 6,070.00
5,175.00 5,060.00
CITY OF TEMECULA
Rancho Cal. Rd. & 1-15, Temecula
January 6, 1999
J.N. 472-97
Page 3
TABLE 1
ORIGINAL COST SUMMARY
BUDGET ACTUAL COST
ITEM ($) ($)
QA/QC Review (Site Observation) 4,750.00 4,608.00
Data Analysis 4,600.00 4,123.00
Final Report 4,500.00 --
R-Value Testing None i, 195.00
Extraction None 200.00
Batch Plant None 578.00
Overtime None 4,200.00
Slope Stability Analysis None 3,715,00
As shown above, cost overruns have occurred in a few categories. An explanation
of these charges is provided below:
Pre-Grade meetings
- Our cost estimate was for one meeting, the city requested our attendance
at two pre-construction meetings. The overruns reflect our time spent at
two preconstruction meetings.
Field Observation and Testing
- Our estimated budget was based on our review of the project plans and
specifications and our experience with similar projects. This estimate was
reviewed and approved by city personnel prior to starting the project. Our
testing was conducted on an on-call, as-needed basis, as requested by the
city and your representatives. We have only responded to testing requests
by the city to satisfy Cal Trans requirements. The additional time for
testing was requested by the city and we have responded accordingly by
providing the services as needed.
Field Observation Hles
- Several problems and areas of concern occurred during pile driving
operations. These included refusal of piles before achieving the
recommended tip elevation, lateral resistance, and uplift concerns.
Additional analysis of these conditions was required as directed by the
project structural engineer. Letter reports were prepared to address these
CITY OF TEMECULA
Rancho Cal. Rd. & 1-15, Temecula
January 6, 1999
J.N. 472-97
Page 4
concerns and additional field review time was needed for the project
geotechnical engineer.
Laboratory Testing
- Cal Trans specifications requires laboratory Cal 216 testing to be conducted
for every change in soil type or every five days of duration. Numerous
soils types were encountered that required laboratory testing in accordance
with Cal Trans specifications. The laboratory testing has also exceeded the
estimate because the additional field testing time required additional
laboratory testing.
R-Value Testing
- R-value testing was requested to confirm pavement design and evaluate
import sources. The need for R-value testing was discussed in preparing
our original proposal and was decided that they were not necessary since
the pavement structural section was already determined.
· Extraction Test
- Additional test as requested by Cal Trans
Batch Plant
- Batch plant inspection for specific concrete pours was required by Cal
Trans to meet project specifications.
Overtime
- Due to the accelerated project scheduling, overtime was required for field
testing of soils and sampling/inspection of concrete to satisfy Cal Trans
requirements; 56 hours of overtime were needed to date.
Slope Stability Analysis
- Potentially unstable fill soils were encountered during excavation of the cut
slopes to widen the interstate. This unforseen condition required detailed
geologic mapping to determine the limits of this undocumented fill.
Additional field trenching was conducted to evaluate the in-place density
and depth of this material. Geologic cross sections were prepared and the
stability analyzed. A final report was prepared as requested by Cal Trans
to address this condition.
Presented on the following page ~s a breakdown of the additional costs that are
anticipated to complete the project testing requirements.
CITY OF TEMECULA
Rancho Cal. Rd. & 1-15, Temecula
January 6, 1999
J.N. 472-97
Page 5
TABLE 2
SUPPLEMENTAL COST BREAKDOWN
ITEM
Field Observation and Testing
Concrete Sampling
Laboratory Testing
Concrete Compression Tests
Meetings
QA/QC Review, Scheduling, and Analysis
305 hrs @ $55/hr
40 hrs @ $55/hr
Cal 216; 18 tests @ $150/ea
40 tests @ $15/ea
TOTAL
I ~0~ <$> I
16,775.00
2,200.00
2,700.00
600.00
i ,200.00
1,400.00
24,785.00
The estimate provided above is based on conversations with the general co ntractor
and our estimate of the time needed to complete our testing services. All field time
is documented on daily field reports and provided to city representatives for their
review. We are continuing to provide testing services with the reduced rates
provided in our original proposal as requested to satisfy Cal Trans requirements.
To formally authorize our additional work, please sign below and return a copy to
our office. If you should have any questions regarding this supplemental work
authorization, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mark nn
r
Distribution:
(2) Addressee
I APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO EXISTING
AGREEMENT FOR $28,522.00
Date:
ITEM
19
CITY MANAGER ;Z~,/~ '
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Manager/City Council
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
February 9, 1999
Professional Service Agreement with Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas,
Inc. for Additional Improvements Rancho California Road Interchange
PREPARED BY: '~r~,~illiam G. Hughes, Senior Engineer - Capital Projects
Scott Harvey, Associate Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
Approve a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Temecula and Parsons
Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. to provide additional design for the Rancho California Road
Interchange Improvements, for $45,503.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract.
Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of
$4,550.30, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount.
o
Appropriate $50,100.00 from the General Fund Unreserved fund balance to Consulting Services
Line Item in the CIP Administration operating budget.
BACKGROUND: The City Council awarded a contract to Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade &
Douglas, Inc. on September 22, 1998 to provide preliminary design services for the Southbound Off-
Ramp and 1-15 Widening north of Rancho California Road, Project PW98-08. Parsons Brinckerhoff
Quade & Douglas, Inc. has completed the preliminary design which also identified two (2) additional
improvement recommendations. Staff recommends that Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
provide the following design services (see exhibit "A"):
· Widen the southbound on-ramp to two lanes at Rancho California Road.
Widen the north side of Rancho California Road from Ynez Road to the northbound on-
ramp adding an additional westbound optional through/right turn lane and widen the
northbound on-ramp to two lanes.
These two (2) designs are being accelerated so that the City may consider doing these improvements
by contract change order added to the current Rancho California Road Loop Ramp Project. This will
allow the improvements to be completed within this fiscal year.
r:',agdrpt~99\O209\parsonsagrmt-rcr
The additional on-ramp improvements will provide more capacity to the on-ramps which will in turn
allow more signal time for east/west Rancho California Road traffic movements and for out-ramp
unloading.
Funds for this design will be funded by the recent immediate intersection project authorization. If the
City desires to move forward with a contract change order, it will be necessary to appropriate
construction funding at the time of approval of the change order.
FISCAL IMPACT: The total design cost is $50,053.30, which includes the agreement amount
of $45,503.00, plus the 10% contingency of $4,550.30. An appropriation of $50,100.00 from the
General Fund Unreserved fund balance to the CIP Administration operating budget Consulting
Services line item Account No. 001-165-999-5248 is necessary for the cost of the design this project.
The construction cost is estimated to range from $425,000 to $575,000.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Exhibit "A"
2. Agreement
2
r:\agdrpt\99\0209\parsonsagrmt-rcr
CI~J
OHONV8
ILl
0
1.1_
<I:
0
"r-
Z:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGREEMENT
FOR DESIGN SERVICES
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
NORTHBOUND & SOUTHBOUND RAMP WIDENING AT I-15
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of February 9, 1999, between the City of
Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, 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 February 9, 1999,. And shall
remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later
than February 9, 2000, 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 Forty Five Thousand Five Hundred Three
Dollars and No Cents ($45,503.00) 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 twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000,00). Any additional work in excess of
this amount shall be approved by the City Council.
c. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices
shall be submitted 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 an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice.
R:\agrntsVniscagrmt~parsonsranchodesign/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 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 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 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 avail~bl~ to the City, upon reasonable written request by
-2-
R:\agmts~mscagrmt~parsonsranchodesign/ajp
the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling,
transferring and printing computer files.
c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the consultant shall not be
liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location
other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant.
8. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and
hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any
and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, or liability of any kind or nature
which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be
imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of
Consultant's negligent or 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 ).
(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 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.
(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 Retention's. 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
R :\agmtsVniscagrrnt~parsonsranchodesign/ajp
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:
The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be
covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities
performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed
operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the
Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the
Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the
scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or
volunteers.
(2)
For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance
coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers,
officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured
maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall
be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
(3)
Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies
including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage }rovided 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 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 Coveraqe Consultant shall furnish the City with original
endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed
by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to
be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the
City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer
may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including
endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications.
10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent
contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of
Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City
nor any of its officers, employees or agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or
any of Consultant's officers, employees oF ~gents, 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,
4-
R:\agmtsVniscagrmt~oarsonsranchodesign/ajp
employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant
shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City,
or bind City in any manner.
b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the
performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the
Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for
performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or
indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
11. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of State
and Federal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way
affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all
times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and
employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to
comply with this section.
12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION.
a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be
considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's pdor written
authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without
written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily
provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or
other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project
or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be
considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees,
agents or 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 be 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
Attn: City Manager
-5-
R:\agmtsVmscagrmt~Darsonsranchodesign/ajp
To Consultant:
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
685 E. Carnegie Dr., Suite 210
San Bernardino, California 92408-3507
Attn: Rick Simon, P.C.
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 Rick Simon, P.E. shall perform the services described in this Agreement Rick
Simon 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 Rick Simon 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, representations and statements, oral or
written are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is
entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon
each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material.
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 above written.
CITY OF TEMECULA
By
Steven J. Ford, Mayor
R:\agmts~miscagrmt~parsonsranchodesign/ajp
Attest:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
Approved As to Form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
CONSULTANT
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
685 E. Carnegie Dr., Suite 210
San Bernardino, CA 92408-3507
(909) 888-1106
By:
Bedros Agopovich, Area Manager
-7-
R:\agmts~m ~scagrmt~parsonsrancho~lesign/ajp
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
R:\agmtsVniscagrmt~parsonsranchodesign/ajp
Brinckerhofi
RECE VE!"
685 East Carnegie Drive
Suite 210
San Bernardino, CA 92408-350
909-888-1106
Fax: 909-889-1884
Janua~ 25,1999
Mr. Scott Harvey
Ci~ of Temecula
43200 Business Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
JAN 2 ~ !999
CIT'r' OF 'i'Ei.~eCUba,
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Subject:
Ramp Widening at 1-15 1 Rancho California Road
Dear Scott,
We are pleased to submit this proposal to provide engineering design services for the City of
Temecula. The cost listed on the attached page reflects the following scope of work:
Prepare plans for a construction change order to be issued to widen the southbound entrance
ramp to a two-lane width at the intersection with Rancho California Road. The widened ramp
will transition from two lanes at Rancho California Road to one lane at the entrance gore to
southbound I-15. Revisions to the traffic signal at the ramp terminal will be required.
Modifications to the existing landscaping irrigation system will also be required. These plans
will be ready for issuance to the contractor within two weeks of notice-to-proceed.
Prepare plans for a construction change order to add one lane to westbound Rancho
California Road between Ynez Road and the northbound I-15 ramp terminal. The traffic
signal at Ynez and Rancho California will be modified in the northwest corner of the
intersection. The traffic signal at Rancho California and the northbound ramp terminal will be
modified. The northbound entrance ramp will be widened to two lanes at the ramp terminal.
The widened ramp will transition to one lane at the entrance gore to northbound I-15.
Modifications to existing landscaping and irrigation systems will be required. It is assumed
that a slope easement will be obtained from the adjacent property owner and that a retaining
wall will not be necessary. These plans will be ready for issuance to the contractor within
four weeks of notice-to-proceed
Should you have any questions on this proposal please call me at 888-1106.
Sincerely,
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF QUADE & DOUGLAS, INC.
Rick Simon, P.E.
Project Manager
r~ver a Century of
,~ngineer#ng Excellence
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
R:\agmtsVniscagrmt~parsonsranchodesign/ajp
Project Name
Cost Estimate Summary for CCO Projects
TOTAL AVERAGE I_ABOR
STAFF TITLE STAFF NAME HOURS HOURLY COSTS
RATE
PIC 0 $45.00 $0
PROJ MGR 32 $45.00 $1,440
QNQC 0 $38.00 $0
CIVIL 80 $35.00 $2,800
STRUCTURES 0 $34.00 $0
STRUC ENGR 0 $27.00 $0
ENGR SUPP 87 $21.00 $1,827
CADD OPER 172 $20.00 $3,440
PROJ ADMIN 0 $15.50 $0
DIRECT LABOR SUBTOTALS
371 $9,507
OVERHEAD (150% PROVISIONAL)
$14,261
OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODC'S):
CADD 172 hrs at $15/hr $2,580
PC 43.5 hrs at $5/hr $218
MILEAGE 600 miles at $0.31/mile $186
REPRODUCTION $100
POSTAGE/DELIVERIES $50
PHONE $50
MISCELLANEOUS $0
I TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS' '.,;~
[FEE (fO% OF ~BOR & OVERH~D) ·
I TOTAL PB COSTS ' "~, ~'; ..... '. :~ .......... :"~':": ......' .....~*'. :":"<~9,328~
SUBCONSULTANTS:
STB LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
LARRY EISENHART
ENGINEERING VENTURES
$5,700
$6,500
$3,975
SUBTOTAL SUBCONSULTANT COSTS
$16,175
TOTAL SUBCONSUL TANT COSTS
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS ,,~!:i-':,~:~!,~
ITEM
2O
APPROVAL
CITY A'R'ORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANt
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City ManagedCity Council
s~Fe2sph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
ruary 9, 1999
Authorization to Solicit Construction Bids for the Street Name Sign
Replacement Project- Project No. PW98-18
PREPARED BY:
William G. Hughes, Senior Engineer- Capital Projects
Hasib Baha, Assistant Engineer- Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the plans and specifications and
authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Street Name Sign
Replacement, Project No. PW98-18.
BACKGROUND: Public/Traffic Safety Commission at their March 12, 1998
recommended that the City Council approve replacing the existing wooden street name signs in the
Los Ranchitos area with reflective and durable plastic signs. The plans and specifications are
available for inspection in the office of the Director of Public Works. The engineer's construction
estimate is $102,000.
FISCAL IMPACT: This project is funded by Capital Project Reserves for the Fiscal Year
1998-1999. Adequate funds are available for this project in Account No. 210-165-613-5804.
ATTACHMENTS:
Capital Improvement Program Project Description
R:\AGDRPT%99/O209\PW98-18BID,DOC/ajp
0
0
0
ITEM
21
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
APPROVAId~
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINAN
CITY MANAGER
City ManagedCity Council
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
February 9, 1999
SUBJECT:
Margarita Road, Overland Drive Street Improvement Sewer Agreement with
Pacific Century Homes for Work to be Performed dudng Project No. PW97-07
PREPARED BY: William G. Hughes, Senior Engineer- Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
,
Approve the attached Agreement with Pacific Century Homes for the cost to install certain
sewer improvements within the Margarita Road, Ovedand Drive Street Improvement Project
No. PW97-07 that is necessary to serve the Pacific Century Homes project, and authorize
the Mayor to execute the agreement.
Increase the Construction Contingency by $25,360.00 to cover this additional work.
Approve an appropriation of $25,360.00 from Reimbursement Revenue to the project
account.
BACKGROUND: During the design of the Margarita Road, Overland Drive Street
Improvements, the City was notified that a new sewer main is proposed within the alignment of
Overland Drive between Margarita Road and Ynez Road to serve Pacific Century Homes. Pacific
Century Homes is installing the majority of their sewer prior to the City's construction of Overland
Drive; however, one portion of the new sewer can not be constructed until the City completes the
Long Canyon storm drain box culvert in Overland Drive. Pacific Century Homes has requested that
the City install the sewer over the new box culvert with our City project.
This Agreement requires Pacific Century Homes to advance one hundred percent (100%) of all costs
of the sewer installation over the box culvert prior to the City authorizing Riverside Construction
Company to perform the additional work. Pacific Century Homes also agrees to pay for inspection
of new sewer facilities. The amount of advancement is $25,360.00 based on a cost supplied by
Riverside Construction Company.
FISCAL IMPACT: The additional costs associated with these improvements will be offset by the
reimbursement from Pacific Century Homes. An appropriation to the Margarita Road, Ynez Road
and Overland Drive Street Widening Project Account No. 210-165-681-5804 is necessary from the
Reimbursement Revenue to fund this agreement.
ATTACHMENT:
Pacific Century Homes Sewer Agreement
r:\agdrpt\99~O20999\PCHSagrmt-pw97_O7
1
AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
CITY OF TEMECULA
AND
PACIFIC CENTURY HOMES
For
OVERLAND DRIVE SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT NO. PW97-07
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this 9m day of February, 1999 by and between
the CITY OF TEMECULA a municipal corporation, hereinafter refitfred to as "CITY" and PACIFIC
CENTURY HOMES, INC., a California corporation hereinafter referred to as "DEVELOPER", with
reference to the tbllowing facts.
RECITALS
DEVELOPER is the owner of a single/hmily residential subdivision (Tract No. 28553)
presently in development on the northside of Margarita Road near the future location of the
eastern terminus of Overland Drive.
Tract 28553 will be served by an eight inch (8") sewer line to be installed in accordance with
the requirements of Eastern Municipal Water District ("EMWD") per plans incorporated
within the overall project identified as PW97-07 by the CITY. Project No. PW97-07 is
hereinafter re/erred to as "the PROJECT".
NOW,
parties
DEVELOPER will, at its cost, install the sewer line referred to in Recital B above with the
exception of a 384 + ft. length of the sewer where it traverses a box culvert to be installed
by the CITY under Overland Drive to carry drainage from the Long Valley wash.
This Agreement is entered into to provide/br construction of the sewer thcility referred to
in Recital B above by DEVELOPER and fbr payment by the DEVELOPER of cost incurred
by the CITY in completing the 384+ section of 8" sewer refitfred to in Recital C above
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the
herein mutually agree as fi~llows:
DEVELOPER shall, upon issuance of necessa~2¢ permits fin' the PROJECT, complete, at its
cost, the 8" sewer line within the PROJECT excepting only the 384 + It. section thereof to
be c{nnpleted by the CITY as hereinafter provided.
DEVELOPER shall pay to the City any costs associated with the removal and replacement
of the 8" sewer line by the CITY'S contractor placed by the DEVELOPER as described in
recital B necessitated by the placement of the 8" sewer line in loose alluvial/colluvial soils in
Margarita Road and Overland Drive. In no event shall any costs associated with the removal
and replacement of the 8" sewer line by the City's contractor pursuant to this paragraph
exceed $20,000.00.
Work completed by DEVELOPER pursuant to this Agreement shall be done in accordance
with the approved (by the CITY and by EMWD) plans and specifications/br the PROJECT.
r:\cip\projects\pw97\pw97-O7\pCHSagrmt21ajp
o
DEVELOPER will make all reasonable efforts to complete its section of the sewer within the
PROJECT by the end of the second week in February, 1999. CITY shall thereafter complete
the missing 384 + ft. section of the sewer so as to assure sewer service to Tract No. 28553
as soon as reasonably possible. In this regard, CITY shall take all reasonable steps to
complete the 384 + ft. section of the sewer so that the final sewer connection serving Tract
28553 will be in place on or about the end of the first week tit' April 1999.
DEVELOPER shall advance to the CITY one hundred percent (100%) of the costs
(hereinafter retbrred to as "ADVANCE"), tbr the installation of the 384 + It. of sewer as
retbrred to in Recital D above. The cost for the 384 + ft. section of the sewer to be
constructed by the CITY is based on the additional work price provided by Riverside
Construction Company per the attached letter. The DEVELOPER has reviewed and accepted
the additional price of $25,360.00 provided by Riverside Construction Company.
CITY shall make payment to CONTRACTOR for work performed. Actual costs shall be
identified and billed to DEVELOPER for payment on the following basis:
The Construction Schedule filr PROJECT provides that the sewer t~tcilities installation shall occur on
or about ten (10) days after the Notice to Proceed with the PROJECT has been issued. One Hundred
Percent (100%) of the ADVANCE shall be due and payable to CITY prior to the City authorizing
Riverside Construction Company to perfi~rm the additional work as described in attached letter, but
not later than Five (5) working clays after DEVELOPER receives notice from the CITY that the
Notice to Proceed has been issued. In the event that CITY incurs additional costs associated with the
construction of the sewer, the DEVELOPER agrees to reimburse those costs upon demand by the
City.
It is acknowledged that DEVELOPER has reviewed and approved all EMWD Plans and
Specifications fi~r the installation of the sewer lhcilities and has approved the Additional Work
Cost of $25,360.00 provided by Riverside Construction Company. Management and
administration of the terms expressed herein shall be perfilrmed by CITY t'or the PROJECT.
CITY agrees to designate Mr. William G. Hughes, Senior Engineer, Capital Projects, as the
contact tilt CITY in regards to this agreement. DEVELOPER agrees to designate JARNNE
GARDNER as a point of contact tier DEVELOPER to facilitate the work identified herein.
Eastern Municipal Water District shall provide and DEVELOPER shall pay of inspection of
the server line referenced in Recitals A through D above.
9. All notices under this Agreement shall be sent as follows:
DEVELOPER:
Pacific Century Homes, Inc.
40925 County Center Drive, Suite l l0
Temecula, CA 9259 I
Attn: Jarnne Gardner, Project Manager
CITY: City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Ann: William G. Hughes, St. Engineer, Capital Projects
Either party may change its address fi~r notices by notit3~ing the other party. All notices given at the most
recent address specified shall be deemed to have been properly given.
r:\cip\projects\pw97\pw97-O7\pCHSagrmt2/ajp
This Agreement is dated as of the date set ti~rth above.
DEVELOPER
PACIFIC CENTURY HOMES
By:
Neil Gascon, President
CITY:
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
Steven J. Ford, Mayor
By:
Peter M. Thors6n, City Attorney
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
r:\cip\projects\pw97\pw97-O7\PCHSagrmt21ajp
ITEM
22
APPROVALCE~
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City ManagedCity Council
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
February 9, 1999
Professional Services Agreement for Overland Drive Overcrossing, Project
No. PW95-11
PREPARED BY:
William G. Hughes, Senior Engineer o Capital Projects
Steven W. Beswick, Project Engineer- Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
Approve a Professional Services Agreement for Construction Support Services for Ovedand
Drive Overcrossing, Project No. PW95-11 to TYLIN InternationaI-McDaniel for $38,270.00
and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract.
Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount
of $3,827.00, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount.
BACKGROUND: The City Council awarded the construction contract for Ovedand Drive
Overcrossing, Project No. PW95-11. to C.C. Myers Inc. on December 15, 1999. The general items
of work to be completed consist of the following, construct Overland Drive between Jefferson
Avenue and Ynez Road including a bridge over Interstate Route 15, new traffic signals at Jefferson
Avenue and Ynez Road, relocation and reconstruction of existing utilities, landscape and irrigation
improvements. This project will reduce traffic at Winchester Road and Rancho California Road
Interchanges.
In conjunction with this project the City also entered into a construction cooperative agreement with
Caltrans which defines the terms and conditions under which the project will be constructed and
maintained. The City is required to provide a Resident Engineer along with support staff to
administer and inspect the work to assure construction is being performed in accordance with the
approved plans and specifications as well as applicable State Standards.
To comply with the Caltrans requirements and supplement City staff, TYLIN InternationaI-McDaniel
was asked to provide a proposal to perform structural and falsework review services for the Ovedand
Drive Overcrossing since they designed the structural elements of the bridge.
TY LIN InternationaI-McDaniel will perform the following bridge related services: Review of contractor
submittals, review of the falsework design, assist the Resident Engineer in interpretation of the
contract documents, review of contractor structural calculations/submittals, preparation of as-built
plans, and participation in job site meetings. These bridge relate services are described in Exhibit
"A"-Scope of Work and Payment Schedule of the attached agreement.
r:\agdrpt\97\1028\pro95-12.awd/ajp
TY LIN InternationaI-McDaniel will work under the direction of City staff and function as the Interim
Resident Engineer for the project.
FISCAL IMPACT: This Project is funded with CFD 88-12, ISTEA/STP, Capital Project Reserves,
Redevelopment Agency (RDA), and Developer Impact Fees. Adequate funds are available for this
work in Account No. 210-165-604-5804 for the following professional service agreement of
$38,270.00 and the contingency amount of $3,827.00 for a total cost of $42,097.00.
ATTACHMENT: Professional Services Agreements:
r:\agdrpt\97\1028\pro95-12.awd/ajp
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGREEMENT
FOR CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES
OVERLAND DRIVE OVERCROSSING
PROJECT NO. PW 95-11
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of February 9, 1999, between the City of
Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and T.Y. Lin International, ("Consultant"). In consideration
of the mutual covenants and conditions set tbrth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on February 9, 1999, and shall remain
and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than February 9, 2001,
unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.
2. SERVICES. Consultant shall perti3rm the tasks described and set forth in Exhibit
A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set tbrth in th!l. Consultant shall complete the tasks
according to the schedule of perthfinance which is also set fbrth in Exhibit A.
3. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the
best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, pertbrm 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
re/erence as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount shall not
exceed Thirty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Dollars and No Cents ($38,270.00) tbr the total term
of the Agreement unless additional payrnent is approved as provided in this Agreement.
b. Consultant shall not be compensated tier any services rendered in connection with its
pertb,'mance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set ti~rth 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 tbr the perthfinance 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 twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). Any additional work in excess of this amount
shall be approved by the City Council.
c. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services pertbrmed. Invoices shall
be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, ti3r 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 consuhant's tees it shall give written notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice
of any disputed tees set tbrth on the invoice.
I
ClP\pn>jccl.,6pw95\pw95- l I ~agrcc\MCDANIEIAGRMT/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 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 shah pay
to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work
performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant
will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 4.
6. DEFAULT 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 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, shah 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.
2
CIP\projects\pw95\pw95- I I \agree\MCDAN1ELAGRMT/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. 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).
(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 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.
(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:
3
CIPXprojects\pw95\pw95-11Xagree\MC DAN1ELAGR-MT/ajp
(D
The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered
as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on
behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the
Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or
automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The
coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection
afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
(2)
For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage
shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials,
employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the
City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the
Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
(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 limils except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by
certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City.
e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current
A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.
f. Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with original
endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person
authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by
the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an
alternative to the City' s forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required
insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications.
10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent
contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all
times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees
or agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees or
agents, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that
it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City.
Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City,
or bind City in any manner.
CIPXprojects\pw95\pw95-11 \agree\MCDANIEIAGRMT/ajp
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
shah 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 ils service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply
with all such laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in
equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section.
12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION.
a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be
considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City' s prior written authorization.
Consullant, in 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 fight to review any such response does not imply or mean the fight 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:
TY LIN International
5030 Camino De La Siesta, Suite 204
San Diego, California 92108
Attn: Jack A. Abcarius, P.E. Vice President
5
CIP~projects\pw95\pw95-1 I\agree\MCDANIELAGRMT/ajp
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 Jack A.
Abcarius, P.E. Vice President, shall perform the services described in this Agreement. Jack A. Abcarius,
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 Jack A. Abcarius from
Consuitant'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, Consuitant'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, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged imo
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 written.
CITY OF TEMECULA
By
Steven J. Ford, Mayor
Attest:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
Cll~projecta\pw95 \pw95-11 \agree\MCDANIELAGRMT/ajp
Approved As to Form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
CONSULTANT
T.Y. Lin International
5030 Camino De La Siesta, Suite 204
San Diego, CA 92108
(619) 692-1920
-;._---..__ ~ -
Mark Ashley, Senior Vice President
CIP\projccl,,~\pw95\pwg5- I I mgrcc\M('l)ANI EI A(; RMI Vajp
EXHIBIT A
TASKS TO BE PERFORMED
8
(:1P\projucls\pw95Xpw95- I 1 \ag ruc\MCDANIELAGRMT/ajp
4 Mc. DANIEL ENGINEER ING
November 16. 1998
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Attention: Mr. William G. Hughes, Senior Engineer - Capital Projects
Subject:
Proposal for Construction Support
Overland Drive Overcrossing
Dear Mr. Hughes:
As requested, we have prepared this proposal to provide construction support in connection with the
subject structure.
We understand the City of Temecula will staff the project with a Resident Engineer and a Bridge
Inspector experienced with bridge construction. The Bridge Inspector will be responsible for bridge
construction inspections, contract administration, monitoring of bridge construction operations for
contract compliance, as well as coordinating materials testing. McDaniel Engineering's role during
construction will consist primarily of technical assistance to the Resident Engineer and Bridge Inspector.
Consultant services, when requested or required. will include the following tasks:
1. Assist the Resident Engineer or Bridge Inspector in the interpretation of the contract documents.
2. Produce the bridge "4-scale" drawing.
3. Review contractor submittals including:
· Excavation/shoring plans
· Precast. prestress concrete pile shop drawings, mix designs and pile hammer analysis
· Concrete mix designs and aggregate gradings
· Prestress shop drawings
· Temporary falsework plans and camber strips
· PTFE bearing assembly shop drawings
· Tubular metal handrail and type 3 railing shop drawings
· Joint Seal Assembly shop drawings
4. As-built plan revisions based on the Resident Engineer's marked-up set of bluelines.
We hax;e included a representative from McDaniel Engineering Company to attend five meetings during
the course of the work in the estimate of fees. Additional meetings will be considered separate tasks and
will be billed separately on a time-and-materials basis. in accordance with our current schedule of fees.
5030 Camlno De La Siesta. Suite 204. San Diego, California 92108 · (619) 692-!920 Fax (619) 692-0634
E-Mail: McDaniel @ InterneiMCI .corn
City of Temecuta
Attn: Mr. William G. Hughes, Senior Engineer
Constructs'on Support ~ Overland Drive Overcrossing
November 16, 1998
We propose to provide the services outlined above and in accordance with the attached "EXHIBIT A",
Estimate of Fees, on a time-and-materials basis, not-to-exceed $38,300.
Thank you for the opportunity to extend our commitment to this project. We look forward to working
with you and completing another project successfully.
Very truly yours,
McDaniel Engineering Company, Inc.
