The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About041399 CC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE APRIL '13, '1999 - 7:00 P.M. one:. Agency =of=ffie Cl~?df'Te~'ecula.and Dual .Dey~l'd~ffi~t~,d~pah~, .Ed.~an'd=. K~thleen intere,~ prq:pQS~d.~:tO.be conveyed anWor acquired. ':fhe:AgenCyiCi~' nego~i. ators are Shawn Nblsdn, ~mes O'Grady, and John Meyer. 2. Conference .With real property negotiator purs.uant to Government Code Section 54956:8 concerning the acquisition of real. property. located' at 28721 'Front Street, Temecuia (Aj~N922-073-017, 922-04S-022,' anti 9:22-073:0=24). The negotiating parties :are the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula 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. 3. Conference with real property pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning. the leasing of real property located at Temecula Mercantile Building, 42051 .M~.in Street, Temecula. The negotiating .parties .are the .City of TemeCula and the Temecula Chamber of Commerce. 'Under negotiation are the price and~...t~rms of payment of the real property interests proposed to be conveyed and/or acquired. The City negotiato~fS are Shawn. Nelson and James O'Grady. 4. ConferenCe with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956;9(a)with respect to one matter of. exiSting litigation involving the City and/or the Agency. The following claim will be dis'cuSsed: Westside City, LLC. R:%Agenda\041399 1 CloSed' session ~' ContinL~d 5. Conference with City Attorney end legal counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956,9(b) and (c) with respect to one matter of potential litigation. With 'respect to 'such matter, the City Attorney has determined that a point has been reached where there is a significant exposure to litigation Involving the City based' on existing facts and circumstances end the City will decide whether to initiate litigation. 6. Discussion of candidates for position 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 prior to 10:00 P.M. and may continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Prelude Music: Invocation: Flag Salute: ROLL CALL: Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 99-11 Resolution: No. 99-27 Matthew Sweeney ~ Reverend Anthony Ferrell of Mountain View Community Church Councilman Roberrs Comerchero, Lindemans, Stone, Roberts, Ford PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Introduction of VoorburG Police DeleGation Certificate of Appreciation to Susie BddGes Boys and Gids Week Proclamation 1998 United Way CampaiGn Awards Certificates of Achievement for obtaining EaGle Scout ~ 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 no__t listed on the agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. R:~Agenda~041399 2 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, then (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be Enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1 Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATON: 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 February 23, 1999; 2.2 Approve the minutes of March 2, 1999. 3 Resolution ADDrovin~ 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 February 28, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of February 28, 1999. R:~genda\041399 3 5 Contract Inspection Services for Building and Safety 6 RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve a First Amendment to an existing Agreement for Consultant Services with JAS Padtic, Inc. in the amount of $44,960 to provide building inspection services to the Building and Safety Department. The total contract amount will be $109,920. Notice of an Addendum of a NeGative Declaration for construction of Ovedand Ddve between Mamadta Road and Jefferson Avenue (Addendure to EA-6) RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the Addendum to the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment Number 6 Revised, the proposed construction of Ovedand Ddve between Margadta Road and Jefferson Avenue. Santa Gertrudis Valley, Mamadta Road - Date Street Storm Drain Line B - Project No. 7-0-0179 - Tract MaD No. 28778 - Cooperative AGreement RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve the Margadta Road - Date Street Storm Drain Line B - Project No. 7-0-0179 - Tract Map No. 28778 - Cooperative Agreement with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the County of Riverside, and Woodside Homes of California, Inc.; 7.2 Authorize the execution of such agreement in its final form by the Mayor, City Attomey, and City Clerk. Tract MaD No. 29033 (located south of La Serena Way, east of Temeku Ddve, west of Meadows Parkway in the Mamadta VillaGe Specific Plan No. 199 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve Tract Map No. 29033 in conformance with the Conditions of Approval; 8.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement; 8.3 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Faithful Performance Bond, Labor and Matedal Bond and Monument Bond as secudty for the agreements. Accept Subdivision Monumentation in Tract No. 23142 (located northeasterly of the intersection of Meadows Parkway at Rancho CalifOmia Road) RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Accept the Subdivision Monumentation in Tract Map No. 23142; 9.2 Authorize the release of the Subdivision Monument Security; R:~,genda~041399 4 9.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. 10 Acceptance of Grant of Easement for Traffic Si.qnal EQuipment GMS Realty, LLC 11 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING A MAINTENANCE EASEMENT FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT AND APPURTENANT STRUCTURES, RELATED TO THE INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND VIA LAS COLINAS National Pollutant Dischame Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Dischar.cle Permit Implementation A.~reement RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCARGE ELIMINIATION SYSTEM STORMWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT AND MAKING FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 12 Professional Services Agreement for Overland Drive Overcrossin.a - Project No. PW95-11 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve a Professional Services Agreement for Structural Bridge Inspection for the Overland Drive Overcrossing - Project No. PW95-11 - to Caltrop Engineering Corporation for $45,408.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract; 12.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $4,540.80 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. R:~Agenda\041399 5 13 14 15 Professional Sewices Aoreement for Pala Road Bddae Improvements - Project No. PVV97-15 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Caltrop Engineedng Corporation in an amount of $60,544.00 for Structural Bddge Inspection for the Pala Road Bddge Improvements- Project No. PW97-15- and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract; 13.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $6,054.40 which is equal to 10% of the agreement amount. Old Town Streetscape Project - Proiect No. PVV97-05 - Pdvate Property Access Improvements RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Approve a contract for miscellaneous work assodated with completing the Old Town Project - Project No. PVV97-05 to Rizzo Construction, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $17,000.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract; 14.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $1,700 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount; Accept Public Improvements in Parcel Map No. 28384 (located at the northeast comer of the intersection of Mamadta Road and Highway 79 South) RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Accept the public improvements in Parcel Map No. 28384; 15.2 Authorize reduction in Faithful Performance secudty to the warranty amount and initiate the one-year warranty pedod; 15.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. 16 Second Readin~l of Ordinance No. 99-08 RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: R:~AgendaM:)41399 6 ORDINANCE NO. 99-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN (NO. I) OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF MARGARITA ROAD AND NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD (SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD) AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 910-'130-056, 910-130-059, 910-130-060, 921-090-052, 921-090-058, 921-090- 059, 92'1-090-060, AND 921-090-061 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0015) 17 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 99-09 RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 99-09 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION NO. 2.40.'100 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO MONTHLY COMPENSATION FOR CITY COMMISSIONERS 18 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 99-10 RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 99-'10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING STORMWATER URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT AND DISCHARGE CONTROLS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE NATIONAL PLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PROGRAM AS AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 8 OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY R:~Agenda\041399 7 Next in Order: Ordinance: No. CSD 99-01 Resolution: No. CSD 99-04 CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone, Comerchero PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Board of Directors on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of February 23, 1999; 1.2 Approve the minutes of March 2, 1999. R:~Agenda\041399 8 2 Award of Construction Contract for the Rotan/Park Imc~rovement Proiect - Proiect No. PVV98-O9CSD - for the Temecula Community Center RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Award a construction contract for the Rotary Park Improvement Project - Project No. PW98-09CSD - for the Temecula Community Center to J.K. Weigle Engineering Contractor in the amount of $22,561.40 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract; 2.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $2,256.14 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. PUBLIC HEARING 3 Crowne Hill/Tract No, 23143 - Public Headno for Sen/ice Level B, Sen/ice Level C, and Service Level D Rates and CharGes (located on the east side of Butterfield StaGe Road, south of Pauba Road) RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Conduct a Public Headng in connection with the Levy of Service Level B, Service Level C, and Service Level D Rates and Charges, and tabulate written protests; 3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY DISTRICT ADOPTING SERVICE LEVEL B, SERVICE LEVEL C, AND SERVICE LEVEL D RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT NO. 23143 AND ITS SUBSEQUENT PHASES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 3.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ORDERING, CALLING, AND GIVING NOTICE OF AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON JUNE 2, 1999, REGARDING SERVICE LEVEL B AND SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT NO. 23143 AND ITS SUBSEQUENT PHASES IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH SERVICE LEVEL B AND SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIIID, SECTION 6, OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION 3.4 Approve the Election Notice, Ballot, and Procedures for the Completion, Return, and Tabulation of the Ballots. R:',Agenda\041399 9 3.5 Authorize staff to mail the ballots to the affected property owners pursuant to the aforementioned process. DISTRICT BUSINESS 4 Facility Use Agreement- James L. Day Middle School RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve the agreement for the joint use of athletic fields and parking lots at James L. Day Middle School in the Campos Verdes development. The parties to this agreement are the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) and the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD). DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: April 20, 1999, scheduled to follow the City Council Consent Calendar, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:~genda\041399 10 Next in Order: Ordinance: No. RDA 99-01 Resolution: No. RDA 99-06 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Karel Lindemans presiding ROLL CALL AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Ford, Roberts, 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 vour name and address for the record. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve minutes of February 23, 1999; 1.2 Approve minutes of March 2, 1999. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: April 20, 1999, scheduled to follow the Community Services District Meeting, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:~genda\041399 11 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. 19 ADDeal Of the Planning Commission's ApDroval of Planning ADDlicatiOn No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit) - Cox Communications Wireless Personal Communications System (PCS} with antennas mounted atoD a 60-foot high monapole disguised as an evergreen Dine tree {monaDine} at the Rancho California Water Distdct water tank site at 3100 Rancho California Road RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Adopt the Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA98-0219; 19.2 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 COUNCIL BUSINESS 2O Temecula Library Site Selection and ConcaDtual Plan RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Approve the site selection on Pauba Road wast of Parkview Fire Station 84 and preliminary conceptual plan for the Temecula Library; R:%Agenda~)41399 12 20.2 Direct staff to negotiate with LPA for a scope of services and compensation for the completion of schematic design, design development, and construction drawings for the library fadlity. 21 Old Town Redevelopment Advisory Committee Appointment RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 Appoint a member to serve an unexpired term on the Old Town Redevelopment Advisory Committee. 22 Consideration of Sponsorship ReQuest RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 Consider the sponsorship request for the Temecula Valley Film Festival; 22.2 If approved, appropriate $30,000 from the City's unallocated reserves of the General Fund to account no. 0001-111-999-5264. 23 Year 2000 Preparation and ContinQencv Planning RECOMMENDATION: 23.1 Review the City's Y2K compliance efforts; 23.2 Approve going out to bid for two new City Hail servers. 24 Chardonnay Hills Status Report RECOMMENDATION: 24.1 Review and discuss Chardonnay Hills Final Pavement Status Report. 25 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 99-07 RECOMMENDATION: 25.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 99-07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 909- 120-036, 909-120-046, 909-281-016, 910-310-007, 957-291-001 THROUGH 030, 957-292-001 THROUGH 004, 911-170-078, 911- 170-085, AND 911-170-090 (PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA99-0022 AND PA98-0511 ) R:~,genda~041399 13 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Apdl 20, 1999, 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, Califomia. R:~Agenda\041399 14 PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS 0 ITEM I ITEM 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 23, 1999 CLOSED SESSION A meeting of the City of Temecula City Council was called to order at 5:30 P.M. It was duly moved and seconded to adjourn to Closed Session pursuant to Government code Sections: 1. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning the acquisition and/or leasing of real property located at 28464 Front Street at the corner of Sixth Street, Temecula. The negotiating parties are the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and Dual Development Company, Ed and Kathleen Dool. Under negotiation is the price and terms of payment to the real property interests proposed to be conveyed and/or acquired. The Agency/City negotiators are Shawn Nelson, James O'Grady, and John Meyer. 2. 