GB:clb
Enclosure: "EXHIBIT A" - Estimate of Fees
Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
ClP\projects\pw95\pw95- l 1 \agvcc\MCDANIEIAGRMT/ajp
ITEM
23
APPROVAL ~:~
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City ManagedCity Council
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
February 9, 1999
Acceleration of Budgeted Funds for Overland Drive Overcrossing, -
Project No. PW95-11
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the acceleration of $4,230,000.00 from
the Capital Improvement Budget for FY1999-2000 to the current FY1998-1999 budget for the
Overland Drive Overcrossing Project No. PW95-11.
BACKGROUND: On December 15, 1998 the City Council awarded the construction
contract for the Overland Drive Overcrossing to C.C. Myers, Inc. in the amount of 6,008,546.20.
The current CIP budget indicated an expenditure over a two (2) fiscal year period. In order to award
the construction contract for Overland Drive Overcrossing, in the full contract amount plus the
contingency and administration costs in this fiscal year, obligations for the full amount is necessary
through the various purchase orders. Staff is requesting that the City Council accelerate the
obligation of funds from Fiscal Year 1999-2000 to Fiscal Year 1998-1999 as follows:
Administration $230,000 for a total of $480,000.00
Construction $4,000,000 for a total of $10,000,000
It is extremely important to recognize that the $3,750,000.00 grant through TEA 21 to the City will
be repaid over a six (6) year period. Therefore, the City must advance construction funds and claim
these funds each year in accordance with the provisions of TEA 21 legislation.
The first year allocation from TEA 21 for this project is approximately $500,000,000.
FISCAL IMPACT: An acceleration of $4,230,000 from FY1999-2000 to the current FY1998-1999
is necessary for obligating construction and administration costs to the Administration Account No.
210-165-604-5801 and the Construction Account No. 210-165-604-5804.
ATTACHMENT: None
r:\agdrpt\99\O209\pw9511 accfunds/ajp
1
ITEM
24
ORDINANCE NO. 99-05
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING SECTIONS 9.14.010 AND 9.14.020
PROHIBITING THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES AND POSSESSION OF OPEN CONTAINERS
OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN PUBLIC PLACES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 9.14.010 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
9.14.010 Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages in Public
Prohibited
"The drinking of beer, wine, liquor, fermented malt beverage, intoxicating liquor,
or other alcoholic beverage shall be prohibited at the following locations, unless
specifically permitted by the prior written approval of the City:
On any public street, roadway, boulevard, alley, parking lot,
sidewalk, or any other property owned, controlled and/or
operated by the City, County or any public agency;
In the public parking, loading, access, and areas accessible to
the public of non-residential property except on the premises of a
commercial establishment holding a valid on-sale license or
permit from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control; or
Within any public park, recreational area, or recreation facility
owned, controlled and/or operated by the City, County, or any
public agency.
Section 2. Section 9.14.020 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
9.14.020
Possession of Open containers of Alcoholic
Beverages in Public Places Prohibited.
"No person shall have in his or her possession, with intent to consume any part
of the contents thereof, any bottle, can or other receptacle containing beer,
wine, liquor, fermented malt beverage, intoxicating liquor, or other alcoholic
beverage, which has been opened, or a seal broken, or the contents of which
have been partially removed, at the following locations, unless specifically
permitted by the prior written approval of the City:
Ords/99-05 1
A. On any public street, roadway, boulevard, alley, parking lot, sidewalk, or
any other property owned, controlled and/or operated by the City, County or any
public agency;
B. In the public parking, loading, access, and areas accessible to the public
of non-residential property except on the premises of a commercial
establishment holding a valid on-sale license or permit from the California
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; or
C. Within any public park, recreational area, or recreation facility owned,
controlled and/or operated by the City, County, or any public agency.
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 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 26th day of January, 1999.
Steven J. Ford
Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 99-05 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the 26th day of January, 1999 and that thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 9th
day of February, 1999, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
TEMECULA COMMUNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT
ITEM 1
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
Board of Directors
Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services
February 9, 1999
Crowne Hill/Tract No. 23143 - Prescribing Service Level B, Service
Level C, and Service Level D Rates and Charges (Located on the
east side of Butterfield Stage Road, south of Pauba Road.)
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
~J//Beryl Yasinosky, Development Services Analyst
That the Board of Directors:
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. CSD 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ACKNOWLEDGING THE FILING OF A
REPORT WITH RESPECT TO PRESCRIBING SERVICE LEVEL B, SERVICE
LEVEL C, AND SERVICE LEVEL D RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT
NO. 23143 AND ITS SUBSEQUENT PHASES BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR
1999-2000 AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
BACKGROUND: The Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) operates under
the authority of Community Services District Law and provides residential street lighting,
perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance, and recycling and refuse collection services to
numerous residential subdivisions within the City of Temecula through Service Level "B",
Service Level "C", and Service Level D. The boundaries of the TCSD are coterminous with the
City, and the City Council also serves as the Board of Directors of the TCSD.
Tract No. 23143 is a future 1,026 lot residential subdivision known as Crowne Hill. The
development consists of approximately 453 acres of vacant property located on the east side
of Butterfield Stage Road, south of Pauba Road. The property owner has requested that the
TCSD establish the future parcel charges necessary to provide ongoing revenue for residential
street lighting, perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance, and recycling and refuse
collection services within this subdivision.
r:\yasinobkL~143rat~ 012399
Beginning Fiscal Year 1999-2000, the following TCSD rates and charges are proposed for
residential street lighting, perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance, and recycling and
refuse collection services within Tract No. 23143:
Service Level B
925.68 per parcel
Service Level C
9175.00 per parcel
Service Level D
70.64 per parcel
Pursuant to the provisions of Proposition 218, the TCSD is required to hold a public hearing and
a property owner election in order to establish certain new rates and charges. In addition, a
report must be prepared and filed with the Secretary/City Clerk which identifies all of the
affected parcels and the amount of the proposed rates and charges. A notice is mailed to the
property owner identifying the proposed rates and charges and date of the Public Hearing. The
Public Hearing is held at least 45 days after the mailing of the notices. If the proposed rates
and charges are not rejected pursuant to a written protest, then the TCSD will conduct a mailed
ballot election not less than 45 days after the public hearing. The proposed rates and charges
for Service Level B and Service Level C cannot be imposed unless the property owner has
approved the new charges. In accordance with Proposition 218, property owners shall receive
notice of the proposed charges for Service Level D, however, mailed ballot election proceedings
are not required to impose rates and charges for refuse collection services.
Staff recommends that the Board of Directors adopt the resolution to accept the filing of the
report on the proposed residential street lighting and perimeter landscaping and slope
maintenance, and recycling and refuse collection services rates and charges for Tract No.
23143 beginning in Fiscal Year 1999-2000 and schedule a public hearing concerning this issue
for April 13, 1999. Staff will then proceed with noticing the owner(s) of Tract No. 23143
regarding the proposed rates and charges and the public hearing date. If there is no majority
protest against the rates and charges on April 13, 1999, staff will then proceed with the mailed
ballot process for Service Level B and Service Level C.
FISCAL IMPACT: If voter approved, upon buildout of the development, the proposed
rates and charges of 925.68 and 9175.00 per parcel will generate an annual levy of
926,347.68 and 9179,550.00, respectively, for the Service Level B and Service Level C
maintenance programs. The proposed Service Level D charge of 9170.64 per parcel will
generate an annual levy of 9175,076.64. (Pursuant to Proposition 218, this amount may be
increased by the TCSD for Fiscal Year 1999/2000 after conducting an additional public hearing.
However, property owner election proceedings are not required to establish Service Level D
rates and charges). Actual costs for providing long-term residential street lighting and perimeter
landscaping and slope maintenance services within Tract No. 23143 will be absorbed into
Service Level B and Service Level C upon installation of said improvements. The owner of Tract
No. 23143 has paid the administrative and mailing costs associated with the public notices and
ballot information required per Proposition 218.
ATTACHMENTS: 1.
2.
Resolution of Intention
Location Map
r:\y~sln~k~314~ra~ 012399
RESOLUTION NO. CSD
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TI~IECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ACKNOWLEDGING THE FILING
OF A REPORT WITH RESPECT TO PRESCRIBING SERVICE LEVi~J. B,
SERVICE LEVEL C, AND SERVICE LEVEL D RATES AND CHARGES
FOR TRACT NO. 23143 AND ITS SUBSEQUENT PHASES BEGINNING
FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A
PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY
SERVICE DISTRICT HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES, DECLARES, DETERMINES AND
ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Upon incorporation of the City of Temecula, effective December 1, 1989,
voters approved the formation of the Temecula Community Services District CTCSD"), to
provide specified services to properties within its jurisdiction.
Section 2. The TCSD provides long-term residential street lighting, perimeter landscaping
and slope landscape maintenance, and recycling and refuse collection services in numerous
residential developments within the City of Temecula. Pursuant to Government Code Sections
61621 and 61621.2, the TCSD has prescribed, revised and collected rates and charges for
residential street lighting (Service Level B) , perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance (Service
Level C), and recycling and refuse collection (Service Level D) services furnished by it, and has
elected to have these rates and charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner, by the same
persons, and at the same time as, together with and not separately from, its general taxes in the
manner prescribed by Government Code Sections 61765.2 to 61765.6, inclusive.
Section 3. The TCSD hereby initiates proceedings to provide residential street lighting,
perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance, and recycling and refuse collection services within
Tract No. 23143 and its subsequent phases beginning Fiscal Year 1999/2000. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 61621.2, the TCSD has caused a written report ("Report") to be
prepared and fred with the Secretary of the TCSD, which Report contains a description of the real
property and the proposed amount of the Service Level B, Service Level C, and Service Level D
rates and charges required for residential street lighting, perimeter landscaping and slope
maintenance, and recycling and refuse collection services for each parcel within Tract No. 23143
and its subsequent phases beginning fiscal year 1999/2000. The TCSD proposes to collect the
rates and charges at the same time, in the same manner, by the same persons and together with
and not separately from, the property taxes collected within the TCSD. These rates and charges
shall be delinquent at the same time and thereafter be subject to the same delinquency penalties
as such property taxes. All laws applicable to the levy, collection, and enforcement of property
taxes, including, but not limited to, those pertaining to the matters of delinquency, correction,
R:\yasinobk\election'C23143 .resoo~ntention 012399
cancellation, refund and redemption, shall be applicable to these rates and charges, except for
California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 4831. However, ff for the first year the charges
are levied, the real property to which the charge rehtes has been transferred or conveyed to a bona
fide purchaser for value, or if a lien of a bona fide encumbrancer for value has been created and
attaches thereon, prior to the date on which the first installment of such taxes appear on the roll,
then the charge shall not result in a lien against the property, but instead shall be transferred to
the unsecured roll for collection.
Section 4. The Board of Directors hereby acknowledges the filing of the Report, and
appoints the day of April 13, 1999 at the hour of 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as feasible, in
the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California,
92590, as the time and place for the public hearing on the Report and the proposed Service Level
B, Service Level C, and Service Level D rates and charges. At the public hearing, the Board of
Directors will hear and consider all objections or protests, if any, to the Report. The Board may
continue the heating from time to time.
Section 5. The Secretary of the TCSD is hereby directed to give notice of the f~ing of
the Report and of the time and place of hearing on the Report pursuant to the requirements of
Government Code Section 61765.2 and Section 6 of Article XrnD of the California Constitution.
Section 6. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community
Services District this 9th day of February, 1999.
Jeff Comerchero, President
ATTF_~T:
Susan Jones, CMC
City Clerk/District Secretary
[SEAL]
R:\yasinobk\~l~ction~23143 .rosoofintontion 012399
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk/District Secretary for the Temecula Community Services District,
do hereby certify that Resolution No. CSD 99- was duly and regularly adopted by the
board of Directors of the Temecuh Community Services District at a regular meeting thereof held
on 9th day of February, 1999.
BOARD MEMBERS
NOES:
ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS
r:\ya~/nobkX28553 .re, solution of intention 102798
-3-
i
ITEM 2
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM: ~
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
Board of Directors
Shawn D. Nelson, Acting General Manager
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/Director of Support Services
February 9, 1999
Ratification of Election Results -Tract No. 26488
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. CSD 99-._.
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, RECITING
THE FACT OF THE SPECIAL TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES
DISTRICT MAIL-IN BALLOT ELECTION HELD ON JANUARY 22,
1999 DECLARING THE RESULTS AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS
AS PROVIDED BY LAW
BACKGROUND: At the meeting of December 8, 1998, the Board of Directors adopted Resolution
No. CSD 98-19, which called for a Special Election to be held among the property owners of the parcels
within Tract No. 26488. The purpose of this election was to establish Service Level B rates and charges
for fiscal year 1999-00.
This election was conducted by mail with a final date for acceptance of ballots to be no later than 3:30
p.m. on January 22, 1999. At 4:00 p.m. on that date, the City Clerk acting in her capadty as the City's
Election Official and as the Secretary of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services
District declared the receipt period for receiving ballots dosed. At 4:00 p.m., the Elections Canvassing
Board duly appointed and consisting of Deputy City Clerk Michaela Ballreich, Office Specialist Margie
Cohee and Record Coordinator Gwyn Flores, conducted the canvass of the results. The results of the
votes cast, returned within the time allowed and publicly counted, are included within the body of the
proposed resolution.
Staff recommends adoption of the resolution ratifying the results of this election.
Agenda Reports\Election CSD Tract 26488 1
FISCAL IMPACT:
results.
ATTACHMENTS:
Them is no direct fiscal impact as a consequence of the ratification of the election
Resolution No. CSD 99-
Official Tally of the Votes
Agenda Reports\Election CSD Tract 26488 2
RESOLUTION NO. CSD 99-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, RECITING THE
FACT OF THE SPECIAL TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES
DISTRICT MAIL-IN BALLOT ELECTION HELD ON JANUARY 22,
1999 DECLARING THE RESULTS AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS
AS PROVIDED BY LAW
WHEREAS, a Special Mail-in Ballot Election was held and conducted in the City of Temecula,
California, on January 22, 1999, as required by law; and
WHEREAS, notice of the election was given in time, form and manner as provided by law; that
the purpose of the spedal election was for the purpose of obtaining approval by property owners within
Tract No. 26488 was propedy established; that election officers were appointed and that in all respects
the election was held and conducted and the votes were cast, received and canvassed and the returns
made and declared in time, form and manner as required by the provisions of the Elections Code of the
State of California; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. CSD 98-19, adopted December 8, 1998, the ballots
were returned to the office of the City Clerk/Secretary of the Temecula Community Services District; the
results were received, canvassed in public and are herein set forth in Section 2.
NOW THEREFORE, THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the whole number of ballots cast in the properly owner election was one (1)
and the whole number of provisional ballots cast in the election was none (0).
Section 2. That the whole number of ballots cast was one (1) for establishment of the annual
levy for Service Level B rates and charges at $25.68/per lot, annual levy for Service Level B on the
parcel identified on the ballot were as follows:
Yes
One (1) for Lots 1-14 of Tract
No. 26488. Under ownership
of Mr. Jay Vanderwal.
No Incomplete
None None
Section 3. The Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District does declare
and determine that as a result of the election, a majority of the voters voting on the measure relating to
the establishment of Service Level B Rates and Charges for Fiscal Year 1999-00 pursuant to Article
XII ID, Section 6 of the Califomia Constitution, did vote in favor of the measure and that the measure was
carried, and shall be deemed adopted and ratified.
Resos. CSD~99- 1
Section 4. The City Clerk/Secretary of the Temecula Community Services Distdct (TCSD) shall
enter in the minutes of the TCSD Board of Directors, a statement of the result of the election, showing:
(1) The whole number of ballots cast in the City; (2) The votes in favor, (3) The votes in opposition and
(4) Those received incomplete.
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 9th day of February, 1999.
ATTEST:
Jeff Comerchero, President
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the foregoing
Resolution No. CSD 99-__ was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services
District on the 9th day of February, 1999, by the following roll call vote.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISTRICT MEMBERS:
DISTRICT MEMBERS:
DISTRICT MEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/District Secretary
Resos. CSDLqg- 2
OFFICIAL TALLY OF THE VOTES FOR
TCSD LEVY/SPECIAL TAX
FY 1998/99 - TRACT 26488
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
TRACT TO BE ACCEPTED 1NTO SERVICE LEVEL B
RATES AND CHARGES
Yes
N_~o
TOTAL
TOTAL
ELECTION BOARD
Michaela A. Ballreich, Deputy City Clerk
Election Officer
Margie C~hee, Election Officer
'GWyn Rores,'~lectio~ Officer
\\TEMEC FS201XDATAXDEPTS\CITYCLRKXELECTION-GENERAL\CANVASS.DOC
ITEM 3
APPROve-
CITY ATTORNEY ',.,
DIRECTOR OF FINA
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
Board of Directors
~~H, erman D. Parker, Director of Community Services
February 9, 1999
Potential Joint Use of County Flood Control Property for Recreational
Facilities
PREPARED BY:
Phyllis L. Ruse, Deputy Director of Community Services
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors approve a letter to the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation Distdct expressing the City's interest in working jointly for the
development of recreational facilities in the proposed detention facility adjacent to Murrieta Creek.
BACKGROUND: On Thursday, January 14, 1999, staff met with representatives from
the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation Distdct (District) regarding the potential
use of flood control property for recreational purposes. The District owns approximately 160 acres
of property north of Winchester Road and east of Murrieta Creek.
The Distdct has a proposed plan for use of this property as a detention facility for flood waters in
major events. The plan accommodates recreational facilities, such as baseball fields, soccer fields
and field lighting. The Distdct indicated that the poles for lighting could be located in the flood plain
but the electrical would need to be located on higher ground. The same would also be advisable
for parking and restroom facilities. Substantial excavation of dirt will be required before the site is
ready for Distdct needs.
The Distdct staff indicated that implementation of the plan will require substantial funding, estimated
at $40-50 million dollars. Success for the project as it is proposed would require shared funding
through the Army Corps of Engineers. It is anticipated that an answer from the Army Corps may be
obtained by the end of this calendar year. If the Corps determines that the plan qualifies as a best
solution under their guidelines, additional funding would be required to undertake the project. District
staff also indicated that there might be a match of Army Corps funds for the recreational portion of
the project. The District has further indicated that even with Army Corps approval within a twelve
month period, this project will have quite a lengthy completion schedule.
The Distdct is not prepared to move forward with any plan for this property until the Army Corps has
completed its review and rendered a decision on the acceptability of the plan. If the Corps deems
the project to be a best solution, the Distdct indicated that they would be willing to work with the City
for the construction of recreational facilities on a portion of the site.
R:\RUSEP~AGEN DAS\flood control joint use for rec ~elds.doc
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the approval of the attached
letter, however, implementation of the proposed construction plan would have a significant fiscal
impact the amount of which is indeterminate at this time.
Attachment: Letter to Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
R:\RUSEP~AGENDAS\flood control joint use for rec fields.doc
of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive · Temecula, CA 92590 · MailingAddress: P.O. BOX 9033
(909] 694~5444 · Fax (909] 694-1999
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Steven J. Ford
Mayor
Jeffrey E. Stone
Mayor Pro Tem
Jeff Comerchero
Councilmember
Karel F. Lindemans
Councilmember
Ronald H. Roberrs
Councilmember
(909) 506-5100
FAX 694-6499
February 9, 1999
Mr. Frank J. Peairs
Assistant Chief Engineer
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
1995 Market Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Dear Mr. Peairs:
Thank you for the time you and Dusty Williams spent on January 14, 1999 with
Herman Parker and Phyllis Ruse with our Community Services Department to
discuss the possibility of using a portion of the District's flood control property for
recreational purposes. The property discussed is a portion of the approximately 160
acres owned by the Distdct north of Winchester Road and east of Murrieta Creek for
future development of a detention facility.
The City of Temecula is very interested in working with the District in the ultimate
development and joint use of this property, including recreational facilities, such as
baseball and soccer fields. We understand that the project is currently under review
at the Army Corps of Engineers and that their decision may be forthcoming by the
end of this calendar year. If the plan qualifies as a best solution under their
guidelines, there would be the potential for shared funding from the Army Corps with
additional funding required from the County and the City.
We request that you let us know if there is any information or assistance that we may
provide that may be beneficial to the Army Corps' review of the project and keep us
advised of the progress with the project. Again, we are most interested in working
with the District to utilize the property to its highest potential for the benefit of the
community both as a flood control facility and for recreational opportunities.
Sincerely,
CITY OF TEMECULA
Jeff Comerchero, President
Temecula Community Services District
Pnnled on Recycled Paper
REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
ITEM I
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at
7:47 P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
4 AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Ford, Roberts,
and Lindemans.
ABSENT: 1 AGENCY MEMBER: Stone.
Also present were Executive Director Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No input.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of December 15, 1998;
1.2 Approve the minutes of January 12, 1999.
2 Approval of Cooperative Agreement with the Temecula Redevelopment Agency for
Construction and Funding of the Western Bypass Corridor - Project No. PW95-07
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve an Agreement entitled Cooperative Agreement between the City of
Temecula and the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) of the City of Temecula for
construction and funding of the Western Bypass Corridor;
2.2 Authorize the Chairperson to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Agency
in substantially the form attached to the Agenda Report;
2.3 Authorize the budgeted expenditure of $877,602.26 by the Redevelopment
Agency for the Agency's share of the costs to date for the construction and
funding of the Western Bypass Corridor, as well as authorize the expenditure
for future project costs incurred as approved by the City or Agency.
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JANUARY 26, 1999
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
3 Acquisition of Tax-Defaulted Property for Affordable Housing
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 99-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA OBJECTING TO THE PUBLIC SALE OF
CERTAIN TAX DEFAULTED PROPERTY LYING WITHIN THE
CITY OF TEMECULA, OFFERING TO PURCHASE THE
PROPERTY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PURPOSES
MOTION: Agency Member Comerchero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-
3. The motion was seconded by Agency Member Ford and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval with the exception of Agency Member Stone who was absent.
AGENCY BUSINESS
4
Homebuyer Down Payment Assistance Programs (First -Time Homebuyer and
Employee Relocation)
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1
Amend the First -Time Homebuyer Program Parameters (Attachment 1)
eliminating the $120,000 purchase price ceiling and allowing the purchase
price to be limited only by the applicant's ability to qualify for financing while
meeting income eligibility requirements;
4.2
Approve the attached Program Parameters (Attachment 2) for the proposed
Employee Relocation Program.
Housing and Redevelopment Manager Meyer presented the staff report (of record); clarified
the rationale for amending the First-Time Homebuyer Program Parameters, noting the lack
of availability of homes priced under $120,000; advised for Agency Member Comerchero
that the Employee Relocation Program does not mandate that the provisions stated be
provided by the City, but allows the option for assistance to be available; noted, for
Chairman Lindemans, that the Employee Relocation Program is not limited to first-time
homebuyers.
Chairman Lindemans expressed his opposition to recommendation Item No. 4.1, eliminating
the $120,000 purchase price ceiling in the First-Time Homebuyer Program.
MOTION: Agency Member Roberts moved to approve staffs recommendation regarding
Agenda Item 4.1. The motion was seconded by Agency Member Ford and voice vote
reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Chairman Lindemans who voted no, and
Agency Member Stone who was absent.
MOTION: Agency Member Roberts moved to approve staffs recommendation regarding
Agenda Item 4.2. The motion was seconded by Agency Member Comerchero and voice
vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Agency Member Stone who was
absent.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
No comments.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
No comments.
AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS
No comments.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:52 P.M., the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to
Tuesday, February 9, 1999, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, California.
Karel Lindemans, Chairman
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/Agency Secretary
ITEM
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
City Council/City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager~'~''
DATE:
February 9, 1999
SUBJECT:
Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of Planning Application No. PA98-0347
(Development Plan) - The design, construction and operation of 15 speculative
industrial/manufacturing/office buildings totaling 81,885 square feet located on two
parcels consisting of 6.02 acres with associated parking and landscaping.
LOCATION: On the west side of Commerce Center Drive, adjacent to Murrieta Creek, north of
Via Montezuma.
Prepared by:
Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
This item was continued from the January 26, 1999, City Council meeting to the February 9, 1999,
City Council meeting. The applicant was directed by the City Council to come up with alternative
design options that would not require extensive gates and fences throughout the site as originally
proposed. The applicant submitted the modified site plan after the deadline for the February 9,
1999 public hearing. Therefore, the applicant will be making an oral presentation to discuss the
proprosed alternative design.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AFFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 98-
0347 DEVELOPMENT PLAN - THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION
AND OPERATION OF 15 SPECULATIVE INDUSTRIAL,
MANUFACTURING, OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 81,885
SQUARE FEET LOCATED ON TWO PARCELS CONSISTING OF
6.02 ACRES WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF COMMERCE CENTER
DRIVE, ADJACENT TO MURRIETA CREEK, NORTH OF VIA
MONTEZUMA, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.S 921-
400-017 AND 921-400-044
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS'xPLANNING\STAFFRpT',347pa98CCmemo.doc
1
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
\\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA\DEPTS~PLANN1NG~STAFFRPTX347pa98CCmemo.doc
2
ATTACHMENT NO. I
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AFFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 98-
0347 DEVELOPMENT PLAN -THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION
AND OPERATION OF 15 SPECULATIVE INDUSTRIAL,
MANUFACTURING, OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 81,885
SQUARE FEET LOCATED ON TWO PARCELS CONSISTING OF
6.02 ACRES WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF COMMERCE CENTER
DRIVE, ADJACENT TO MURRIETA CREEK, NORTH OF VIA
MONTEZUMA, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921 ..400-
017 AND 921-400-044.
WHEREAS, Saddleback filed Planning Application No. PA98-0347, in accordance with the
City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0347, was processed including, but not limited
to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0347 on
November 18, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City
staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition
to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission headng and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission adopted a resolution denying of Planning Application No. PA98-0347
(Resolution No. 98-049);
WHEREAS, Saddleback filed an appeal to Planning Application No. PA98-0347, in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, February 9, 1999, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to
Planning Application No. 98-0347, at which time interested persons had opportunity to, and did
testify either in support or opposition to Planning Application No. PA98-0347;
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff
Report regarding Planning Application No. PA98-0347;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That City Council, in affirming the action of the Planning
Commission, regarding Planning Application No. PA98-0347 (Development Plan) hereby affirms
and adopts Resolution 98-049 including the findings set forth therein;
A. The proposed use is not in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and
with all applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City.
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS~PLANNING\STAFFRP'I~347pa98CCmemo.doc 3
B. The proposed overall development of the land is not designed for the protection of
the public health, safety and welfare. The proposed project interior fencing and gating
unreasonably segregates the buildings; removes the required common parking necessary for the
proposed development; creates opportunities for trash debris to gather in an unsanitary manner;
and causes foreseeable interference with public safety service responses. The landscaping design
and quantity is inadequate given the proposed site layout.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. No environmental compliance determination
was made by the Planning Commission based upon its decision to deny Planning Application No.
PA98-0347 (Development Plan) and this City Coundl makes no determination under the California
Environmental Quality Act as amended by this action.
Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby denies Planning
Application No. PA98-0347 (Development Plan) for the design, construction and operation of 15
speculative industrial/manufacturing/office buildings totaling 81,885 square feet located on two
parcels consisting of 6.02 acres with associated parking and landscaping, and known as
Assessor's Parcel No.s 921-400-017 and 921-400-044 for the reasons and upon the determinations
set forth herein.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
\\TEM EC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS~LANNING\STAFFRPT~347pa98CCmemo.doc
4
Section 5. PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 9th
day of February, 1999.
ATTEST:
Steven J. Ford, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution
No. was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a
regular meeting thereof held on the __ day of ,1999, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS~LANNING\STAFFRPT~347pa98CCmemo.doc
5
ITEM
26
APPROV .... -
CITY A'FTORNEY ~
DIRECTOR OF FINAN
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Coundl/City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manag~;'~
February 9, 1999
Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Planning Application No. PA98-0219
(Conditional Use Permit) - Cox Communications wireless Personal Communications
System (PCS), with antennas mounted atop a 60-foot high monopole disguised as an
evergreen pine tree ("monopine") at the Rancho California Water Distdct water tank site
at 3100 Rancho California Road
Prepared by: Carole K. Donahoe, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council:
1. Adopt the Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA98-0219;
2. Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0219 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-
APPEAL), UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO
APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0219 (CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT) TO CONSTRUCT A WIRELESS PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEM (PCS) FACILITY CONSISTING OF TWELVE (12) PANEL ANTENNAS,
ONE (1) GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS) ANTENNA, AND SIX (6)
CABINETS HOUSING A BASE TRANSCEIVER STATION (BTS) UNIT AND OTHER
ELECTRONIC AND BATTERY EQUIPMENT. THE ANTENNAS WILL BE
MOUNTED ATOP A 60-FOOT HIGH MONOPOLE, DISGUISED AS AN
EVERGREEN PINE TREE ("MONOPINE") LOCATED AT THE RANCHO
CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT WATER TANK SITE AT 3100 RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 953-060-022.
\\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRpT~i 9pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal.doc
1
BACKGROUND: The project was submitted on May 20, 1998 by Cox Communications
representative TDI, Inc. On June 10, 1998 TDI agreed to meet with staff and members of the
Chardonnay Hills Homeowners' Association at the project site to hear concerns of adjacent property
owners. For the next three months TDI and staff worked together to research alternative locations and
monopole heights. On October 14, 1998 TDI presented a creative solution to address the concerns of
the adjacent homeowners, by lowering the antennas on the monopole to 60 feet, and by disguising the
pole and antennae as a pine tree. The modified proposal was sent to and was endorsed by the
Chardonnay Hills Homeowners' Association Board of Directors.
A Directors Hearing was conducted on November 12, 1998. Five homeowners from the new
Appalachia tract located to the south of the project site testified regarding the emission of
electromagnetic fields (EMF) from the Cox equipment. They protested the time of the hearing because
it was conducted when residents work, and requested a continuance in order to investigate the project.
The Planning Director concurred with the request for a continuance, and asked staff to schedule the
item on a Planning Commission agenda in order to provide a more convenient public hearing at 6 p.m.
Staff advertised this case for the Planning Commission's December 16, 1998 hearing.
On December 16, 1998 the Planning Commission heard testimony from the applicant's representatives
including Dr. Jerrold T. Bushberg. The Commission also received testimony and a petition in opposition
from adjacent homeowners on Merlot Crest Drive in the Appalachia tract. The Commission continued
the case to January 6, 1999 and asked the applicant's representatives to consider altemative sites and
to provide copies of the selection reports that determined the proposed site. The Commission also
asked the City Attorney to provide information on case law involving cellular facilities and the regulations
that specify or limit the Commission's action.
On January 6, 1999 Planning Commissioners discussed the site selection process with the applicant and
preemption rulings with the City Attorney. The Commission took testimony in opposition from three
residents on Merlot Crest. Drive. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission approved the project
by a vote of 2 to I with two Commissioners abstaining due to a possible conflict of interest.
On January 12, 1999 the City Council heard oral communications from Larry LeDoux, a resident on
Merlot Crest, who requested that the Coundl overturn the Planning Commission's derision. On January
12, Councilman Karel Lindemans filed a formal appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, stating
that the project involved land use concerns that should be heard by the City Council.
ANALYSIS: Mr. LeDoux expressed concerns regarding the potential for health hazards and the lack
of proof that wireless fadlities are safe. He protested federal law that pre-empts local jurisdictions from
denying the siting of wireless facilities based on environmental concerns due to radio frequency
transmissions.
Environmental Preemption
The concern regarding electromagnetic fields (EMFs) surfaced in the 1980's, and as a result, several
organizations reviewed the issue and developed standards for protection against radio frequency
emissions. Study after study has concluded that there is no demonstrated evidence that exposure to
wireless service facilities is harmful to people.
As part of the 1996 Wireless Communications Act, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
established an exposure standard that is a hybrid of various standards developed by others. The FCC
controls frequencies used by various entities and regulates the certification of their facilities. The 1996
Act expressly preempts state and local government regulation of the placement, construction, and
modifications of wireless service facilities on the basis of environmental effects.
The City Attorney has recommended that the project be conditioned to provide annual evidence of
recerti~cation by the FCC, in order to ensure compliance with the FCC's regulations and standards.
Condition of Approval No. 9 has been included to require this.
\\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRpT~I 9pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal.doc
2
Land Use Compatibility
The applicant proposes to locate the Cox Communications equipment on a site zoned for Public and
Institutional facilities. The site is owned by the Rancho California Water District and currently has two
existing above-ground water tanks and associated pump equipment, as well as a 50-foot high Pacific
Bell monopole with ground-mounted equipment. The proposed Cox PCS facility qualifies as a utility and
is permitted by Conditional Use Permit in the Public Institutional zone. The General Plan encourages
the clustering of public and institutional facilities to the extent possible in both residential and non-
residential land use designations. The water tanks and Pacific Bell monopole existed at the site prior to
the construction of homes on Merlot Crest Drive.
Project Design
The applicant's representative has worked diligently and cooperatively with staff to address aesthetic
concerns. The monopine and ground-mounted equipment are proposed to be located on the north side
of the water tanks, approximately 130 feet east of the existing Pacific Bell monopole. Three (3) Italian
Stone Pine trees and an irrigation system to service them will be installed north and east of the
equipment, to add credence to the disguised monopine. The equipment is proposed to be located over
400 feet from the nearest residence on Medot Crest Drive and approximately 1,100 feet from the nearest
residence in the Chardonnay Hills subdivision to the north.
FISCAL IMPACT: Negligible, either with or without the project.
SPECIFIC ACTION: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny the appeal
and uphold the approval of Planning Application No. PA98-0219. The telecommunications
industry is regulated with standards in place for the protection of the public health, safety and
general welfare. The proposed Cox Communications facility complies with these standards and
the project has been conditioned to provide continuous recertification by the Federal
Communications Commission. The project meets City zoning requirements, guidelines and
policies regarding land use compatibility and project design. Approval of the project is based
upon the following findings:
FINDINGS
The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code.
The PCS facility qualifies as a public utility, which is a use permitted by Conditional Use Permit
in the Public Institutional zone. The General Plan encourages the clustering of public and
institutional facilities to the extent possible in both residential or non-residential land use
designations. The existing Pacific Bell installation and water tanks at the site provide such an
area.
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 compatible with the existing
public facilities already at the site. The design of the facilities have been modified to be
compatible with adjacent residential uses. There is no demonstrated evidence that wireless
communication systems adversely affect adjacent residences.
The site for the 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 or Coundl in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The
applicant has revised the design of the monopole to simulate a pine tree and has provided three
additional Italian Pine trees to assist in the disguise of the "monopine."
\\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal.doc
3
The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general
welfare of the community. The concern regarding electromagnetic fields (EMFs) surfaced in the
1980's and as a result, several organizations reviewed the issue and developed standards for
the protection against radio frequency emissions. Study and after study concluded that there
was no demonstrated evidence that exposure to wireless service facilities was harmful to
people. As pad of the 1996 Wireless Communications Act, the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) established an exposure standard that is a hybrid of various standards
developed by others. The FCC controls frequendes used by vadous entities and regulates the
certification of their facilities. The 1996 Act expressly preempts state and local government
regulation of the placement, construction, and modifications of wireless service facilities on the
basis of environmental effects. The City Attorney has recommended that the project be
conditioned to provide annual evidence of recertification by the FCC, in order to ensure
compliance with the FCC's regulations and standards. Condition of Approval No. 9 has been
included to require this.
The derision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a conditional use
permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the City Council.
Attachments:
3.
4.
5,
6.
City Council Resolution No. 99- - Page 5
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Page 9
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision - Page 10
Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission hearing of December 16, 1998 - Page 11
Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission hearing of January 6, 1999- Page 12
Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated December 16, 1998 - Page 12
Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 6, 1999 - Page 14
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\pLANNiNG\STAFFRpT~19pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal.doc
4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 99-
\\TEMEC_FS201 'd:)ATA\DEPTS\PLAN NI NG\STAFFRpT,C?.I 9pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal.doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO. I
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0219
(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-APPEAL), UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA98-0219 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) TO
CONSTRUCT A WIRELESS PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEM (PCS) FACILITY CONSISTING OF TWELVE (12) PANEL
ANTENNAS, ONE (1) GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS)
ANTENNA, AND SIX (6) CABINETS HOUSING A BASE
TRANSCEIVER STATION (BTS) UNIT AND OTHER ELECTRONIC
AND BATTERY EQUIPMENT. THE ANTENNAS WILL BE
MOUNTED ATOP A 60-FOOT HIGH MONOPOLE, DISGUISED AS
AN EVERGREEN PINE TREE ("MONOPINE") LOCATED AT THE
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT WATER TANK SITE AT
3100 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 953-060-022.
WHEREAS, Cox Communications PCS, L.P. filed Planning Application No. PA98-0219, in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0219 was processed including, but not limited
to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Director considered Planning Application No. PA98-0219 on
November 12, 1998. at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City
staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to
this matter;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0219 on
December 16, 1998 and January 6, 1999, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at
which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in
support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearings and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA98-0219;
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to Planning Application
No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit - Appeal) on February 9, 1999, at which time interested
persons had opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to Planning Application No.
PA98-0219;
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff
Reports regarding Planning Application No. PA98-0219;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That City Council, in denying Planning Application No. PA98-0219
(Conditional Use Permit -Appeal) and upholding the Planning Commission's decision approving
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~19pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal.doc
6
Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit) hereby makes the following findings
as required by Section 17.05.010. F of the Temecula Municipal Code;
A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code. The PCS facility qualifies as a public utility, which is a use permitted by
Conditional Use Permit in the Public Institutional zone. The General Plan encourages the clustering
of public and institutional facilities to the extent possible in both residential or non-residential land
use designations. The existing Pacific Bell installation and water tanks at the site provide such an
area.
B. 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 compatible with the
existing public facilities already at the site. The design of the facilities have been modified to be
compatible with adjacent residential uses. There is no demonstrated evidence that wireless
communication systems adversely affect adjacent residences.
C. The site for the 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 or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The
applicant has revised the design of the monopole to simulate a pine tree and has provided three
additional Italian Pine trees to assist in the disguise of the "monopine."
D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of the community. The concern regarding electromagnetic fields (EMFs) surfaced
in the 1980's and as a result, several organizations reviewed the issue and developed standards for
the protection against radio frequency emissions. Study and after study concluded that there was
no demonstrated evidence that exposure to wireless service facilities was harmful to people. As pan
of the 1996 Wireless Communications Act, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
established an exposure standard that is a hybrid of various standards developed by others. The
FCC controls frequencies used by various entities and regulates the certification of their facilities.
The 1996 Act expressly preempts state and local government regulation of the placement,
construction, and modifications of wireless service facilities on the basis of environmental effects.
The City Attorney has recommended that the project be conditioned to provide annual evidence of
recertification by the FCC, in order to ensure compliance with the FCC's regulations and standards.
Condition of Approval No. 9 has been included to require this.
E. The decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a
conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the
City Council.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. The project qualifies under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a Categorical Exemption under Section 15301 Existing
Facilities, Class 1 (b), because it is a minor alteration of an existing facility, involving negligible
expansion of use beyond that previously existing, in order to provide telecommunications service.
Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby conditionally
approves Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit) to construct a wireless
Personal Communications System (PCS) facility consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, one (1)
Global Positioning System (GPS) antenna, and six (6) cabinets housing a Base Transceiver Station
(BTS) unit and other electronic and battery equipment. The antennas will be mounted atop a 60-foot
high monopole, disguised as an evergreen pine tree ("monopsne") located at the Rancho California
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS~PLANNING\STAFFRPT~219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal.doc 7
Water Distdct water tank site at 3100 Rancho California Road, and known as Assessor's Parcel No.
953-060-022, and subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto,
and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this ninth day of February, 1999.
ATTEST:
Steven J. Ford, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution
No. was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular
meeting thereof held on the ninth day of February, 1999, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal.doc
8
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~19pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal.doc
9
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Revised
Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit)
Project Description: A Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate an
unmanned telecommunications PCS facility, at the Rancho
California Water District tank site, 3100 Rancho California
Road, consisting of:
Three (3) four-antenna arrays mounted onto a new 60-foot high monopole
disguised to look like an evergreen tree ("monotree")
A ground-mounted Base Transceiver Station (BTS) within equipment cabinets
behind a six-foot high chain link fence with barbed wires above and with vinyl slat
inserts (color to match existing water tanks)
3. An 18-inch high GPS antenna mounted to the BTS power cabinet.
Assessors Parcel No.
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
953-060-022
January 6, 1999
January 6, 2001
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars
($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption
required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and Califomia Code of
Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the
applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required
above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition,
Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Requirements
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree
to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees,
consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions,
awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul,
seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of
and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency,
appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City,
concerning the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant
and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable
and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right
R:\STAFFRPTX219pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc
9
o
to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its
citizens in regards to such defense.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial Planning
construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is
thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization
contemplated by the approval.
This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's
Development Code.
The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the
approval of this Conditional Use Permit.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit "A" Site Plan,
Exhibit "B" Elevations, Exhibit "C" Equipment Layout, and Exhibit "D" Details approved
with Planning Application No. PA98-0219, or as amended by these conditions.
Prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit:
The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Planning Manager a revised
elevation of the proposed monopine that shows additional limbs disbursed throughout
the height of the pole, starting at 20 feet from the base, and which taper as the limbs
approach the highest point.
The applicant shall submit for review and approval Construction Landscape and
Irrigation Plans.
9. Three (3) Italian Stone Pine trees shall be installed at a minimum of 36" boxed size.
10.
All electrical wiring associated with the antenna shall be buried underground or hidden in
a manner acceptable to the Building Official.
11.
The antenna must be adequately grounded, for protection against a direct strike of
lightning, with an adequate grounding method approve by the City of Temecula Building
Official.
12.
Installation must meet wind velocity criteria as set forth in the Uniform Building Code
when deemed necessary by the City of Temecula Building official.
Prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy:
13.
The applicant shall replace any landscaping removed or damaged during the installation
of equipment.
14.
The applicant shall submit to the Planning Manager a copy of the annual recertification
document issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that ensures
compliance of the project with its standards and regulations.
15
The applicant shall perfodicafty refurbish or paint as necessary to maintain the color and
texture of the monopine as orfginally approved by the Commission.
R:\STAFFRPTX219pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc
10
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
16.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California
Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the
Temecula Municipal Code.
17.
Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans for any new fixtures in
compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
18.
Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
19. The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be U.
20.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting,
fire alarm systems.
21.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
22. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule for plan review.
OTHER AGENCIES
23.
The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Rancho California Water District,
as noted in their correspondence dated June 9, 1998 attached.
24.
The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District, as noted in their correspondence dated June 19, 1998
attached.
25.
The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Riverside County Department of
Environmental Health, as noted in their correspondence dated June 2, 1998 attached.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand and I accept all the
above mentioned Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be
maintained in conformance with these Conditions of Approval and that any changes I may wish
to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
R:\STAFFRPTX219pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc
11
f
Board otDirectors:
Csaba F. Ko
President
Ralph 1L Daily
St. Vice President
Lixa D. Haman
lloug Kulberg
~ksoti; A. Mclntyre
Jeffrey L, Minklet
Oeorge M. Woods
Officers:
John ~. Hannialar
General Manager
Phillip L. Forbes
Director of Finance-
Treasurer
E. P. "Bob" Lemons
Director 0fEngineering
Kenneth C. Dealy
Director of Operafionl,
& Maintenance
Perry tL Louck
Controller
Linda M. Fregoso
Distric~ Secretary/Administrative
Services Manager
C. Michael Coweft
Best Best & Krieger LLP
General Counsel
June 9, 1998
Post-IP Fax Note 7671
N Pt{t
BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
(909) 694-6479
City o£ Tomecula
Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
StmJECT:
PIANZNING APflICATION NO. PA98-0219 6MINOR CONDITIONAL
USE ptliMrr)
Dear Sir:
In accordance with the City of Temecula Development Review Committee's
request in connection with the above subject application, please be advised
that the property in question is located within 'the boundaries of the
Rancho California Water District (RCWD).
Currently, RCWD is considering entering into a lease agreement with the
applicant, THecommunications Development and Innovations (TDI)/Cox
Communications for the purpose of inst~lling cellular communications
equipment at our reservoir site. RCWD's conditions for a lease agreement
would require that the Lessee meet the following requirements:
· The equipment be placed so as not to interfere with the current or
future use of this site, including RCWD's future plans to install radjo
transmission equipment for the SCADA System (frequencies must be
compatible). RCWD's Operations Department requests that a frequency
interference study be performed at the expense of Cox
Communications to verify compatibility of transmitting frecluendes.
· A separate power meter be obtained at the site from Southern
California Edison (SCE).
· All necessary CiW permitting processes be obtained prior to
construction.
· An~, California Enviromental Quality Control Act (CEQA) requirements
be addressed and complied with.
· Adjacent property owners be notified of the proposed facilities and
operations.
Upon successful completion of the aforementioned requirements, and
others, construction of TDrs facilities will be allowed by RCWD.
Rancho California Water Dtmtriet
42 135 Winchester Road · Post Office Box 9017 * Temecula, California 92589-9017 * (909) 676-4101 * FAX (909) 676-0615
City of Temecula
Page 2
June 9, 1998
If you have any questions regarding this ma~ter, or ff you need further clarification of
the items listed. please contact me.
Smc~e~yo~s,
~.~RA~~.RNIA WATER D
Paul J. ~onz~
General Services Manager
k\1998\um'~Xllo~zal~zx,98112.doe y
DAVID P. ZAPPE
General Manager-Chief Engineer
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
9 FAX
..
51180,1
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
C-'
City of Temecula
Plannin De artment
posto g ',g×9o33
Temecula, Califomia 92589-9033
Attention: C Pl ~ () [ F, 2D ~) N ~ H O ~
Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: P ~ 9 ~ ' O ~ I ~
~e DistH~ d~ not no~ally r~mmend ~ndi~on~ for land divisions or o~er land u~e ~e~ in in~ted
~e~. ~e Dis~ al~ d~ not lan ~ ~ la~ ~ ~, or p~vide 8~te DM~ion of R~I B~te le~e~ or
o~er ~ h~a~ ~ for ~u~ ~e~. Di~ ~mmen~mmen~on~ ~r ~u~ ~e~ a~ ~alll iim~
1o ~em8 of ~c mtere~t 1~ ~e Di~td~ in~n Di~ Ma~er D~ina e Plan ~!iee~, ~er ional e~
~n~ol and d~ina e ~li~e~ ~i~ ~uld ~ ~i~r~ a i~i~l ~m~nen~r e~en~ion of a ma~e~gn ~ 8tern,
and Dist~ Area 8~inage Plan fee~ (developmenl mi~galion f~). In addleon, info~alion of a gene~l n~{~re is
provided.
~e Dist~ has not review~ ~e pronged proj~ in detail and ~e f~lo~ng ~ ~mmen~ do not in any way
~nset~e or imply Dis~ approval or e~o~ement of ~e pro~s~ p~j~ ~ re~ to ~ h~rd, public
health and safe~ or any o~er ~u~ issue:
t/~is prgj~ would not be impaled by Di~ Ma~ter D~inage Plan ~litie~ nor are o~er ~liee~ of
r~ional mtere~t pro~.
~i8 proje~ involve~ Di~ Master Plan ~1~. ~ Dis~ ~11 a~ t o~e~hi~ of ~u~ ~litie8 on
~en r~u~t of ~e Ci~. Families must ~ ~n~ to Dis~ ~n~s, a~ Di~ plan ~e~ and
in~on ~11 ~ r~uir~ for Di~ a~p~n~. Plan ~, in~on ~nd admini~eve f~ ~11 ~
r~uir~.
~i~ proje~ pro~e~ ~annels, ~1o~ d~in~ ~ in~ or larger in diameter, or e~er ~lities ~at ~uld be
~ns~dered r~ional in nature anger a I i~l e~en~ion of ~e adopt~
Master D~inage Plan. ~e Dis~ wob~ ~n~ider a~peng e~hi~ of ~ ~l~ee~ on ~en r~ue~t
of ~e C~. Famines musl ~ ~~ 1o Dis~ ~ndard~, and Dm~ ~an ~ and ins~ion ~11
be ~uir~ for Dis~ a~p~n~. ~lan ~, ins~on and administ~eve fees ~11 ~ r~uir~.
Drainage Plan for ~i~ dmina e f~s ~ve ~n adopt~ ap~ble ~ sZ~uld ~ paid by ~shier8
ch~k or money o~er onl to ~e FI~ Con~l Dis~ or C~ prior to issuan~ of building or grading
~its, ~i~ever ~mes ~ Fees to be paid should be at the rote in effe~ at ~e ~me of issuan~ of the
a~ual ~iL
GENE~L INFOR~ON
~is p~j~ ma re-ui~ a Na~onal Pdl~nt Di~arge Elimina~on System (NPDE8 ~ ~m ~e S~te Water
Resour~s Con~ol ~oard. Cleamn~ for grading, r~ation, or o~er final approva~ should not be given un~l ~e
Ci~ has dete~ined ~at ~e pmj~ has ~en gmnt~ a pe~ or is sho~ to ~ exempt.
If ~is pro'e~ involves a F~eml Eme~en~ Management Age~ (FE~ map~ fl~ plain, ~en ~e Ci should
require t~e appli~nt to provide all s~dies, ~l~la~ons, plans a~ o~er mnfo~a~on ~ui~ to me~ FE~
r~uirements, and should ~er [~uim ~at ~e a pliant chain a Condi~onal Le~er of Map Revision CLOMR)
prior to grading, reardamon or o~er final app~va~of ~e proje~, and a Le~er of Map Revision (LOMR~ prior to
o~upancy.
If a natural water~u~e or reaped fl~ plain ~s im a~ by ~is proj~, ~e Oi~ should r~uire the a li~nt to
obtain a Se~ion 1601/1603 Agreement from ~e Oa~mia Depa~ment of Fish and Game and a Clean ~ater A~
Se~ion 4~ Petit from the U.S. A~y Co~s of Engineera, or ~en ~ffes~ndence from these a endes
indicting the proje~ is exempt from these requmrements. A Clean Water A~ Sedon 401 Water Quail CeSSation
may be required ~om the Io~1 Oalifomia Regional Water Quali~ Gontrol Board prior to issuance of ~e Co~s 404
petit.
'~d~ Ve~ t~ly yours,
.; .. STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
TO:
FROM:
RE:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT T : Carole Don e, AICP
t Specialist III
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PA98-0219
DATE: June 2, 1998
The Department of Environmental Health has received and reviewed the Conditional Use
Permit No. PA98-0219 and have no objections.
If permanent structures for employees are required that maintain restrooms, this Department
will require "will serve letters" from the sewer and water agency.
CH:dr
(909) 955-8980
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS',PLANNING\STAFFRPT~19pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal.doc
10
City of Temecula
Community Development Department
43200 Business Park Drive * Temecuh * CA * 92590
P.O. Box 9033, Temecuh · CA · 92589-9033
(909) 694-6400 * FAX (909) 694-6477
Appeal
O~ginalCaseNumber(~ PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0219 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)
A. PURPOSE
The purpose of the appeal procedure is to provide a method of recourse for persons aggrieved by or
dissatisfied with an action taken by an administrative agency of the City in the administration or
enforcement of any provisions of the Development Code.
B. FII,ING REQUIREMENTS
1. Development Application.
2. Appeal Form.
3. Filing Fee.
C. NOTICE OF APPEAI, - ~ l ,IMIT
A notice of an appeal by any individual who is aggrieved by or dissatisfied with a decision made by
him or in his behalf, or with any action, order, requirement, decision or determination shall not be
acted upon unless filed within fifteen 05) calendar days after service of written notice of the decision.
D. NOTICE OF APPEAl,- CONTI~,NTS
Appealing the decision of:
Planning Commission on January 6, 1999.
(Specify Director of Planning or Planning Commission AND Action Dam)
Specify exactly what is being appealed: Decision of approval.
R:\FAGA~APP~IC\APp. APp 7/16/97 klb i
Reason or justification to support the appeal. Appellant must submit with this appeal each issue which
the appellant alleges was wrongly determined together with every agreement and a copy of every item
of evidence. (Attach separate sheet of paper if necessary).
The application raises a number of important land use issues which should
be decided by the City Council.
Desked action to be taken:
I express no opinion either in favor of or in opposition to the application or
the Conditions of Approval and will fairly consider all of the information
presented by the applicant and the community.
In the event any Notice of Appeal applicant fails to answer any information set forth above, then
the request will be returned to the appellant, with a statement of the deficiencies. The appellant
shall be allowed five (5) calendar days in which to refile the notice of appeal.
R:\FAGANMXAPPLIC\APp.APp 7/16/97 klb 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING OF DECEMBER 16, 1998
\\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA'd:)EPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~.I 9pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal.doc
11
DRAFT
4. Plannin~ Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit)
Request to construct a wireless PCS facility consisting of a twelve (12) panel
antenna mounted atop a 65-foot tall monopole constructed to simulate a pine tree
("monopine"), one (1) Global Positioning System (GPS) antenna, and six (6)
cabinets housing. a base transceiver station (BTS) unit and other electronic and
battery equipment.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission
approve the request.
Commissioner Webster advised that he would be abstaining with regard to this Agenda Item,
and, therefore, left the meeting at 7:01 P.M., per Attorney Curley's counsel.
By way of renderings, Project Planner Donahoe presented the staff report (of record), noting
that the site currently maintains two existing above-ground water tanks, as well as, a Pacific
Bell 50-foot high monopole; relayed that when the application was submitted in May of 1998,
although there was opposition from the Chardonnay Hills Homeowners Association, the
applicant met with the representative for Chardonnay Hills, and staff, to discuss the project;
noted that the applicant did research alternative locations for the PCS facility and analyzed the
monopole height which resulted in the proposed project presented at this site with a lowered
height at 60', disguised as a pine tree, with the addition of three additional Italian Pine trees for
visual aesthetic purposes; relayed that at the November, 1998, Director's Hearing, five
homeowners, from the adjacent housing tract, spoke in opposition of the project, noting their
primary concern was the EMF (electromagnetic field) emissions, and requested that the matter
be continued to a hearing at a more convenient time. Ms. Donahoe advised that this project,
with regard to the EMF (electromagnetic fields) is well below the exposure standards that the
FCC (Federal Communication Commission) has set; for Commissioner Naggar, specified the
exact proposed location of the monopine; for Chairwoman Slaven, identified the location of the
proposed chain-linked fence, adjacent to the existing RCWD (Rancho California Water District)
chain-linked fence with existing barbed wire, noting that a line-of-sight test was done revealing
that the proposed chain-linked fence will not be visible form the homes on Merlot Crest; and
advised that the City's Landscape Architect is recommending that a condition be added
requiring three additional 36-inch box pine trees to be installed.
Mr. John Murphy, representing the applicant, clarified that the applicant has met all the
standards setforth by the City, and noted that staff has made a Finding indicating that the
proposed project is not detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the community.
Mr. Greg Morrision, representing the applicant, presented a display sample of the monopine
branch, noting the specifications of the construction of the monopine tree; for Chairwoman
Slaven, relayed that although the tree lasts from eight to ten years, the project could be
conditioned to have the applicant periodically refurbish the monopine for maintenance; and
noted that the applicant would be agreeable to conditioning the project to adding additional
branches to the monopole.
D AFT
Dr. Jerrold T. Bushberg, Clinical Associate Professor of Radiology at UC Davis, representing
the applicant, presented the EMF emission exposure standards of safety, set by the FCC,
noting that they are 50 times lower than the minimal level thought to be dangerous, at
exposure rates of 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; noting that this particular project is
approximately 50,000 times less than the level thought to be potentially hazardous; specified
that the broadcast energy levels, specifically aimed toward the horizon, release a small amount
of energy level at ground level; relayed the EMF standards world-wide; for informational
purposes, clarified that the levels of emissions from a baby monitor would be ten times greater
than the emissions of exposure at the proposed site. Dr. Bushberg advised, for Chairwoman
Slaven, that this particular type of exposure has been in existence for over four decades, and
that although the cumulative effects of multiple antennas would be additive, the emissions
would still be below the safety standard; for Commissioner Naggar, clarified that EMF
emissions can cause harm, like any agent (i.e., water) and would depend upon the dosage;
specified that the safety standard set represents a general consensus of scientific opinion,
noting that relative to the height and level of emissions, an adjacent neighbor could be on his
roof 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and be safe from harm; advised that if the system
malfunctioned, the broadcast levels would lessen; and noted that the levels of emissions from
cellular phones are hundreds of times higher than the emissions from the proposed project.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed project:
Mr. Larry LeDoux
Mr. Shawn Bierle
Mr. Frank DiGiacomo
Mr. Merle Campbell
Mr. Leo Finegold
32004 Merlot Crest
32016 Merlot Crest
32032 Merlot Crest
32027 Merlot Crest
32036 Merlot Crest
A petition was submitted in opposition of the project with 28 signatures, encompassing 17 of
the 20 adjacent residences.
The aboVe-mentioned individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed project, recommending
to the Commission denial or postponement of the issue, for the following reasons:
documentation and data presented warning against prolonged exposure to
EMF, noting that the information on the subject is inconclusive
concern with regard to the long-term effects of EMF on unborn babies
the location of the proposed site, recommended siting away from residential
areas
concern with more antennas at a future point in time being installed
concerned with government standards, determining a matter is safe, and then at
a later point in time, issuing a warning of hazard on the same matter
requested documentation from the American Cancer or Heart Association on
EMF
DRAFT
Dr. Bushberg addressed the concerns and questions of the community and the Commission,
as follows:
clarified that the documentation provided by Mr. Bierle almost conclusively
focused on powedine electric and magnetic fields, not radiowave emissions
from telecommunication facilities (the issue at hand), noting that the
electromagnetic field emissions from telecommunication radiowaves are non-
ionizing, versus the aforementioned, which are ionizing
for Chairwoman Slaven, clarified that radiowaves could be divided into ionizing
and non-ionizing radiowaves, noting that non-ionizing radiowaves at the
threshold levels maintained below a certain level are non-carcinogenic, echoed
by a consensus of national and international scientific data, yielding safety at
this particular project, with exposure at these levels, 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year
noted that the scientific body chartered by Congress, and other scientific data,
have detailed the effects of EMF, advising that there is pertinent conclusive
information on EMF
with regard to the effect on pace-makers. advised that there are no negative
effects from telecommunication towers due to the low levels emitted
presented, by way of overheads, documentation from the American Cancer
Society, noting that non-ionizing radiation at such low levels is not a carcinogen
For Chairwoman Slaven, Mr. Murphy noted that the applicant executed three search ranges,
considering alternative sites, noting that the criteria for siting a location is based on a location
concentrated on a main transportation corridor, utilizing public utilities sites.
Initially, the Commission expressed their comments on the proposed project, as follows:
Commissioner Naggar relayed that since he was not completely knowledgeable on the
technical aspects of the hazards associated with the EMF emissions, and since the data
appeared inconclusive, he would vote in favor of the residents' concerns, opposing the project.
In contrast, Commissioner Soltysiak, noted that since the residents located their residences,
with full disclosure, adjacent to an existing similar facility, and since the area is zoned for such
facilities, he would accept the staff recommendation and vote in favor of the project.
Chairwoman Slaven noted her concurrence with Commissioner Naggar's comments, further
commenting that the quality of life included living without fear, and since the residents have
expressed grave concerns with the EMF emissions, she could not support the project,
suggesting that the applicant site another location, away from residential areas.