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, 922-046-022, and 922-073-024). The negotiating parties are the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula 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. 3. Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) with respect to one matter of existing litigation involving the City. The following cases/claims will be discussed: (a) Guidant Inc./Advanced Cardio Vascular Co.; and (b) Claim of Westside City II, LLC (Dendy). 4. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning leasing of real property located at 27500 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula. The negotiating parties are the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and Norm Reeves Honda, Donna L. Reeves Trust and Richardson RV. Under negotiation is the price and terms of payment to the real property interests proposed to be conveyed. The Agency negotiators are Shawn Nelson, James O'Grady, and John Meyer. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers: Comerchero, Lindemans, Stone, and Ford. Absent: Councilmember: Roberts. PRELUDE MUSIC The prelude music was provided by Katie Walsh. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Councilman Lindemans. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Councilman Comerchero. PRESENTATIONSIPROLCAMATIONS Certificate of Appreciation to Sheriff/Coroner Larry D. Smith Due to the absence of Sheriff/Coroner Larry D. Smith, the aforementioned presentation was postponed. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Ao Councilman Comerchero relayed the success of the Rod Run Event in Old Town Temecula, commending Mayor Ford and the Temecula Town Association for their efforts associated with the project. Mayor Ford, additionally, expressed thanks to Police Captain LaBahn, the Police Department, the Police Reserves, the Cadets, the Sheriffs posse, Boy Scout Troop No. 309, and the numerous volunteers who contributed their invaluable support to make the event successful. With regard to the Library Project, Mayor Pro Tem Stone noted that the associated Subcommittee is in the process of forming a recommendation, regarding proposals for the library which will be forwarded to the City Council. Director of Community Services Parker specified that the aforementioned Subcommittee's recommendation will be presented to the Community Services Commission on March 8, 1999, and to the City Council at the first meeting in April. C, Councilman Stone advised that in March, various Councilmembers will be attending the National League of Cities Meeting, meeting with the City's lobbyist, advising that investigation of obtaining Federal funding for the Temecula Library Project will be addressed. As part of the Erase It Program, enforcing responsible alcoholic consumption, Mayor Pro Tem Stone relayed that the Police Department arrested seven individuals under the influence of alcohol this month, commending Police Captain LaBahn and the Police Department for their assiduousness efforts associated with implementation of the program. Mayor Ford relayed that Councilman Roberts was absent due to a death in the family, relaying that the Council's prayers were with him during this time. Mayor Ford noted that Councilman Roberts had been appointed to as the District Representative to Southern California's Area Government Regional Council for District No. 5. For community informational purposes, Mayor Ford noted that the Temecula Community Partnership Agency for the Temecula Unified School District will be holding a community forum on Drugs and Youth, relaying that Law Enforcement Officers will discuss drugs, 3 4 5 paraphernalia, gangs, and other associated topics, equipping parents and teens with the knowledge to aid in beingable to say, "No," to drugs. CONSENT CALENDAR 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. Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of January 26, 1999. Resolution Approving List of Demand RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A Records Destruction Approval RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve the scheduled destruction of certain City records in accordance with the City of Temecula approved Records Retention Policy. Approval of 1998-99 Mid-Year Budget Adjustments RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1998-99 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET Adopt a resolution entitled: 5.2 RESOLUTION NO. 99-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, REVISING THE SCHEDULE OF AUTHORIZED POSITIONS 6 Contract for User Fee Study and Revised Development Impact Fee ('DIF) Study RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the contract with David M. Griffith and Associates (DMG) to conduct a user fee study and revised DIF study in an amount of $39,500. Consent Calendar Item No. 6 was pulled for separate discussion; see page 6. 7 State Historical Desiqnation for Burnham Store (Temecula Mercantile) recommendation: RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Authorize the State Historical Designation for the Burnham Store (known as the Temecula Mercantile) to be able to send the attached letter of support (which is under the Mayor's signature) forwarding the Point of Historical Interest Application to the State Office of Historic Preservation after the seismic retrofit and tenant improvements are completed. Mayor Pro Tem Stone abstained with regard to this Item. Approval of the Appeal and Approval of Planning Commission's Denial of Planninq Application No. PA98-0347 (Development Plan) - The desiqn, construction, and operation of 15 speculative industrial/manufacturing/office buildin.qs totalinq 81,885 square feet located on two parcels consistin.q of 6.02 acres with associated parking RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE APPEAL AND PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0347 DEVELOPMENT PLAN - THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF 15 SPECULATIVE INDUSTRIAL, MANUFACTURING, OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 81,886 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 921-400-04 l0 11 12 Release Traffic Si~nalization Mitigation Security in Parcel Map No. 28384 ('located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Hi.clhwaV 79 S at Margarita Road) RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Authorize release of the Traffic Signalization Mitigation Security in Parcel Map No. 28384; 9.2 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the developer and surety. Accept Subdivision Monumentation in Tract No. 23371-1 ('located northwesterly of the intersection of Rancho California Road at Meadows Parkway) RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Accept Subdivision Monumentation in Tract No. 23371-1; 10.2 Authorize release of the Subdivision Monumentation security; 10.3 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the developer and surety. Accept Subdivision Monumentation in Tract No. 23371-2 ('located northwesterly of the intersection of Meadows Parkway at Rancho California Road) RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Accept Subdivision Monumentation in Tract No. 23371-2; 11.2 Authorize release of the Subdivision Monument security; 11.3 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the developer and surety. Reimbursement A.clreement with Rancho California Water District Duck Pond Improvement Project - Project No. PW97 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve the attached reimbursement agreement with Rancho California Water District (RCWD) for the cost to relocate existing water improvements necessary for the construction of Duck Pond Improvement Project - Project No. PW97-17 - and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement; 12.2 Increase the Construction Contingency amount by $5,100.00 to cover additional work; 12.3 Approve an appropriation of $5,100.00 from Reimbursement Revenue to the project account. 13 Completion and Acceptance of the Winchester Road Sidewalk- Project No. PW97-19 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Accept the Winchester Road Sidewalk - Project No. PW97-19; 13,2 File Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one-year (1) Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract; 13.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. 14 Professional Services Afireement with T Y Linn International for Brid.Qe Structural Construction Support for the Pala Road Brid.qe - Project No. PW97-15 RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Approve a Professional Services Agreement with T Y Linn International in an amount not to exceed $36,500 for bridge structural construction support for Pala Road Bridge - Project No. PW97-15 - and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract; 14.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of 10% of the agreement amount. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-5, and 7-14. (Item No. 6 pulled for separate discussion.) The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Councilman Roberts who was absent, and Mayor Pro Tem Stone who abstained with regard to Item No. 7. Consent Calendar Item Under Separate Discussion 6 Contract for User Fee Study and Revised Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study 6.1 RECOMMENDATION: Approve the contract with David M. Griffith and Associates (DMG) to conduct a user fee study and revised DIF study in an amount of $39,500. Director of Finance Roberts presented the staff report (per agenda material.) Due to the tremendous growth in Temecula and that of the surrounding areas, Councilman Lindemans recommended that prior to approval of the contract, staff prepare a map encompassing the existing housing dwellings and the proposed housing, in order to facilitate the study enveloping regional growth, in conjunction with Temecula's growth to accurately reflect the impact the surrounding areas will have on Temecula, specifically as it relates to traffic, and the improvements thereof. In concurrence with Councilman Lindemans, Mayor Pro Tem Stone reiterated the recommendation to include the regional growth in the study in order to measure that impact on the City, and to incorporate data reflecting the necessary improvements required for accommodating that growth, to facilitate a process of obtaining outside funding for the aforementioned improvements in order to facilitate a plan whereby the City of Temecula would not be responsible for the sole burden of funding improvements that are due to regional growth. Acting City Manager Nelson advised that the surrounding areas' impact upon the City is currently being addressed via multiple alternate routes; relayed that the City of Temecula has had discussions with Supervisor Buster; advised that the County is receptive to developing a mitigation fee to address the traffic impact incurred from outside the City; noted that, additionally, the recommendation to form a Traffic Management Committee will further address the issue. Therefore, staff recommends that the Council approve the funding for this contract to enable staff to move forward with the completion of this study, while, simultaneously, proactively addressing the developmental impact occurring outside the City through the process of working with the County, the surrounding cities and in conjunction with the proposed committee which will effectively facilitate adequate provisions for the City of Temecula. Councilman Lindemans reiterated his desire to develop the aforementioned maps, providing data for growth up to ten years, prior to the awarding of the contract, in order to enable the study to take the growth developmental factor into account. Mayor Ford recommended that since the regional issue is currently being addressed as a separate issue, that the Council award the proposed contract, in order to expeditiously address the City's fee study (which will include the City's sphere of influence), allowing staff to move forward, while addressing the regional issue via alternate identified routes. Concurring with Councilman Lindemans, Mayor Pro Tem Stone recommended that the DMG study incorporate a component to identify the impact placed on the City from the surrounding area, concurrent with the identification of the mitigating impact costs to the residents of Temecula. Councilman Comerchero commented that adding the additional component to the study would enable the City to present accurate comprehensive facts to the County. While concurring with the need to facilitate involvement of the County and the adjacent cities in funding improvements in Temecula based upon impact by the region, Mayor Ford advised that the Council approve funding for the proposed study, allowing the Development Impact Fee and User Fee Studies to be adequately addressed; and recommended that due to the time and involvement necessary to develop criteria for further analysis, that the regional issue be dealt with as a separate issue. Acting City Manager Nelson advised that the Council approve the cost-effective project presented, noting that this would enable the City to immediately address updating the User and Development Impact Fees, while simultaneously addressing the regional impacts. Councilman Comerchero recommended that the contract award be postponed four weeks to amend the components of the study, advising that it would be cost effective to initially incorporate the expansion of the regional impact into the study now, rather than coming back to DMG at a future point in time to request additional study information. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to adopt Councilman Comerchero's recommendation to continue the matter four weeks in order for staff to amend the study to incorporate the regional growth into the study. The motion was seconded by Councilman Lindemans. (This motion was ultimately withdrawn after further discussion.) Due to the extensive analysis required to formulate a regional study, Mayor Ford relayed, in detail, the effectiveness of moving forward with the aforementioned study while maintaining the regional issue as a separate issue, reiterating the alternate routes currently being pursued. Director of Finance Roberrs advised that due to staff's extensive involvement required, that the User Fee portion of the contract be awarded at this time, and that solely the Development Impact Fee (DIF) portion of the study be postponed if that was the desire of the Council. After further clarification from Ms. Roberts, Councilman Comerchero recommended that the Council approve the User Fee portion of the contract and postpone only the DIF portion of the study for four weeks. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to approve the User Fee portion of the DMG Study; and postpone the DIF component of the study to the March 23, 1999 City Council meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero. (This motion ultimately passed; see below) For Councilman Lindemans, Mayor Ford provided additional clarification regarding the DIF Fee and the User Fee. City Attorney Thorson relayed the legal rationale for the User Fee being updated at this point in time. At this time the vote was taken, and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Councilman Roberts who was absent, and Councilman Lindemans who voted n_..Qo. At 7:43 P. M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 8:25 P.M., the City Council resumed with regularly scheduled City Council business. COUNCIL BUSINESS 15 Namincl of City Maintenance Facility Provide direction to staff re.qardin.cl the namin.cl of the City Maintenance Facility. RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Provide direction to staff regarding the naming of the City Maintenance Facility. Mayor Pro Tem Stone presented the staff report (per agenda material); and recommended that the City Maintenance Facility be named the "Joe Kicak Maintenance Facility" to honor retired Public Works Director Joe Kicak. While concurring with the recommendation to honor Mr. Kicak, Councilman Comerchero proposed that the City create a Ha//of Honor in the Museum, the City Hall, the Library, the Senior Citizen Center, or another City facility; and relayed that this would facilitate honoring each person for his/her contribution to the City, In concurrence with Councilman Comerchero's comments, Councilman Lindemans advised that a facility should be named to honor one only after his/her death. MOTION: Councilman Comerchero moved to have the Community Services Commission develop a policy to honor those that have made a significant contribution to the City of Temecula, recommending that staff investigate developing a Hall of Fame to be housed either in the Museum, Library or other City facility. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Councilman Roberrs who was absent. 16 Proposed Committee to Address Traffic Congestion RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Form a committee to proactively address issues relating to traffic congestion. Deputy City Manager Thornhill presented the staff report (per agenda material.) Councilman Comerchero reiterated the rationale for the recommendation to form the proposed committee for the purpose of proactively addressing traffic issues; relayed that, beside himself, Councilman Roberts had expressed interest in serving on the proposed committee; and for informational purposes, relayed an acronym for naming the committee, as follows: Traffic Reduction And Fact Finding Investigation Committee. ' Mr. Greg Morrison, 30727 Loma Linda Road, commended Councilman Comechero's recommendation to form a committee inclusive of community involvement; requested that he be considered for committee membership; and recommended that the meetings be held at various sites (i.e., high schools) to promote community attendance. Councilman Lindemans recommended expansion of the committee, including the addition of members from adjacent cities; advised coordinating with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), the Riverside County Transportation Committee (RCTC), the State, and other agencies; and recommended postponing the formation of the committee to April in order to facilitate consideration of regional issues. Mayor Pro Tem Stone recommended utilizing the Public/Traffic Safety Commission for the proposed task, coordinated with members of adjacent cities, County representatives and other agencies to obtain regional benefits through the process; and advised further discussion between Councilman Roberts and Councilman Comerchero to facilitate developing a specific plan for the task of the Commission. Councilman Comerchero differentiated the proposed task and the issues currently brought before the Public/Traffic Safety Commission; and further clarified the charge of the proposed committee to address the core of the traffic problem with creative solutions. Mayor Ford advised that rather than create a new entity, that the City's current commissions be utilized to address the aforementioned issues; relayed that the primary traffic impact in Temecula is due to the County's impact on Winchester Road (17,000-20,000 trips a day); relayed that the addressing of that issue will greatly impact traffic in the City of Temecula; and noted the broad spectrum of avenues currently being pursued regarding traffic issues. MOTION: Councilman Lindemans moved to continue the matter to the March 23, 1999 City Council meeting in order to investigate expansion of the committee's involvement regionally. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Councilman Roberts who was absent. Mayor Pro Tem Stone recommended that the Public/Traffic Safety Commission agendize the issue of staggered business hours and formulate a program for implementation. Concurring with Mayor Pro Tem Stone's comments, Mayor Ford recommended that the issue be moved forward and that employers in the area be contacted with a plan of implementation. For Councilman Lindemans, Acting City Manager Nelson advised that the issue of monetary compensation for the Public/Traffic Safety Commissioners would be agendized to a City Council meeting. At this time the vote was taken, and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Councilman Roberts who was absent, and Councilman Lindemans who voted n_Qo. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT Per Councilman Roberrs request, Acting Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that Caltrans has investigated the signalization at Winchester Road and Ynez Road, noting that staff has, additionally, reviewed the signalization; and noted that the investigation yielded information that the signal was proficiently operating. In response to Mr. Hughes querying of the time of day of the reported trouble, Mayor Ford recommended that Acting City Manager Nelson query Councilman Roberts and forward that information to Mr. Hughes. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT With regard to the request to change the designation on the I-15 from rural to urban, Acting City Manager Nelson relayed that Caltrans has begun the investigative process; and noted that the City Council would be updated concerning the matter. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT City Attorney Thorson advised that with respect to Closed Session Item No. 1, the matter has been continued to the March 2, 1999, City Council meeting; noted that there were no reportable actions under the Brown Act for Item Nos. 2-4; and relayed that the real property matters will be forwarded to the City Council once the appropriate documents are negotiated and drafted. 10 ADJOURNMENT At 9:11 P.M., Mayor Ford formally adjourned the City Council meeting to Tuesday, March 2, 1999, 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Steven J. Ford, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] 11 MINUTES OF A tEGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMEC JLA CITY COUNCIL MARCH 2, 1999 CLOSED SESSION A meeting of the City of Temecula City Counc'l was called to order at 5:30 P.M. It was duly moved and seconded to adjourn to Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Sections: Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government code Section 54956.8 concerning the acquisition of rea property located at 28721 Front Street, Temecula (APN 922-073-017, 922-046-022, and 922-073-024). The negotiating parties are the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula 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. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning the acquisition and/or leasing of real property located at 28464 Front Street at the corner of Sixtl' Street, Temecula. The negotiating parties are the IRedevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and Dual Development Company, Ed and Kathleen Dool. Under negot'ation is the price and terms of payment to the real property interests proposed to be conveyed and/or acquired. The Agency/City negotiators are Shawn Nelson, James O'Grady, and John Meyer. Conference with real property regotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning the acquisitio-~ and/or leasing of real property located at 42051 Main Street (APN 922-036-020) The negotiating parties are the IRedevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce. Under negotiation is the price and terms of payment to the real property interests proposed to be conveyed and/or acquired. The Agency/City negotiators are Shawn Nelson and James O'Grady. o Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government code Section 54956.9(a) with respect to one ma.-ter of existing litigation involving the City and/or the Agency. The following case will be discussed: Claim of Westside City II, LLC. 5. Conference with City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) with respect to one matter of potential litigation. With respect to the 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. 6. Discussion of candidates for position of City Manager pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: PRELUDE MUSIC Councilmembers: Comerchero, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone, and Ford. Councilmember: None. The prelude music was provided by Vivian Tang. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Pastor Stanley Lubeck of Church on the Rock. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Councilman Lindemans. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Certificate of Appreciation to Sheriff/Coroner Larry D. Smith Extending appreciation to the City Councilmembers as well as the residents of the City, Sheriff/Coroner Smith accepted the certificate. Mediation Week Proclamation Mayor Ford so proclaimed March 14 -20, 1999 as Mediation Week. Joan Sparkman Day Proclamation Thanking the City Councilmembers and the residents for their support, Ms. Sparkman, with appreciation, accepted the proclamation. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Mayor Pro Tem Stone commented on the upcoming trip to Washington, D.C. and lobbyin9 efforts that will be undertaken with regard to Flood Control, public library, and a Fine Arts Center. B. Having attended a Building Industry Association meeting, Councilman Lindemans advised that the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly was the topic of discussion. C. Councilman Roberts advised that he has met with the Deputy Director of the California Highspeed Rail Authority and advised that discussions and lobbying efforts are being undertaken to ensure a Highspeed Rail Stop in the City of Temecula. He noted that there will be a Highspeed Rail Workshop on March 24, 1999, 10:00 A.M. - 12:00 P.M., at the Riverside City Council Chambers, advising that this meeting will be open to the public. D. With regard to the impacts deregulation may have on greenwaste, Councilman Roberrs commented on the City's goal to meet the 50% diversion from the landfill by the year 2000 and how this goal could be impacted with the energy plant no longer providing its services to Southern California Edison. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATON: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. Resolution Approving List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99-'!6 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 3 4 Release Labor and Materials security for Public Improvements in Parcel Map No. 24085-3 (located northwesterly of the intersection of Diaz Road and Zevo Drive - Avenida de Ventas) RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Authorize release of the Labor and Materials security for Public Improvements in Parcel Map No. 24085-3; 3.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. Release Labor and Materials security for Public Improvements in Parcel Map No. 28471-1 (located southwesterly of the intersection of Winchester Road and Zevo Drive) RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Authorize release of Labor and Materials security for the public street, and water and sewer improvements; 4.2 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the Developer and Surety. 6 5 AcceDtance of Public Streets into the City-Maintained Street System within Tract No. 21067 ('located northwesterly of the intersection of Pala Road at Loma Linda Road) RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99-'17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING CERTAIN STREETS INTO THE CITY-MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACT NO. 2'1067) Accept Public Improvements in Tract No. 21067 ('located northwesterly of the intersection of Pala Road at Loma Linda Road) RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Accept the Public Improvements, including subdivision monumentation, in Tract No. 21067; 6.2 Authorize reduction in the Faithful Performance Securities to the ten percent (10%) warranty amount, release of the Subdivision Monumentation security, and initiation of the one-year warranty period; 6.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. 7 Parcel MaD No. 28657-1 (located at the northwest corner of Diaz Road and Remington Avenue) RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve Parcel Map No. 28657-1, in conformance with the Conditions of Approval; 7.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement; 7.3 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Letters of Credit as security for the agreements. 8 Elimination of BookinG Fees RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99-'18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA URGING RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO REPEAL THE IMPOSITION OF BOOKING FEES ON COUNTY CITIES 9 Acc~uisition of Real Property from Campos Verdes, LLC for Construction of a Detention Basin for Lon.Q Canyon Wash RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99-'19 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS, DATED AS OF MARCH 2, 1999, WITH COMMUNITIES SOUTHWEST, INC., FOR THE LONG CANYON WASH DETENTION BASIN MOTION: Councilman Lindemans moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-9. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. At 7:26 P. M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 7:34 P.M., the City Council resumed with regularly scheduled City Council business. COUNCIL BUSINESS 10 Plannin.cl Commission Appointment RECOMMENDATOIN: 10.1 Appoint one applicant to serve an unexpired term which will expire June 4, 2000. In light of the experience necessary for this position, Councilman Lindemans, echoed by Mayor Pro Tem Stone, commented on Ms. Fahey's past experience with the Planning Commission and, therefore, offered the following motion: MOTION: Councilman Lindemans moved to appoint Linda Fahey to serve the unexpired term which will expire June 4, 2000. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 11 Winchester Road Median Island west of Jefferson Avenue - Proiect No. PW97-21 RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Consider and discuss the construction and installation of a median island on Winchester Road west of Jefferson Avenue - Project No. PW97-21. Acting Director of Public Works Hughes presented the staff report (as per agenda material), advising that approximately $285,000 of the awarded $387,000 contract would be contributed to the raised median/irrigation/landscaping with the remainder for the installation of the traffic signal. Mr. Hughes further clarified and described the location of the proposed median break. In order to provide access to the driveway between lots 8 and 9, Councilman Comerchero suggested a median break at this location to accommodate such access, noting that the median break could always be closed at a future date. Senior Traffic Engineer Moghadam further elaborated on the purpose, function, and goal of the traffic signal and raised median. In response to Councilman Comerchero's suggestion, Mr. Moghadam commented on the difficulties associated with deleting a median break once it has been installed. Concurring with Councilman Comerchero, Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that for the undeveloped land on the south side, a condition of approval could be imposed, at the time of approval, requesting reciprocal access. For existing and established businesses, Mr. Thornhill commented on the difficulties of creating reciprocal access. In light of the overhead illustration, Councilman Roberts, echoed by Councilman Lindemans, noted that a majority of the collisions are occurring in the intersection and at peak traffic hours. Advising that a median break, traveling westbound between lots 10 and 11, was not part of the original proposal, Mr. Larry Markham reviewed the Public/Traffic Safety Commission's rationale for granting this break. With regard to reciprocal access rights, Mr. Markham advised that all driveways along Winchester Road are shared access driveways and that the only parcels without access to the rear are lots 3 and 4 on the north side. Being of the opinion that another left-hand turn movement may actually ease traffic congestion at the intersection, Mayor Pro Tem Stone concurred with Councilman Comerchero's suggestion to provide an extra left-hand turn and noted that the effectiveness of such a break could be reevaluated at a later time. At 8:11 P.M., Mayor Ford called a recess and reconvened the meeting at 8:23 P.M. after which he opened the public hearing. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the raised median: · Mr. Gordon Siebert 41715 Winchester Road, #207 · Mrs. Angle Marchese 35440 Calle Nopal · Mr. Lloyd Mullins 42181 Avenida Alvarado · Ms. Billie Folie 2560 Tunrit Court, Vista · Mr. Bill Dendy 41975 Winchester Road · Mr. Gus Friedel 41240 Tea Tree Court · Mr. Fred Feck 310 Via Vera Cruz, San Marcos · Mr. Steven Clair 30486 Iron Bark Court The above-mentioned individuals spoke in opposition to the median for the following reasons: · Will detrimentally impact business · Will create traffic congestion for the neighboring businesses · Will limit freeway accessibility as well as visibility It was also noted by the residents that, in their opinion, the matter, when originally discussed, was not properly noticed; that a majority of the accidents occur at the intersection; that a median break between lots 8 and 9 would resolve the above-mentioned concerns; and that the proposed traffic signal will as well mitigate a majority of the noted traffic concerns. The use of median strips was also recommended as well as permitting a left-hand turn from Winchester Road onto Enterprise Circle South with appropriate signage. Acting Director of Public Works Hughes noted that the traffic signal would have to be specifically timed to ensure proper left-hand turn movement between lots 8 and 9. In addition to the installation of the traffic signal, Councilman Roberts suggested to extend the raised median west through the intersection, allowing right-hand turns but no left-hand turns. In response to Councilman Robert's suggestion, discussion ensued as to how far to extend the raised median with City Attorney Thorson advising that a contract that has been awarded may be modified. MOTION: Councilman Roberts moved to approve the construction of the raised median on Winchester Road, west of Jefferson Avenue, and to extend this median through the intersection. The motion was seconded by Councilman Lindemans. (This motion was ultimately amended; see below.) Concurring with the proposed motion, Councilman Comerchero suggested that it be amended to reflect that the median be extended to lot 11 to coincide with the existing driveway. AMENDED MOTION: Councilman Roberts moved to approve the construction of the raised median on Winchester Road, west of Jefferson Avenue, and to extend this median through the intersection to lot 11 to coincide with the existing driveway. The motion was seconded by Councilman Lindemans and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Apprising the residents that the Vail Ranch/Redhawk annexation has been scheduled for a public hearing on March 23, 1999, and that the following two City-hosted question-and-answer sessions have been scheduled prior to the public hearing: · March 15, 1999 7:00 P.M. · March 18, 1999 7:00 P.M. at Vail Ranch Middle School at Redhawk Elementary School CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT City Attorney Thorson advised that City Council provided direction to staff with regard to the real property matters; that there are no reportable actions; and that all final action would be taken in Open Session. With regard to pending claims, Mr. Thorson advised that this matter was continued without any action taken. With regard to potential litigation, Mr. Thorson advised that direction was given to prepare a request for opinion from the Attorney General of the United States with regard to the issue involving the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly. ADJOURNMENT At 9:05 P.M., Mayor Ford formally adjourned the City Council meeting to Tuesday, March 23, 1999, 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 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 $1,642,671.00. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 13th day of April, 1999. ATTEST: Steven J. Ford, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] Resos STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do cedify that the foregoing Resolution No. 99- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 13th day of April, 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 03/18/99 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 03/25/99 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 04/01/99 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 04/13/99TOTALCHECKRUN: 04/13/99 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 03/18/99 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 04/01/99 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 04/13/99 COUNCIL MEETING: DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 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 261 CFD 88-12 ADMIN EXPENSE FUND 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY-CIP 300 INSURANCE FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES 393 TCSD - DEBT SERVICE 100 GENERAL FUND 165 RDA-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 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY-CIP 30D INSURANCE FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES TOTAL BY FUND: PREPARED B A YON. KER, A NTING ECIALIST I GENI DI TOR F ~/'CE I SHAWN CTItN CITY MANAGER $ 257,008.19 346,132.49 324,317.76 296,111.78 79,597.93 165,237.25 174,265.60 $ 1,642,671.00 365,659.48 68,560.20 123,430.94 18,271.01 25,345.75 37,280.86 947.89 374,433.43 433.25 52,583.94 4,718.70 59,140.03 31,985.02 8,327.49 132,150.26 247,187.26 7,655.37 55,505.78 135.39 341.61 4,396.95 1,928.18 3,581.21 1,395.73 6,961.68 2.691.94 7,322.65 $ 1,303,158.15 339,502.85 1,642,671.93 , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. V(XJCHRE2 03/18/99 12:11 CITY OF TEHECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 11 FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 165 RDA DEV- LOt4/NOD SET ASIDE 190 CONNUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 210 .CAPITAL INPROVENENT PROJ FUND 280 REDEVELOPNENT AGENCY - CIP 300 INSURANCE FUND 320 INFORNATION SYSTENS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES AHOUNT 103,026,54 19,593,02 34,139.32 3,014.85 73.93 5,788.66 412.96 17,650.85 30,408.90 277.17 7,239.47 31,327.59 4,054.93 TOTAL 257,008.19 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 03/18/99 12:11 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ZTEM NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUNBER ANOUNT CHECK ANOUNT 88680 03/18/99 000283 INSTATAX (]RS) 000283 FEDERAL 001-2070 18,630,62 88680 03/18/99 000283 INSTAT/O((]RS) 000283 FEDERAL 165-2070 418.25 88680 03/18/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 190-2070 3,329.16 88680 03/18/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 191-2070 8.70 88680 03/18/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 192-2070 22.03 88680 03/18/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 193-2070 341.96 88680 03/18/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 194-2070 126.19 88680 03/18/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 280-2070 145.04 88680 03/18/99 000283 INSTATAX (]RS) 000283 FEDERAL 300-2070 28.02 88680 03/18/99 000283 INSTATAX (]RS) 000283 FEDERAL 320-2070 628.19 88680 03/18/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 330-2070 137.18 88680 03/18/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 00028~ FEDERAL 340-2070 519.39 88680 03/18/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 NEDICARE 001-2070 4,591.17 88680 03/18/99 00028:3 INSTATAX (]RS) 000283 MEDICARE 165-2070 126.76 88680 03/18/99 00028:3 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 NED]CARE 190-2070 1,000.22 88680 03/18/99 000283 INSTATAX (]RS) 000283 NEDICARE 191-2070 2.43 88680 03/18/99 000283 INSTATAX (%RS) 000283 NED[CARE 192-2070 6.18 88680 03/18/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 193-2070 81.74 88680 03/18/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 NED[CARE 194-2070 34.29 88680 03/18/99 00028;3 INSTATAX (IRS) 00028~ MEDICARE 280-2070 54.22 88680 03/18/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 NED]CARE 300-2070 24.17 88680 03/18/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 320-2070 139.64 88680 03/18/99 000283 INSTAT/Q((IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 330-2070 45.34 88680 03/18/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 340-2070 131.68 30,572.57 88759 03/18/99 000444 INSTAT/O((EDD) 000444 SDI 001-2070 50.95 88759 03/18/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 165-2070 233 88759 03/18/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 190-2070 47.06 88759 03/18/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 280-2070 .62 88759 03/18/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 320-2070 2.23 88759 03/18/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 330-2070 2.94 88759 03/18/99 000444 [NSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 340-2070 4.72 88759 03/18/99 000444 ]NSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 001-2070 4,912.14 88759 03/18/99 000444 [NSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 165-2070 148.45 88759 03/18/99 000444 [NSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 190-2070 671.30 88759 03/18/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 191-2070 1.48 88759 03/18/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 192-2070 3,53 88759 03/18/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 193-2070 66.95 88759 03/18/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 194-2070 21.52 88759 03/18/99 000444 [NSTATAX (EOD) 000444 STATE 280-2070 55.41 88759 03/18/99 000444 INSTATAX (EO0) 000444 STATE 300-2070 10.43 88759 03/18/99 000444 [NSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 320-2070 145.91 88759 03/18/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 330-2070 24.38 88759 03/18/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 340-2070 102.90 6,275.25 54663 03/18/99 003584 A PLUS RELOCAT[ON SPECI MOVE MUSEUM PIECES:FV AIRPORT 190-185-999-5250 1,052.25 1,052.25 54664 03/18/99 001538 ALBERT GROVER & ASSOC[A FEB ENG SVCS:MARGARXTA/PIO PIC 210'165-700'5802 54664 03/18/99 001538 ALBERT GROVER & ASSOClA FEB ENG SVCS:NARGARITA/PAUBA 210'165-699'5802 1,575.00 2,770.00 4,345.00 54665 03/18/99 000747 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC MEMBERSHIP DUES: JOHN R MEYER 165-199-999-5226 313.00 313.00 VOUCHRE2 03/18/99 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 54666 54667 54667 54667 54668 54669 54670 54670 54671 54672 5467~ 54674 54675 54675 54676 54677' 54678 54678 54679 54679 54680 54681 54682 54683 54684 54684 54684 54685 54686 54686 54686 12:11 CHECK DATE 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 000622 03/18/99 000622 03/18/99 003215 03/18/99 002541 03/18/99 03/18/99 003138 03/18/99 000933 03/18/99 000933 03/18/99 000674 03/18/99 001655 03/18/99 000135 03/18/99 000135 03/18/c~ 000137 03/18/99 000137 03/18/99 000912 03/18/99 003059 VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME 001947 AMERIGAS 003203 ARTISTIC EMBROIDERY 003203 ARTISTIC EMBROIDERY 003203 ARTISTIC EMBROIDERY BADGER, MARY ANNE BANKEY, LORI BANTA ELECTRIC-REFR]GER BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER BARCLAYS LAW PUBLISHERS BECKER, WALTER IOtRL BELLO, FRED CAL NAT CALIF DEPT OF TRANSPORT CALIF DEPT OF TRANSPORT CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CIT CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY CENTRAL CITIES SiGN SER CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER CHEVRON U S A INC. CHEVRON U S A INC. CITY CLERKS ASSN OF CAL COSTCO COMPANIES, INC 03/18/99 002106 DA FAMILY SUPPORT 03/18/99 001924 DMG NAXIMUS 03/18/99 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC 03/18/99 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC 03/18/99 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC 03/18/99 000523 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER 03/18/99 003150 EOGE DEVELOPMENT, INC 03/18/99 003150 EDGE OEVELOPMENT, INC 03/18/99 003150 EDGE OEVELOPNENT, INC CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION PROPANE FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES LARGE T-SHIRTS FOR TCSD CREWS X-LARGE T-SHIRTS FOR TCSD CREW SALES TAX REFUND: INSTANT PIANO REFUND: GOLF LESSONS BEG ELECTRICAL SERVICES - PARKS ELECTRICAL SERVICES - PARKS PUBLICATION:CCR TITLE 19-FIRE R&R CROSS GUTTER RNCHO/BUS PRK REFUND: GYMNASTICS-RHYTHMIC PATCH TRUCK MATERIALS TRAFFIC S]GNAL:WINCH/ENTERPRIS INSPECTION SVC:OVRLND DR OVRCR ANNUAL CF:LINDEMANS:NAY 13-16 WELDING SERVS & SUPPLIES STREET SIGNS & M]SC HARDWARE STREET SIGNS & M]SC HARDWARE 789-819-697-2 FUEL EXPENSE 789-819-697-2 FUEL EXPENSE ANNUAL CF:JONES/BALLREICH:4/21 COMPUTER LOAN PRGM:J.HILLS 002106 SUPPORT CITY MANAGER RECRUITMENT SVCS TEMP HELP W/E 2126 THORNSLEY,I TEMP HELP (2)W/E 2/26 YORKER TEMP HELP W/E 2/26 DEGANGE,J. 95366-02 DIEGO DR FEB PRGSS:NARGARITA COMN PRK FEB PRGSS: NARGARITA COMM PRK RETENTION WH INV 98002-582 ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-162-999-5263 190-180-999-5243 190-180-999-5243 190-180-999-5243 190-183-4980 190-183-4980 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 001-171-999-5228 001-164-601-5402 190-183-4980 001-164-601-5218 210-165-686-5801 210-165-604-5801 001-100-999-5258 190-184-999-5301 001-164-601-5244 001-164-601-5244 001-164-601-5263 001-164-602-5262 001-120-999-5258 001-1175 190-2140 001-110-999-5248 001-161-999-5118 001-140-999-5118 001-161-999-5118 193'180-999-5240 210'190-119-5804 210-190-119-5804 210-2035 I T EM AMOUNT 55.20 132.00 132.00 20.46 20.00 45.00 45. O0 275.83 73.00 2,195.00 38. O0 8~.85 250.00 680. O0 390. O0 11.90 308.38 231.45 35.08 13.12 595. O0 1,476.15 82.50 1,500.00 2,177.10 1,316.10 2,858.40 279.77 3,555.20 1,108.80 466.41 - PAGE 2 CHECK AMOUNT 55.20 284.46 20.00 45. O0 320.83 73.00 2,195.00 38. O0 84.85 930. O0 390.00 11.90 539.83 48.20 595.00 1,476.15 82.50 1,500. O0 6,351.60 279.77 4,197.59 VOUCHRE2 03/18/99 12:11 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE VENDOR NUMBER VENDOR NAHE ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 54687 54687 54687 54687 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 000517 000517 000517 000517 ENTENNANN-ROVIN & CO ENTENNANN-ROVZN & CO ENTENMANN-ROVIN & CO ENTENMANN-ROVZN & CO POLICE BADGE FOR MAYOR WALLET FOR POLICE BADGE FREIGHT SALES TAX 001-100-999-5220 001-100-999-5220 001-100-999-5220 001-100-999-5220 61.20 35.00 10.00 7.46 113.