Attorney Curley clarified that since the Federal Communication Act of 1996, expressly
considered the environmental effects that it is not in our jurisdiction to base the criteria of the
land use findings on the EEMI= emissions, due to the aforementioned preemption, noting that
D AFT
the Public Utilities Commission could override a decision, if based upon the stated criteria;
advised that this determination has been made due to the technical nature of the informational
data.
Commissioner Naggar requested provision of information on case law involving cellular
facilities and the regulation that specify or limit the Commission's action.
Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that the adjacent neighbors could have investigated and
determined that their property is located adjacent to a public utility site, noting that the existing
Pacific Bell monopole was at the site, prior to the residents locating there.
Project Planner Donahoe advised that although the data was not currently available, the
applicant did explore other sites, as stated in the staff presentation.
Chairwoman Sloven suggested continuing the matter to obtain information supporting the
location site and, whether, or not, there is another location which would provide equivalent
service.
Based on community input, Mr. Murphy, representing the applicant, was agreeable to obtaining
the data and research for location siting and investigating any identifiable alternative sites.
MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to close the public hearing; and moved to continue
the matter to the January 6, 1999, Planning Commission meeting, for the aforementioned
reasons. The motion was seconded by Chairwoman Sloven and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval with the exception of Commissioners Guerriero and Webster who
abstained.
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
A. With regard to Dr. John Husing°s Economic Development Strategy report, it was noted
that if the Commission had questions, Assistant City Manager O'Grady could address those
issues at a Planning Commission meeting.
B. With regard to the parking of trucks along Diaz Road, it was noted that Code
Enforcement has referred the matter to the Police Department.
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
No comments.
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING OF JANUARY 6, 1999
\\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~,I 9pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal.doc
12
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. PC 99-001
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPUCATION NO. PA98-0469 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
OF A 50,050 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING (TILT-UP CONCRETE) ON A 2.71 ACRE
LOT; LOCATED AT THE END OF COLT COURT SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF COLT
COURT AND WINCHESTER ROAD, KNOWN AS PARCELS 3 AND 4 OF PM 28471-1 AND
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 909-360-003 AND 004.
modify
Condition No. 6 to include additional sandblasting and reveals on the architedural
elevations per staff recommendation
Condition No. 16, section C, to not replace the Deodar Cedartree per staff
recommendation
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
At this time, Agenda Item No. 4 was heard.
4. Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit)
Request to construct a wireless PCS facility consisUng of a twelve (12) panel antenna mounted atop a
60-foot monopole constructed to simulate a pine tree ("~onopine"), one (1) Global Positioning System
(GPS) antenna, and six (6) cabinets housing a base transceiver station (BTS) unit and other electronic
and batteW equipmenL
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission
approve the request.
Commissioners Webster and Guerdero advised that they would be abstaining with regard to this Agenda Item and,
therefore, left the dais 6:45 P.M.
Associate Planner Donahoe presented the staff repod (of record); relayed that the provision of the information the
Commission requested regarding this postponed matter at the December 16, 1999 Planning Commission meeting has
been provided, specifically, additional data on case law pedaining to cellular facilities, via agenda material, and the
summary of location site research material, via supplemental agenda material; and relayed that the Conditions of Approval
have been amended per Commission input at the December 16, 1999 meeting.
Mr. Greg Morrison, representing the applicant, addressed the health concems associated with this project, presenting data
from the Amedcan Cancer Society, ratifying that non-ionizing radiation (i.e., radio frequency waves) is not a carcinogen
and does not promote the growth of cancer once it has started; by way of overheads, presented a detailed oveNjew of the
site selection process, the cdteria used to determine potential site Iocatbns, and the rationale for the present proposed site
plan (per supplemental agenda material).
D AFT
Mr. Paul Gonzalez, representing RCWD (Rancho Califomia Water District), provided a bdef summan/of District Policy
regarding public posting of the proposed project, noting that this particular project was noticed three times; advised that
the revenue generated from this proposed project will offset rate increases; and relayed that RCWD has corresponded with
Larry LeDoux, a concemed public member, inviting him to attend the RCWD Board meetings, and advising that RCWD
would specifically notice him regarding any future applications for additional antennas at this particular site.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed project, primarily due to health concems assodated with the
radiowave emissions from the monopole:
Shawn Biede
Terry Hood
Robed Rasband
32016 Medot Crest
32040 Medot Crest
32044 Medot Crest
Chairwoman Slaven dosed the publio hearing.
Attomey Cudey advised that although the Commission had latitude regarding the typical land-use determination, there
were limitations regarding the Commission's action with regard to this particular project (specified in the agenda matedal);
clarified Conditional Use Permits; reiterated the Findings for this particular project in the staff report; relayed that the
Commission's decision must be based on substantial evidence regarding those particular Findings; advised that with regard
to the land-use decision, due to the FCC (Federal Communication Commission) regulations, the Commission cannot deny
the project based on the radio frequency wave concerns; and clarified the PUC's (Public Utility Commission) state
constitutional ability to overfide the City's governing body's decision if the decision negatively affects its charge to ensure
facilitation of the public telecommunication system.
Commissioner Naggar expressed difficulty voting on this particular project, noting that he had researched the legal
information Attomey Cudey had provided; commended the applicant's diligence and efforts to cooperate with the
community; advised that in light of the tremendous negative community input relayed his vote would not be in favor of the
project, due to the negative impact on the neighborhood; his denial of the project would be based on the following: 1)
inconsistency with the General Plan 2) incompatibility with the adjacent use, and 3) detrimental to the general welfare of
the community.
Commissioner Soltysiak expressed that although he had compassion for the community's noted concem, since there was
cleady a visible existing similar facility on the proposed site plan (noting its existence prior to the adjacent construction of
the homes), and the fact that the clustering of such facilitates is encouraged, and in light of the presented documented
rationale for the proposed site location, he would support the project.
Chairwoman Slaven dadfled the rationale for continuing the project at the December 16, 1999 Planning Commission
meeting; noted that the Commission's charge had been dadfled to make a determination based on the Findings (of record)
reiterated by Attomey Cudey, operating under the Laws of the State of California; for informational purposes, queried the
compatibility of the building of a residential area next to the existing facility; relayed that the proposed site plan will be
aesthetically pleasing, and an improvement of the existing use, and in light of the legal constraints and requirements of
the Commission, she would support the project.
MOTION: Commissioner Soltysiak moved to close the public hearing; adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application
No. PA98-0219; and adopt Resolution No. 99-002 approving Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Condition Use Permit)
based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report, subject to the amended Conditions of Approval.
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. PC 99-002
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA98-0219 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT), TO CONSTRUCT A WIRELESS PCS
FACIUTY CONSISTING OF TWELVE PANEL ANTENNAS MOUNTED ATOP A 60-FOOT
MONOPOLE, A GPS ANTENNA AND SIX CABINETS HOUSING A BTS UNIT AND OTHER
ELECTRONIC AND BATTERY EQUIPMENT, LOCATED AT THE RCWD WATER TANK SITE, 3100
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 953-060-022
The motion was seconded by Chairwoman Slaven and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of
Commissioner Naggar who voted no, and Commissioners Guer~ero and Webster who abstained.
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that since at the January 20, 1999, Planning Commission meeting Mr. Bob
Davis will be presenting the Traffic Circulation Update, the Commission could submit specific concems and questions prior
to the meeting for submittal to Mr. Davis. Commissioner Naggar's desire for the provision of a glossary ofterrns at the
meeting was noted.
B. It was noted that since staff is reviewing the Wolf Valley Ranch and War Paw Ranch areas, the Commission could
anticipate workshops associated with the aforementioned areas.
C. Chairwoman Slaven noted that since she was going out of town on Friday, January 8, 1999, she would
appreciate the receipt of any matedal for the upcoming Planning Commission Meeting for review prior to her departure.
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
A. Chairwoman Slaven noted that the American Planning Association is hosting a one-day conference on an
upcoming Saturday, relaying that these conferences are informative and enjoyable. Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed
that she would note Commissioner Naggar's desire to attend the conference.
B. With regard to Mr. Black's submittal (see page 1, under Public Comments for reference), Ms. Ubnoske noted, for
Chairwoman Slaven, that staff has been in contact with Mr. Black, and appreciated the additional information submitted,
relaying that staff will continue to communicate with Mr. Black.
C. For Commissioner Soltysiak, Attomey Cudey noted that although the next Planning Commission meeting will be
a workshop that the requirement of public comments must be maintained; however, stated that it would be limited to the
time allotted to public comments at the onset of the meeting.
D. For Commissioner Soltysiak, with regard to the language of the Design Guidelines, specifically, conceming
conformance of the architectural standard for specific uses, Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that staff could investigate
and expand the guidelines to improve the clarity.
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DATED DECEMBER 16, 1998
~'~TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~19pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal.doc
13
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 16, 1998
0?181 4
Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit)
Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No.
PA98-0219;
ADOPT Resolution No. 98- approving Planning Application
No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit) based upon the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report, subject
to the attached Conditions of Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Cox Communications PCS, L.P.
REPRESENTATIVE:
TDI, Inc., Adan Madrid and John Murphy
PROPOSAL:
To construct a wireless Personal Communications System (PCS)
facility consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, one (1) Global
Positioning System (GPS) antenna, and six (6) cabinets housing a
Base Transceiver Station (BTS) unit and other electronic and battery
equipment. The antennas will be mounted atop a 60-foot high
monopole, disguised as an evergreen pine tree Cmonopine).
LOCATION:
North of Rancho Califomia Road, west of Butterfield Stage Road, east
of Meadows Parkway, and south of La Serena Way on Rancho
California Water District property.
EXISTING ZONING:
PI (Public Institutional)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: SP (Specific Plan, Medium Density Residential, 2-5 du/ac)
South: SP (Specific Plan, Low Medium, 3-6 dwelling units/acre)
East: SP (Specific Plan, Medium Density Residential, 2-5 du/ac)
West: SP (Specific Plan, Medium High Density, 5-8 du/ac)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not Applicable
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
P (Public / Institutional Facilities)
EXISTING LAND USE: Two existing above-ground water tanks and associated pump
equipment, and a Pacific Bell 50-foot high monopole with associated
ground-mounted equipment.
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~,19PA98.PCdoc 1
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
The Vineyard and Appalachia subdivisions
Chardonnay Hills subdivision
Vacant
BACKGROUND
The project was submitted on May 20, 1998. On June 10, 1998 the applicant's representative met
with staff and members of the Chardonnay Hills Homeowners' Association at the project site. For
the next three months TDI and staff worked together to research alternative locations and monopole
heights. On October 14, 1998 TDI presented a creative solution to address the concerns of the
adjacent homeowners, by lowering the antennas on the monopole height to 60 feet, and by
disguising the pole and antennae as a pine tree. The modified proposal was sent to and was
endorsed by the Chardonnay Hills Homeowners' Association Board of Directors. A Director's
Hearing was conducted on November 12, 1998. Five homeowners from the new Appalachia tract
located to the south of the project site testified to voice concerns regarding the emission of
electromagnetic fields (EMF) from the Cox equipment. They protested the time of the hearing
because it was conducted when residents work, and requested a continuance in order to investigate
the project. The Planning Director concurred with the request for a continuance, and asked staff to
schedule the item on a Planning Commission agenda in order to provide a more convenient public
hearing at 6 p.m. Staff advertised this case for the Planning Commission's December 16, 1998
hearing.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The monopine and ground-mounted equipment are proposed to be located on the north side of the
water tanks, approximately 130 feet east of the existing Pacific Bell monopole. The equipment will
be installed on the outside of the existing chain link fence that surrounds the water tanks, but will add
similar chain link fencing around its installation. Three (3) Italian Stone Pine trees and an irrigation
system to service them will be installed north and east of the equipment, to add credance to the
disguised monopine.
ANALYSIS
Project Design
Staff recommends approval of the design of the project. The applicant's representative has worked
diligently and cooperatively with staff to address the aesthetic concerns of the adjacent property
OWReFS.
Electromagnetic Fields
The concern regarding electromagnetic fields (EMFs) surfaced in the 1980's and as a result, several
organizations reviewed the issue and developed standards for protection against radio frequency
emissions. Study after study has concluded that there is no demonstrated evidence that exposure
to wireless service facilities is harmful to people. As part of the 1996 Wireless Communications Act,
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established an exposure standard that is a hybrid
of various standards developed by others. The FCC controls frequencies used by various entities
and regulates the certification of their facilities. The 1996 Act expressly preempts state and local
government regulation of the placement, construction, and modifications of wireless service facilities
on the basis of environmental effects.
\\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFR PT%219PA98.PC .doc
2
The City Attorney has recommended that the project be conditioned to provide annual evidence of
recenification by the FCC, in order to ensure compliance with the FCC's regulations and standards.
Condition of Approval No. 9 has been included to require this.
included as Exhibit No." I" is a chart comparing typical exposure levels from various radio frequency
and microwave sources. Additionally, TDI has asked Dr. Jerrold T. Bushberg of the University of
Califomia, Berkeley, to attend the Commission hearing to provide information and address questions.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The project qualifies under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a Categorical
Exemption under Section 15301 Existing Facilities, Class 1 (b), because it is a minor alteration of
an existing facility, involving negligible expansion of use beyond that previously existing, in order to
provide telecommunications service. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Categorical
Exemption for Planning Application No. PA98-0219 be adopted for this project.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Staff and the applicant have worked together to ensure that the proposed project does not adversely
affect the view from adjacent residential properties. Staff also believes that the telecommunications
industry is regulated with standards in place for the protection of public health and safety, and that
the Cox system falls well below the standards that have been established. Staff continues to
recommend approval of this project based upon the following findings:
FINDINGS
The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development
Code. The PCS facility qualifies as a public utility, which is a use permitted by Conditional
Use Permit in the Public Institutional zone. The General Plan encourages the clustering of
public and institutional facilities to the extent possible in both residential or non-residential
land use designations. The existing Pacific Bell installation and water tanks at the site
provide such an area.
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 compatible with the existing
public facilities already at the site. The design of the facilities have been modified to be
compatible with adjacent residential uses. There is no demonstrated evidence that wireless
communication systems adversely affect adjacent residences.
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 or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood.
The applicant has revised the design of the monopole to simulate a pine tree and has
provided three additional Italian Pine trees to assist in the disguise of the "monopine."
The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of the community. The concern regarding electromagnetic fields (EMFs)
surfaced in the 1980's and as a result, several organizations reviewed the issue and
developed standards for the protection against radio frequency emissions. Study and after
study concluded that there was no demonstrated evidence that exposure to wireless service
facilities was harmful to people. As part of the 1996 Wireless Communications Act, the
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~19PA98.PC.doc
3
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established an exposure standard that is a
hybdd of various standards developed by others. The FCC controls frequencies used by
various entities and regulates the certification of their facilities. The 1996 Act expressly
preempts state and local government regulation of the placement, construction, and
modifications of wireless service facilities on the basis of environmental effects. The City
Attorney has recommended that the project be conditioned to provide annual evidence of
recertification by the FCC, in order to ensure compliance with the FCC's regulations and
standards. Condition of Approval No. 9 has been included to require this.
That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a conditional
use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the
Planning Commission.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 5
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9
Minutes of the Planning Director's Hearing of November 12, 1998 - Blue Page 13
Exhibits- Blue Page 14
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan
C. Zoning
D. Surrounding Land Uses
E. Site Plan
F. Equipment Plan
G. Elevations
H. Photo of Existing Monopine
I. Typical Exposure Chart
J. Site Cross Section
~TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRpT'~.I 9PA98.PC ,doc
4
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING OF NOVEMBER 12, 1998
~TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA%DEPTS~LANNING%,STAFFRPT~I 9PA98.PC.doc
13
MINLrFF~ OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF TltE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DIRECTOR
NOVEMBER 12, 1998
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Director was called to order on Thursday,
November 12, 1998 at 1:30 PM, at the City of Temecula Main Conference Room, 43200 Business
Park Drive, Temecula, California. Senior Planner Matthew Fagan presiding.
Also present were Project Planner Carole Donahoe and Minute Clerk Cathy Davis.
1. Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit)
Project Planner Carole Donahoe presented the staff report for PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use
Permi.'t) to construct a wireless PCS facility consisting of a twelve (12) panel antenna mounted atop
a 65-foot tall monopole constructed to simulate a pine tree Croonopine"), one (1) Global
Positioning System (GPS) antenna, and six (6) cabinets housing a base transceiver station ~TS)
unit and other electronic and battery equipment located at the Rancho California Water District
water rank site at 3 100 Rancho California Road, on the north side of Ranch California Road,
between Butterfield Stage Road and Meadows Parkway, and south of La Serena Way.
Senior Planner Matthew Fagan opened the public hearing at 1:45 PM.'
Richard Zolla, 32020 Merlot Crest, Temecula spoke in opposition to the project. He stated that
he felt there is a lot of undeveloped areas and this could be located somewhere else.
Shawn Bierle, 32016 Merlot Crest, Temecula spoke in opposition to the project due to health
concerns.
Frank DiGiacomo, 32032 Merlot C~est, Temecula spoke in opposition to the project due to health
concerns.
Louis LeDoux, 32004 Merlot Crest, Temecula spoke in opposition for to project due to health
hazards and EMS emissions. He would like further study and proof that this type of monopole
is safe.
Leo Finegold, 32036 Merlot Crest, Temecula spoke in opposition to the project due to lack of
notice and not enough time to research possible health concerns. He also suggested some different
locations.
Senior Planner Matthew Fagan closed the public hearing at 2:23 PM.
An additional condition was added to the Conditions of Approval. Applicant is to ensure that the
mono-tree is periodically maintained in order to retain the color and materials as approved.
R:~,FORMSXDIR. HEAR.MIN 11/18/98klb
Applicant Adan Madrid, TDI, Inc., 3 150 Bristol Street, Suite 250, Costa Mesa, 'CA concurred
with the modified Conditions of Approval.
Senior Planner Matthew Fagan continued this matter to a noticed Planning Commission meeting
for the following reasons:
2.
3.
4.
Requests from homeowners for time to further study the issues.
Requests from homeowners for additional information regarding EMFs
Requests from homeowners for additional exhibits such as line of sight.
RequestS from homeowners to hold a hearing at a more convenient me for residents who
work.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:23 P.M.
Matth~ Se~~erPlanner
R:\FORMS~DIRHEAR.MIN 11/18/98 klb
. ATTACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
~.'~TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA~EPTS%PLANNING~TAFFRpT~I 9PA98. PC.doc
14
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit)
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998
VICINITY MAP
R:\STAFFRPT\219PA98.PC.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit)
EXHIBIT B GENERAL PLAN MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998
R: \STAF FRPT\2 19PA9 8. PC. doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
//
\/
\
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit)
EXHIBIT C
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998
ZONING MAP
R:\STAFFRPT\219PA98.PC.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
(s)
\
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit)
EXHIBIT D SURROUNDING LAND USE
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998
R:\STAFFRPT\219PA98.PC.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
[E) TREE~
(E) CHAJH UNK FENC
(E) StOPEO
(E) CATCH BASIN
WATER METER
DiRT/GRASS
\ (e)
O
WATER TANK
:E) NAT'U1 TANK
-(E) 8'-0' W. CUTTER
(E) SEWER ~U, NHOLE
CATCH BASIN
...... ""~(E) CHAN UN~ FENCE
L(E)D4RT/GR.~SS AR~A_.~
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit)
EXHIBIT E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998
SITE PLAN
R:\STAFFRPT\219PA98.PC.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit)
EXHIBIT F EQUIPMENT PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998
R: \STAF FRPT\2 19PA9 8. PC. doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
.C. EN) "MONOP!NE'''~'''~
ELEV. -65-C."
CENTER OF
EL~'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'V, ,6C,'-O"
P{NE TRE_r MONOPOIc
W/ANTENNA ARRAYS ABOVE_,
~ SF_Z SHOP DRAWINGS
LOCATION OF
GPS AN'~NA.
~ LOCATION OF BTS EQUIPMENT
0~ WITHIN (N} 6'-0' HT, CHAJN UNK
~CE ENCLOSURE W/V1NYI_ SLAT
INSt. t~l s, COLOR TO MATCH
,: . ,,., ,.,. T K,
s .~; .e, .~ '~ ~.1- ~s, V '..~4,v T.O. (N} BARBED
ELEV. ~-6'-0"
F1NISH CRADE
ELEV. 0'-0'
(E) iS'-0' HT. CHAIN LINK FENCE
ELEVATION NOT SHOWN IN TRUE pLANE
SCALE:I 1
NORTH ELEVATION ~/8"= '-o"
1
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit)
EXHIBIT G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998
ELEVATIONS
R: \STAFFRPT\219PA98. PC. doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
Photo of Existing Pine Tree Mononpole in Mission Viejo by Other Carrier
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit)
EXHIBIT H PHOTO OF TYPICAL MONOPINE
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998
R: \STAFFRPT\219PA98. PC. doc
Exposure in Microwatts/cm2
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit)
EXHIBIT I TYPICAL EXPOSURE CHART
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit)
EXHIBIT J SITE CROSS SECTION
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998
R:\STAFFRPT%219PA98.PC.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DATED JANUARY 6, 1999
\\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal.doc
14
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 6, 1999
Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit)
Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
ORIGINAL
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division
Staff recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No.
PA98-0219;
ADOPT Resolution No. 98- approving Planning
Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit) based
upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Cox Communications PCS, L.P.
REPRESENTATIVE:
TDI, Inc., Adan Madrid and John Murphy
PROPOSAL:
To construct a wireless Personal Communications System (PCS)
facility consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, one (1) Global
Positioning System (GPS) antenna, and six (6) cabinets housing a
Base Transceiver Station (BTS) unit and other electronic and
battery equipment. The antennas will be mounted atop a 60-foot
high monopole, disguised as an evergreen pine tree Cmonopine").
LOCATION:
North of Rancho Califomia Road, west of Butterfield Stage Road,
east of Meadows Parkway, and south of La Serena Way on
Rancho California Water District property.
CASE STATUS:
This project was presented to the Planning Commission on December 16, 1998, at which time
the Commission heard testimony from the applicant's representatives including Dr. Jerrold T.
Bushberg. The Commission also received testimony and a petition in opposition from adjacent
homeowners on Merlot Crest. The Commission continued the case to January 6, 1999 and
asked the applicant's representatives to consider alternative sites and to provide copies of the
selection reports that determined the proposed site. The Commission also asked the City
Attorney to provide information on case law involving cellular facilities and the regulations that
specify or limit the Commission's action.
R:XSTAFFRPTx219pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc
1
ANALYSIS:
Site Selection
Subsequent to the hearing, staff met with the applicant's representative to discuss alternative
sites in the area. All suggestions were outside the ring of service for Cox. The applicant agreed
to explain with exhibits the selection process to the Commission at the hearing of January 6,
1999.
Case Law
The City Attorney's office provided several documents for distribution to the Commission and
they are included under Attachment 2.
Correspondence
Staff received a copy of correspondence to Larry Ledoux from the Rancho California Water
District's General Manager dated December 21, 1998. This correspondence is included under
Attachment 3.
Amendments to the Conditions of Approval
During the hearing of December 16, 1998, the Commission considered the following items as
possible additions to the Conditions of Approval:
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for review and
approval by the Planning Manager a revised elevation of the proposed monopine that
shows additional limbs disbursed throughout the height of the pole starting at 20 feet
from the base, and which taper as the limbs approach the highest point.
The applicant shall periodically refurbish or paint as necessary to maintain the color and
texture of the monopine as originally approved by the Commission.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS:
Staff continues to recommend approval of this project based upon the findings previously noted
in the Staff Report to the Commission dated December 16, 1998.
R:',STAFFRPT~.Igpa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doe
2
ATTACHMENTS:
,
PC Resolution 99- - Blue Page 4
Exhibit A Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8
Documents from the City Attorney's Office - Blue Page 12
A. Opinion Adopting General Order 159-A Rules Relating to the Construction of
Cellular Radiotelephone Facilities in California
B. Overview, Police Power (Excerpt from Curtin's California Land Use and Planning
Law)
C. Municipal Police Power and Ordinances excerpts: Pages 41, 43-45, 53-57.
D. Document entitled "47 USCS @ 332 (1998)"
E. Governmental and Community Uses, "Cellular Towers and Other
Telecommunications Facilities," Pages 129-130
Correspondence from Rancho California Water District to Larry Ledoux dated December
21, 1998 - Blue Page 13
Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated December 16, 1998 - Blue Page 14
R:~STAFFRPTx219pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc
3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
R:xSTAFFRPTX219pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc
4
ATTACHMENT NO. I
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA98-0219, (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT), TO
CONSTRUCT A WIRELESS PCS FACILITY CONSISTING OF
TWELVE PANEL ANTENNAS MOUNTED ATOP A 60-FOOT
MONOPOLE, A GPS ANTENNA AND SIX CABINETS HOUSING
A BTS UNIT AND OTHER ELECTRONIC AND BATTERY
EQUIPMENT, LOCATED AT THE RCWD WATER TANK SITE,
3100 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 953-060-022
WHEREAS, Cox Communications PCS, L.P. filed Planning Application No. PA98-0219
(Conditional Use Permit) which is in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and
Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit) was
processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0219
(Conditional Use Permit) on December 16, 1998, and January 6, 1999 at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an
opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearings and after due consideration
of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional
Use Permit);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
Section 2. Findin.qs. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in approving
Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit), hereby makes the following
findings as required in Chapter 17.04:
A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code. The PCS facility qualifies as a public utility, which is a use permitted by
Conditional Use Permit in the Public Institutional zone. The General Plan encourages the
clustering of public and institutional facilities to the extent possible in both residential or non-
residential land use designations. The existing Pacific Bell installation and water tanks at the
site provide such an area.
B. 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 compatible with
R:~STAFFRPT,219pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc
5
the existing public facilities already at the site. The design of the facilities have been modified to
be compatible with adjacent residential uses. There is no demonstrated evidence that wireless
communication systems adversely affect adjacent residences.
C. 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 or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the
neighborhood. The applicant has revised the design of the monopole to simulate a pine tree
and has provided three additional Italian Pine trees to assist in the disguise of the "monopine."
D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety
and general welfare of the community. The concern regarding electromagnetic fields (EMFs)
surfaced in the 1980's and as a result, several organizations reviewed the issue and developed
standards for the protection against radio frequency emissions. Study and after study
concluded that there was no demonstrated evidence that exposure to wireless service facilities
was harmful to people. As part of the 1996 Wireless Communications Act, the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) established an exposure standard that is a hybrid of
various standards developed by others. The FCC controls frequencies used by various entities
and regulates the certification of their facilities. The 1996 Act expressly proerupts state and
local government regulation of the placement, construction, and modifications of wireless
service facilities on the basis of environmental effects. The City Attorney has recommended
that the project be conditioned to provide annual evidence of recertification by the FCC, in order
to ensure compliance with the FCC's regulations and standards. Condition of Approval No. 9
has been included.
E. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a
conditional use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before
the Planning Commission.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The project qualifies under the Califomia
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a Categorical Exemption under Section 15301 Existing
Facilities, Class 1 (b), because it is a minor alteration of an existing facility, involving negligible
expansion of use beyond that previously existing, in order to provide telecommunications
service.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit) for the
construction and operation of a wireless Personal Communications System (PCS) facility
consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, one (1) Global Positioning System (GPS) antenna,
and six (6) cabinets housing a Base Transceiver Station (BTS) unit and other electronic and
battery equipment. The antennas will be mounted atop a 60-foot high monopole, disguised as
an evergreen pine tree ("monopine").
R:XSTAFFRPT~219pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc
6
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of January, 1999.
Marcia Slaven, Chairperson
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of
January, 1999 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~STAFFRPTX219pag8 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc
7
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
DOCUMENTS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
OPINION ADOPTING GENERAL ORDER 159-A RULES RELATING TO THE
CONSTRUCTION OF CELLULAR RADIOTELEPHONE FACILITIES IN CALIFORNIA
OVERVIEW, POLICE POWER (EXCERPT FROM CURTIN'S CALIFORNIA LAND
USE AND PLANNING LAW)
MUNICIPAL POLICE POWER AND ORDINANCES EXCERPTS: PAGES 41, 43-45,
53-57.
DOCUMENT ENTITLED "47 USCS ~ 332 (1998)"
GOVERNMENTAL AND COMMUNITY USES, "CELLULAR TOWERS AND OTHER
TELECOM M UNICATIONS FACILITIES," PAGES 129-130
R:~STAFFRPTX219pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doe
12
' . Attachment A ~
ALJ/BDP/sid
....... 14aY 14 EM
Decision 96-05-035 May 8, 1996
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Order Instituting Rulemaking on the )
Commission's own motion to develop )
revisions to General Orders and )
Rules applicable to siting and )
environmental review of cellular )
mobile radiotelephone utility )
facilities. )
)
R.90-01-012
(Filed January 9, 1990)
OPINION ADOPTING GENERAL ORDER 159-A
RULES I~RTa~TING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF r~T~.T.ULAR
RADIOT~LRPHONE 'FACILITIES IN CALIFORNIA
In this decision, the Commission issues General Order
(GO) 159-A, which revises the rules relating to the construction of
cellular radiotelephone facilities in California.
GO 159-A streamlines the procedure to be utilized by the
cellular carriers to notify the Commission of new facilities or
significant modifications to existing facilities. Specifically,
GO 159-A replaces the current advice letter notification process
with a notification letter. Cellular carriers will provide copies
of such notification to local government authorities. Commission
authorization prior to construction would no longer be required.
The ~evisions do not change any local land use or building permit
procedures.
In GO 159-A, the Commission continues to delegate its
authority to regulate the location and design of cellular
facilities to local agencies,.except in those instances when there
is a clear conflict with statewide interests. In those instances,
the Commission will review the need to preempt local jurisdiction,
allowing local agencies and citizens an opportunity to present
their positions."The'6~llul~ utiliey'~illhave-the burden of'~
proof to demonstrate that accommodating local. agency requirements
- 1 -
R.90-01-012
ALJXBDP/Sid
for any specific site would frustrate the Commission's objectives.
If the cellular utility is able to prove this point, the Commission
will preempt local jurisdiction pursu~n~'to~'~its-authority under
Article XII, Section 8 of the California Constitution..
Backcrround
The issue before the Commission is the advice letter
notification procedure that has been in effect for the last five
years pursuant to GO 159. Under this procedure, cellular carriers
are required to file advice letters for each cell site, and
Commission approval of each such filing is required to complete the
siting process. Also, the advice letter procedure did result in
increased involvement by the Commission in the interpretation and
enforcement of local land use planning regulation and building
permit issuance (see Decision (D.) 94-11-018 and D.94-11-019).
There is general agreement that the advice letter procedure is too
cumbersome and needs tO be changed.
To address these concerns, five workshops were held, duly
noticed settlement conferences were held pursuant to Rule 51.1(b)
of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, and a proposed
settlement was executed by the Settlement Parties.1 The proposed
1 The Cellular Carriers Association of California (CCAC);
AirTouch Cellular and its Affiliates Los Angeles SMSA Limited
Partnership, Sacramento-Valley Limited Partnership and Modoc RSA
Limited Partnership; The following companies doing business as
AT&TWireless Services; Alpine CA-3 L.P., Chico MSA Cellular, Inc.,
Fresno Cellular Telephone Co., Oxnard Cellular Telephone Co.,
Redding Cellular Partnership, Sacramento Cellular Telephone Co.,
Santa Barbara Cellular Systems, Ltd., and McCaw Communications of
Stockton, Inc.; Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company and its
affiliates Napa Cellular Telephone Company, Cagal Cellular
Communications Corporation and Salinas Cellular Telephone Company;
Cal-One Cellular COmpany; GTE Mobilnet of California Limited
Partnership and its Affiliates GTEC Mobilnet of Santa Barbara
Limited Partnership, GTE Mobilnet of San Diego, Inc., Contel of
(Footnote continues on next page)
- 2 -
R.90-01-012
ALJ/BDP/sid
settlement, which comprises a revised GO 159, herein referred to as
the Settlement GO, was filed with the Commission on November 1,
1995, as a "Joint Motion of the Cellular Carriers Association of
California and Participating Carriers to Apprgve and Adopt
Settlement of Issues Raised in R.90-01-012." The Settlement GO was
amended on January 3, 1996 to address the concerns of. the
California League of Cities and other local governmental interests.
Comments and/or reply comments on the proposed GO 159-A
were submitted by:
- AirTouch Communications,
- AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.
- Bakersfield Cellular Telephone Company,
(Bakersfield),
- Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company and its
affiliates (BACTC),
- Cellular Carriers Association of California
and Participating Carriers (CCAC),
- Cities of Arroyo Grande, Claremont,
National City, Salinas and Vista,
respectively,
- Counties of E1 Dorado, Fresno and Madera,
respectively,
- GTE Mobilenet and Associates,
(Footnote continued from previous page)
California, Inc., Fresno MSA Limited Partnership, and RSA #4
Limited Partnership; Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company;
Mountain Cellular United States Cellular Corporation; and the
Safety and Enforcement Division of the Public Utilities Commission
of the State of California.
- 3 -
R.90-01-012
.ALJ/BDP/sid
- League of California Cities and California
State Association of Counties,
- Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company,
- Pacific Bell Mobile Services (PBMS),
- Parents for the Elimination of the
Schoolyard Tower (PEST), and
- Utility Consumers Action Network (UCAN).
Proposed Revisions
The revisions proposed by the Settlement Parties are set
forth in GO 159-A, attached as Appendix A to this decision.
GO 159-A changes the manner in which the Commission is
notified of new cellular facilities or significant modifications to
existing facilities. Under the new rules, prior to commencing
construction, cellular carriers must send the Commission's Safety
and Enforcement Division a notification letter within 15 business
days of receipt of all requisite land use approvals or a
determination that no land use approval is required (see sample
letter GO 159-A, p. 8). Carriers will provide a description of the
facility and identify the permit obtained or state that no land use'
permit is required. In addition to this notification, the carriers
will update the listing of their facilities in their tariffs once a
quarter.
This notification letter will replace the current process
which requires advice letter filings for each facility to be sent
to all telecommunications utilities on the cellular carrier's
tariff service list. In addition, the notification letter will no
longer require the filing with the Commission staff of copies of
applications and permits obtained from local authorities. Such
documents will continue to be retained by the carriers and will be
available to the Commission upon request. Copies of the
notification letter will be provided to the city planning director,
the city clerk, and the city manager of the affected city, or where
- 4 -
R.90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/sid --
no city is involved, a copy of the notification letter will be
provided to the county planning director, the.clerk of the board of
supervisors, and the county executive of the affected county.
GO 159-A C6n~f~d~s tOrreco~e=tha~'=primary authority
regarding cell siting issues should~conttnue to'be deferred to
local authorities. Local authorities would continue to issue
peEmits, oversee"California Environm~nt~I Quality Act (CEQA)
compliance, and adopt and implement noticing and public comment
requirements, if any. The Commission's role continues to be that
of the agency of last resort, intervening only when a utility
contends that.local actions impede statewide goals, or local
agencies contend that a utility's actions are frustrating local
interests.
Discussion
We discuss below the comments received on the proposed
GO 159-A.
Local Agencies are Ill-Equipped to
Recmlate Cellular Sites
Utility Consumers Action Network (UCAN) contends that the
proposed GO 159-A unacceptably shifts the burden of regulating the
construction of cellular sites and Mobile Telephone Switching
Offices (MTSOs) from the Commission onto a multitude of small local
governments that are ill-equipped to effectively regulate cellular
utilities or to investigate the adverse effects of new
technologies, such as Global Systems for Mobile Communications
(GSM), that cellular utilities are beginning to implement.
In response to UCAN's argument, the carriers (BACTC)2
point out that the workshop participants included representatives
2 In this discussion, for clarity, individual cellular carriers
are referred to as "the carriers" where their individual comments
represent the general position of all cellular carriers.
- 5 -
R.90-01-012
ALJ/BDP/sid
of various local government agencies. The carriers contend that
contrary to UCAN's assertions, local government agencies have not.
evidenced any concern that they are ill-prepared to handle cell
site matters as claimed by UCAN. Local gove.rnment agency
representatives expressed the view that it is the responsibility of
the local jurisdiction to look after the interests of their
community, they should be the ones to determine whether or not they
want to have the cellular facility in their area, and the local
government agencies have their own enforcement procedures and do
not want more state oversight. The carriers submit that there was
consensus among the workshop participants that the local agency
should continue to have the primary role to regulate the siting of
cellular facilities.
Also, the carriers (Bakersfield) argue that under present
law, local land use questions are resolved by local authorities,
which are best placed to review the local impacts of a particular
proposal. The carriers point out that one of the major advantages
of the settlement as set forth in the Joint Motion and GO 159-A is
that the continuing role of local' agencies is reaffirmed without
depriving the Commission or the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) of the right to act if necessary. The carriers submit that
this has always been the express policy of GO 159 (see GO 159,
p. 3). Accordingly, the carriers contend that any implication by
UCAN that the revisions in GO 159-A would somehow change existing
policy in this regard is mistaken.
We agree with the carriers that under GO 159-A, there is
no change in Commission policy. GO 159-A affirms that the
'Commission will continue to defer to. local governments in its
exercise of its authority to regulate the location and design of
cell sites and MTSOs including (a) the issuance of land use
approvals; (b) acting as Lead Agency for purpose of satisfying
CEQA; and (c) the satisfaction oflnoticing procedures for both land
use approvals and CEQA_procedures. However, because statewide
- 6 -
R.90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/sid
telecommunications interests in some infrequent cases may be in
conflict with local interests, the Commission continues to reserve
jurisdiction to preempt those matters which are inconsistent with
the overall statewide communications objectives. The Commission
continues to have an interest in assuring that individual local
government decisions do not impact uniform state interests, or
create unconscionable standards.
Further, we note that the proposed GO 159-A was served on
all California Cities and Counties and comments were invited.3
No city or county filed comments stating that local agencies are
ill equipped to handle siting matters and there were no requests
for the Commission to take back from local agencies the primary
authority regarding siting of cellular facilities that' was
delegated under GO 159 4 Accordingly, we are not persuaded by
UCAN's argument that GO 159-A represents a change.in Commission
regulatory policy, or that the Commission should exercise oversight
over individual cell site applications currently being handled by
local agencies.
Local Governments Should Not ~nd Have Not
Demonstrated the Ability or Interest in
Investigating Adverse Health and
Safety Impacts of Wireless Sites
UCAN states that currently, there is substantial dispute
about the health and safety implications of new wireless
3 Pursuant to an Administrative Law Judge's ruling dated
January 18, 1996, the proposed GO 159-A was served on the city
clerks, city attorneys, and planning department of 470 cities, and
county clerks and county counsel of 58 counties.
4 GO 159, issued pursuant to D.90-03-080 dated March 28, 1990,
states: "Accordingly, the Commission delegates its authority to
regulate the location and design of cellular facilities to local
agencies, except in those instances when there is a clear conflict
with statewide interests .... . (P. 3.)
- 7 -
R.90-01-012
ALJ/BDP/sid
technologies. In addition to the national research being conducted
on Electromagnetic Field (EMF) effects of cellular transmission,
there is increased scrutiny of GSM technology for Personal
Communications Services (PCS) facilities. Acgording to UCAN,
problems associated with GSM are becoming increasingly apparent,
particularly to users of hearing aids, and pacemakers.
Also, UCAN argues that local governments do not have the
expertise to determine whether GSM technology should be;used in
this country. UCAN notes that GO 159-A mandates that local
governments shall issue land use approvals and act as the Lead
Agency to satisfy CEQA. UCANbelieves that as a result, numerous
local governments may allow GSM, creating significant
inconvenience, and even hazards, for unsuspecting ratepayers. UCAN
urges the Commission to retain its regulatory control over the
construction of cellular sites and MTSOs to prevent these adverse
consequences.
Pacific Bell Mobile Services5 (PBMS) states that it
intends to use GSM technology in deployment of PCS. PBMS
acknowledges that all digital technologies, whether Code Division
Multiple Access (CDMA), GSM, or others, can potentially interfere
with certain brands of hearing aids. However, PBMS states that
other PCS proriders throughout the United States are addressing
this matter and are currently working with the hearing-impaired
community, hearing aid manufacturers; as well as other
organizations and the FCC. PBMS contends that the main issue is
primarily with the handsets and not the siting of facilities. PBMS
notes that use of handsets is subject to FCC regulation and must be
· treated as a separate issue from the location of network facilities
5 Pacific Bell Mobile Services is not a member'of the Cellular
Carriers Association of California.
- 8 o
R.90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/sid I ~-= ~
which is the instant focus of the settlement agreement and proposed
GO 159-A submitted to'the Commission pursuant to the Joint Motion~
Further, the carriers (CCAC) argue that the fact that
local governments might lack the resources or. the will to fully
investigate these matters iS not a valid criticism of the Joint
Motion. The carriers submit that nowhere does the proposed
GO 159-A suggest that the Commission give up its traditional
authority to regulate health and safety matters concerning cellular
towers. Nor has the Commission ever suggested that it would cede
its duty over health and safety matters to a local agency. The
carriers point out that, indeed, recently the Commission
demonstrated its continued oversight of such matters in
D.95-11-017, its investigation to develop policies and procedures
for addressing the potential health effects of electric and
magnetic fields of utility facilities. That decision addressed the
cellular phase of its EMF Investigation (I.) 91-01-012 and
considered the Commission's role in mitigating health effects, if
any, of radio frequency radiation generated by cellular utilities.
The carriers believe that the decision demonstrates that the
Commission faithfully continues to carry out its duty to consider
the impact of utilities' services on human health and safety.
We agree with the carriers that the immediate focus of
this proceeding is the current advice letter procedure for
notification of the Commission of the construction of new cellular'
facilities~. Also, this is not the proceeding to determine the
health effects of cellular technology, or whether GSM should be
used in this country. Accordingly, UCAN's request that the
Commission take back regulatory control over construction of
individual sites and hold hearings in this proceeding on the health
and safety implications of new wireless technologies, is denied.
- 9 -
R.90-01-012
Many of the Terms in the Proposed
GO 159-A areAmbigu0us
UCAN argues that particular words in the proposed
GO 159-A are ambiguous.
First. UCAN contends that each local government would
propound its own definition of "unnecessary delay.''6' UCAN urges
the Commission to adopt a clear definition of unnecessary delay.
We do not share UCAN's concern. We should point out that
in GO 159 the words "unnecessarily delayed" are used in a similar
7
context and, thus far have caused no problems to the Commission
or local agencies. Furthermore, as a practical matter it is not
reasonable, aside from the fact that local agencies may conclude
that the Commission wishes to ride roughshod over them, to set one
definite time limit to cover all contested cell site projects
because all projects do not have the same .complexities.
6 GO 159-A states:
"A. Goals
The Commission's goals with regard to the construction of
cell sites and MTSOs are to ensure that:
- cellular service providers are not unnecessarily delayed
by site review by the CPUC; and ..." (Section II.A, p. 3., emphasis
added.)
7 In GO 159, the Commission states:
The Commission is adopting this General Order to ensure that:
, ,
- cellular companies are not unnecessarily delayed by site
review." (GO 159, Section II, p. 3, emphasis added.)
- 10 -
R. 90-01-012
Second, UCAN argues .that the definition of "location" is
so vague that a utility, when filing its quarterly report,
conceivably could comply with this requirement simply by
identifying its cell sites by-the county in which the site is
located.
We do not share UCAN's concern. For new sites and
modifications, the carriers are required in the notification letter
to provide the Commission with the lot address and the .assessor's
parcel number. W~ believe that when the carriers file quarterly
reports,8 common sense will prevail. However, just in case there
is any doubt, carriers should provide sufficient information for
each site to be cross-checked with the notification letter.
Third, UCAN takes exception. to GO 159-A, Section II(D) i2)
which exempts a carrier from serving a notification letter when the
carrier has to meet the demands of "emergency circumstances."
Since GO 159-A does not define "emergency," UCAN argues that the
utilities can define emergency as they see fit, finish the
construction, and then provide the government with a fait accompli.
The carriers state that the language contained in
GO 159-A was placed with the intent of making the provision of
emergency repairs more flexible. The carriers argue that there is
no reason to adopt a rule that would bureaucratically gut the
effectiveness of cellular communications in such emergency
situations. The carriers submit that even if a utility were to
build facilities under emergency circumstances, the utility must
8 GO 159-A states:
"Section V - Q~3~TERLYUPDATES
Cellular service providers subject to this General Order must
file a tariff list of the locations of all cell sites or MTSOs on a
quarterly basis commencing JanuarV 30 of each year, with the
Commission's Safety & Enforcement Division." (P. 7.)
- 11 -
R.90-01-012
mZ/S P/sid
justify the presence of that facility in subsequent filings where
it must obtain all necessary permits and file an advice letter, or
remove the facility. Thus, carriers cannot, as UCAN suggests,
build a cellular telecommunications system by. defining emergency
"as-they see fit," and then avoid the consequences of such actions.
Again, we do not share UCAN's concerns. GO 159-A states:
"In all cases of emergency construction,.the
cellular service prorider shall, as soon as
practicable, provide the Commission's Safety &
Enforcement Division with a notification letter
outlining the construction it performed and how
such construction was necessitated by the
emergency condition.,, (P. 6, emphasis added.)
We believe that the above requirement balances the need for
carriers to act promptly in emergency situations with the need for
governmental entities to regulate the siting of permanent
facilities.
The Settlement Agreement Shouldbe Modified
to Require Preemptive Authority to be
Exercised on anExpedited Basis
Pacific Bell Mobile Service (PBMS) submits that upon
application by the cellular service provider for preemptive
authority, the Commissioh should give preference to the matter. If
the application is protested, local government should be allowed to
present its position and the matter be promptly decided. PBMS
argues that such treatment would be consistent with the review
remedies under parallel CEQA statutes, e.g., Public Resources Code
which require such reviews to be given preferential treatment over
all other civilactions "to the end that all such actions be
quickly heard and determined,, (Section 21167.1).
PBMS argues that the exercise of the Commission's
preemptive authority could take a very long time and delays
themselves can frustrate the Commission's goals or statewide public
interests. PBMS suggests that the Commission take judicial notice
of the length of time it took for resolution of such matters in the
- 12 -
R.90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/sid
past, and the Commission should then determine what procedural
mechanism could be put in place which would allow these matters to
be handled most promptly. Alternatively, PBMS suggests that the
Commission exercise its preemptive authority on an expedited basis,
perhaps by "issuing a de novo decision" on an application for
preemptive authority within 30-60 days.
Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company (BACTC) agrees with
PBMS and urges the Commission to exercise its preempti~e authority
on an expedited basis. BACTC states that the carriers have made
extraordinary attempts to work with the local agencies (e.g.,
carriers work with the local agency to design and locate a site in
a place that will be acceptable to local agencies and citizens,
consider numerous alternatives and relocate sites where possible,
try to address residents' concerns by meeting with neighborhood
groups, meet extensively with local planners, and participate on
local and county communication task forces). However, although the
carriers make every attempt to work with the local agencies, there
are those rare instances where the local agencies make it virtually
impossible for a Carrier to construct a cellular facility, to the
detriment of the carrier's ability to comply with its obligations
to provide ubiquitous cellular services.
BACTC, notes that, for example, in August 1991, it filed
an application for preemptive authority to construct a cellular
facility in the City of Mountain View. A decision was rendered
nearly a year later on July 22, 1992.9 Therefore, BACTC believes -
that in those rare instances where siting a cellular facility is
very difficult, the Commission should continue to assist the
carriers in constructing those sites.
9 See Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company v. City of Mountain
View, D.92-07-074, 45 CPUC2d 141. Also, see GTE Mobilnet v. City
of Los Gatos, D.90-03-080, 36 CPUC2d 133 at 137.
- 13 -
R.90-01-012
ALJ/BDP/sid
On the other. hand, the carriers (CCAC) believe the
Commission's record of filings for preemption demonstrates that the
current preemption. application process functions sufficiently well
and does not merit revision. The carriers also have practical
concerns regarding PBMS' suggestion that'the Commission should act
on applications for preemptive authority through a de novo decision
within 30 to 60 days. The carriers point out that any matters that
cannot be resolved between the local government and the. wireless
provider are likely to involve complicated, and/or highly contested
issues. In such cases, the carriers believe that it is unrealistic
to expect the Commission to resolve fairly a disputed cell-siting
matter in less than 60 days. According to the carriers, such an
expedited procedure could very likely leave local governments with
the impression that the Commission and wireless providers are
attempting to ride roughshod over them by severely restricting the
time in which to argue their case. Thus, the carriers, like local
governmental agencies, believe the best course is to preserve the
current procedural process which affords sufficient opportunity to
consider applications for preemption in a timely but fair manner.
We have not lost sight of the fact that the Commission's
intent in adopting GO 159 was partly to "ensure [that] cellular
companies [were] not unnecessarily delayed by site review.,,
(D.90-03-080, 36 CPUC2d133 at 137.) To that end, the Commission
granted utilities permission to appeal for preemptive authority.
In that way, the Commission would be required to intervene "only in
a minority of situations where irreconcilable differences or
intolerable delays arise.,' (Id. at 134.) And the record shows
- 14 -
R.90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/sid
that since GO 159 was introduced in 1990, carriers-have applied for
preemption only in three instances.10
Based on the small number of instances involved, it
appears that the present arrangement between the local agencies and
the Commission is working reasonably well. Most local agencies
recognize that the Commission must retain preemption authority, and
we believe that local agencies understand,. and take seriously,
their primary role in facility siting.. Accordingly, while the
Commission will endeavor to expedite hearing and decision on any
future request for preemption, we are not persuaded that GO 159-A
should prescribe a time limit for the Commission to issue its
decision in such cases.
Co~,.uents of Parents for the Elimination
of the SchoolyardTower (PEST)
PEST opposes the settlement and urges the Commission to
adopt stringent regulations in the revised general order as regards
the placement of cellular facilities at and near schools.
PEST states that there are specific laws mandated in the
California State Education Code which govern the process by which a
cellular facility may be sited on public school property. Further,
PEST contends that the California Department of Education is not an'
enforcing-agency. Consequently, individual school districts are
required to use educational funds in costly legal battles with
cellular companies to ensure that the State Education Code is
followed when cellular facilities are erected on public school
10 City of Mountain View, City of Los Gatos.and, in 1991, PacTel
Cellular, applied for, then subsequently withdrew a request for
preemptive authority for construction in the Sacramento area.
- 15 -
R.90-01-012
ALJ/BDP/sid
property.11 PEST's concern is that the revised general order does
not ensure that parents receive notice of potential cell sites o~
school property in order to address health Concerns associated with
EMF emissions.
PEST notes that the Commission stated: "Cellular
Companies can be encouraged to consider alternative siting,
especially if projected cell sites are in~close proximity to
schools or hospitals. School and hospital sites can be designated
only as last-choice possibilities." (D.95-11-017.) PEST submits
that this statement is not enough. PEST requests that the language
below be inserted in the proposed general order:
"When cellular facilities are sited on school
property, the law mandatedby the California
State education code must be followed."
We note that GO 159-A requires that a copy .of the
notification letter be served on the "governing board of the
affected school district, as well as upon any other entity
requesting service" in the case of construction on public school
facilities or property. (Section IV.C.2.) We believe that upon
receipt of the notification letter, the affected school district
can use its authority under the Education Code to take whatever
action it considers necessary to evaluate the cell siting
application.
11 PEST cites the cellular facility installed at E1 Morro
Elementary School in Lagnna Beach, and a possible installation at
Patrick Henry Middle School in the Los Angeles Unified School
District.
We note that in September 1993, PEST filed a protest with the
Commission regarding the E1 Morro site. The Commission adopted a
resolution finding that AirTouch had obtained all the requisite
approvals for the site and the protest was dismissed (Resolution
T-15663, dated October 26, 1994.)
R.90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/sid
Also, we note that Section 39297 of the Education Code
directs the governing board of a school district to appoint a
district advisory committee:
"to advise the governing board in the
development of district wide policies and
procedures governing ~he use or disposition of
school buildings or space in school buildings
which is not needed for school purposes."
And, the legislative intent behind that code section is-described
in Section 39295 of the Education Code:
"It is the intent of the Legislature that leases
entered into pursuant to this chapter provide
for community involvement...at the district
level. This community involvement should
facilitate making the best possible judgements
about the use of excess school facilities in
each individual situation."
In view of the above, we believe that the proposed GO 159-A-is
faithful to the Legislatures' intent, as it defers decisionmaking
to the local level, casting the Commission in the role of final
arbiter and authority on.cellular facilities construction. The
proposed general order thereby enhances, rather than hinders, the
purposes of the Education Code ~o encourage community involvement
in judgements concerning the use of excess school facilities.
Further, we believe that a Commission requirement
concerning the operations of a local agency is beyond the scope of
Commission authority. The Commission has jurisdiction over the
charges, service, and rules of public u~ilities. (See Pu Code §§
216, 451.) The Commission may take action when a utility fails to
comply with a provision of the law. However, school boards do not
fall under the Commission's authority. Thus, the Commission cannot
tell a school board when or how to interpret or enforce the
Education Code. However, laudable the purpose of the request by
PEST may be, we must deny the request.
- 17 -
R.90-01-012
ALJ/BDP/Sid
PEST also'contends that the notification. letter from' the
cellular carrier must identify the specific location of the ~
facility on the parcel for the property.
We believe that local agencies, as part of their
permitting process, may obtain detailed information from the
carrier regarding such matters. However, GO 159-A requires that a
parcel number be furnished. Webelieve that is sufficient for
Commission record purposes since the Commission will no~ normally
be involved in the siting.process.12 PEST's request is'denied.
Comments of Local Auencies
As stated previously, the proposed GO 159-A, which was
amended to address the concerns of the League of California Cities
and the California State Association of Counties, was served on all
cities and counties in California. Comments were received from the
City of Arroyo Grande, City of Claremont, City of National City,
City of Salinas, City of Vista, County of Fresno, and the County of
E1 Dorado. Except for the ~ity of National City and City of Vista,
the cities and counties that responded to the Commission's request
12 GO 159-A requires the cellular carrier, in its notification
letter, to provide:
"B. Contents
A description of the construction (present and future
construction plans) as described in a land use
approval, if any, consisting of the site name, the
lot address/location, the assessor's parcel number
and:
a:
b:
(for new sites) the number of antennae to be
installed, the tower design, appearance and
height, and the building size(s).
(for modifications) a description of the
modification work." (GO 159-A, p. 5.)
- 18 -
R.90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/sid
for comments do not find the Commission's retention of the right to
intervene, when there is a clear violation of statewide interest,'
unduly burdensome. However, there are differences of opinion with
regard to three questions posed in the ALJ's .ruling which
transmitted the proposedGO 159-A for comment.
Responses to Ouestions in ALJRuling
The responses to the three questions posed in the ALJ's
ruling are summarized below:
Issue No. 1
The proposedGO should specifically provide for local
citizens to be able to appeal to the Commission for preemption.
The local agencies generally conclude that citizens have
adequate opportunities for comment and appeal at the local level
(first at the planning commission level and then at the city
council level). There was no support for the idea that the
proposed GO should specifically provide for citizens to be able to
appeal to the Commission for preemption. The League of California
Cities and California State Association of Counties believe that
the public appeal proposed in Issue No. i is "redundant and
unnecessary." Accordingly, we reject the idea of incorporating
Issue No. 1 into GO 159-A.
Issue No. 2
Local agencies need to-be fully ~nformed of the authority
and control over cell siting that the Com~ssion has delegated to
local agencies so that they may use this authority to their fullest
advantage when processing applications for cell sites.
The proposal is that with each application to a local
agency, the cellular carrier be required to provide a letter
prepared by the Commission explaining the extent of a local
agency's control over such projects. The responses received from
local agencies indicate varying interest in the need for such a
letter.
- 19 -
R.90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/sid
We believe that a copy of the Commission's decision in
this proceeding provided to all cities and counties at the time of
issuance of this decision should suffice. Additionally, the
Commission's Safety & Enforcement Division may send a single letter
to each city and county, one time after the modified GO 159-A is
adopted by the Commission, explaining how the new procedures affect
cell siting issues before local governments. In this manner, all
participants, including carriers, local governments, members of the
general public, and Commission staff will follow the same "script."
We believe that letters'on an annual basis from the Commission
staff or with every local permit request would be an unnecessary
intrusion into local agency affairs.
Issue No. 3
The Commission should completely abrogate its
jurisdiction over cell siting matters. This' solution would be an'
alternative to the proposed changes in GO 159-A.
Under this scenario the local agencies would have
complete authority over cell siting matters, and the cellular
carriers and local citizens would have to resort to the courts to
settle all disputes with the local agency.
The League of california cities and California State
AssociatiOn of Counties (LCC&C) believes that if the Commission
would be completely uninvolved in cell siting matters such
abrogation might involve possible legislation and an analysis of
statewide concern.
However, with regard to the Commission. notification
procedure to be established pursuant to GO 159-A, LCC&C states that
the requirement that carriers provide a notification letter to the
Commission serves a dual purpose. First, it informs the Commission
of the activities of the cellular carriers, and, second, it "closes
the loop" with local agencies by requiring the cellular carriers to
inform the local agencies whether they have received approvals'for
cell sites or need no such approvals. LCC&C believes that the
- 20 -
R.90-01-012
ALJ/BDP/sid ~-<J
information in the notification letter provides assurance to the
local agencies that all cell sites will be properly processed.
The City of Salinas, City of Arroyo Grande, City of
Claremont and E1 Dorado County take no exception to the present
arrangement with regard to preemption but stress the need for the
Commission to recognize the primary jurisdiction of cities and
counties over land use matters.
On the other hand, the City of Vista, and City of
National City believe that the Commission should completely
abrogate its authority over cellular siting matters.
In light of recent federal legislation, in D.95-10-032
we discussed the Commission's jurisdiction over cell siting matters
applicable to commercial mobile radio service (CMRS)13 providers.
We stated:
"However, we disagree with the RTUs' claim that
the Commission no longer has any legal
jurisdiction over the siting of RTU facilities.
We continue to believe that the siting of
facilities within a given market area is
related to, but distinct from, entry or exit
from a given market."
· ·
"Our continued jurisdiction over siting
authority is consistent with the Legislative
history of the Budget Act which expressly
references 'facilities siting issues' such as
zoning as a term and condition reserved to the
States (House Report No. 103-111 at 261)."
(D.95-10-032, pp. 22 and 23.)
13 CMRS includes cellular services, personal communications
services (PCS), wide-area specialized mobile radio services (SMR),
and radiotelephone utilities (RTU or paging) services.
- 21 -
R.90-01-012
ALJ/BDP/sid
In summary, we conclude that the Commission continues to
have jurisdiction and the proposedGO 159-A should be adopted. The
record demonstrates ample support by local agencies, the carriers,
and the Commission staff for the new rules. We believe that the
proposed GO 159-A sets forth an appropriate, light-handed
regulatory scheme which strikes a balance between the Commission's
policy to promote the development of wireless technologies and the
Commission's duty to protect the interests of California's
ratepayers.
Cellular v. NoncellularProviders
We note that in 1.93-12-007 -- Investigation on the
Commission's Own Motion Into Mobile Telephone Service and Wireless
Communications --, the Commission recently prescribed siting
requirements for noncellular commercial mobile radio service (CMRS)
providers (D.95-10-032, ordering paragraph 6, p. 32). Currently,
noncellular CMRS providers are subject to interim iocal permit and
minimum Commission notification requirements pending issuance of GO
159-A. We .believe that application of GO 159-A to cellular and
noncellular providers alike will harmonize California cell siting
policy with federal policy by effectively "leveling the playing
field" for all CMRS providers regarding the construction of
cellular towers.