~ 54688 54688 54688 54688 54688 54688 54688 54688 54688 54688 54688 54688 54688 54688 54688 54688 54688 54688 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03118199 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/~9 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE NIRADA-REPAIR BACKFLOW COVER VOORBURG PRK-REPAIR BALL PORT MARGARITA RD-REPLACED VALVE RANCHO CA-REPAIR MAIN LINE/VAL BAHIA PRK-REPAIR LEAK VALVE VIA LA VIDA-REPAIR BALL VALVE MARGARITA/REPLACED VALVE RANCHO CA SLOPE: R&R 32 HEADS RANCHO CA SLOPE: R&R 32 REBAR RANCHO CA SLOPE:PUNCH LOCKS 8 HOURS LABOR SPORTS PRK-MAIN LINE REPAIRS OLD TWN ST-SCAPE LDSCP MAINT WOODCREST-INSTALL HEADER BOARD LABOR MEADOW VIEW ESTATES-PLANTING MEADOW VIEW ESTATES-PLANTING HEADOIl VIEW ESTATES-PLANTING 193-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 193-180-999-5212 193-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 193-180-999-5212 193-180-999-5212 193-180-999-5212 193-180-999-5212 193-180-999-5212 193-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 001-16~-603-5212 193-180-999-5212 193-180-9~-5212 193-180-999-5212 193-180-9~-5212 193-180-9<~-5212 180.98 22.06 157.25 224.13 137.21 65.99 170.20 318.00 110.00 22.00 200.00 246.81 528.00 120.00 60.00 280.00 225.00 100.00 3,167.63 54689 54689 54689 54689 54689 54689 54689 54689 54689 54689 54689 54689 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/<~ 000165 000165 000165 000165 000165 000165 000165 000165 000165 000165 000165 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESSt INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS~ INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, [NC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS. INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. EXPRESS HAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS HAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS HAIL SERVICES 190-180-999-5230 001-161-999-5230 001-1990 001-162-999-5230 001-150-999-5230 001-111-999-5230 190-180-999-5230 001-161-999-5230 001-162-999-5230 001-120-999-5277 001-100-999-5230 001-163-999-5230 55.25 26.75 7.25 15.75 12.50 53.25 68.50 23.25 36.00 20.50 12.50 15.50 347.00 54690 54690 54690 54690 54690 54690 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 003347 003347 003347 003347 003347 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER FIRST BANKCARD CENTER FIRST BANKCARD CENTER FIRST BANKCARD CENTER FIRST BANKCARD CENTER FIRST BANKCARD CENTER FEB:JO:5477-2592-2107-0902 FEB:SN:5477-2593-6983-2576 MAR:SJ:5477-2590-4249-5288 MAR:SJ:5477-2590-4249-5288 MAR:SJ:5477-2590-4249-5288 5477 2590 3379 6165 GY/ENPY AW 001-110-999-5258 001-110-999-5260 320-199-999-5211 320-199-999-5261 001-100-999-5260 001-150-999-5265 520.00 15.58 133,23 295.00 191.41 100.00 1,255.22 54691 54691 54691 54691 54691 54691 54691 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 000184 000184 000184 000184 000184 000184 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYN G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 308-1079 GENERAL USAGE 909 506-1941PTA CO TTACSD 909 695-1409 GENERAL USAGE 909 695-3539 COPT. CITY OFFICE 909 699-0590 TEN TWN ASSN LINE 909 699-1370 SVC FOR COP 909 699-2811 GENERAL USAGE 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 65.33 56.06 104.72 37.42 56.66 110.67 1,288.05 1,718.91 VOUCHRE2 0]/18/99 12:11 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAJqE 54692 03/18/99 001355 G T E CALiFORNiA, iNC. 5469] 0]/18/99 003618 G T E OIRECTORZES 54694 03/18/99 002528 GLASS BLASTERS 54695 03/18/99 000711 GRAPHICS UNLIMITEO LITH 54696 03/18/99 001550 GROSSMONT BANK 54697 0]/18/99 001013 HiNDERLITER, de LLAMAS 54698 0]/18/99 HOLMES, DONNA 54699 0]/18/99 000796 Z C B 0 54700 03/18/99 000388 I C B O, iNC. 54701 0]/18/99 003622 ] C M A - MEMBERSHIP 54701 03/18/99 003622 X C M A - MEMBERSHIP 54702 03/18/99 000194 I C N A RETIREMENT TRUS 54702 03/18/99 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 54702 03/18/99 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 54702 03/18/99 000194 ] C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 54703 03/18/99 000199 iNTERNAL REVENUE SERVIC 54704 03/18/99 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE 54705 0]/18/99 KELLY, TONMZE 54706 0]/18/99 001091 KEYSER MAR]TON ASSOCZAT 54707 03/18/99 002023 KING, WENDE 54708 0]/18/99 000206 KINKO'S, INC. 54708 03/18/99 000206 KINKO'S, INC. 54709 03/18/99 001694 KNIGHT PRINTING 54709 0~/18/99 001694 KNIGHT PRINTING 54709 0]/18/99 001694 KNIGHT PRINTING 54710 03/18/99 001719 L P A, INC. 54711 0]/18/99 001534 LA MASTERS OF FiNE TRAV 54712 0]/18/99 LAVIOLA, STACEY 5471] 0]/18/99 LORENCE, OIANA CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION RVSD CO OPEN PHONE LINE ACCESS GTE DIRECTORIES-800 NUMBERS CITY SEAL MUGS FOR NEW HIRES PRINTER SVCS:MASTER PLAN DOC RETENTION ESCROW:FEB PRGSS PNT QTRLY PROPERTY TAX CONSULT SVC REFUND: CRAFTS-BEG WATER MEMBERSHIP FEES: ANTHONY ELMO PUBLICATION:97/98 ICBO CODE BK NENBERSHIP: SHAWN NELSON MEMBERSHIP: SHAWN NELSON 000194 DEF CONP 000194 DEF CONP 000194 DEF CONP 000194 DEF CONP 000199 ]RS GARN TENP HELP W/E 2/28 FOt4LER,K. REISSUE CK:REFUND:KINDERGARTEN CONVENTION FACILITY MKT SURVEY TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS STATIONERY PAPER/MISC SUPPLIES STATIONERY PAPER/NISC SUPPLIES BLDG PERMIT CARDS SETUP-TYPESETTING SALES TAX DESIGN SVCS:TEM LIBRARY PRJT SIERRA CF:J,YONKER:4/19-23/99 REFUND: TINY TOT REFUND: PRKING CITATION FEE ACCOUNT NUMBER 320-199-999-5208 280-199-999-5250 001-150-999-5265 190-180-999-5222 210-1035 001-140-999-5248 190-183-4980 001-162-999-5226 001-171-999-5228 001-1990 001-110-999-5226 001-2080 165-2080 190-2080 280-2080 001-2140 001-150-999-5118 190-18~-4982 001-111-999-5Z48 190-18~-999-5330 330-199-999-5220 280-199-999-5222 001-162-999-5222 001-162-999-5222 001-162-~9-5222 210-199-129-5802 001-140-999-5261 190-183-4980 001-170-4055 ITEM AMOUNT 320.00 52.72 30.17 1,131.38 466.41 2,400.00 51.88 25.00 ]90.11 7.00 849.00 1,589.36 18.75 100.00 6.25 295.77 201.50 ]1.50 8,189.00 391.00 ]2.97 29.]6 1,197.09 210.00 109.05 2,900.00 10.00 14.50 25.00 PAGE 4 CHECK AMOUNT 320,00 52.72 30.17 1,131.38 2,400.00 51.88 25.00 ]90.11 856.00 1,714.]6 295,77 201,50 31.50 8,189.00 391.00 62.33 1,516.16 2,900.00 10.00 14.50 25.00 VOUCHRE2 CiTY OF TEMECULA 03/18/99 12=11 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER [TEN AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 54714 03/18/99 003611 MAC GREGOR TEAM SPORTS PORTABLE PITCHING HOUND 190-183-999-5380 54714 03/18/99 003611 MAC GREGOR TEAM SPORTS FREIGHT 190-183-999-5380 54714 03/18/99 003611 MAC GREGOR TEAM SPORTS SALES TAX 190-183-999-5380 ,: 54715 03/18/99 000394 MAINTENANCE SUPERINTEND BASIC SUPERV:JR/BB/BH/NL/JS 001-164-661-5261 1,995.00 119,70 154.61 150.00 2,269.31 150.00 54716 03/18/99 001967 NANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV TEMP HELP (2)W/E 2/14 BELIAN 001-171-999-5118 54716 03/18/99 001967 NANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV TEMP HELP (2)W/E 2/14 BELIAN 001'162'999'5118 54716 03/18/99 001967 NANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV TEMP HELP W/E 2/14 HILL 001'161'999'5118 54716 03/18/99 001967 NANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV TEMP HELP W/E 2/21 HILL 001-161'999'5118 54716 03/18/99 001967 NANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV TEMP HELP W/E 2/21 BEANON 190-182'999'5118 557.28 371,52 455.60 364.48 295.96 2,044.84 54717 03118/99 MASTER DUPLICATORS AUDIO CASSETTES:CPRS CONFERENC 190-180-999-5261 52.49 52.49 54718 03/18/99 003163 MINOLTA BUSINESS SYSTEM ANNUAL COPIER NAINT.AGRMNT:CRC 190-182-999-5215 529.00 529.00 54719 03/18/99 002952 MINOLTA BUSINESS SYSTEM APR COPIER LEASE AT CRC 190-182-999-5239 162.70 162.70 54720 03/18/99 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING SERVICES:W.HUGHES 001-164-604-5222 54720 03/18/99 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS SALES TAX 001-164-604-5222 102.50 7.94 110.44 54721 03/18/99 MOORE, EM[LENE REFUND: SPORTS'GOLF LESSONS 190-183-4980 45,00 45.00 54722 03/18/9<2 000775 NUNIMETRIX SYSTEMS CORP ANNUAL MAINT CITY CLERK INDEX 320-199-999-5211 480.00 480.00 54723 03/18/99 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM 2500 POCKET CALENDERS 001-120-999-5222 54723 03/18/99 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM ARTWORK FOR POCKET CALENDARS 001-120-999-5222 54723 03/18/9<) 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM SALES TAX 001-120-999-5222 244.00 90.00 25.89 559.89 54724 03/18/99 OBLACHINSK], BETH REFUND: AMAZING CHEF'S 190-183-4980 10.00 10,00 54725 03/18/99 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT 190-180-999-5214 54725 03/18/9<) 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT 001-164-601-5214 54725 03/18/99 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & NAINT 001-164-601-5214 54725 03/18/9<2 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & NAINT 001-163-999-5214 54726 03/18/9<) 00138~ P M W ASSOCIATES, INC. FEB CONSULTING SERVICES 165-199-999-5248 54726 03/18/99 001383 P M W ASSOCIATES, IN(, FEB CONSULTING SERVICES 280-199-999-5248 54726 03/18/99 001383 P M W ASSOCIATES, IN(, FEB CONSULTING SERVICES 001-111-999-5248 54726 03/18/99 001383 P M W ASSOCIATES, IN(. FEB CONSULTING SERVICES 001-111-999-5248 372.03 119.07 333.60 345.89 2,324.69 2,324.69 820.48 .02 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 MLT PERS 001-2130 322.43 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 001-2390 24,309.74 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 165-2390 693.64 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 190-2390 3,934.07 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 191-2390 13.28 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 192-2390 33.93 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 193-2390 410.69 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 194-2390 196.69 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 280-2390 301.77 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 300-2390 130.50 1,170.59 5,469.88 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 03/18/99 12:11 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 320-2390 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 330-2390 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 340-2390 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS-PRE 001-2110 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS-PRE 191-2130 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS-PRE 192-2130 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS-PRE 193-2130 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS-PRE 194-2130 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 001-7390 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 165-2390 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 190-2390 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 191-2390 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 192-2390 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 193-2390 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 194-2390 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 280-2390 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 300-2390' 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 320-2390 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS CEMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 330-2390 54727 03/18/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 340-2390 690,59 142.40 491.04 263.61 2.81 5,62 39.33 8.43 82.87 1.87 14.80 .05 ,14 1.52 ,84 ,92 1.86 2,18 32,099.01 54729 03/18/99 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PRO 001958 PERS L-T 001-2122 547'50 03/18/99 002498 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC PROF INSPECTION SVC:R.C,/I-15' 210-165-601-5801 2,937.50 2,937,50 54731 03/18/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5320 54731 03/18/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-111-999-5269 54731 03/18/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-162-999-5242 54731 03/18/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5320 54731 03/18/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-140-999-5260 54731 03/18/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-140-999-5260 54731 03/18/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-100-999-5260 54731 03/18/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5320 54731 03/18/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-110-999-5260 54731 03/18/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-110-999-5250 54731 03/18/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-165-999-5263 54731 03/18/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-180-999-5260 54731 03/18/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-100-999-5260 54731 03/18/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-1990 54731 03/18/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-165-999-5220 54731 0j/18/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-110-999-5220 54731 05/18/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-164-601-5260 54731 03/18/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-1990 54731 05/18/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-162-999-5261 54731 03/18/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEHENT 001-111-999-5260 54731 03/18/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-110-999-5260 54731 03/18/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-16~-601-5263 54731 03/18/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-140-999-5222 54731 03/18/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-161-999-5260 54731 03/18/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-161-999-5260 54731 03/18/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-161-999-5222 20.76 29.99 2.10 30.47 23.23 29.32 44.53 28.44 42.00 31,24 10,00 27.86 11.99 18.00 2,16 2.69 15.00 50.02 10.49 20.00 5.38 15.00 19.45 12.00 18.00 13,90 VOUCHRE2 03/18/99 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 54731 54731 54731 54731 54731 54731 54T31 54731 54731 54731 54731 54731 54731 54731 54731 54731 54731 54731 54731 54733 54733 54733 54754 54734 54735 54736 54737 54737 54738 54739 54739 54739 54739 54739 54739 54739 54739 54739 54739 54739 54739 54739 54739 54739 12:11 CHECK DATE 03/18/~9 03/18/~9 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 0j/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 VENDOR NUMBER 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000249 000254 000254 000254 002776 002776 003621 002012 000947 000947 002176 000262 000262 000262 000262 000262 000262 000262 000262 000262 000262 000262 000262 000262 000262 000262 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION 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 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PRESS-ENTERPRISE CUMPAN PRESS-ENTERPRISE CONPAN PRESS-ENTERPRISE CONPAN CIP CONSTRUCTION UPDATE ADS DISPLAY AD FOR PLANNING DISPLAY ~d):LOCAL REVIEW BOARD PRIME MATRIX, INC. PRIME MATRIX, INC. FEB CELLULAR SERVICE:LINDEMANS FEB CELLULAR SERVICE:INFO SYS QWEST FEB LONG DISTANCE SVC:CITY HAL R D 0 EQUIPMENT CO. REPAIR/MAINTENANCE OF EQUIP. PJkNCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C BLUEPRINT REPRO'S-MARG./YNEZ RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C BLUEPRINT REPRO'S:ROTARY PARK RANCHO CAL[F BUS PARK A CITY HALL BUSINESS PRK ASSOC. RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER IL4NCHO CALIFORNIA WATER RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER ILa, NCHO CALIFORNIA WATER IL4NCHO CALIFORNIA WATER FEB:O1-OB-OS837-6:C.CHR]ST]NA FEB:O1-O6-26305-O:O.T.FRONT ST FEB:Ol-O6-30205-O:6TH ST LSCP FEB:O1-O6-30206-O:6TH ST LSCP FEB:O1-O6-55015-O:O.T.FRONT ST NAR:O1-17-80000-1:VIA EDUARDO FEB:O1-O6-84860-S:PUJOL ST VARIOUS WATER METERS VARIOUS WATER METERS VARIOUS WATER METERS VARIOUS WATER METERS VARIOUS WATER METERS RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER VARIOUS WATER METERS IL~NCHO CALIFORNIA WATER VARIOUS WATER METERS RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER VARIOUS WATER METERS ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-161-999-5222 001-100-999-5260 001-162-999-5261 320-199-999-5221 001-100-999-5260 190-181-999-5301 001-111-999-5269 190-181-999-5301 280-199-999-5362 001-100-999-5258 001-150-999-5265 190-183-999-5320 280-199-999-5260 001-140-999-5260 001-161-999-5222 001-140-999-5220 001-16/+-604-5222 190-1990 001-1990 001-165-999-5256 001-120-999-5254 001-120-999-5254 001-100-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 001-164-601-5214 210-165-683-5804 210-190-162-5804 340-199-701-5226 165-199-999-5449 001-164-603-5240 001-164-603-5240 001-164-603-5240 001-164-603-5240 001-164-601-5250 280-199-807-5801 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 ITEM AMOUNT 33.78 15.90 7.18 39.11 19.37 10.76 27.85 1.92 38.71 9.32 50.00 11.78 41.67 16.77 9.80 35.56 4.53 11.77 30.67 120.00 56.00 112.00 56.00 27.20 1,338.91 121.64 74.95 54.40 919.00 31.24 93.25 32.00 35.07 30.78 20.98 40.58 2,144.76 83.70 442.15 138.79 121.19 1,132.83 302.8~ 54.81 PAGE 7 CHECK AMOUNT 950.47 288.00 83.20 1,338.91 121.64 129.35 919.00 VOUCHRE2 03/18/99 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 54739 54739 54739 54740 54741 54742 54743 54744 54745 54746 54747 54747 54748 54749 54750 54750 54750 54750 54750 54750 54750 54750 54750 54750 54750 54751 54752 54752 54752 54753 54754 54755 54755 54756 12:11 CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03118199 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER 000262 IL~NCHO CALIFORNIA WATER 001365 RIVERSIDE CO. ENVIRONME 003587 RIZZO CONSTRUCTION, INC 002226 RUSSO, MARY ANNE 001484 SAHARA WATERPROOFING 002384 SECURE BUSINESS COMNLINI 003500 SIMON & SIMON CONSTRUCT 003548 SKY CANYON ENTERPRISES, SMITH, MELANIE SMITH, MELANIE 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR 000824 SOUTHERN CALIF ASSOC OF 000537 000537 000537 000537 000537 000537 000537 000537 000537 000537 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CAL]F EDISON SOUTHERN CAL[F EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CAL]F EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 001212 SOUTHERN CALIF GAS CONP 002366 002366 002366 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET C STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET C STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET C 003449 T H E SOILS COMPANY 000305 TARGET STORE 001672 TEMECULA DRAIN SERV & P 001672 TEMECULA DRAIN SERV & P 003626 TEMECULA GARDENS, LP CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION VARIOUS WATER METERS VARIOUS WATER METERS VARIOUS WATER METERS ANNUAL PERMIT RENEWAL:CRC PROF SVCS:OT STREETSCAPE IMPRV TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS RETENTION PAYMENT:CITY HALL AUDIO/VIDEO MAINTENANCE RES,]MPROVEMENT PRG:PENN[NGTON APR 99 HANGAR RENTAL:ART]FACTS REFUND: COOKING-COOKIE MONSTER REFUND: TINY TOTS-WIGGLE NORMS PEST CONTROL SERVICES:TCC SCAGGA MTG:R.ROBERTS:4/08/99 NAR:2-17-214-O428:MEADOWS PKWY MAR:2-O6-105-O654:VAR, METERS MAR:Z-18-363-1902:PAUBA TCl NAR:2-O9-330-3030:WINCH.RD.TC1 NAR:Z-O9-330-3139:WINCH.RD.TC1 NAR:2-17-991-4981:C,CHRISTINA FEB:2-OO-397-5067:VAR,METERS NAR:Z-OZ-351-SZ81:CRC NAR:2-10-901-7962:YUKON TC1 MAR:2-18-OqT-8972:NARGARITA TC MAR:2-18-589-9739:MARGARITA LS FEB:O91-O24-9300-5:CRC CLEANING SVCS:COUNCIL CHAMBERS CARPET CLEANING SVCS:SR CENTER CARPET CLEANING SVCS:CZTY HALL FtAR PROF SVCS:DUCK POND IMPRVE MISC,SUPPLIES FOR RECREATION PLUMBING SERVICES-SENIOR CTR. PLUMBING SERVICES-CRC RE]MBURSE: PROPERTY TAXES ACCOUNT NUMBER 190-180-999-5240 191-180-999-5240 193-180-999-5240 190-182-999-5250 280-199-824-5804 190-183-999-5330 340-2035 320-199-999-5250 165-199-813-5804 190-185-999-5250 190-183-4980 190-183-4980 190-184-999-5250 001-100-999-5258 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 165-199-999-5449 193-180-999-5240 190-182-999-5240 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 190-182-999-5240 340-199-r01-5250 190-181-999-5212 34o-1~-~o1-5212 210-190-143-5804 190-180-999-5301 190-181-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 165-1290 ITEM AMOUNT 745.75 62.71 711.72 326.00 24,519.64 868.00 1,000.00 600.00 1,775.00 747.00 12.00 25.00 216.00 65,00 175.70 1,831.70 68.40 146.85 177.43 2.73 453.92 3,601.54 160.37 180.13 61.62 2,025.61 300.00 85.00 5O.00 1,745.00 33.90 47.00 47.00 13,361.11 PAGE 8 CHECK AMOUNT 6,225.15 326.00 24,519.64 868.00 1,000.00 600.00 1,775.00 747.00 37.00 216.00 65.00 6,860.39 2,025.61 435.00 1,745.00 33.90 94.00 13,361.11 VOUCHRE2 03/18/99 12:11 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERZOOS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 54757 54757 54758 54759 54759 54759 54759 54759 54759 54759 54759 54759 54759 54760 54761 54761 54761 54761 54761 54761 54762 54762 54762 54762 54762 54762 54762 54762 54762 54762 54763 54763 54763 54763 54763 54763 54763 54764 54764 54764 54764 54764 54764 54764 CHECK DATE 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 05/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 0~/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03118/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 VENDOR NUMBER 003140 003140 001483 000319 000319 000319 000319 000319 000319 000319 000319 000319 000319 003031 000459 000459 000459 000459 000459 000459 001065 001065 001065 001065 001065 001065 001065 001065 001065 001065 000389 000389 000389 000389 000389 000389 000389 002702 002702 002702 002702 002702 002702 002702 VENDOR NAME TEMECULA VALLEY TAEI(WON TEMECULA VALLEY TAEKWON TON DOOSON & ASSOCIATES TONARK SPORTS, INC. TONARK SPORTS, INC. TONARK SPORTS, INC. TONARK SPORTS, INC, TONARK SPORTS, ZNC. TONARK SPORTS, INC, TONARK SPORTS, INC. TONARK SPORTS, INC, TONARK SPORTS, INC. TOMARK SPORTS, INC, TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE TUMBLE JUNGLE FITNESS/G TUMBLE JUNGLE FITNESS/G TUMBLE JUNGLE FITNESS/G TONBLE JUNGLE FITNESS/G TONBLE JUNGLE FITNESS/G TUMBLE JUNGLE F]TNESS/G 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 N/PEBSCO (DEF. C U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF. C U S C N/PEBSCO (DEF. C U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF. C U S C M/PEBSCO (ORRA) U S C N/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 POSTAL SERVICE:CMRS U S POSTAL SERVZCE:CMRS U S POSTAL SERVICE:CNRS U S POSTAL SERVICE:CNRS U S POSTAL SERVICE:CMRS U S POSTAL SERVICE:CNRS U S POSTAL SERVICE:CMRS ITEM DESCRIPTION TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS FEB PROF SVC:REGIONAL CENTER CREDIT: RECREATION SUPPLIES CREDIT:RECREATION SUPPLIES RECREATION SUPPLIES AND EQUIP RECREATION SUPPLIES AND EQUIP RECREATION SUPPLIES/EGUIP:CRC SPORTS EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES ADD~L SPORTS EQUIP,SUPPLIES FREIGHT SALES TAX RECREATION SUPPLIES/EQUIP:CRC MESSAGE BOARDS FOR ROD RUN TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 001065 DEF CONP 001065 DEF CONP 001065 DEF CONP 001065 DEF CONP 001065 DEF CONP 001065 DEF CONP 001065 DEF CONP 001065 DEF CONP 001065 DEF CONP 001065 DEF CONP 000389 PT RETIR 000389 PT RETIR 000389 PT RETIR 000389 PT RETIR 000389 PT RETIR 000389 PT RETIR 000389 PT RETIR POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT ACCOUNT NUMBER 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 001-2620. 190-183-999-5380 190-183-999-5380 190-183-999-5380 190-183-999-5380 190-183-999-5380 190-183-999-5320 190-183-999-5320 190-183-999-5320 190-183-999-5320 190-183-999-5380 001-1990 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 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 001-100-999-5230 001-110-999-5230 001-120-~-5230 001-162-~-5230 190-180-999-5230 280-199-999-5230 001-140-999-5230 ITEM AMOUNT 187.20 40.00 985.00 565.69- 377.13- 680.00 15.35 444.00 492.00 108.00 48.00 46.50 192.52 1,480.00 120.00 257.60 120.00 120.00 515.20 368.00 7,178.30 210.23 1,644.53 2.50 34.68 25.00 85.23 85.34 635.06 158.34 1,122.28 161.22 705.64 51.41 33.42 44.06 70.84 4.18 168.35 161.16 58.31 191.86 54.31 853.97 CHECK AMOUNT 227.20 985.00 1,083.55 1,480.00 1,500.80 10,057.21 2,188.87 VOUCHRE2 03/18/99 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 54764 54764 54764 54764 54764 54765 54766 54766 54766 54766 54766 54766 54766 54766 54767 54768 54768 54769 54770 54770 54770 54770 54770 54770 12:11 CHECK DATE 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 03/18/99 VENDOR NUMBER 002702 002702 002702 002702 002702 003331 000325 000325 000325 000325 000325 000325 000325 000325 000792 003261 003261 002109 000345 000345 000345 0003~5 000345 000345 VENDOR NAME U S POSTAL SERVICE:CMRS U S POSTAL SERVICE:CNRS U S POSTAL SERV[CE:CMRS U S POSTAL SERV[CE:CMRS U S POSTAL SERVICE:CMRS UNION BNK OF CA FBO:VLL UNITED WAY UNITED WAY UNITED WAY UNITED WAY UNITED WAY UNITED WAY UNITED WAY UNITED WAY UNIVERSITY OF CA:RVSD E VALLEY CREST LANDSCAPE, VALLEY CREST LANDSCAPE, WHITE CAP XEROX CORPORATION BILLI XEROX CORPORATION BILLI XEROX CORPORATION BILLI XEROX CORPORATION BILLI XEROX CORPORATION BILLI XEROX CORPORATION BILLI CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS ITEM DESCRIPTION POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT REL.RET.TO ESCROW:VALLEY CREST 000325 UW 000325 UW 000325 UW 000325 UW 000325 UW 000325 uw 000325 uw 000325 UW "INTRO AVE TRAIN":DEGANGE/BEAL FEB PRGS PMT#10:OT STREETSCAPE RET W/H PMT#10:OT STREETSCAPE MISC, MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES JAN-MAR COLON COPIER USAGE JAN LEASE OF 4 XEROX COPIERS JAN LEASE OF 4 XEROX COPIERS POOLED MAINTENANCE/SUPpLIES POOLED MAINTENANCE/SUPPLIES JAN LEASE OF COPIER AT TCC ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-150-999-5230 001-161-999-5230 001-1990 320-199-999-5230 001-171-999-5230 280-1035 001-2120 165-2120 190-2120 280-2120 300-2120 320-2120 330-2120 340-2120 001-161-610-5261 280-199-824-5804 280-2035 001-163-999-5218 330-199-999-5239 330-2800 330-199-999-5391 330-199-999-5217 330-199-999-5217 190-184-999-5239 ITEM AMOUNT 196.69 382.46 546.08 6.40 .33 130.26 224.94 3.7'5 19.00 1.25 .25 3.81 5.00 2.00 405.00 2,605.10 130.26- 93.13 554.87 1,530.78 699.86 2,180.66 25,926.22 122.8~ PAGE 10 CHECK AMOUNT 2,624.10 130.26 260.00 405.00 2,474.84 93.13 31,015.23 TOTAL CHECKS 257,008.19 VOUCHRE2 03/25/99 11:17 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 165 RDA DEV- LOg/NOD SET ASIDE 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 261 CFD 88-12 ADMIN EXPENSE FUND 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP 300 INSURANCE FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 340 FACILITIES 390 TCSD DEBT SERVICE AMOUNT 60,844.12 23,705.50 33,553.45 13,796.20 25,206,51 5,650.37 23,401.49 433,25 13,476,54 4,149.87 8,919.76 8/,5.17 132,150.26 TOTAL 366,132.49 VOUCHRE2 03/25/99 11: 17 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER 54771 03/23/99 003632 54772 03/23/99 003628 990322 03/22/99 990324 03/24/99 54775 03/25/99 54776 03/25/99 54777 03/25/99 54778 03/25/99 54779 54780 54781 54782 54783 54784. 03/25/99 000924 54785 03/25/99 002534 54785 03/25/99 0025:34 54786 03/25/99 001195 54787 03/25/99 001193 54788 03/25/99 001264 54788 03/25/99 001264 54788 03/25/99 001264 54789 03/25/99 001264 547{)0 03/25/99 54791 03/25/99 003625 54792 03/25/99 001380 54792 03/25/99 001380 54792 03/25/99 001380 54793 03/25/99 003522 VENDOR NAME CREENERS, AD CHUY'S 003228 U S BANK TRUST NATIONAL 002856 OLD REPUBLIC TITLE CONP 003213 A M S PLANNING RESEARCH 003004 A TASTE OF TEMECULA ABRANANIAN, KASEY 001281 ALHAMBRA GROUP 03/25/99 002896 ALL CONCRETE CONSTRUCT/ 03/25/99 AMBRIZ, NANCY 03/25/99 003607 AMERICAN FIRST AID & SA 03/25/99 002506 BAILEYeS BLINDS & DRAPE 03/25/99 002377 BEST BUY COMPANY, INC. C A P P O, INC. CATERERS CAFE, THE CATERERS CAFE, THE CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION REIMB:TRAVEL & HTL TO VOORBURG QTRLY EMPLOYEE LUNCHEON 3/24 TCSD COPES DEBT SERVICE PMT 1ST TIME HONEBUYER PRGM:HECKER CULTURAL ARTS MASTER PLAN SUPPLIES FOR ECON DEVEL REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-101-999-5280 001-150-999-5265 390-1040 165-199-999-5449 190'180-999-5248 001-111-999-5270 190-183-4990 DESIGN SERVICES-NARGARITA PARK 210-190-119-5802 REL RETENTION:WINCH SIDEWLK REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT SAFETY EQUIP FOR PW MAINT CREW VERTICAL BLINDS-NAINT FACILITY BATTERIES/VIDEO FILN-PW DEPT MEMBERSHIP DUES: M. VOLLMUTH REFRESHMENT FOR ECON DEV MTG REFRESHMENTS:SENATOR HAYNES MT CENTRAL SECURITY SERVIC CRC ALARM PANEL/PANIC BUTTONS CONP USA, INC. SOFTWARE NAINT-NORTON GHOST SAFETY EXPO REFRESHMENTS SAFETY EXPO REFRESHMENTS SAFETY EXPO REFRESHMENTS TABLES FOR TEMECULA CONH CTR REISSUE:REFD/OVRPMT BUSINESS L TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TEMP HELP W/E 2/26 WILLIAMS TEMP HELP W/E 2/26 W[LLIANS TEMP HELP W/E 2/26 GORNAN RADIO EQUIPMENT FOR TEM POLICE COSTCO WHOLESALE COSTCO WHOLESALE COSTCO WHOLESALE COSTCO WHOLESALE D~ANGELO, JOSEPH J. DAVIS, JOHN E S ] EMPLOYMENT SERVIC E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC E S I EMPLOYMENT SERV]C ERZCSSON~ INC. 210'2035 190-2900 001-164-601-5218 210-190-158-5804 001-164-604-5220 001-140-999-5226 001-161-999-5260 001-110-999-5260 190-182-999-5250 320-199-999-5211 001-110-999-5278 001-110-999-5278 001-110-999-5278 190-184-999-5301 001-1990 190-183-999-5330 001-161-999-5118 001-162-999-5118 001-162-999-5118 001-170-999-5214 ITEM AMOUNT 1,659.00 1,201.41 132,150.26 21,900.00 2,000.00 25.00 100.00 100.00 7,034.00 100.00 109.74 385.00 242.99 60.00 78.61 135.87 88.00 251.76 154.92 328.43 16.72 344.70 20.00 280.00 551.76 551.76 1,260.22 2,795.47 PAGE 1 CHECK AMOUNT 1,659,00 1,201.41 132,150.26 21,900.00 2,000.00 25.00 100,00 100.00 7,034.00 100.00 109.74 385.00 242.99 60.00 214.48 88.00 251.76 500.07 344.70 20.00 280.00 2,363.74 2,795.47 VDUCHRE2 03/25/99 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 547~4 547~4 547~4 547~5 547~5 547~5 54796 54796 54796 54796 54796 54796 54796 54796 54797 54798 54799 54800 54801 54802 54803 54803 54803 54803 54803 54803 54804 54804 54804 54805 54806 54807 54807 54807 54807 54808 11:17 CHECK DATE 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 05/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 VENDOR NUMBER 001056 001056 001056 003633 003633 003633 000165 000165 000165 000165 000165 000165 000165 000165 000166 002122 000795 000795 000172 000184 000184 000184 000184 000184 000184 000351 000351 000351 002528 000192 000192 000192 000192 000175 VENDOR NAME EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE FASTRAK FASTRAK FASTRAK FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC, FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC, FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO FIRST LINE CONSTRUCTION FORTUNE MAGAZINE FRED PRYOR SEMINARS FRED PRYOR SEMINARS GASB G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYN G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALiFORNiA - PAYN GILLISS, MAX C.M. GILLISS, MAX C.M. GILLISS, MAX C.M, GLASS BLASTERS GLEASON, J. GLOBAL CONPUTER SUPPLIE GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE GLOBAL CONPUTER SUPPLIE GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFI CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION OCT LDSCP MAINT - PARKS RANCHO HGHLNDS IMPROVEMENTS RANCHO HGHLNDS IMPROVEMENTS RESPONDERS FOR CITY VEHICLES RESPONDERS FOR CITY VEHICLES RESPONDERS FOR CITY VEHICLES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS NAIL SERVICES LOT BOOK REPTS: OAK CLIFF PALA PRK:RR/SNACK BAR REPAIRS ONE YEAR SUBSCRIPTION MS-OFFICE TRAINING:BEAL:5/27 MS-OFF]CE SEM:BROCKNEIER:5/27. lyr SUBSCRZPTION:GASB CONPREHE 909 197-5072 GENERAL USAGE 909 676-0783 GENERAL USAGE 909 676-6243 PALA CONM PRK 909 694-4354 PALA CONM PRK 909 695-3564 ALARM 909 699-8632 GENERAL USAGE CONSULTING SVCS:GENERAL ENG FEB CONSULTING: GENERAL ENG FEB PGRSS:PALA RD BRIDGE CITY SEAL MUGS FOR NEW HIRES REFUND: BASEBALL DEPOSIT 6-BLACK INK CARTRIDGES 5-LASER TONER CARTRIDGES FREIGHT SALES TAX GAAFR SUBSCRIPTION:FINANCE DPT ACCOUNT NUMBER 190-180-999-5415 193-180-999-5415 193-180-999-5415 340-199-701-5262 190-180-999-5262 001-161-999-5262 001-163-999-5230 001-164-604-5230 190-180-999-5230 001-111-999-5230 001-161-999-5230 001-140-999-5230 280-199-999-5230 001-162-999-5230 165-199-813-5804 190-180-999-5212 001-110-999-5228 001-161-999-5261 001-162-999-5261 001-140-999-5228 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 001-110-999-5248 001-164-604-5248 210-165-631-5801 001-150-999-5265 190-2900 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 001-140-999-5228 ITEM AMOUNT 8,961.00 150.00 450.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 21.50 40.25 37.75 10.75 46.75 10.75 12.50 48.50 150.00 560.00 29.98 59.00 59.00 145,00 4,138.19 63.86 28.03 31.05 55.20 28 · 58 500.00 500.00 5,000,00 15.09 100.00 173,94 724.95 31.28 71.01 50.00 PAGE 2 CHECK AMOUNT 9,561.00 240.00 228.75 150.00 560.00 29.98 59.00 59.00 145.00 4,344.91 6,000.00 15.09 100.00 1,001.18 50.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 03/25/99 11=17 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER MANE DESCRIPTION NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 54809 03/25/99 001609 GREATER ALARM COMPANY, ALARM MONITORING:CABOOSE 54809 03/25/99 001609 GREATER ALARM CUMPANY~ SKATE PARK ALARM MONITORING 001-110-999-5223 190-180-999-5250 75.00 105.00 180.00 54810 03/25/99 HADJIS, NARCINA REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900 100.00 100.00 54811 03/25/99 000186 HANKS HARDWARE, INC. SUPPLIES FOR STATION 84 001-171-999-5212 202.89 202.89 54812 03/25/99 001085 L N CURTIS & SONS AIM 600 GAS DETECTOR SENSOR 001-171-999-5242 54812 03/25/99 001085 L N CURTIS & SONS FREIGHT 001-171-999-5242 54812 03/25/99 001085 L N CURTIS & SONS SALES TAX 001-171-999-5242 125.00 11.50 9.70 146.20 54813 03/25/99 001982 L WILLIANS LANDSCAPE, I S-4 VINEYARDS/TREE TRIMMING 193-180-999-5415 54813 03/25/99 001982 L W]LLIANS LANDSCAPE, I 29 EUCALYPTUS TREES TRIMMING 193-180-999-5415 54813 03/25/99 001982 L WILLJAMS LANDSCAPE, ] CITY WIDE TREE TRIMMING 001-164-601-5402 54813 03/25/99 001982 L WILLIAMS LANDSCAPE, [ CITY HIDE TREE TRIMMING 001-164-601-5402 54813 03/25/99 001982 L gILLIAMS LANDSCAPE, [ CITY ~[DE TREE TRIMMING 001-164-601-5402 54814 03/25/99 002187 LAKE ELSINORE ANIMAL FR FEB 99 ANIMAL CONTROL SVCS 001-172-999-5255 54815 03/25/99 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV TEMP HELP ~/E 2/21 BELIAN 001-171-999-5118 54815 03/25/99 001967 MANPC~ER TEMPORARY SERV TEMP HELP W/E 2/21BELIAN 001-162-999-5118 54815 03/25/99 001967 MANPO~/ER TEMPORARY SERV TEMP HELP W/E 2/28 LUQUE 190-182-999-5118 54815 03/25/99 001967 MANPCNER TEMPORARY SERV TEMP HELP ~/E 2/28 HILL 001-161-999-5118 54815 03/25/99 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV TENP HELP ~/E 3/7 LUQUE/BEAMON 190-182-999-5118 54815 03/25/99 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV TENP HELP ~/E 3/7 HILL 001-161-999-5118 54815 03/25/99 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV TEMP HELP ~/E 3/7 LOVE 001-150-999-5118 54816 03/25/99 001142 MARKHAM & ASSOCIATES REFUND: PA99-0089 001-161-4130 54816 03/25/99 001142 MARKHAM & ASSOCIATES REFUND: PA99-0089 001-163-4388 40.00 1,885.00 980.00 380.00 3,780.00 3,112.60 222,91 148.61 42,28 455.60 591.92 444,21 214.40 593.00 45.00 7,065.00 3,112.60 2,119,93 638.00 54817 03/25/99 002011 MARTIN, KATHARINA E. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 442.00 442.00 54818 03/25/99 MERCER CONSTRUCTION CO, REFUND:DUPLICATE PMT NSF CK 001-1190 628.50 628.50 54819 03/25/99 003241 MILLAR HEATING & AIR, I INSTALL SOUND EQUIP&A/C:6TH ST 280-199-824-5804 54820 03/25/99 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS STATIONARY & PRINTING SERVS 001-120-999-5222 54820 03/25/99 00138~ MINUTEMAN PRESS STATIONARY & PRINTING SERVS 001-120-999-5222 54820 03/25/99 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS STATIONARY & PRINTING SERVS 001-120-999-5222 54820 0~/25/99 00138~ MINUTEMAN PRESS SALES TAX 001-120-999-5222 54820 03/25/99 00138~ MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING SERVICES:SB 001-161-999-5222 54820 03/25/99 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS SALES TAX 001-161-999-5222 54820 03/25/99 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING SERVICES:RP 001-163-999-5222 54820 03/25/99 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING SERVICES:GA/AC/JP/CJ. 001-163-999-5222 54820 03/25/99 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING SERVICES:MW/SH/HB 001-164-604-5222 54820 03/25/99 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS SALES TAX 001-163-999-5222 54820 03/25/99 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS SALES TAX 001-164-604-5222 54820 03/25/99 00138~ MINUTEMAN PRESS STATIONARY & PRINTING SERVS 001-140-999-5222 54820 03/25/99 00138~ MINUTEMAN PRESS SALES TAX 001-140-999-5222 4,950.00 59.60 137.75 124.35 24.93 38.25 2.96 102.50 153.00 114.75 19.80 8.89 38.25 2.96 4,950.00 827.99 54821 03/25/99 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-170-999-5262 145.84 VCXJCHRE2 03/25/99 VOIJCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 54821 54821 54822 54822 54822 54822 54822 54822 54823 54823 54824 54825 54825 54825 54825 54825 54825 54825 54825 54825 54825 54825 54825 54825 54825 54826 54826 54827 54827 54828 54829 54829 54829 54829 54830 54830 54831 54831 54831 54832 11:17 CHECK DATE 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/¢~ 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 0~/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 VENDOR NUMBER 000228 000228 003590 003590 003590 003590 003590 003590 002105 002105 001354 0O3021 003021 003021 003021 003021 003021 003021 003021 003021 003021 003021 003021 003021 003021 001248 001248 000?33 000733 002498 000254 000254 000254 000254 002776 002776 000635 000635 000635 000947 VENDOR NAME MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO NETWORK COI4PUT[NG SOLUT NETWORK COMPUTING SOLUT NETWORK COMPUTING SOLUT NETMORK COMPUTING SOLUT NETWORK COMPUTING SOLUT NETWORK COMPUTING SOLUT OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE P C MAGAZINE PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER PACiFiC BELL MOBILE SER PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER PAPER DIRECT, iNC. PAPER DIRECT, INC. PARTY PZAZZ PARTY PZAZZ PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC PRESS-ENTERPRISE CONPAN PRESS-ENTERPRISE CONPAN PRESS-ENTERPRISE CONPAN PRESS-ENTERPRISE CONPAN PRIME MATRIX, INC. PRIME MATRIX, INC. R & J PARTY PALACE R & J PARTY PALACE R & J PARTY PALACE RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS ITEM DESCRIPTION FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES COMPUTER HARDWARE SALES TAX HP PRINTER SCANNER SALES TAX NISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT PUBL l CAT I ON: "PC NAG. EXTRAee: T H MAR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE MAR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE MAR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE MAR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE MAR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE MAR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE MAR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE MAR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE MAR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE MAR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE MAR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE MAR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE MAR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE MAR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE HISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES FREIGHT SUPPLY RENTAL:HAYNES MTG:3/19 SALES TAX GEOTECHNICAL SVCS:WINCH/I15 PUBLIC NOTICE:PA98-0517 PUBLIC NOTICE:PA98-0511 PUBLIC NOTICE:PA99-O015 PUBLIC NOTICE:PA99-O022 FEB:SC-SOO1377-O:SR VAN FEB:SC-5002330-8:CITy VAN RENTAL EQUIP:SAFETY EXPO/WKSHP RENTAL EQUIP:SAFETY EXPO/WKSHP DEPOSIT FOR RENTAL EQUIPMENT BLUEPRINTS AND MISC SUPPLIES ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-161-999-5263 001-164-601-5263 320-1970 320-1970 320-199-999-5242 320-199-999-5242 320-199-999-5242 320-199-999-5221 190-180-999-5214 001-161-999-5214 320-199-9~-5228 280-199-999-5208 001-162-999-5208 001-163-999-5208 001-164-601-5208 001-164-604-5208 001-165-999-5208 001-100-999-5208 001-110-999-5208 001-150-999-5208 001-120-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 001-140-999-5208 001-1990 190-1990 190-180-999-5220 190-180-999-5220 001-110-999-5260 001-110-999-5260 210-165-697-5804 001-161-999-5256 001-120-999-5256 001-120-999-5256 001-120-999-5256 190-180-999-5208 190-180-999-5208 001-110-999-5278 001-100-999-5260 001-110-999-5278 001-164-604-5268 ITEM AMOUNT 29,70 68.67 1,579.00 122.37 549.00 175.00 56.11 74.35 287.71 21.29 49.95 58.04 559.48 191.44 108.97 110.42 289.94 236.75 173.97 78.65 59.12 114.46 56.75 109.29 441.20 62.85 8.95 85.00 6,59 1,076.25 18.75 19.00 20.00 22.00 42.06 27.20 312.45 77.58 229.15- 81.51 PAGE 4 CHECK AMOLINT 244.21 2,555.83 309,00 49.95 2,588.48 71.80 91,59 1,076.25 79.75 69.26 160.88 VQUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 03/25/99 i1:17 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PER]OOS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR XTEN ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER MANE DESCRIPTION NUMBER /TEN AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 548~2 03/25/99 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C BLUEPRINTS AND MISC SUPPLXES 210-165-~83-5804 54832 03125199 0OO947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C BLUEPRINTS=NARGARITA/OVERLAND 210-165-681-5804 58.03 102,21 241.75 5/d~33 03/25/99 002176 RANCHO CALIF BUS PARK A ASSOCIATION DUES:R.CAL/DIAZ RD 001-16~-604-5226 548~7 03/25/99 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA HATER FEB:O1-OZ-98000-O:STN #84 001-171-999-5240 54RX7 03/25/99 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA HATER FEB:Ol-O2-98010-O:STN b 001-171-999-5240 54837 03/25/99 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA HATER VARIOUS HATER METERS 190-180-999-5240 54837 03/25/99 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA HATER VARIOUS HATER METERS 191-180-999-5240 54837 03/25/99 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA HATER VARIOUS HATER METERS 193-180-999-5240 548~8 03/25/99 000907 RANCHO CAR HASH CITY VEHICLE DETAILING 001-162-999-5214 1,263.63 9.62 136.93 1,019.09 23.50 3,125,37 42.00 1,263.63 4,314.51 42.00 54839 03/25/99 000526 REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY 0 ENG.ACADENY:HUGHES:4/20-23/99 001-164-604-5258 250.00 250.00 548~0 03/25/99 002412 RICHARDS, HATSON & GERS FEB 99 LEGAL SERVICES 001-130-999-5246 548/,0 03/25/99 002412 RICHAROS, HATSON & GERS FEB 99 LEGAL SERVICES 001-130-999-5246 548~0 03/25/99 002412 RICNARDS, HATSON & GERS FEB 99 LEGAL SERVICES 001-130-999-5246 548~0 03/25/99 002412 RICNAROS, HATSON & GERS FEB 99 LEGAL SERVICES 190-180-999-5246 548~0 03/25/99 002412 RICHAROS, HATSON & GERS FEB 99 LEGAL SERVICES 001-130-999-52~6 54~8~0 03/25/99 002412 RICHAROS, HATSON & GERS FEB 99 LEGAL SERVICES 001-130-999-5246 5~8~0 03/25/99 002412 RICHAROS, HATSON & GERS FEB 99 LEGAL SERVICES 210-165-604-5801 548~0 03/25/99 002412 RICHARDS, HATSON & GERS FEB 99 LEGAL SERVICES 210-165-631-5801 548~0 03/25/99 002412 RICHARDS, HATSON & GERS FEB 99 LEGAL SERV]CES 001-130-999-5246 548~0 03/25/99 002412 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS FEB 99 LEGAL SERVICES 300-199-999-5246 54840 03/25/99 002412 RICHARDS, HATSON & GERS FEB 99 LEGAL SERVICES 300-199-999-5246 548~0 03/25/99 002412 RICHAROS, HATSON & GERS FEB 99 LEGAL SERVICES 261-199-999-5246 548/,0 03/25/99 002412 RICHAROS, HATSON & GERS FEB 99 LEGAL SERVICES 300-199-999-5246 5~8~0 03/25/99 002412 RICHARDS, HATSON & GERS FEB 99 LEGAL SERVICES 210-165-604-5801 548~0 03/25/99 002412 RICHAROS, HATSON & GERS FEB 99 LEGAL SERVICES 210-165-604-5801 548~0 03/25/99 002412 RICHARDS, HATSON & GERS FEB 99 LEGAL SERVICES 210-165-604-5801 548~0 03/25/99 002412 RICHAROS, HATSON & GERS FEB 99 LEGAL SERVICES 210-165-631-5801 548~0 03/25/99 002412 RICHARDS, HATSON & GERS FEB 99 LEGAL SERVICES 300-199-999-5246 548~0 03/25/99 002412 RICHAROS, WATSON & GERS FEB 99 LEGAL SERVICES 280-199-999-5246 548~0 03/25/99 002412 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS FEB 99 LEGAL SERVICES 165-199-999-5246 548~0 03/25/99 002412 RiCHARDS, HATSON & GERS FEB 99 LEGAL SERVICES 280-199-999-5246 548~0 03/25/99 002412 RICHARDS,'HATSON & GERS FEB 99 LEGAL SERVICES 165-199-999-5246 548~1 03/25/99 000353 RIVERSIDE CO. AUDITOR DEC 98 PARKING CIT. ASESSMENTS 001-2265 54841 03/25/99 000353 RIVERSIDE CO. AUDITOR DEC 98 PARKING CIT. ASESSMENTS 001-2260 548~2 03/25/99 000418 5/~3 03/25/99 000418 RIVERSIDE CO, CLERK & R RIVERSIDE CO. CLERK & R FEB:APERTURE CARDS DUPLICATES NTC OF EXEMPTION FEE:PA99-O089 001-163-999-5250 001-161-999-5224 11,013.57 7,963.25 7,353.02 2,592.00 156.00 258.00 816.00 1,763.00 926.77 1,376.40 2,165.00 433.25 36.00 516.50 2,642.00 1,132,50 216.00 347.25 7,796.50 1,401.50 659,50 254.00 550.00 1,060.00 5.00 78, O0 51,798.01 1,610.00 5.00 78.00 VOUCHRE2 03/25/99 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 54844 54845 54846 548~7 548~,7 54847 548~7 54848 54848 54848 54848 54848 54848 54848 54848 54848 54848 548/,9 548/,9 548~9 548~9 54850 54850 54851 54851 54851 54851 54851 54852 54852 54853 54853 54854 54855 54855 54855 54856 54856 54856 11:17 CHECK DATE 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 03/25/99 VENDOR NUMBER 001365 003635 0006~5 000645 000645 000645 000537 000537 000537 000537 000537 000537 000537 000537 000537 000537 001212 001212 001212 001212 000574 000574 000303 000303 000303 000303 000303 O03599 003599 000305 000305 001672 003031 003031 003031 007316 002316 007316 VENDOR NAME RIVERSIDE CO. ENVIRONME SAFETY RESEARCH ASSOC., SET FREE CHRISTIAN FELL SMART & FINAL, INC. SMART & FINAL, INC. SMART & FINAL, INC. SMART & FINAL, INC. 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 GAS CONP SOUTHERN CALIF GAS COMP SOUTHERN CALIF GAS CQNP SOUTHERN CALIF GAS CONP SUPERTONER SUPERTONER SYSTEM 2/90 SYSTEM 2/90 SYSTEM 2/90 SYSTEM 2/90 SYSTEM 2/90 T Y INTERNATIONAL T Y INTERNATIONAL TARGET STORE TARGET STORE TEMECULA DRAIN SERV & P TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE NESTFALL CONSTRUCTION C NESTFALL CONSTRUCTION C NESTFALL CONSTRUCTION C CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION ANNUAL PERMIT RENEMAL:CRC FEB LEGAL SERVICES REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT RECREATION SUPPLIES:TCC RECREATION SUPPLIES:TCC RECREATION SUPPLIES:TCC RECREATION SUPPLIES:TCC MAR:2-17-O38-O802:MARG, P-15 MAR:2-10-331-1353:STN ~ MAR:2-13-O79-2377:HMY 79 TC1 MAR:Z-OO-397-5059:COMM SVC UTL MAR:2-O2-351-6800:VAR.METERS MAR:2-O1-202-7330:VAR.METERS MAR:2-O1-202-7603:ARTERIAL STL FEB:2-18-799-7911:NORENO RD TC MAR:Z-OS-791-8807:VAR.METERS MAR:2-18-373-9903:MARGARITA SP MAR:O21-?25-O775-4:SENIOR CTR MAR:O95-167-7907-2:STN ~ MAR:101-525-O950-O:TCC NAR:133-O40-T573-O:NAINT.FAC. MAR LASER PRINTER MAINTENANCE LASER PRINTER MAINTENANCE 8X8B MODIFIED MALL MOUNT 2XBA PANEL MOUNT LESS IOX DISCOUNT FREIGHT SALES TAX FEB PROF SVCS:PALA RD BRIDGE FEB DESIGN SVCS:OVERLAND DRIVE MISC RECREATION SUPPLIES:TCC MISC SUPPLIES FOR RECREATION PLUMBING SERVICES:DEPORTOLA PK SAFETY EQUIP/BARRICADES MISC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES MISC. MAINT, SUPPLIES REPAIR/MAINTENANCE:SPORTS PARK LDSC MAINTENANCE:SPORTS PARK LDSC IMPROVEMENTS:SPORTS PARK ACCOUNT NUMBER 190-180-999-5250 300-199-999-5246 190-2900 190-184-999-5301 190-184-999-5301 190-184-999-5301 190-184-999-5301 190-180-999-5240 001-171-999-5240 191-180-999-5319 190-180-999-5240 191-180-999-5240 192-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 001-164-603-5319 191-180-999-5319 190-180-999-5240 190-181-999-5240 001-171-999-5240 190-184-999-5240 340-199-702-5240 320-199-999-5215 320-199-999-5215 340-199-701-5250 340-199-701-5250 340-199-701-5250 340-199-701-5250 340-199-701-5250 210-165-631-5801 210-165-604-5801 190-184-999-5301 190-180-999-5301 190-180-999-5212 001-164-601-5218 001-164-601-5218 001-164-601-5218 190-180-999-5212 190-182-999-5415 190-182-999-5212 ITEM AMOUNT 420.00 225.22 100.00 35.57 74.90 32.62 142.29 57.49 728.37 145.34 6,379.78 26.46 25,206.51 9,0/~..94 68.62 4,555.96 560.16 117.04 228.79 39.21 115.67 536.67 65.00 407.04 254.40 66.08- 8.00 46.14 2,300.00 260.00 78.18 32.50 61.00 2,586.00 253.21 213.95 4,453.00 2,206.00 350.00 PAGE 6 CHECK AIqOUNT 420.00 225.22 100.00 285.38 46,77'5.63 500.71 601.67 649.50 2,560.00 110.68 61.00 3,053.16 7,009.00 TOTAL CHECKS 346,132.49 VOUCHRE2 04/01/99 14:02 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 12 FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 165 RDA DEV- LOW/HOD SET ASIDE 190 CQNMUNITY 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 INFORNATION SYSTEMS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES AMOUNT 148,428,58 25,261.68 25,682.07 309.96 65.31 3,653.83 434.93 99,695.22 8,698.50 291.66 8,252.20 657.43 2,886.39 TOTAL 324,317.76 VOUCHRE2 04/01/99 14:02 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 970553 54874 54875 54876 54876 54876 54876 54877 54877 54877 54878 CHECK DATE 03/29/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 VENDOR NUMBER 002879 001523 000745 000116 000116 000116 000116 002410 002410 002410 003304 VENDOR ITEM NAME DESCRIPTION CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY 1st TIME HMEBYR: T.SHOWALTER A M BEST COMPANY, INC. SUBSCRIPTION RENEW A T & T WIRELESS SERVIC CELLULAR PHONE SVCS:POLICE DPT A V P VISION PLANS 000116 AVP A V P VISION PLANS 000116 AVP A V P VISION PLANS 000116 AVP A V P VISION PLANS COBRA/GREEK/APRIL 99 A WQNAN'S TOUCH BUILDIN A WONAN'S TOUCH BUILDIN A WOHAN'S TOUCH BUILDIN JANITORIAL SVCS-CITY PARKS JANITORZAL SVCS-CITY PARKS JANITORIAL SVCS:WINCH CRK PRK ADAMS ADVERTISING, INC. BILLBOARD:OLD TWN PROMOTIONS 54879 04/01/99 003552 AFLAC 003552 CANCER 54879 04/01/99 003552 AFLAC 003552 EXP PROT 54879 04/01/99 003552 AFLAC 003552 EXP PROT 54879 04/01/99 003552 AFLAC 003552 EXP PROT 54879 04/01/99 003552 AFLAC 003552 HOSP IC 54879 04/01/99 003552 AFLAC 003552 STD 54879 04/01/99 003552 AFLAC 003552 STD 54879 04/01/99 003552 AFLAC 003552 STD 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 54880 54881 54882 54883 54884 54884 54885 54886 001916 000102 003607 000747 000747 000936 003520 000101 000101 000101 000101 000101 001323 001323 001323 54887 54887 54887 54887 54887 54888 54888 54888 04/01/99 04/01/99 0~/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIAT REPAIR TO INTERCONNECT SYSTEM ALLISONmS HOPE PEDIATRI REFUND: PICNIC SHELTER AMERICAN FENCE CO. OF C RELOCATE FENCING a MUSEUM AHERICAN FIRST AID & SA SAFETY EQUIP FOR PW MAINT CREW AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC MEMBERSHIP: M.FAGAN/D,UBNOSKE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC MEMBERSHIP: M.FAGAN/D.UBNOSKE AMERICAN RED CROSS JR LIFE GUARD PRGM: START KITS AHERICAN SOCIETY OF CON BLANKET LICENSE AGREEMENT FEE APPLE ONE, INC. APPLE ONE, INC. APPLE ONE, INC. APPLE ONE, INC. APPLE ONE, INC. TEMP HELP W/E 3/6 MANANSINGH TEMP HELP W/E 2/27 MARTINEZ TEMP HELP W/E 2/27 KELLY/HANAN TEMP HELP W/E 3/13 MANANSINGH TEMP HELP W/E 3/20 MANANSINGH ARROWHEAD WATER, INC. ARR()WHEAD WATER, INC, ARRCH,/HEAD WATER, INC. DRINKING WATER FOR CITY HALL DRINKING WATER FOR CITY HALL DRINKING WATER FOR CRC ACCOUNT NUMBER 165-199-999-5449 300-199-999-5228 