The Joint Motion
In the Joint Motion filed on January 3, 1996, pursuant to
Rule 51.1, the SponsOring Parties request that the Commission
approve the settlement which sets forth the proposedGO 159-A,
attached to this decision as Appendix A.
We note that the settlement has taken many months to
negotiate. Though some carriers wish to strengthen and expedite
the Commission's preemptive'option, and others may prefer to
abolish GO 159 entirely, the ultimate settlement avoids these
extremes. Instead, the GO is clarified in a way-which reaffirms
the primary role of local jurisdictions in resolving cell-siting
- 22 -
R.90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/sid .... ,
disputes. Other, more contentious questions have been reserved for
the future. Specifically, there are ongoing procedures at both the
state and federal level regarding the health'and safety
implications of cellular technology. Nothing. in the proposed
GO 159 will cut these procedures short.
We believe that the settlement submitted pursuant to the
Joint Motion is reasonable. in light of the. whole record, consistent
with the law, and in the public interest (Rule 51.1(e))~ More
importantly, the proposed GO 159-A obviates the need for'Commission
involvement in the'interpretation and enforcement of local land use
planning regulation and building permit issuance. Further,
GO 159-A was the result of five workshops. A special effort was
made by the Commission to obtain local government involvement. And
the Commission has had the benefit of extensive comments.
Accordingly, we conclude that it is in t.he public's interest that
the settlement proffered with the Joint Motion should be adopted,
andGO 159 should be replaced with GO 159-A.
Findines of Fact
1. Currently, pursuant to GO 159, cellular carriers are
required to file advice letters for each new cell site, provide
copies of local government permits,' and seek Commission approval to
complete its 'siting process.
2. The current advice letter procedure, which has been in
effect for the last five years pursuant to GO 159, has proved'to be
too cumbersome and it needs to be changed.
3. Five workshops, followed by duly noticed settlement
conferences, were held and a proposed settlement was executed by
the Settlement Parties.
4. The settlement document sets forth a revised GO 159-A
which proposes a more streamlined procedure for notification to the
Commission of new cellular facilities or significant modifications
to existing facilities.
- 23 -
R. 90-01-012
ALJ/BDP/Sid
5. The proposed GO 159-A continues to recognize that primary
authority regarding cell siting issues should continue to be
deferred-to local authorities.
6. The proposed revised general order Was served on all
cities and counties in California, and all parties.
7. Comments and/or reply comments were received from various
cities and counties, and parties to this proceeding.
8. All comments, except those of PEST and UCAN, generally
support the proposed GO 159-A as set forth in the Joint Motion
proposing adopting of a settlement.
Conclusions of law
1. The Commission has reviewed the comments and/or reply
comments on the proposed revisions to the general order and
concludes that evidentiary hearings in this rulemaking proceeding
are not necessary.
2. The Commission has considered the comments of PEST.
Since the Commission has no jurisdiction over school boards or
enforcement'of the Education Code, the Commission must decline to
adopt the proposed revisions to the general order as recommended by
PEST.
3. The Commission has considered the comments of UCAN and
concludes that the request for evidentiary hearings should be
denied since this is not the appropriate proceeding to address the
potential health effects of electric and magnetic fields of utility
facilities.
4. The issue of cell site health effects is not the purpose
of the proposed GO 159-A and is not a sufficient reason to reject
the proposed GO 159-A.
5. Based on the comments received, it is reasonable to
conclude that the settlement agreement proposing a revised general
order designated as GO 159-A is reasonable in light of the whole
record, consistent with the law, and in the public interest.
- 24 -
R.90-01-012
ALJ/BDP/sid
ORDER
IT IS ORDERR~ that:
1. General Order (GO) 159-A, attached ~o this decision as
Appendix A, which prescribes the rules applicable to siting and
environmental review of cellular mobile radiotelephone utility
facilities, is adopted. ' '
2. Henceforth, cellular mobile radiotelephone utility
facilities under this Commission's jurisdiction shall be
constructed in accordance with the rules set forth in GO 159-A.
3. GO 159-A replaces GO 159 issued pursuant to Decision
(D.) 90-03-080 dated March 28, 1990.
4. Under the procedure adopted in GO 159-A, prior to
commencing construction of a new facility or major modification to
an existing facility, cellular carriers.shall'send a notification
letter to the Commission's Safety and Enforcement Division within
15 business days of receipt of all. requisite land use approvals
stating that such approvals have been received, or that no land use
approvals are required (see sample letter GO 159-A, p. 8). As set
forth in GO 159-A, copies of the 'notification letter shall be
provided to the local agencies responsible for issuing such land
use approvals.
5. Each cellular carrier shall, quarterly, update its list
of all sites and mobile telephone switching offices (MTSOs) on
record with the Commission's Safety and Enforcement Division.
6. The Commission affirms that with issuance of GO 159~A
there is no change in Commission policy. Primary authority
regarding cell siting issues continues to be deferred to local
authorities and the Commission will intervene only when local
actions clearly impede statewide goals.
7. The Executive Director shall serve a copy of this
decision and attachedGO 159-A on noncellular carriers and parties
- 25 -
R.90-'01-012
ALJ/BDP/sid *
in 1.93-12-007 -- Investigation on the Commission's Own Motion Into
Mobile Telephone Service and Wireless Communications.
8. -As stated in D.95-10-032, pps. 22-25 and ordering
paragraph 6, 1.93-12-007, the Commission's cell siting notification
requirements for noncellular providers were interim until the
Commission issued its decision in this proceeding. Accordingly,
the cell notification requirements promulgated in this decision for
cellular providers shall be applicable to noncellular providers to
achieve uniformity of cell site notification requirements for
cellular and noncellular providers alike.
9. The Executive Director shall serve a copy of this
decision on all regulated cellular mobile radiotelephone utilities,
counties and cities in the state of California, and other parties
ofrecord in this proceeding R.90-01-012.
10. The Commission staff may send a one-time letter to each
city and county explaining how GO 159-A. procedures affect cell
siting issues before local governments.
11. This proceeding shall remain open to further consider
facilities siting matters as prescribed by the Federal
Telecommunications Act of'1996 (Section 704). This order is effective today.
Dated May 8, 1996i at San Francisco, California.
P. GREGORY CONLON
President
DANIEL Wm. FESSLER
JESSIE J. KNIGHT, JR.
HENRY M. DUQUE
JOSIAH L. NEEPER
Commissioners
- 26 -
-. R.90-01-012
G]~q'ER,q~ ORDER '155A
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RULES RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION
OF COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICE FACILITIES IN CALIFORNIA
(Adopted May 8, 19961 Effective May 8, 1996.)
Decision 96-65-035, R.90-01-012.
SECTION I - GENERAL
Pursuant to the provisions of sections 451, 701, 702, 761,
762, 762.5, and 1001 of the Public Utilities Code:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that except as specifically provided
herein, no cellular service prorider, now subject, or which
hereafter may become subject, to the jurisdiction of this
Commission, shall begin construction in this state of any cellsite
or Mobile Telephone Switching Office ("MTSO") without first having
obtained all requisite land use approvals required by the relevant
local government agency. A cellular service prorider shall provide
a notification letter to the Commission that it has obtained the
requisite land use approval(s) or that no such approval is
required. Finally, to ensure that the Commission maintains
adequate information regarding the location of cell sites and
MTSOs, cellular service proriders shall update this Commission on
a quarterly basis with a tariff list of its facilities. The Table
of Contents and rules are set'forth below.
90-01 -ol 2
II.
III.
IV.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
APPENDIX
A.
/AL.I/BDP/sid
APPENDIX Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GENERAL ..................... 1
PURPOSE ....................... 3
DEFINITIONS ...... - ..........
4
NOTIFICATION LETTER 4
Ae
B.
C.
D.
Generally ................... 4
Contents · · ? ............ ' ....5
Service By Mail ............... 5
Exemptions ................ . . 6
(1) Minor Maintenance and Repair Work ..... 6
(2) Emergency Construction .......... 6
QUARTERLY UPDATES .................. 7
COMPLAINT PROCEDURE ................ 7
APPLICATIONS FOR PREEMPTIVE AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT . 7
COMMISSION REVIEW OF THIS GENERAL ORDER ...... ' . 7
SAMPLE NOTIFICATION LETTER
2
P~, <)0-01-012
/ALJ/BDP/sid APPENDIX A '--7~?
. ~: ~:~ · , .............
The Commission has previously ~o~d ~n nume=ous decisions
'authorizing specific ce~Zu~ar systems ~ha~ constockton o~ ceZZuZar
systems gene=aZZy sexes the p~c conyentice and necessity.. The-
Cos~ss~on has a~so ~o~d Cha~ ~he ~mpac~s o~-ceZZ s~Ces and ~SOS
are h~ghZy ~oca~zed. The Commission reco~zes Cha~ the goa~s and
~n~eresCs o~ ~oca~ gove~menC and ~he state may c=eaCe competing
demands. Th~s Gene=a~ O~de= ba~ces the above mentioned sC~ew~de
~n~e~esCs ~Ch ~ocaZ donce~s ~ega~d~ng ~he s~C~ng, deskS, ~d
cons~c~on o~ ceZ~ s~Ces ~d ~SOs.. The p=ocedures described
herein shouZd apply un~o~Zy on a sCaCe~de bas~s.
A. Goals
The Commission's goals with regard to the construction of cell
sites and MTSOs are. to ensure that:
the potential environmental impacts of all cellsitesand
MTSOs are reviewed and considered in a manner consistent
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
affected local citizens, organizations and local'
government are given reasonable notice and opportunity
for input into the review process;
the public health, safety, welfare, and zoning concerns
of local government are addressed;
cellular service proriders are not unnecessarily delayed
by site review by the CPUC; and
cellular service providers provide highquality, reliable
and widespread cellular services to state residents.
B. Deference to Local Government
The Commission acknowledges that local citizens and local
government are often in a better position than the Commission to
measure local impact' ~and'" to "identify 'alternative sites.
Accordingly, the Commission will generally defer to local
governments to regulate the location and design of Cell~.'eites and
MTSOs including a) the issuance of land use approvals; b) acting as
Lead Agency for purposes of satisfying the CEQA and c) the
satisfaction of noticing procedures for both land use approvals and
CEQA procedures.
However, in so doing, the Commission shall retain its,ri~h=~Eo.
preempt a local government deteEmination on siting when there is a
clear conflict with the Commission's goals and/or statewide
interests. In those instances, the cellular service provider ShAll
have the burden of demonstrating that accommodating local
3
R. 9o-ol -012
/ALJ/BDP/sid
APPENDIX A"
Page 4:
government's requirements. for":any:'TspeCl'ffd .... site' would unduly
frustrate the Commission's goals or statewide interests. Further,
local government and citizens shall have an opportunity to protest
a request for preemption and'to present their positions. If a
cellular service provider establishes that an action by local+
government unduly frustrates the Commission's objectives, then the
Commission may preempt a local government pursuant to the
Commission's authority under the California Constitution, Article
XII, section 8.
SECTION III- DEFINITIONS
The following terms are used throughout this General
Order:
Construction includes the construction of any new
cellsite or MTS0 or the modification of, alteration
of, or addition to an existing cellsite or MTSO
except as provided in Section IV.D. below.
Cellular Service Provider means any entity which
provides Domestic Public Cellular Radio
Telecommunications Service, as defined by Title 47
of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 22 Subpart
K 47, to some portion or al-1 of the public.
Local Government or Local Governmental Agencies
means any government entity with land use approval
authority over the proposed cellsite or MTSO.
Local Government or Local Governmental Agencies
includes, but is not limited to, cities, counties,
school districts, and agencies that administer
state and federal lands.
~mergency Cell Site or Emergency MTSO Facility
means temporary sites or facilities constructed in
response to disaster or emergency circumstances.
SECTION IV - NOTIFICATION LETTER
A. Generally
A cellular service provider must serve a notification
letter on the Commission stating that it has obtained the requisite
land use approval(s) for the construction that is/are required by
all relevant Local Government Agencies or that no land use approval
is required.
4
9o-ol -012
/ALI/BDP/sid*
APPENDIX A
--~ ,, Page 5 ~ ~':t~ :' ~ .... -'
Contents
1.
A description of the construction (present and
future construction plans) as described in a 1'and
use approval, if any, consisting of the site name,.
the lot address/location, the assessor's parcel
number and:
(for new sites) the numb&r of antennae to be
inBtalled, the tower design, appearance and
height, and the building size(s)·
(for modifications)
modification work.
a description of the
The business addresses of all Local Governmental
Agencies.
A statement whether a land use approval is
required, and if so, whether such approval was
obtained including the identification or reference
number of the land use approval,'if any. Where no
land use approval is needed, a statement setting.
forth the reason(s) for the exemption.
The cellular service provider's notification letter
shall be in the form attached hereto as Appendix A.
C. Service By Mail
A notification letter satisfying the requirements
described in this section shall be served on the
Commission's Safety & Enforcement Division or its
successor within 15 business days after all land use
approvals are initially issued or there is a
determination that no such approvals are required.
A copy of the notification letter shall be served
concurrently by mail on each Local Governmental
Agency(ies), and in the case of construction on
public school facilities or property, on the
governing board of the affected school district, as
well as upon any other entity requesting service.
Where a city is an affected Local Governmental
Agency, service of the notification letter to the
city shall consist of service of separate copies of
the notification letter upon the city planning
director, the city clerk, and the city manager.
Where a county is an affected Local Governmental
Agency, service of the notification .letter to the
county shall consist of service of separate copies
of the notification letter upon the county planning
R. 90-01-012
/ALT/BDP/s~d
APPENDIX A
Page 6
director, the clerk of the board of supervisors,
and the county executive.
D. Exemptions
1.. Minor Maintenance and Repair Work
For purposes of this General Order, "construction,,
does not include:
a) any maintenance, repair or replacement of
existing facilities;
b)
c)
any alteration of, or addition to, 'equipment
within or on an existing structure if no land
use approval is required or if a notice as
provided in Section IV of this General Order
has been previously served on the Commission,
encompassing such alteration or addition;
installation of
equipment;
environmental
monitoring
d)
any soil, geological
investigation;
or site survey
e)
any work to determine feasibility of the Use
of the' particular site for the proposed
facility; or
f)
other like work where it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that
such work may have a'significant effect on the
environment.
The types of work described in this paragraph may be performed
without service of the notification letter required by Section IV
on the Commission or Local Governmental Agencies. A cellular
service prorider must still comply with all local permitting
requirements, if any.
2. Emergency Construction
This General Order does not require a cellular
service provider to serve a notification letter
prior to: (a) maintaining, repairing, restoring,
demolishing, or replacing an existing cellsite or
MTSO that has been damaged or destroyed as a result
of a disaster; or (b) constructing or modifying
cell sites and MTSOs as required to meet the
demands of emergency circumstances, or at the
6
R.90-01-012
/ALI/BDP/Std
request ' bf~ ' any' ?'l~da~'~-~-~'~{~en~a1 agency or
official ac~ing in an of£iclal capacity.
Emergency cell.sites or BITSO facilities must be
demolished or removed by the cellular service'
prorider within a reasonable period of time
following the disaster or. emergency circumstances
which engendered them, unless the cellular service
prorider complies with the provisions ofthis Order
for ne~ facilities, including obtaining all'
requisite land use approvals required by the Local
Governmental Agency and serving the Commission wi~h
a notification letter.
In all cases of' emergency 'construction, the
cellular service provider shall, as soon as
practicable, provide the Commission's Safety &
Enforcement Division with a notification letter
outlining the construction it performed and how
such construction was necessitated by the emergency
condition.
Section V - QUARTERLY UPDATES
Cellular service providers subject to this General Order must
file-a ~ariff list of the locations of all cell sites or MTSOs on
a quarterly basis commencing January 30 of each year, with the
Commission's Safety & Enforcement Division.
SECTION VI - COMPLAINT PROCEDURE
Formal complaints for resolution of any alleged violations of
this General Order, pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure, must be filed with the Commission's Docket Office.
SECTION VII - APPLICATIONS FOR'PREEMPTIVE
AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT
A cellular service provider may file an application requesting
that the Commission exercise its preemptive authority to construct
a cell site or MTSO. All such applications shall comply with this
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.
SECTION VIII - COMMISSION REVIEW OF GENERAL ORDER 159
Upon the filing of a petition for modification by the
Commission staff, any cellular service provider or Local
Governmental Agency, the Commission may reopen Investigation No.
R.90-01-012 to examine whether this General Order has served its
stated purposes and to consider whether this General Order must be
revised to reflect technological changes.
R.90-01-012
/ALI/BDP/sid
:APPENDIX
-Page
SAMPLE NOTIFICATION LETTER
APPENDIX A
Mr.
Safety & Enforcement Division
California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Dear :
This is to provide the Commission with notice pursuant to the
provisions of General Order No.-159A of the Public Utilities
Commission of the State of California ("CPUC") that:
[check appropriate box]
(a) The cellular company has obtained all requisite land use
approval for the project described in Attachment A.
(b) That no land use approval is required because
A copy of this notification letter is also being provided to the
appropriate local governmental agency for its information. Should
there be any questions regarding this project, or if you disagree
with any of the information contained herein, please contact
of Cellular
Company at ( ) , or Mr. of the CPUC
Safety &.Enforcement Division at ( )
Very truly yours,
Attachment
cc:
City or County
name and address
(-END OF APPENDIX A)
8
Attachment B
1
Overview
A. Police Power
The legal basis for all land use regulation is the police power of the
dryI to protect the public health, safety and welfare of its residents. Bennan
v. Parleer, 348 U.S. 26 (1954). A land use regulation lies within the police
power if it is reasonably related to the public welfare. Associated Home
Bullden, Inc. v. City of Livermore, 18 Cal. 3d 582 (1976).
As Justice William O. Douglas, speaking for the United States
Supreme Court, stated:
The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive .... The values it
represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is
within the power of the legislature to determine that the commumty should
be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as dean, well-balanced as
well as care filly patrolled.
Berntan, 348 U.S. at 33.
This statement is recognized by California courts "as a correct descrip-
tion of the authority of a state or dty to enact legislation under the police
power.,Metromed/a, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 26 Cal. 3d 848, 861 (1980).
The police power, even though established by common law, is set forth
in the California Constitution, which confers on dties the power to ~make
and enforce within [their] limits all local police, sanitary and other ordinances
and regulations not in conflict with general hws." Cal. Const, arc XI, ~ 7.
The California Supreme Court has stated:
Under the police power granted by the Constitution, coonties and dties
have plenary authority to govern, subject only to the limitation that they
exerdse this power within their territorial lintits and subordinate to state
law. [Citation omitted.] Apart from this limitation, the 'police power [of a
county or city] under this provision... is as broad as the police power exex-
cisable by the Legislature itself.'
Cantlid Enter?ira, Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School Dirt., 39 Cal. 3d 878, 885
(1985).
1. When the word "city" is used, it also means 'county"; 'city council" also means
"board of supervisors.'
CURTIN'S CAUFORNIA LAND USE AND PLANNING LAW
In exercising the police power, the city must
act within all applicable statutory provisions so
there will be no "conflict with general laws." The
city's actions must also meet constitutional prin-
ciples of due process, that is, they must be rea-
sonable, nondiscriminatory and not arbitrary or
capricious. See, e.g., G. t~' D. Holland Construaion
Co. ~. City of Marysville, 12 Cal. App. 3d 989 (1970).
Of come, a city cannot act where the state has
completely occupied the subject matter, that is,
where it has preempted the field.2 See, e.g., People
ex rel. Deukmejian v. County 0fMendodno, 36 Cal.
3d 476, 483-85 (1984); Moreban v. County of
Santa Barbara, 7 Cal. 4th 725 (1994).
Land use regulations are a manifestation of
the local police powers conferred by the State
Constitution, not an exercise of authority dele-
gated by statute. Strutton v. County of Sacramento,
275 Cal.App. 2d 412,417 (1969). For example,
state zoning laws pertaining to adoption of local
zoning regulations are not intended as specific
grants of authority but as minimum standards to
be observed in local zoning practices. As stated
by the California Supreme Court:
We have recognized that a city's or county's
power to control its own land use decisions
derives from this inherent police power, not
from the delegation of authority by the state.
(See, e.g., Candid Enterprises, Inc. v. Grossmont
Union High SthoolDist., 39 Cal. 3d 878, 885-86
(1985) (upholding a school facilities impact
fee imposed by a county without statutory
authorization); Birken~eld v. City of Berkeley,
17 Cal. 3d 129, 14042 (1976)(upholding dty
rent control initiative despite lack of express
statutory authority).)
Delta v. County of Napa, 9 Cal. 4th 763,
(1995).
Under the State Constitution an ordinance
cannot conflict with general laws--preemption.
For example, Government Code (hereinafter
referred to as 'Gov't Code") Section 65858
relating to interim ordinances, preempts the
field of "moratorium" ordinances. See Bank of
the Orient v. Town of Tiburon, 220 Cal.App. 3d
2. For an excellent discussion on preemption, see
Govemor's Office of Planning and Research, Preemption
of Local Land Use Authority in California, 1989.
992 (1990) (holding that a city could not have an
interim moratorium ordinance in effect beyond
the two years prescribed in state law);, MonAan,
7 Cal. 4th at 725 (finding that a county's zoning
ordinances relating to merger of antiquated lots
were impliedly preempted by the merger provi-
sions of the Map Act). Also at times, the Legisla-
ture will adopt policies and criteria for establish-
ment of certain types of residential uses which
preempt local zoning. See, e.g., 1992 California
Child Day Care Act, Health & Safety Code
§§ 1596.64-1596.70 (in pardMar § 1597.30 relat-
ing to family day care centers). This Act occu-
pies the field to the exclusion of mtmidpal zon-
ing, building and fire codes and regulations
governing the use or occupancy of family day
care homes for children with certain limited
exceptions. Health & Safety Code §§ 1597.40;
1597.47. There are a similar laws for other se-
lected uses. For example, see the Community
Care Facility Act, Health & Safety Code §§ 1500-
1567.8 for homes for mentally disabled or handi-
capped persons for residential facilities serving
six or fewer persons. Id. at § 1566.3.
The police power is an elastic power. Regu-
lations are sustained under the complex condi-
tions of today which, but a short time ago, might
have been condemned as arbitrary and nnrea-
sonable. Euclid v. /lmbler Realty Co., 272 U.S.
365; 387 (1926).
In the 1970s, Justice Douglas, speaking for
the United States Supreme Cottt~ upheld a vil-
lage's zoning ordinance relating to land use
restrictions on single-family dwelling units:
A quiet place where yards are wide, people
few, and motor vehicles restricted are legiti-
mate guidelines in a land use project addressed
to family needs. This goal is a permissible one
within Bennan v. Parker, supra. The police
power is not confined to elimination of filth,
stench, and unhealthy places; it is ample to lay
out zones where family values, youth values,
and the blessings of quiet seclusion and dean
air make the area a sanctuary for people.
Fallage of Balk Term v. Borattr, 416U.S. 1, 9(1974).
Likewise, the courts have held that regula-
tions affecting economic interests in real prop-
erty are also an appropriate exercise of the
police power. For example, regulations imple-
menting local rent control laws (Birkenfeld v.
City of Berkeley, 17 Cal. 3d 129 (1976)) and regu-
lations relating to condominium conversions
(Griffin Development Co. v. City of Oxnard, 39
Cal. 3d 256 (1985)) have been upheld.
The California Supreme Court has held that
aesthetic reasons alone justify the exercise of the
police power when it uphdd, in part, the City of
San Diego's total ban of offsite advertising signs
(Maromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 26 Cal. 3d
848 (1980)) and the Culver City's public art fee
ordinance (Ebrlicb v. City of Culvor G: ~. 12 Cal.
4th 854 (1996)). Also, the United States Supreme
Court, in upholding a local ordinance prohibit-
ing the posting of signs on public property, stat-
ed that aesthetic interests are substantial govern-
mental interests which a city can address under
its police power. Members of City Council v. Tax-
payenf0r V/ment, 466 U.S. 789 (1984).
Land use regulations constitute a proper
exercise of the police power. Associated Home
Builders, lnc. v. City of Livermore, 18 Cal. 3d 582
(1976). A city may exercise its police power to
provide a "modern, enlightened and progressive
community." Rancho La Costa v. County of San
D/ego, 111 Cal.App. 3d 54, 60 (1980). The United
States Supreme Court has stated that land use
regulations may be enacted through the police
power "to enhance the quality of life by preserv-
ing the character and desirable aesthetic fea-
tures of a city." Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City
of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 129 (1978).
In Ewing v. City of Carmd-by-the-Sea, plain-
tiff homeowners challenged the eonstiitutionali-
ty of a zoning ordinance prohibiting "transient
commercial use of residential property," for
remuneration, for less than 30 consecutive days.
Ewing, 234 Cal. App. 3d 1579 (1991). Plaintiffs
claimed the ordinance amounted to a taking,
was void as being arbitrary and vague, and vio-
lated their citizens' fight of privacy.
In ruling for the City, the court held that
the ordinance was a proper exercise of the City's
land use authority under its police power
enhance and maintain the residential character
of the City." The court said that this is a proper
purpose of zoning, stating:
k stands m reason that the 'residential charac-
ter' of a neighborhood is threatened when a
significant number of homes at least 12% in
this case, according to the record are occupied
not by permanent residents but by a stream of
tenants staying a weekend, a week, or even 29
days. Whether or not transient renuds have the
other 'unmitigatable, adverse impacts' cited by
the Council, such rentals undoubtedly affect
the essential character of a neighborhood and
the stability of a community. Short-term ten-
ants have litde interest in public agencies or in
the welfare of the citizenry. They do not par-
ficipate in local government, coach litde league,
or join the hospital guild. They do not lead a
Scout troop, volunteer at the library, or keep
an eye on an elderly neighbor. Literally, they
are here today and gone tomorrow without
engaging in the son of activities that weld and
Id, at 1591.
In holding that the ordinance was related to
a legitimate governmental goal, the court held:
Blessed with unparalleled geography, climate,
beauty, and charm, Cannel naturally attracts
numerous short-term visiwrs. Again, it stands
to reason that Cannel would wish to preserve
an endave of single-family homes as the heart
and soul of the city. We believe that this rea-
son alone is 'sufficiently cogent to preclude us
from saying, as it must be said before the ordi-
nance can be declared unconstitutional, that
such provisions are clearly arbitrary and un-
reasonable, having no substantial relation to
the public health, safety, morals or general
welfare.' [Citation omitted.]
Id. at 1592.
In reviewing a police power enactment, the
following rule has been laid down by the courts:
It is a well settled rule that determination of
the necessity and form of regulations enacted
pursuant to the police power 'is primarily a
legislative and not a judicial function, and is to
be tested in the courts not by what the judges
individually or collectively may think of the
wisdom or necessity of a particular regulation,
but solely by the answer to the question is
there any reasonable basis in fact to support
the legislative determination of the regula-
tion's wisdom and necessity?' (Conxolidated
CURTIN'$ CALIFORNIA LAND I,.ltE AND PLANNING LAW
4 ·
ruJe
Rock Products Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 57 Cal.
2d 515, 522 (1962)). Furthermore, even if the
reasonableness of the regulation is fairly
debatable, the legislative determination will
not be disturbed. [Citation omitted.]
Remmenga v. California Coaxtal Caram'n, 163
CalApp. 3d 623,629 (1985).
The California Supreme Court stated the
simply:
The land use restriction withstands constitu-
tional attack if it is fairly debatable that the
restriction in fact bears a reasonable relation
to the general welfare.
/ixrodated Home Buildra, Inc. v. City of Liver-
more, 18 Cal. 3d 582,601 (1976).
B. Statutory Framework
The following state laws outline the legal
framework within which a dry must exercise its
land use functions:
· Establishment of planning agencies, com-
missions and deparunents. Gov't Code
4~ 6510045106.
· General plan and specific plan. Gov't
Code §§ 6530045457.
· Zo~ regulations. Gov't Code ~ 65800-
65912.
· SuMivim'on Map Act. Gov't Code 44 66410-
66499.58.
· California Environmental Quality Act.
Pub. Res. Code 44 21000-21178.1; Cal.
Code Regs. tit. 14, 44 15000-15387.
· Other laws and statutes.
· Ral__ph M. Brown Act. Gov't Code ~3 54950-
54962 (also known as The Open Meet-
ingAct).
· Property Development agreements. Gov't
Code 44 6586445869.5.
· Permit Streamlining Act Gov't Code
~§ 6592045959.3.
C. The Planning Commission
The planning commission is a permanent
committee of five or more citizens who have
been appointed by the city council, or the mayor
in some cities, to review and act on matters relat-
ed to planning and development The commis-
sion holds regularly scheduled public hearings to
consider land use matters, such as the general
plan, specific plan, rezonings, use permits and
subdivisions. Commissioners can serve at the
pleasure of the council, so that commission
membership changes in response to changes in
the council, or members can have fixed terms.
The practice varies from city to dty.
A city need not create a planning commis-
sion. Gov't Code 4 65101. In fact, in some juris-
dictions, especially smaller ones, there is no
planning commission and the city council per-
forms in that capacity.
Basically, the commission advises the city
coundl on land use matters. The council may
choose to follow the recommendations of the
commission, or the council may reverse or mod-
ify commission actions or send proposals back
to the commission for further review. In addi-
tion, commission decisions are subject to appeal
to the council and the council has the final say in
all dty matters.
The city community development or plan-
ning department is the commission's staff. The
planners can advise the commission on the
general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance,
subdivision ordinance and other land use regu-
lations. In addition, they provide background
information and recommendations on the pro-
posals that are under the commission's con-
sideration, answer technical questions, and
make sure that meetings have been properly
advertised in advance. The commission is also
advised by the city attomey's office and public
works department,
The city council may assign any or all of the
following tasks to its planning commission
(Gov't Code 4§ 65103, 65400, 65401, 65402):
· Assist in writing the general plan and
community or specific plan and hold
public hearings on such plan;
· Hold hearings and act upon proposed
amendments to the general plan and spe-
d fie plan;
· Investigate and make recommendations
to the city council regarding reasonable
and practical means for implementing
the general plan or elements of the gen-
eral plan, so that it will serve as an effec-
tive guide for orderly growth and deveb
opment, preservation and conservation
of open-space land and natural resources,
and the efficient expenditure of public
funds relating to the subjects addressed
in the general plan;
· Provide an annual report to the dty coun-
cil on the status of the general plan and
progress in its implementation, includ-
ing the progress in meeting its share of
regional housing needs determined pur-
suant to Gov't Code ~ 65584; the local
efforts to remove governmental con-
straints on housing pursuant to Gov't
Code ~ 65583(eX3).
· Hold hearings and act upon proposed
changes to the zoning ordinance and
zoning maps;
· Hold hearings and act on tentative subdi-
vision maps;
· Annually review the city's capital im-
provement program and the public works
projects of other local agerides for con-
sistency with the general plan;
· Promote public interest in the general
plan;
· Consult with and advise public officials
and agendes, utilities, organizations and
citizens regarding implementation of the
general plan;
· Coordinate local plans and programs
with those of other public agerides;
· Report to the city council on the confor-
mity of proposed public land acquisition
or disposal with the adopted general
plan; and
· Undertake special planning studies as
needed.
The planning commission holds regular
meetings and special meetings as needed. For
the most part, state law requires public hearings
before planning actions are taken. At its meet-
ings, the planning commission weighs phrming
proposals in light of state and local regulations
and potential environmental effects and listens
to testimony from interested parties. If neces-
sam/, the coromi~ion may continue a hearing to
a later time to allow more information to be
gathered or to take additional testimony. The
commission usually considers several items at
each hearing, considering each proposal sepa-
rately and t~lting action before moving on to the
next item on the agenda.
Depending upon local ordinance provi-
sions, the commission's decision on a project
may be: (I) referred to the dty council as a rec-
ommendation for action (for example, general
plan amendments and rezonings); or (2) consid-
ered a final action unless appealed to the council
(subdivisions, variances, use permits, etc.). The
council will then hold a noticed public hearing
on the projects referred to it by the commission
or received on appeal.
Pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act, all
meetings, including study sessions and work-
shops, must be open and public. Gov't Code
§§ 54950-54962. This means that a quorum of
commissioners can discuss commission business
in a public meeting only. For more information
on the Brown Act, see Chapter 19, Section A
(Ralph M. Brown Act).
Reading material for Planning Commis-
sioners:
· Governor's Office of Planning and Re-
search, The Planning Commissioner's
Book (1989).
· League of California Cities, Planning
Commissioner's Handbook ( 1995).
· Guide to California Planning (1991) by
William Fulton, Solano Press.
-5
ATIONS
. Commis-
Common-
;58; Jones
2d 460.
~vepor~ v.
m F~L~a,
~napolis,
143 Neb
~ Swett,
120 NJL
~b. Co. v.
~J Super
/ertising
~ NE 17;
,113 NE
/YS 208.
McGee,
nderson
2 SE 25;
592, 132
-Salem,
ing this
~rper &
609, 35
[24 Tex
95 (Tex
3orp. v.
Vt 341,
~nd, 78
MUNICIPAL POLICE POWER AND ORDINANCES
§ 24.12
Wisconsin. Rust v. State Board of
Dental Examiners, 216 Wis 127, 256
NW 919; Milwaukee v. Kaun, 204 Wis
103, 235 NW 551.
s United States. Noble State Bank
v. Haskell, 219 US 104, 55 LEd 112,
31 S Ct 186, opinion amended 219 US
575, 55 LEd 341, 31 S Ct 299.
s United States. The police power
may be put forth in aid of what is sanc-
tioned by usage, or held by the
prevailing morality or strong prepon-
derant opinion to be greatly and
immediately necessary to the public
welfare. Noble State Bank v. Haskell,
219 US 104, 55 LEd 112, 31 S Ct 186,
opinion amended 219 US 575, 55 LEd
341, 31 S Ct 299.
Arizona. Atchison, T.&S.F. Ry. Co.
v. State, 33 Ariz 440, 265 P 602.
Arkansas. State v. Hurlock, 185
Ark 807, 49 SW2d 611.
California. Ex parte Mathews, 58
Cal App 649, 209 P 220.
IHinois. People v. Anderson, 355 Ill
289, 189 NE 338.
New York. Mannix v. Frost, 100
Misc 36, 164 NYS 1050.
Washington. Kelly v. The Vogue,
21 Wash 2d 785, 153 P2d 277.
7 See § 24.08.
§ 24.11. Objects.
Since the police power cannot be defined with precision, it
follows that the objects of the police power cannot be declared
with exactness. Indeed, regulations sometimes are sustained
under the police power where they do not appear to be clearly
related to any previously well-defined or recognized specific
object of the police power.~ This is especially true with respect to
Sunday laws and regulations.2 However, statements are made in
the cases as to the broad objects of the police power. These broad
objects embrace the public welfare, convenience, economy? and
somewhat more specifically, public order, health, safety, and
morals. 4
~ See § 24.03. s See § 24.13.
2 See § 24.188 et seq. 4 See § 24.12.
§ 24.12. --Public order, health, safety and morals.
The legitimate objects of the police power embrace the safe-
guarding of the public order, health, safety, and morals,~ and the
protection of the lives2 and property3 of persons. The public
health, the public safety, the public morals, and, when defined
with some strictness so as not to include mere expediency, the
public welfare, each repeatedly has been held sound ground for
the exercise of the police power.4
41
{;
,|
!
,!
I
RATIONS
'2d 101 (Mo
Amodio v.
· West New
A2d 889;
:ch Com'rs,
Village of
y's Water
.25 NYS2d
ifficult to
~voked, is
le resttic-
necessary
~rals, and
~lic peace,
lineburgh
, 195 NY
teights v.
t 26, 484
tman, 44
cry v.
,157 P2d
;wain v.
~mw 326,
Lris, 184
llred, 20
preserve
Carlson,
afety).
opment,
P2d 583
On con-
tivision
MUNICIPAL POLICE POWER AND ORDINANCES
§ 24.13
due to developer's failure to correct
ongoing drainage problems).
2 Arkansas. Lonoke v. Chicago, 92
Ark 546, 123 SW 395.
Hlinois. Condon v. Forest Park, 278
Ill 218, 115 NE 825.
West Virginia. State ex rel. State
Line Sparkler of WV, Ltd. v. Teach,
187 W Va 271, 418 SE2d 585 (1992).
Wyoming. Sun Ridge Development,
Inc. v. City of Cheyenne, 787 P2d 583
(Wyo 1990) (valid moratorium on con-
struction in residential subdivision
due to developer's failure to correct
ongoing drainage problems).
3 West Virginia. State ex rel. State
Line Sparkler of WV, Ltd. v. Teach,
187 WVa 271,418 SE2d 585 (1992).
Wyoming. Sun Ridge Development,
Inc. v. City of Cheyenne, 787 P2d 583
(Wyo 1990).
See also § 24.14.
4 Massachusetts. Opinion of the
Justices, 234 Mass 597, 127 NE 525.
§ 24.13. --Public welfare, convenience, and economy.
The broad object of the police power is to promote and safe-
guard the general or public welfare, and this broad object justifies
impositions, restrictions, and prohibitions on individual action
and use of property, reasonably related to~ that object. In this
broad connotation "police power" means general power of govern-
ment to preserve and promote public health, safety, morals,
comfort, or general welfare, even at the expense of private
rights.2 Although in its early history police power was closely
associated with the preservation of public peace, safety, morals,
and health, under modern conditions it includes the general wel-
fare which embraces regulations to promote the economic
welfare, public convenience, and general prosperity of the com-
munity.3 This change in conception or at least in practice relative
to the broad objects of the police power discloses its dynamic
character and capacity for growth.4
Whatever is contrary to public policy or inimical to the public
interests is subject to the police power of the state and within
legislative controls The police power is positive as well as nega-
tive in its object of promoting the greatest welfare of the state,
and it is not to be confined narrowly within the field of public
health, safety, morality, or the suppression of that which is offen-
sive. Accordingly, in recent years particularly, the police power
has been constantly exercised by municipalities, not only to pro-
tect the peace, order, safety, health, and morals of the
community, but also to protect and promote the public welfare,
which may embrace not merely physical and moral elements, but
43
§ 24.13 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
economic as wells Thus, the police power has validly been exer-
cised to protect and promote the public welfare by regulation of
public utility services and rates, since property in public utilities
is devoted to the public use or service and to that extent is subject
to regulation in the interest of the public welfare.z Moreover,
public welfare is the ground, in part at least, upon which the
courts base validity of safety appliance, hours of labor, minimum
wage, and other labor legislation, including worker's compensa-
tion laws. '
The public welfare as a proper object of the police power
embraces public convenience? comfort,,o prosperity," and finan-
cial security of the people. ~2 The police power of the state (which
may be delegated to cities and towns) embraces regulations
designed to promote the public convenience or the general pros-
perity, as well as regulations designed to promote the public
health, the public morals, or the public safety, but the validity of
any police regulation, whether established directly by the state or
by some public body acting under its sanction must depend upon
circumstances of each case and the character of the regulation,
whether arbitrary or reasonable and whether really designed to
accomplish a legitimate public purpose. ~3
It is only with considerable strictness of definition, that the
general welfare may be made a ground, with others, for interfer-
ence with rights of property in the exercise of the police power. ,4
Whenever the police power is exerted for the sole purpose of
protecting or advancing the public welfare or the well-being of the
community, no other recognized basis for its exercise appearing,
the necessity for the regulations must be clear, or at least not
obscure. In matters of this nature it is true, nevertheless, that
courts are inclined to defer largely to the judgment of the local
authorities, for the reason that their knowledge as to the neces-
sity of the regulations involved is likely to be more accurate than
that of the courts.,5 They have gone so far as to sustain its exer-
cise for purposes more or less indefinite, e.g., the promotion of the
"general interest," "general prosperity," "general well-being,"
"public welfare" and "public convenience" of the community,
apart from any question of public health, safety, or morals. The
validity of any given regulation must depend upon the circum-
stances of each case and the character of the regulation, whether
arbitrary or reasonable, and whether really designed to accom-
plish a legitimate public purpose. ~5
44
['IONS
exer-
ion of
ilities
abject
~over,
'h the
imum
,ensa-
)ower
~nan-
~hich
~tions
pros-
~ublic
'.ity of
~e or
upon
~tion,
~ed to
~t the
.~rfer-
ver.~4
se of
~fthe
ring,
t not
that
local
eces-
than
.~xer-
fthe
nity,
The
ther
;ore - -
MLrNICIPAL POLICE POWER AND ORDINANCES
§ 24.13
Since the police power is inherent in the effective conduct
and maintenance of government~7 and extends to all great public
needs,is it can be put forth in aid of what is sanctioned by usage,
or held by the prevailing morality or strong and preponderant
opinion to be immediately necessary to the public welfare.~9 The
relief and protection of the poor, indigent, and infirm, and the
security of society against the occurrence of poverty, disease,
insanity, and infirmity are deemed to be proper objects of the
police or governmental power to provide for the public health,
safety, and welfare. The care of the poor and infirm has long been
regarded as a proper local governmental function. Regulation of
charity and charitable organizations also is exercised by state
and local government. Municipal social relief and the security
and regulation of charity, the only phases of this broad field
within the scope of this work, are treated in another chapter.a0
~ United States. Eubank v. Rich-
mond, 226 US 137, 57 LEd 156, 33 S
Ct 76; Chicago B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Peo-
ple, 200 US 561, 50 LEd 596, 26 S Ct
341; Detweiler v. Welch, 46 F2d 75,
affg 46 F2d 71.
The police power "extends to so deal-
ing with the conditions which exist in
the state as to bring out of them the
greatest welfare of its people." Bacon
v. Walker, 204 US 311, 51 LEd 499, 27
S Ct 289.
California. Carlin v. Palm Springs,
14 Cal App 3d 706, 92 Cai Rptr 535.
Colorado. Willison v. Cooke, 54
Colo 320, 130 P 828.
Iowa. State v. Iowa State Board of
Health, 233 Iowa 872, 10 NW2d 561.
Kentucky. Commonwealth v.
McCray, 250 Ky 182, 61 SW2d 1043;
Shaeffier v. Park Hills, 279 SW2d 21
(Ky App).
Michigan. People v. Sell, 310 Mich
305, 17 NW2d 193, quoting this
treatise.
Missouri. City of Blue Springs v.
Gregory, 764 SW2d 101 (Mo App
1988).
New Jersey. Hart v. Teaneck Tp.,
135 NJL 174, 50 A2d 856.
New York. People v. Passantino, 83
Misc 2d 451,372 NYS2d 451; Morrison
v. Gentler, 152 Misc 710, 273 NYS 952.
North Dakota. Russell v. Fargo, 28
ND 300, 148 NW 610.
Ohio. City of University Heights v.
Dachman, 20 Ohio App 3d 26, 484
NE2d 199.
Oklahoma. Beveridge vo Harper &
Turner Oil Trust, 168 Okla 609, 35
P2d 435.
Oregon. Semler v. Oregon State
Board of Dental Examiners, 148 Or 50,
34 P2d 311; Donohue v. Rosenthai, 147
Or 408, 34 P2d 316.
Tennessee. Solof v. Chattanooga,
180 Term 296, 174 SW2d 471, 176
SW2d 816, quoting this treatise;
Bowen v. Hannah, 167 Tenn 451, 71
SW2d 672.
Texas. Lombardo v. Dallas, 124 Tex
1, 73 SW2d 475, affg 47 SW2d 495 (Tex
Civ App).
2 United States. See Wall Distribu-
ters, Inc. v. City of Newport News, 782
F2d 1165 (CA4 1986) (coin-operated
45
i
)RPORATIONS
~f the natural and
municipality are
,ntal purposes for
· Curtiss-Wright
ast Hampton, 82
:d 125.
State v. Jones,
:d 675.
ity v. Hartke, 240
sustaining valid-
dinance~ wholly
~g yards on sole
Id be offensive to
0.
Best v. Zoning
tt of Pittsburgh,
t 606; County of
l Pa Commw 357,
~ome law).
~ v. Smith, 618
atute controlling
is and junkyards
ty).
ne County v.
3, 157 NW2d 591
roblie wrecking
istricts).
~well v. Ferrier,
NYS2d 22, 225
on's Porta Signs,
water, 829 F2d
ity's substantial
: esthetics justi-
ruing portable
[ for Free Speech
oard of Com'rs,
NJ 1992) (must
for there to be
power).
Regional Plan-
233 Cal App 3d
; (1991).
!onduct prohib-
ling drinking of
MUNICIPAL POLICE POWER AND ORDINANCES
§ 24.16
intoxicating liquor in outdoor public
places from specified containers
offended public sensibilities, aesthetic
considerations served as legitimate
basis, among others, for ordinance.
Lake Charles v. Henning, 414 So 2d
331 (La).
Missouri. Municipality may by its
legislative body prescribe rules for
adorning of cemetery and erecting
monuments, tombstones, and orna-
ments on cemetery lots and may forbid
improper adornment thereof. Ham-
mersly v. La Forge, 80 SW2d 211 (Mo
App).
Pennsylvania. Statute may create
municipal art jury to supervise erec-
tion of structures on or over highways
and requiring its approval as an essen-
tial prerequisite. Walnut & Quince
Streets Corp. v. Mills, 303 Pa 25, 154A
29.
Esthetic considerations in zoning,
see ch 25.
s United States. McCormack v.
Township of Clinton,872 F Supp 1320
(D NJ 1994).
City ordinance amounting to a total
ban of portable signs was permissible
as most direct and perhaps only effec-
tive approach to solving problem
which city had substantial govern-
mental interest in. Don's Porta Signs,
Inc. v. City of Clearwater, 829 F2d
1051 (CAll 1987)·
California. Tahoe Regional Plan-
ning Agency v. King, 233 Cal App 3d
1365, 285 Cal Rptr 335 (1991).
Minnesota. Naegele Outdoor
Advertising Co. of Minnesota v. Vil-
lage of Minnetonka, 281 Minn 492, 162
NW2d 206.
North Carolina. State v. Jones,
305 NC 520, 290 SE2d 675 (reasona-
bleness of regulations dependent on
facts and circumstances of each case).
9 United States. McCormack v.
Township of Clinton,872 F Supp 1320
(D NJ 1994).
North Carolina. A-S-P Associates
v. Raleigh, 298 NC 207, 258 SE2d 444.
§ 24.16. ----In connection with other objects.
· Esthetic or artistic considerations may be involved, or bear
on necessities relating to public welfare and health; the same
factors that make for beauty, such as zoning according to use,
building height restrictions, building setback lines and the like,
may also make for public health, safety, and welfare, which of
course are legitimate objects for an exercise of the police power?
Accordingly, whether or not esthetic considerations in them-
selves support an exercise of the police power,a there can be no
question that if a regulation finds a reasonable justification in
serving a generally recognized ground for the exercise of the
police power, the fact that esthetic considerations play a part in
its adoption does not affect its validity? Thus, the fact that an
ordinance has esthetic considerations in view will not invalidate
it if it rests upon a substantial ground for a reasonable exercise of
53
§ 24.16
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
the police power.4 This is true, for example, with respect to ordi-
nances as to billboards? signs? and housing projects, slum
clearance, or eradication of blighted urban areas.7 Similarly, in
regulating and restricting a motor vehicle junk business, esthetic
considerations may be regarded? and aesthetics are also recog-
nized as a legitimate governmental objective in the regulation of
junked or abandoned private vehicles unrelated to a junk busi-
ness. s So also, aesthetic considerations serve as a legitimate basis
for a ban on drinking of intoxicating liquor in public outdoor
places. ~o
~ California. Aesthetics should be
considered as a factor, together with
other factors, in support of an ordi-
nance. Carlin v. Palm Springs, 14 Cal
App 3d 706, 92 Cal Rptr 535.
Massachusetts. Welch v. Swasey,
193 Mass 364, 79 NE 745; Attorney-
General v. Williams, 174 Mass 476, 55
NE 77, s.c. 178 Mass 330, 59 NE 812;
Smith v. Morse, 158 Mass 407, 19 NE
393; Rideout v. Knox, 148 Mass 368, 19
NE 390.
2 Washington. Duckworth v. Bon-
ney Lake, 91 Wash 2d 19, 586 P2d 860,
citing this treatise. See § 24.15.
3 Connecticut. Murphy, Inc. v.
Town of Westport, 131 Conn 292, 40
A2d 177.
Michigan. See O'Brien v. State
Highway Comm'r, 375 Mich 545, 134
NW2d 700 (aesthetics should at least
be taken into account in determining
whether the police power is properly
exercised).
New York. People v. New York
Cent. R. Co., 5 Misc 2d 232, 165 NYS2d
877.
"Beauty may not be queen, but she is
not an outcast beyond the pale of pro-
tection or respect. She may at least
shelter herself under the wing of
safety, morality or decency." Perlmut-
ter v. Greene, 259 NY 327, 182 NE 5.
Zoning, see ch 25.
4 United States. St. Louis Poster
Advertising Co. v. St. Louis, 249 US
269, 63 LEd 599, 39 S Ct 274, affg 195
SW 717 (Mo).
"That in addition to these sufficient
facts (public safety from fires), consid-
erations of an aesthetic nature also
entered into the reason for their pas-
sage, would not invalidate them."
Welch v. Swasey, 214 US 91, 53 LEd
923, 29 S Ct 567.
s United States. National Adver-
tising Co. v. City of Orange, 861 F2d
246 (CA9 1988).
Twin goals of traffic safety and
appearance of city are substantial gov-
ernment goals which serve as proper
basis for municipal regulation of out-
door advertising signs. Metromedia,
Inc. v. San Diego, 453 US 490, 69 LEd
2d 800, 101 S Ct 2882.
As to billboard ordinances, see
§ 24.382.
s United States. McCormack v.
Township of Clinton, 872 F Supp 1320
(D NJ 1994).
7 New York. Murray v. LaGuardia,
180 Misc 760, 43 NYS2d 408.
54
~kTIONS
= to ordi-
;s, slum
,larly, in
esthetic
~o recog-
lation of
nk busi-
~te basis
outdoor
Perlmut-
~2NE5.
,is Poster
249 US
affg 195
sufficient
.), consid-
ture also
heir pas-
~ them."
53 LEd
1 Adver-
861 F2d
~ty and
trial gov-
s proper
a of out-
'omedia,
69 LEd
see
aack v.
pp 1320
~uardia,
MUNICIPAL POLICE POWER AND ORDINANCES
§ 24.17
Generally as to housing and housing
projects as within police power, see
§ 24.563.
s See § 24.353.
9 United States. Price v. City of
Junction, Texas, 711 F2d 582 (CA5).
Tennessee. See City of Clarksville
v. Moore, 688 SW2d 428 (Term) (ordi-
nance prohibiting storage of
abandoned vehicles on residential
premises valid).
lo Louisiana. Lake Charles v. Hen-
ning, 414 So 2d 331 (La).
§ 24.17. Subjects.
Generally speaking, any matter reasonably relating to the
broad objects of the police power, to wit, the maintenance of the
public peace, order, safety, health, morals, convenience, and gen-
eral welfare and prosperity, is a proper subject for the exercise of
the power. 1 Proper subjects for regulation by the police power of
the state are not merely those that are of statewide concern, but
they include those of special and local concern which can be made
the subject of special law or ordinance.2
With respect to persons subject to the police power, business
and other corporations as well as individual persons are in gen-
eral subject to a proper exercise of it,3 but a state agency
delegated by law the responsibility of performing a governmental
function is not subject to the general police powers of a municipal
corporation.4
With respect to rights subject to the police power, both per-
sonals and propertys rights secured by the Constitution are
subject to the lawful exercise of the police power.7
With respect to things, objects, matters and measures sub-
ject to the police power, they do not lend themselves to precise
definition or to accurate detailed and comprehensive enumera-
tion, since what the public welfare, morality, health, or safety
requires, or is deemed to require, naturally varies from time to
time. Accordingly, new subjects or measures come within the
police power as required by changing circumstances of economic
and social life and by growth of knowledge; in this respect, as
stated above, the police power has a dynamic or progressive
capacity.s
Patently, all things that are injurious to the public are proper
subjects for an exercise of the police power? and may be sup-
pressed, prohibited, or at least regulated?0 Thus, fraud is a
proper subject for regulation under the police power." Other
55
§ 24.17
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
things which may or may not be injurious to the public, depend-
ing on the manner in which they are managed or conducted may
be regulated. ,2
Other matters coming within the police power include:
-- the regulation of fish and game;'3
-- the prohibition of wooden buildings;"
-- the regulation of railways and other means of public
conveyance; ' 5
-- the regulation of interments in burial grounds;'5
-- the restriction of objectionable trades to certain
localities;'7
-- the management of anticipatory wide spread damages
due to natural disasters, such as flooding;'8
-- compulsory vaccination of children;~9
-- the confinement of the insane or those afflicted with
contagious diseases;2o
-- the restraint of vagrants, beggars, and intoxicated
persons;2'
-- the suppression of obscene publications;"
-- houses offil-fame;23
-- gambling houses;~4 and
-- places where intoxicating liquors are sold.~s
Proper subjects for regulation under the police power are to
be considered as justified only in connection with legitimate
objects of the police power. For example:
-- to preserve the peace the carrying of concealed weapons
may be forbidden;2s
-- to decrease the opportunity for certain vehicles to serve
as attractive nuisances to children, parking restrictions
may be imposed;27
-- to insure the public safety many kinds of building regu-
lations may be made and enforced;~s
-- to insure the public safety a moratorium may be imposed
on construction in a residential subdivision so as to
enforce drainage regulations;29
-- to protect the public health numerous regulations, such
as those relating to quarantine and sanitation, may be
promulgated and carried out;3o
56
)RATIONS
c, depend-
.,cted may
~de:
of public
) certain
damages
-'ted with
toxicated
,er are to
~,gitimate
weapons
. to serve
;trictions
ng regu-
imposed
~O as to
us, such
may be
ICIPAL POLICE POWER AND ORDINANCES, f~
§ 24.17
to safeguard the public morals, indecent practices, utter-
ances and publications, gambling, and lotteries may be
prohibited;3~
-- to prevent fraud and dishonesty, business dealings and
transactions;32
-- weights and measures;33
-- charitable collections and distributions;34
-- to avoid extortion and oppression, combinations among
dealers in food products and other necessities in
restraint of trade may be forbidden;3s and
-- to protect patrons, reasonable regulations of the service
and charge of public utilities are authorized.3e
Under the police power, the state or a duly authorized munic-
ipal corporation may order the destruction of a house in decay or
otherwise endangering the lives of inmates or passersby,-~7 the
demolition of buildings and structures in the path of a conflagra-
tion,3s the slaughter of diseased cattle39 and the destruction of
decayed or unwholesome food.®
Under the guise of the police power a municipal corporation
cannot regulate subjects not within the police power or otherwise
within the competence of the municipal corporation to regulate. 4~
Accordingly, a municipal corporation cannot impose a revenue
tax which it has no authority to impose, under the guise of an
exercise of the police power.42 However, when the police power is
exercised in good faith, or, in other words, when there is a good
faith endeavor to exercise the power, every intendment will be
indulged to sustain the regulation, and aH doubts will be resolved
in favor of the validity of the exercise of the power.4~ This is in
accordance with the rules that the validity of statutes and ordi-
nances is favored44 and presumed.~s
1 United States. Eubank v. Rich-
mond, 226 US 137, 57 LEd 156, 133 S
Ct 76; Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Illi-
nois, 200 US 561, 50 LEd 596, 26 S Ct
341; Marysville v. Standard Oil Co., 27
F2d 478; Marrs v. Oxford, 24 F2d 541.
California. Gin S. Chow v. Santa
Barbara, 217 Cal 673, 22 P2d 5; Ex
parte Lawrence, 55 Cal App 2d 491,
131 P2d 27.
Florida. Metropolitan Dade County
Fair Housing & Employment Appeals
Board v. Sunrise Village Mobile Home
Park, Inc., 511 So 2d 962 (Fla 1987)
(age discrimination in housing
ordinance).
Illinois. Metropolis v. Gibbons, 334
Ill 431, 166 NE 115; People v. John
Doe of Rosehill Cemetery Co., 334 Ill
555,166 NE 112.
57
Attachment D
47 USCS e 332 (1998) ·
(ii} shall not prohibit or have the effec~ of prohibiting the
provision of personal wireless services.
(ii) A Sta~e or local governmen~ or instrumentality thereof shall act
on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal
wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request
is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the
nature and scope of such request.
(iii) Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality
thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless
service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence
contained in a written record.
(iv) No Sta~e or local government or instrumentality thereof my
regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless
service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency
emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Co~nission's
regulations concerning such emissions.
(v) Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act
by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is
inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or
failure to act, comence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The
court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any person
adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or
Ch. 4
.w utilities in
pecial permit
nditioned for
st determine
,neralizations
ate regulato-
nption in the
:tance to find
,-egulates..4 A
ould destroy
is tendency.is
· preemption
~e general or
extent that a
question is
c service re-
government
"illingness to
.tic statutory
~ublic service
rations that
: rationale, a
a municipal
ion, may be
~f a preemp-
~ for uniform
ty v. Potomac
. 511, 525, 573
iing that with
the need for a
pparent in the
~tute).
nsylvania stat-
tion, regarding
lations of this
~ Co. v. Rosen-
(.S.2d 895, 898,
); New Bruns-
. v. Old Bridge
Super. 122, 636
onwealth, Pub-
rCH Communi-
351 A.2d 328
v. Department
667, 680, 322
Attachment E
§ 4.25
GOVERNMENTAL AND COMMUNITY USES
129
tion determinationY Many disputed classifications involve radio and
other communication facilities, and the case results vary.z°
Even if an entity is not a public utility under state utility law, it may
meet the definition of a public utility for state zoning law purposes and
be entitled to preferential treatment. Several states regard public utili-
ties as "inherently beneficial" uses and, as such, they subject them to a
more lenient test for the purposes of obtaining a variance.n The fact that
an entity is not a public utility for state utility law purposes also does
not preclude it from meeting the local zoning definition of that use?
C. Cellular Towers and Other Telecommunications Facili-
ties
Cellular telephone towers and other types of telecommunications
facilities are a subject of controversy? The public has shown a strong
appetite for the communications services that the towers enable, and the
number of these towers, which are often three to four hundred feet high,
is increasing in response to the demand. Many neighbors, however,
deplore them. While they may have health concerns,24 the dominant
objection is that the towers are aesthetically offensive.
Federal and state laws limit local control over cellular towers. The
federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 partially preempts zoning of
cellular towers by providing that local zoning may not unreasonably
discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services and
that zoning cannot have the effect of totally prohibiting such services?
19. Planning Bd. of Braintree v. Dep't
of Pub. Utils., 420 Mass. 22, 27, 647 N.E.2d
1186, 1189 (1995).
20. Finding a radio tower to be a pub-
lic utility, see Marano v. Gibbs, 45 Ohio
St.3d 310, 544 N.E.2d 635 (1989). To the
contrary, see Mammina v. Zoning Bd. of
App. of Town of Cortlandt, 110 Misc.2d 534,
442 N.Y.S.2d 689 (1981).
21. Cellular Telephone Co. v. Rosen-
berg, 82 N.Y.2d 364, 604 N.Y,S.2d 895, 624
N.E.2d 990 (1993) (applying "more lenient"
public utility variance standard to cellular
tower). But see Smart SMR of New York,
Inc. v. Bor. of Fair Lawn, 152 N.J. 309, 704
k2d 1271 (1998) (declining to fred mono-
pole inherently beneficial).
22. Finding cellular use to be a public
utility, see Hawk v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of
Butler Twp., 152 Pa. Cmwlth. 48, 618 k2d
1087, 1090 (1992); Payne v. Taylor, 178
kD.2d 979, 578 N.Y.S.2d 327 (1991);
McCaw Communications v. Marion County,
96 Or.App. 552, 773 P.2d 779 (1989) (cellu-
lar use found to be a public utility, but not
a necessary one as required by the ordi-
nance). To the contrary, see Bell Atlantic
Mobile Systems, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd.
of Twp. of O'Hara, 676 A~2d 1255 (Pa.
Cmwlth.1996) (not a public utility where
zoning ordinance did not define the term).
23. As to satellite dish antennas, 47
C.F,R. § 25.104 preempts zoning that mate-
rially limits transmission or increases costs
on users unless the zoning authority can
prove it is reasonable. See Christopher Neu-
mann, Note, FCC Preemption of Zoning
Ordinances that Restrict Satellite Dish An-
tenna Placement: Sound Policy or Legisla-
tive Overkill? 71 St.John's L.Rev. 635
(1997).
The Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47
U.S.C. § 332, does not expressly preempt
local zoning for purposes of regulating digi-
tal television facilities, the next wave of
progress. The FCC, however, may have im-
plied preemption authority. See, e.g., City of
New York v. Federal Communications Com-
mission, 486 U.S. 57, 108 S.Ct. 1637, 100
L.Ed.2d 48 (1988). The wave premises to be
of tidal dimensions, as many existing broad-
casting towers are loaded to capacity.
24. See Hawk v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of
Butler Twp., 152 Pa. Cmwlth. 48, 618 A.2d
1087, 1090 (1992) (upholding finding that
tower had no adverse health affects).
25. 47 U.S.C. § 332 (c) (7)(B)(i)(I) and
(II).
130 TYPES OF ZONES & USES Ch. 4
The Act precludes consideration of the environmental effects of radio
frequency emission if the facility complies with federal regulations
concerning such emissions. The Act also provides for expedited judicial
review of adverse rulings by state or local government bodies. In Bell-
South Mobility, Inc. v. Gwinnett County,2s the county denied a request to
build a tower apparently due to neighbors' concerns with safety and
visual incompatibility with surrounding lands. Applying the 1996 act, the
court held these vague, speculative concerns unpersuasive in light of
evidence showing that the departments of public safety and transporta-
tion had no objection and a report from an appraiser that these towers
had no adverse effect on property values.
In addition to federal limits, the power of local authorities to
regulate these uses turns on whether the service provider is exempt
under state law as a public utility. The towers may be treated as
"inherently beneficial" public utilities since mobile telephone service
enhances personal and commercial communications and is valuable for
emergency services.27 In accord with other utility exemption cases dis-
cussed above, if a cellular tower is a public utility under state law, it will
be exempt as others are exempt?s Some states, however, have deprived
cellular transmission facilities of the exemption otherwise afforded to
public utilities.~ Immunity may also be issue specific. In New Jersey, for
example, a state statute precludes zoning authorities from considering
electromagnetic radiation effects?
Even if not public utilities under state utility law, cellular towers
may be treated as public utilities for state and local zoning law purposes
and be entitled to the preferential treatment they afford to such uses.
The New York Court of Appeals, for example, has found the towers to
be"inherently beneficial" uses subject to a relaxed variance test.3~ Sever-
al courts also have found cellular towers to qualify as public utilities
under local law.32
D. Undergrounding Utility Lines
Another issue of controversy is whether local government can re-
quire utilities to underground their services. Aesthetics generally is the
reason undergrounding is desired, though issues of safety may also be
alleged. Cost is the problem from the utilities' perspective. In a Missouri
26. 944 F.Supp. 923 (N.D.Ga.1996).
See Sprint Spectrum, L.P.v. City of Medi-
na, 924 F.Supp. 1036 (W.D.Wa. 1996).
27. See cases cited supra notes 21-22.
28. Oldham County Planning & Zon-
ing Comm'n v. Courier Communications
Corp., 722 S.W.2d 904 (Ky.App. 1987) (hold-
ing that a mobile telephone service seeking
to construct a 290 foot tower is a public
utility and exempt by state statute).
29. Ohio Rev. Code § 519.211 (B) (spe-
cifically conferring power on local govern-
ment over cellular services); Pa. Cons. Stat.
§ 102(2)(iv).
30. N. J. Stat. Ann. § 26:2D 1 to 88,
discussed in New Brunswick Cellular Tele-
phone Co. v. Old Bridge Twp. Planning Bd.,
270 N.J.Super. 122, 636 A.2d 588, 596
(1993).
31. Cellular Telephone Co. v. Rosen-
berg, 82 N.Y.2d 364, 604 N.Y.S.2d 895, 624
N.E.2d 990 (1993) (applying "more lenient"
public utility variance standard to cellular
tower). But see Smart SMR of New York,
Inc. v. Borough of Fair Lawn Bd. of Adj.,
152 N.J. 309, 704 A.2d 1271 (1998) (declin-
ing to find monopole inherently beneficial).
32. See supra § 4.25B.
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CORRESPONDENCE FROM RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DIS't'RICT
TO LARRY LEDOUX DATED DECEMBER 21, 1998
R:~TAFFRPT~219ps98 ]~C STAFF REK)RT 2.doc
13
D,ul~ I(ulber~
· h.tTrp> I.. ;~Hnkler
December 21, 1998
Mr. Louis L. Lidoux
32004 Merlot Crest
Temecula, CA 92591
SUBJECT: ANTENNA
RESERVOIR SITE
INSTALLATION AT GENERAL KEARNEY
Dear Mr, Lidoux:
In regard to your concerns about antenna installations at Rancho California
Water District's (RCWD) General Kearney Reservoir site, I can assure you that
there are presently no plans or applications for any facilities beyond those of Cox
P.C.S., Assets, L.L.C., which are currently being reviewed by the Temec61a
Planning Commission.
Should there be any such applications in the future, their approval would be
subject to the approval of the RCWD Board of Directors at a public meeting with
the opportunity for any public comment that may be forthcoming.
I have instructed my staff that you should be notified of any such item that may
come before the Board of Directors.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
John F. Hennigar
General Manager
CC:
RCWD Board of Directors
Ms. Carol Donahoe, City of Temecula Planning Department
U:~,DMIN\WORDPROC\LINDA98\98335.DOC
"i; it, DE B 19
I{ancha C,dlfornia t, Villr(.r Distract
RW~G OC Fax:?14-9906230 Feb 4 '99 11:38 P. 02
e~ENC~.~ L, olEOG~Ci"~
PAU~ ~_t~l~t~l~2 BAI22A
RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
A"I'ro RNEYS AT LAW
NUMBER ONE CIVIC CENTER CIRCLE
BREA, CALIFORNIA
POST OFFICE BOX 10-59
BREA, CALIFORNIA 92l~92-105~.
(7 14) 9'eQ-oeo ,i
FACSIMILE (714) 990-6230
February 4, 1999
(lelG-18~81)
F~IMI~ (143) G~Te
~ F~CISCO OFF~E
FO~-F~ MO~QOME~
(41~
] ~08~0~ ~
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, Ca. 92590
Appeal of Conditional Use Permit for Cox PCS Facility--Federal
Preemption of State and Local Regulations and Ordinances.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
This letter is to provide a brief overview regarding the applicability of federal
law to state and local regulations and ordinances and in particular the application of the
federal Telecommtmications Act of 1996 to the application of Cox Communication's
application for a conditional use perufit for a PCS facility.
In 1996 the United States Congress enacted the "Telecommunications Act of
1996," Pub. L. No- 104-104, 110 Slat. 56, codified at various sections of Title 47 of the
U.S. Code. This statute expressly limits the ability of state and local governments to enact
regulations in the area of mobile telecommunication services. With regard to cellular towers
or personal wireless service facilities, 47 U.S_C. § 332 (c)(7)(B)(iv) expressly preempts local
and state regulation. This statute states:
"No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may
regulate the placement, construction, and modification of
personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent
that such facilities comply with the Conunission's regulations
concerning such emissions."
R~&G OC Fax:714-9906230 Feb 4 '99 11:38 P. 03
RICHARD,19, WATSON & GER8HON
February3, 1999
Page 2
Under decisions of the United States Supreme Court dating back the earliest
days of the Constitution and continuing to the present, federal law supersedes or "preempts"
state and local laws which are in conflict with it.
Federal preemption arises out of the Supremacy Clause of the United States
Constitution, which provides that the Constitution and laws of the United States shall
supersede any state or local law to the contrary. See U.S. Const. art. VI, § 4, cl.2. Article
VI of the U.S. Constitution provides!
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or
which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,
shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every
State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution of
the Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Thus, state laws and local laws which conflict with the provisions of the U.S.
Constitution or laws passed by the federal government are preempted by the federal laws.
See McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 4 LEd. 579 (1819) and Free v. Bland, 369 U.S.
663 (1962) (holding that "It]he relative importance to the State of its own law is not material
when there is a conflict with a valid federal law .... [A]ny state law, however clearly
within a State's acknowledged power, which interferes with or is contrary to federal law,
must yield." Accordingly, any state or local regulation which conflicts with or is contrary to
_federal law must.also_yield to the federal law.
Preemption may he inferred when Congress legislates comprehensively in a
particular area, thus occupying an entire field of regulation. In addition, preemption may be
inferred when a local regulation is in actual conflict with the federal law and thus impedes
the accomplishment of the purpose and objectives of the federal law at issue.
Courts have stricken numerous local regulations that conflict with federal laws
on the grounds that such regulations are preempted by federal legislation. For example, in
Hunter v. City of Whittier, 209 Cal,App.3d 588 (1989), the Court of Appeal struck down an
Ordinance of the City of Whittier which required city residents to obtain a conditional use
permit in order to install a satellite television receiving antenna. The California Court of
Appeal held that the ordinance conflicted with the Federal Communications Commission
C FCC") order preempting local regulations of satellite antennas which are inconsistent with
the FCC order requiring that local regulations contain "reasonable and clearly defined
aesthetic objectives." See Hunter, 209 Cal. App.3d 588, 597. The City of Whittier's satellite
nrdinance did not contain specific screening or placement. requirements for satellite television
receiving antennas, and thus, conflicted with the federal order.
R~&G OC Fax:?14-9906230 Feb 4 '99 11:39 P. 04
RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
February 3, 1999
Page 3
As discussed above, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-
104, 110 Stat. 56, codified at various sections of Title 47 of the U.S. Code, expressly limits
the ability of state and local governments to enact regulations in the area of mobile
tilecommunication services.
Accordingly, state and local governments may not regulate the placement of
wireless service facilities based on the environmental effects of the r'a. lio frequency emissions
produced by such facilities if these emissions comply with the federal standards. Any state
or local regulations imposing different or greater restrictions from the federal standards
regarding the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions would be in direct conflict
with 47 U.S.C. § 332 (c)(7)(B)(iv). Thus, such a regulation would be preempted by federal
law and would be invalid.
mc.
If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesRate to call
CC.
Shawn Nelson
Jim O'Grady
Gary Thornlffil
Debbie Ubnoske
Peter M. Thorson, Esq.
Very truly yours,
ITEM
APPROVAL E~
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
February 2, 1999
Award of Construction Contract for Pala Road Bridge Project - Project No.
PW97-15, Federal Project No. BRLS-5459(003)
PREPARED BY:
~William G. Hughes, Senior Engineer - Capital Projects
RECO M M ENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Receive an oral report on the bids received February 4, 1999.
Award a construction contract for the Pala Road Bridge Project, Project No. PW97-15
Federal Project No. BRLS-5459(003) and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract.
Authorize the Acting City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency
amount of 10% of the contract amount.
BACKGROUND: On October 13, 1998 the City Council approved the solicitation for public
construction bids for the Pala Road Bridge improvements. This project will include grading, new
bridge, storm drains, curb and gutter, medians, a new traffic signal at Rainbow Canyon Road,
pavement transitions to Highway 79 South and demolition of the existing bddge. Construction of the
new bridge and improvements will take approximately 14 months. The contractor is required to
complete Phase I by December 1999, which will move traffic to the new bddge. Two lanes of traffic
will be maintained on Pala Road during construction. The plans and specifications are available for
inspection in the office of the Director of Public Works. The engineer's construction estimate for this
project is $4,582,000.00.
FISCALIMPACT:
The Pala Road Bridge Capital Improvement Project is funded with Federal Highway Administration
Funds/Bureau of Indian Affairs Funds, Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation
Funds, Capital Project Reserves and Developer Impact Fees. Adequate funds are available for this
work in Account No. 210-165-631-5804.
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed Contract Form
Project Lane Configurations
~\TEMEC ,FS201 \DATA\DEPTS%PW\AGDRPT\99\0209\PW97-16.AWD.DOC
k
\
\
\
k
/
/
CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRACT
FOR
PROJECT NO. PW97-15
PALA ROAD BRIDGE
THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 9th day of February, 1999, by and between
the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and
, hereinafter referred to as
"CONTRACTOR."
WITNESSETH:
That CITY and CONTRACTOR, for the consideration hereinafter named, mutually agree as
follows:
1.a.
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. PW97-15, PALA ROAD
BRIDGE, 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 Amedcan Associated General Contractors of Califomia (hereina~er, "Standard
Specifications") as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and
Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO. PW97-15, PALA ROAD BRIDGE. 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. PW97-15, PALA ROAD
BRIDGE.
In case of conflict between the Standard Specifications (Green Book) and the other Contract
Documents, the other Contract Documents shall take precedence over, and be used in lieu
of, such conflicting portions.
Where the Contract 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.
CONTRACT
CA-01
\\TEMEC FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PW\CIP\PROJECTS\PW97\PW97-15\COSTRUCTIONCONTRACT. DO
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. PW97-15, PALA ROAD BRIDGE
All of said work to be performed and materials to be furnished shall be in strict accordance
with the Drawings and Specifications and the Special 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:
DOLLARS and
the total amount of the base bid.
CENTS ($ ),
CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed THREE HUNDRED
AND FORTY-SIX (346) working days, commencing with delivery of a Notice to Proceed by
CITY. Construction shall not commence until bonds and insurance are approved by CITY.
CHANGE ORDERS. All change orders shall be approved by the City Council, except that
the City Manager is hereby authorized by the City Council to make, by wdtten order, changes
or additions to the work in an amount not to exceed the contingency as established by the
City Council.
PAYMENTS.
Ao
Before submittal of the first payment request, the CONTRACTOR shall submit to the
City Engineer a schedule of values allocated to the various portions of the work,
prepared in such form and supported by such data to substantiate its accuracy as the
City Engineer may require. This schedule, as approved by the City Engineer, shall
be used as the basis for reviewing the CONTRACTOR's payment requests.
Pursuant to Section 20104.50 of the Public Contracts Code, within thirty (30) days
after submission of a payment request to the CITY, the CONTRACTOR shall be paid
a sum equal to ninety percent (90%) of the value of the work completed according
to the bid schedule. Payment request forms shall be submitted on or about the
thirtieth (30th) day of each successive month as the work progresses. The final
payment, if unencumbered, or any part thereof unencumbered, shall be made sixty
(60) days after acceptance of final payment and the CONTRACTOR filing a one-year
Warranty and an Affidavit of Final Release with the CITY on forms provided by the
CITY.
Payments shall be made on demands drawn in the manner required by law,
accompanied by a certificate signed by the City Manager, stating that the work for
which payment is demanded has been performed in accordance with the terms of the
CA-O2
\~TEMEC _FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PW\CIP\PROJECTS\PW97\pW97-15\COSTRUCTIONCONTRACT.DO
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:
10.
CONTRACT
CONTRACT AMOUNT
$25,000- $75,000
$75,000- $500,000
Over$500,000
RETENTION PERIOD
180 days
180 days
One Year
RETENTION PERCENTAGE
3%
$2,250 + 2% of amount in
excess of $75,000
$10,750 + 1% of amount in
excess of $500,000
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES - EXTENSION OF TIME. In accordance with Government Code
Section 53069.85, CONTRACTOR agrees to forfeit and pay to CITY the sum of one
thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per day for each calendar day completion is delayed beyond
the time allowed pursuant to Paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum shall be deducted from
any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. Such sum shall be deducted
from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR will be
granted an extension of time and will not be assessed liquidated damages for unforeseeable
delays beyond the control of, and without the fault or negligence of, the CONTRACTOR
including delays caused by CITY. CONTRACTOR is required to promptly notify CITY of any
such delay.
WAIVER OF CLAIMS. On or before making each request for payment under Paragraph 6
above, CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY, in writing, all claims for compensation as to
work related to the payment. Unless the CONTRACTOR has disputed the amount of the
payment, the acceptance by CONTRACTOR of each payment shall constitute a release of
all claims against the CITY related to the payment. CONTRACTOR shall be required to
execute an affidavit, release, and indemnity agreement with each claim for payment.
PREVAILING WAGES. The Contractor is hereby notified that this project is subject to
Federal and State prevailing wage guidelines as referenced in the Wage Guideline sections
of the Contract Specifications. Where both Federal and State Guidelines are listed, the
greater of the two listed general prevailing wages shall apply. The prime Contractor and all
subcontractors shall pay their laborers and mechanics employed under this Contract, a wage
not less than the wage applicable for their work classification, as specified in the wage
guidelines contained in the specifications and comply with all applicable reporting
requirements.
CA-03
\~TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PW\CIP\PROJECTS\PW97\PW97-15\COSTRUCTIONCONTRACT,DO
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the
City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate
for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman
needed to execute this Contract, from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations.
These rates are on file with the City Clerk. Copies may be obtained at cost at the City Clerk's
office of Temecula. CONTRACTOR shall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and
shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONTRACTOR shall comply
with the provisions of Sections 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor
Code.
Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, CONTRACTOR shall forfeit to the
CITY, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each
laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any
work done under this Contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the
provisions of the Contract.
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 indemnifi/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 secudng 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.
CONTRACT
NOTICE TO CITY OF LABOR DISPUTES. Whenever CONTRACTOR has knowledge that
any actual or potential labor dispute is delaying or threatens to delay the timely performance
of the Contract, CONTRACTOR shall immediately give notice thereof, including all relevant
information with respect thereto, to CITY.
CA-O4
\\TEMEC FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PW\CIP\PROJECTS\PW97\PW97-15\COSTRUCTIONCONTRACT.DO
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
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
CONTRACT
CA-O5
\\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PW\CIP\PROJECTS\PW97\PW97-15\COSTRUCTIONCONTRACT,DO
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the date
first above written.
DATED:
CONTRACTOR
Name
Address
City
Phone
By:
Print or type NAME
Print or type TITLE
DATED:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
Steven J. Ford, Mayor
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
CONTRACT
CA-06
\\TEMEC_FS 201 \DATA\DE PTS\PW\CIF~PROJECTS\PW97\PW97-15\COSTRU CTIONCONTRACT. DO
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
FOR
AGENDA ITEM NO. 27
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA REPORT
City ManagefiCity Council
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
February 9, 1999
Award of Construction Contract for Pala Road Bridge Project - Project No.
PW97-15, Federal Project No. BRLS-5459(003)
PREPARED BY~l~liam G. Hughes, Senior Engineer- Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
1. Award a construction contract for the Pala Road Bddge Project, Project No. PW97-15 to Granite
Construction Company in the amount of $4,398,574.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the
contract.
Authorize the Acting City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency
amount of $439,857.40, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount.
BACKGROUND: Six (6) bids for the project were publicly opened on February 4, 1999.
The results of the bids are as follows:
1. Granite Construction Co ............. ........................................................$4,398,574.00
2. Road Builders, Inc .............................................................................$4,412,342.81
3. Riverside Construction Co ................................................................$4,577,777.00
4. Wier Construction Corp .....................................................................$4,617,596.39
5. Griffith Company ...............................................................................$4,634606.33
6. Reyes Construction ...........................................................................$5,159,876.82
The engineer's estimate is $4,562,000.00. Granite Construction Company has extensive experience
in the construction of large public works projects. They have completed similar projects valued up to
100 million dollars. Specific projects consisted of bridge construction, highway construction and road
repairs & widening.
The construction period for this project is 346 working days. Phase I includes moving traffic to the new
bridge in December 1999. Construction is expected to begin in March, 1999.
A copy of the bid summary is available for review in the office of the Director of Public Works.
%\TEMEC FS201 ~DATA\DEPTS\PW~AGDRPT~99\0209\PW97-15.AWD SUPPLEMENTAL.DOC
FISCAL IMPACT: The Pala Road Bridge Capital Improvement Project is funded with Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Funds, Capital Project Reserves
and Development Impact Fees. The total construction amount is $4,838,431.40 which includes the
contract amount of $4,398,574.00 plus the 10% contingency amount of $436,857.40. Adequate funds
are available for this project in Account No. 210-165-631-5804.
ATTACHMENT: Contract
\\TEMEC FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PW\AGDRPT\99\0209',PW97-15.AWD SUPPLEMENTAL.DOC
CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRACT
FOR
PROJECT NO. PW97-15
PALA ROAD BRIDGE
THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 9th day of February, 1999, by and between the
City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and GRANITE
CONSTRUCTION, hereina~er referred to as "CONTRACTOR."
WITNESSETH:
That CITY and CONTRACTOR, for the consideration hereina~er named, mutually agree as
follows:
1.a.
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. PW97-15, PALA ROAD
BRIDGE, 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 wdtten and
promulgated by the Joint Cooperative Committee of the Southern California Chapter of the
Amedcan Associated General Contractors of California (hereinafter, "Standard Specifications")
as amended by the General Spedfications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for
PROJECT NO. PW97-15, PALA ROAD BRIDGE. Copies of these Standard Spedfications 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. PW97-15, PALA ROAD
BRIDGE.
In case of conflict between the Standar;:l Specifications (Green Book) and the other Contract
Documents, the other Contract Documents shall take precedence over, and be used in lieu of,
such conflicting portions.
Where the Contract 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.
CONTRACT CA-01
R:\CIP\PROJECTS\PW97\PW97-15\COSTRUCTIONCONTRACT. DO
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. PW97-15, PALA ROAD BRIDGE
All of said work to be performed and materials to be fumished shall be in strict accordance with
the Drawings and Spedfications and the Spedal 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: FOUR MILLION THREE
HUNDRED NIGHTY EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY FOUR DOLLARS and
NO CENTS ($4,398,574.00), the total amount of the base bid.
CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed THREE HUNDRED AND
FORTY-SIX (346) working days, commencing with delivery of a Notice to Proceed by CITY.
Construction shall not commence until bonds and insurance are approved by CITY.
CHANGE ORDERS. All change orders shall be approved by the City Council, except that the
City Manager is hereby authorized by the City Council to make, by written order, changes or
additions to the work in an amount not to exceed the contingency as established by the City
Council.
PAYMENTS.
Before submittal of the first payment request, the CONTRACTOR shall submit to the City
Engineer a schedule of values allocated to the various portions of the work, prepared
in such form and supported by such data to substantiate its accuracy as the City
Engineer may require. This schedule, as approved by the City Engineer, shall be used
as the basis for reviewing the CONTRACTOR's payment requests.
Pursuant to Section 20104.50 of the Public Contracts Code, within thirty (30) days after
submission of a payment request to the CITY, the CONTRACTOR shall be paid a sum
equal to ninety percent (90%) of the value of the work completed according to the bid
schedule. Payment request forms shall be submitted on or about the thirtieth (30th) day
of each successive month as the work progresses. The final payment, if
unencumbered, or any part thereof unencumbered, shall be made sixty (60) days after
acceptance of final payment and the CONTRACTOR filing a one-year Warranty and an
Affidavit of Final Release with the CITY on forms provided by the CITY.
Payments shall be made on demands drawn in the manner required by law,
accompanied by a certificate signed by the City Manager, stating that the work for which
payment is demanded has been performed in accordance with the terms of the Contract,
and that the amount stated in the certificate is due under the terms of the Contract.
CONTRACT CA-02
R:\CIF~PROJECTS\PW97\PW97-15\COSTRUCTIONCONTRACT.DO
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:
,
10.
CONTRACT AMOUNT RETENTION PERIOD RETENTION PERCENTAGE
$25,000- $75,000 180 days 3%
$75,000-$500,000
180 days
$2,250 + 2% of amount in
excess of $75,000
Over$500,000
One Year
$10,750 + 1% of amount in
excess of $500,000
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES - EXTENSION OF TIME. In accordance with Government Code
Section 53069.85, CONTRACTOR agrees to forfeit and pay to CITY the sum of one thousand
dollars ($1,000.00) per day for each calendar day completion is delayed beyond the time allowed
pursuant to Paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due
to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due
to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR will be granted an extension of time
and will not be assessed liquidated damages for unforeseeable delays beyond the control of,
and without the fault or negligence of, the CONTRACTOR including delays caused by CITY,
CONTRACTOR is required to promptly notify CITY of any such delay.
WAIVER OF CLAIMS. On or before making each request for payment under Paragraph 6
above, CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY, in writing, all claims for compensation as to work
related to the payment. Unless the CONTRACTOR has disputed the amount of the payment,
the acceptance by CONTRACTOR of each payment shall constitute a release of all claims
against the CITY related to the payment. CONTRACTOR shall be required to execute an
affidavit, release, and indemnity agreement with each claim for payment.
PREVAILING WAGES. The Contractor is hereby notified that this project is subject to Federal
and State prevailing wage guidelines as referenced in the Wage Guideline sections of the
Contract Specifications. Where both Federal and State Guidelines are listed, the greater of the
two listed general prevailing wages shall apply. The prime Contractor and all subcontractors
shall pay their laborers and mechanics employed under this Contract, a wage not less than the
wage applicable for their work classification, as specified in the wage guidelines contained in
the specifications and comply with all applicable reporting requirements.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City
Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for
holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman
CONTRACT CA-03
R:\CIP\PROJECTS\PW97\PW97*15\COSTRUCTIONCONTRACT. DO
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 podion 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 secudng 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 assodated 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 LABOR DISPUTES. Whenever CONTRACTOR has knowledge that any
actual or potential labor dispute is delaying or threatens to delay the timely performance of the
Contract, CONTRACTOR shall immediately give notice thereof, including all relevant information
with respect thereto, to CITY.
17.
BOOKS AND RECORDS. CONTRACTOR's books, records, and plans or such part thereof as
may be engaged in the performance of this Contract, shall at all reasonable times be subject to
inspection and audit by any authorized representative of the CITY.
CONTRACT CA-04
R:\CIP\PROJECTS\PW97\PW97-15\COSTRUCTtONCONTRACT. DO
18.
19.
20.
21.
22
INSPECTION. The work shall be subject to inspection and testing by CITY and its authorized
representatives dudng 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 conceming
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.
WRITFEN 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
CONTRACT CA-O5
R:\CIP\PROJECTS\PW97\PW97-15\COSTRUCTIONCONTRACT. DO
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the date first
above written.
DATED:
CONTRACTOR
Granite Construction
P.O. Box 5005-9
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
(760) 735-2879
By:
Print or type NAME
Print or type TITLE
DATED:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
Steven J, Ford, Mayor
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
CONTRACT CA-06
R:\CIP\PROJECTS\PW97\PW97-15\COSTRUCTIONCONTRACT.DO
AMENDED
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
FOR
AGENDA ITEM NO. 27
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAI.~
CITY A'FFORNEY
DIRECTOR Of FINA
CiTY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
(~oseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
February 9, 1999
Award of Construction Contract for Pala Road Bridge Project - Project No.
PW97-15, Federal Project No. BRLS-5459(003)
PREPARED BY: William G. Hughes, Senior Engineer - Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
Award a construction contract for the Pala Road Bridge Project, Project No. PW97-15 to
Granite Construction Company in the amount of $4,398,574.00 and authorize the Mayor
to execute the contract.
Authorize the Acting City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency
amount of $439,857.40, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount.
Accelerate the funding by transferring the budgeted amounts in FY 1999-2000 to FY 1998-
1999. The total amount of transfer is $4,600,700.00 to the various accounts as follows:
Environmental
Administration
Construction
$780,000.00
- $820,700.00
$3,000,000.00
BACKGROUND: Six (6) bids for the project were publicly opened on February 4, 1999.
The results of the bids are as follows:
1. Granite Construction Co ............................................................$4,398,574.00
2. Road Builders, Inc .....................................................................$4,412,342.81
3. Riverside Construction Co .........................................................$4,577,777.00
4. Wier Construction Corp .............................................................$4,617,596.39
5. Griffith Company ........................................................................$4,634606.33
6. Reyes Construction ...................................................................$5,159,876.82
The engineer's estimate is $4,562,000.00. Granite Construction Company has extensive
experience in the construction of large public works projects. They have completed similar projects
\~TEMEC_FS201 ~,DATA~DEPTS\F~AAGDRPT~99\0209\P/V97-15.AWD SUPPLEMENTAL. DOC
valued up to 1 O0 million dollars. Specific projects consisted of bridge construction, highway
construction and road repairs & widening.
The construction period for this project is 346 working days. Phase I includes moving traffic to the
new bridge in December 1999. Construction is expected to begin in March, 1999.
A copy of the bid summary is available for review in the office of the Director of Public Works.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Pala Road Bridge Capital Improvement Project is funded with Bureau
of Indian Affairs, Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Funds, Capital Project
Reserves and Development Impact Fees. The total construction amount is $4,838,431.40 which
includes the contract amount of $4,398,574.00 plus the 10% contingency amount of $436,857.40.
Adequate funds, with the proposed acceleration and transfers as recommended, are available for
this project in Account No. 210-165-631-5804.
ATTACHMENT: Contract
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEFTS\PVV',AGDRPT\99\O209\F~N97-15AWD SUPPLEMENTAL.DOC