001-170-999-5208 001-2310 190-2310 340-2310 001-1180 190-180-999-5250 001-164-603-5250 190-180-999-5250 280-199-999-5362 001-2330 001-2330 190-2330 300-2330 001-2330 001-2330 190-2330 300-2330 210-165-601-5804 190-183-4988 210-190-808~5804 001-164-601-5218 001-161-999-5226 001-161-999-5226 190-183-999-5310 280-199-999-5362 001-140-999-5118 001-140-999-5118 001-140-999-5118 001-140-999-5118 001-140-999-5118 340-199-701-5250 340-199-701-5250 190-182-999-5250 ITEM AMOUNT 24,000.00 88.95 122.48 609.60 29.75 18.58 18.58 1,722.00 211.00 211.00 400.00 234.50 202.13 55.80 5.47 17.50 564.80 112.00 8.00 1,080.00 38.00 1,120.00 99.56 291.00 232.00 237.00 14,00 516.00 5.15 343.15 530.51 478.33 209.91 92.65 28.61 CHECK AMOUNT 24,000.00 88.95 122.48 676.51 2,144.00 400.00 1,200.20 1,080.00 38.00 1,120.00 99.56 523,00 237.00 14.00 1,873.14 331.17 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 04/01/99 14:02 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 54889 04/01/99 000195 ASCOM HASLER MAILING SY POSTAGE METER RENTAL 330-199-999-5239 54889 04/01/99 000195 ASCON HASLER MAILING SY POSTAGE METER RESETS 330-199-999-5239 54889 04/01/99 000195 ASCOM HASLER MAILING SY SALES TAX 330-199-999-5239 177.00 17.00 15.04 209.04 54890 04/01/99 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER ELECTRICAL SERVICES - PARKS 190-180-999-5212 54890 04/01/99 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER ELECT EQUIP REPAIRS: MNTC FAC 210-190-158-5804 54890 04/01/99 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER ELECT EQUIP REPAIRS:STATION 84 001-171-999-5212 54890 04/01/99 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER REPAIR LIGHTS @ TEM ELEM POOL 190-180-999-5212 54890 04/01/99 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER LIGHT FIXTURES-TEM ELEM POOL 190-180-999-5212 54890 04/01/99 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER 20amp CIRCUIT-COPIER MACHINE 340-199-701-5250 54890 04/01/99 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER ELECTRICAL SERVICES - PARKS 190-180-999-5212 54890 04/01/99 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER ELECTRICAL SERVICES - PARKS 190-180-999-5212 54891 04/01/99 003595 BRIDLEVALE HOA APRIL MONTHLY ASSESSMENTS 165-199-812-5804 225.00 1,031.27 90.00 350.00 975.08 580.00 61.00 275.83 32.00 3,588.18 32.00 54892 04/01/99 000901 C P R S LAYMAN'S AWARD FOR CRC SUPPORT 190-180-999-5260 50,00 50.00 54893 04/01/99 001159 CALIFORNIA DEPT OF JUST PROCESSING FEE:EMPLEE PRINTS 001-150-999-5250 294.00 294.00 54894 04/01/99 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 001-2360 54894 04/01/99 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSUIL~NCE C 003554 LIFE INS 165-2360 54894 04/01/99 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 190-2360 54894 04/01/99 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 191-2360 54894 04/01/99 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 192-2360 54894 04/01/99 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 193-2360 54894 04/01/99 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 194-2360 54894 04/01/99 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 280-2360 54894 04/01/99 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 300-2360 54894 04/01/99 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 320-2360 54894 04/01/99 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 330-2360 54894 04/01/99 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 340-2360 549.26 13.01 97.00 .33 .98 10.59 5.84 6.49 3.24 13.00 6.50 15.26 721.50 54895 04/01/99 CARLSON, TIM SPL TESTING AUDIO:N.W.SPORT PK 190-180-999-5250 225.00 225.00 54896 04/01/99 000135 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER STREET SIGNS & MISC HARDWARE 001-164-601-5244 54896 04/01/99 000135 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER STREET SIGNS & NISC HARDWARE 001-164-601-5244 54896 04/01/99 000135 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER STREET SIGNS & MISC HARDWARE 001-164-601-5244 54897 04/01/99 001195 CENTRAL SECURITY SERVIC FIRE ALARM BATTERY: SR CTR 190-181-999-5250 54898 04/01/99 003553 ClGNA 003553 LTD 001-2380 54898 04/01/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 LTD 165-2380 54898 04/01/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 LTD 190-2380 54898 04/01/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 LTD 191-2380 54898 04/01/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 LTD 192-2380 54898 04/01/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 LTD 193-2380 54898 04/01/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 LTD 194-2380 54898 04/01/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 LTD 280-2380 54898 04/01/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 LTD 300-2380 54898 04/01/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 LTD 320-2380 54898 04/01/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 LTD 330-2380 741.79 129.30 425.61 4O.0O 1,264.16 37.20 209.67 .76 1.93 23.02 10.85 16.41 7.12 37.36 8.08 1,296.70 40.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 04/01/99 14:02 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 54898 04/01/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 LTD 340-2380 54898 04/01/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 STD 001-2500 54898 04/01/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 STD 165-2500 54898 04/01/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 STD 190-2500 54898 04/01/99 003553 ClGNA 003553 STD 191-2500 54898 04/01/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 STO 192-2500 54898 04/01/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 STD 193-2500 54898 04/01/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 STD 194-2500 54898 04/01/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 STD 280-2500 54898 04/01/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 STD 300-2500 54898 04/01/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 STD 320-2500 54898 04/01/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 STD 330-2500 54898 04/01/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 STD 340-2500 54900 04/01/99 002989 CLEAR IMAGE WINDOW CLEA WINDOW CLEANING AT CITY HALL 340-199-701-5212 27.53 1,764.55 51.94 292.65 1.06 2.69 32.12 15.14 22.90 9.94 52.14 11.28 38.45 45.00 3,938.95 45.00 54901 04/01/99 003057 CLEVER KIDS MAGAZINE MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTION: TCC 190-184-999-5301 24.95 24.95 54902 04/01/99 001193 COMP USA, INC. MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES 320-199-999-5211 54902 04/01/99 001193 COMP USA, INC. MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES 320-199-999-5221 104.40 17.24 121.64 54903 04/01/99 000442 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS ALARM MONITORING:MUSEUM STORAG 190-185-999-5250 117.00 117.00 54904 04/01/99 003252 CONTRACT SERVICES CORP. JANITORIAL PRODUCTS -6TH ST RR 001-164-603-5218 54904 04/01/99 003252 CONTRACT SERVICES CORP. JANITORIAL PROOUCTS- CRC 190-182-999-5212 54904 04/01/99 003252 CONTRACT SERVICES CORP. JANITORIAL PRODUCTS- MTNC FAC 340-199-702-5212 54904 04/01/99 003252 CONTRACT SERVICES CORP. JANITORIAL PRODUCTS-PARKS 190-180-999-5212 54904 04/01/99 003252 CONTRACT SERVICES CORP. JANITORIAL PRODUCTS - TCC 190-184-999-5212 78.71 328.58 93.09 218.84 119.50 838.72 54905 04/01/99 002932 CROWN CARPET & DRAPERIE CARPET FOR CITY HALL REMODEL 210-199-808-5804 54905 04/01/99 002932 CROWN CARPET & DRAPERIE CARPET FOR CITY HALL REMODEL 340-199-701-5250 54906 04/01/99 002106 DA FAMILY SUPPORT 002106 SUPPORT 190-2140 1,201.90 212.10 82.50 1,414.00 82.50 54907 04/01/99 DEAN, JUDY REFD:DISMISSED CITATION #29351 001-170-4055 75. O0 75.00 54908 04/01/99 002466 DOVER ELEVATOR COMPANY CITY HALL ELEVATOR SVC.& MTNC. 340-199-701-5212 202.00 202.00 54909 04/01/99 001669 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATIO RECYCLED PAINT & MISC SUPPLIES 001-164-601-5218 112.49 112.49 54910 04/01/99 DUNNIGAN, ANNETTE REFD:DISMISSED CITATION #27608 001-170-4055 54911 04/01/99 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 3/12 GORMAN 001-162-999-5118 54911 04/01/99 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVlC TEMP HELP W/E 3/12 WILLIAMS 001-161-999-5118 54911 04/01/99 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 3/12 WILLIAMS 001-162-999-5118 54911 04/01/99 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVlC TEMP HELP W/E 3/12 MILES 001-163-999-5118 54911 04/01/99 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 3/12 MILES 001-165-999-5118 54911 04/01/99 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 3/12 MILES 001-164-604-5118 54911 04/01/99 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 3/12 HUDSON 001-163-999-5118 54911 04/01/99 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 3/12 THORHSLEY 001-161-999-5118 54911 04/01/99 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 3/12 YONKER 001-140-999-5118 350.00 945.17 551.76 551.76 243.40 243.40 243.40 3,178.24 2,334.50 1o296.04 350.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 04/01/99 14:02 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 54911 04/01/99 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 3/12 SERVEN,R. 001-164-603-5118 375.84 54911 04/01/99 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 3/12 SERVEN,R. 190-180-999-5118 375.84 54911 04/01/99 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 3/12 SERVEN,R. 193-180-999-5118 742.72 11,082.07 54912 04/01/99 000453 ECONOMICS PRESS, INC. T SHIPPING & HANDLING CHARGES 001-162-999-5228 9.10 9.10 54913 04/01/99 ELARDO, LEA REFUND: COOKING W/TIA 190-183-4980 15.00 15.00 54914 04/01/99 ETHNIC MINORITY ASSOCIA MEMBERSHIP: HERMAN PARKER 190-180-999-5226 25.00 25.00 54915 04/01/99 002060 EUROPEAN DELl & CATERIN REFRESHMENTS: CLOSED SESSION 001-100-999-5260 222.55 222.55 54916 04/01/99 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE LDSCP WINCHESTER CRK SLOPE 193-180-999-5212 2,315.78 2,315.78 54917 04/01/99 000165 54917 04/01/99 000165 54917 04/01/99 000165 54917 04/01/9<) 000165 54917 04/01/99 000165 54917 04/01/99 000165 54917 04/01/99 000165 54917 04/01/99 000165 54917 04/01/99 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS NAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-162-999-5230 45.50 001-111-999-5230 21.50 001-161-999-5230 27.50 001-163-999-5230 18.25 001-162-999-5230 30.50 001-164-604-5230 100.25 001-165-999-5230 8.50 001-111-999-5230 11.00 280-199-999-5230 18.25 281.25 54918 04/01/99 001135 FIRST CARE INDUSTRIAL M NEW EMPLOYEE PHYSICALS:KEELEY 001-150-999-5250 85.00 54918 04/01/99 001135 FIRST CARE INDUSTRIAL M PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS:SG,KF 001-150-999-5250 170.00 255.00 54919 04/01/99 001989 FOX NETWORK SYSTEMS, IN INTERNET CLIENT SERVICES 320-199-999-5248 1,152.50 54919 04/01/99 001989 FOX NETWORK SYSTEMS~ IN INTERNET CLIENT SERVICES 320-199-999-5248 2,172.50 54919 04/01/99 001989 FOX NETWORK SYSTEMS, IN GANDALF WAN BRIDGE + CABLE 320-1970 2,768.00 54919 04/01/9<) 001989 FOX NETWORK SYSTEMS, IN FREIGHT 320-1970 35.00 54919 04/01/99 001989 FOX NETWORK SYSTEMSw IN SALES TAX 320-1970 214.52 54920 04/01/99 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 506-2626 POLICE DEPT 001-170-999-5229 324.35 54920 04/01/99 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 506-6506 JS 320-199-999-5208 22.44 54920 04/01/99 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 676-3526 FIRE ALARM 320-199-999-5208 82.38 54920 04/01/99 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 693-0956 GENERAL USAGE 320-199-999-5208 44.76 54920 04/01/99 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 694-4356 K.HINTERGARDT PRK 320-199-999-5208 30.23 54920 04/01/99 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 694-8927 GENERAL USAGE 320-199-999-5208 27.46 54920 04/01/99 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 699-7945 CRC FIRE ALARM 320-199-999-5208 54.92 6,342.52 586.54 54921 04/01/99 002141 GEIS, PAUL MOTORCYCLE REPAIR FOR POLICE 001-170-999-5214 190.00 190.00 54922 04/01/99 000378 HAFELI, THOMAS REIMB: TECH MANUALS 320-199-999-5221 248.01 248.01 54923 04/01/99 001697 HALL, NANCY LEE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 220.30 220.30 54924 04/01/99 002409 HAZ PAK INC. HAZ WASTE PICK-UP & STORAGE 001-164-601-5430 611.00 611.00 54925 04/01/99 001517 HEALTH & HUMAN RESOURCE EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 001-150-999-5248 401.15 401.15 VOUCHRE2 04/01/99 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 54926 54926 54926 54926 54927 54928 54929 54929 54930 54931 54932 54933 54934 54935 54935 54935 54935 54935 54935 54935 54935 54935 54935 54935 54935 54935 54935 54935 54936 54937 54937 54937 54937 54937 54937 54937 54937 54938 14:02 CHECK DATE 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 0~/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 0~/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 VENDOR NUMBER 000194 000194 000194 000194 000863 000199 001186 001186 002695 001894 003501 002772 001091 003286 003286 003286 003286 003286 003286 003286 003286 003286 003286 003286 003286 003286 003286 003286 002693 003076 003076 003076 003076 003076 003076 003076 003076 001290 VENDOR NAME CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOUS ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT I c M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF CONP 001-2080 1,900.16 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF CONP 165-2080 18.75 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF CONP 190-2080 184.00 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 280-2080 31.45 I PMA INTERNAL REVENUE SERVIC IRWIN, JOHN IRWIN, JOHN J A S PACIFIC CONSULTIN JOHNSON FENCE COMPANY K C DEVELOPMENT KELLEY BLUE BOOK KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIAT LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI NATROS, ANDREA MET LIFE INSURANCE COMP MET LIFE INSURANCE CONP MET LIFE INSURANCE CONP MET LIFE INSURANCE CONP MET LIFE INSURANCE CONP MET LIFE INSURANCE CONP MET LIFE INSURANCE COMP MET LIFE INSURANCE CONP 20 REFERENCE CHECKING GUIDES 001-150-999-5228 169.00 000199 IRS GARN 001-2140 275.27 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS PLAN CK SVCS:B99-0434 B99-0071 001-162-999-5248 HAND-RAIL WINCHESTER CRK PRK 190-180-999-5212 FACADE IMPROV PGM:KRIEGER~S 280-199-813-5804 SUBSCRIPTION FOR POLICE DEPT 001-170-999-5228 ECONOMIC CONSULTING SERVICES 280-199-999-5250 RIVERSIDE LIBRARY SYSTEM FEB 99 001-101-999-5285 RIVERSIDE LIBRARY SYSTEM FEB 99 001-101-999-5285 RIVERSIDE LIBRARY SYSTEM DEC 98 001-101-999-5285 RIVERSIDE LIBRARY SYSTEM AUG 98 001-101-999-5285 RIVERSIDE LIBRARY SYSTEM AUG 98001-101-999-5285 RIVERSIDE LIBRARY SYSTEM SEPT 98001-101-999-5285 RIVERSIDE LIBRARY SYSTEM SEPT 98001-101-999-5285 RIVERSIDE LIBRARY SYSTEM JULY 98 001-101-999-5285 RIVERSIDE LIBRARY SYSTEM OCT 98 001-101-999-5285 RIVERSlOE LIBRARY SYSTEM OCT 98 001-101-999-5285 RIVERSIDE LIBRARY SYSTEM NOV'~8 001-101-999-5285 RIVERSIDE LIBRARY SYSTEM NOV 98 001-101-999-5285 RIVERSIDE LIBRARY SYSTEM DEC 98 001-101-999-5285 RIVERSIDE LIBRARY SYSTEM jAN 99 001-101-999-5285 RIVERSIDE LIBRARY SYSTEM JAN 99 001-101-999-5285 190-183-999-5330 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 68.00 848.00 MEYER, JOHN 819.78 2,800.00 5,000.00 54.00 1,103.13 1,033.60 9,687.62 1,214.48 1,085.40 10,539.37 6,895.95 1,091.74 9,630.40 1,136.96 9,719.02 1,111.12 8,477.52 6,506.96 1,033.60 7,397.92 386.40 003076 DENTALML 001-2340 2,875.11 003076 DENTALML 165-2340 103,83 003076 DENTALML 190-2340 287.69 003076 DENTALML 193-23~0 21.51 003076 DENTALNL 280-2340 62.29 003076 DENTALNL 300-2340 20.76 003076 DENTALML 340-2340 83.06 COBRA/GREEK/APRIL 99 001-1180 83.06 REIMBURSE:CRA CF:3/17-18/99 280-199-999-5258 74.10 PAGE 5 CHECK AMOUNT 2,134.36 169.00 275.27 916.00 819.78 2,800.00 5,000.00 54.00 1,103.13 76,561.66 386.40 3,537.31 74.10 VOUCHRE2 04/01/99 14:02 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 54939 54939 54940 54940 54940 54940 54940 54941 54942 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 001905 001905 001384 001384 001384 001384 001384 003428 MEYERSm DAVID WILLIAM MEYERS, DAVID WILLIAM MINUTEMAN PRESS MINUTEMAN PRESS MINUTEMAN PRESS MINUTEMAN PRESS MINUTEMAN PRESS MVP TEMECULA SHUTTLE NELSON, JANET TCSD iNSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS STATIONARY & PRINTING SERVS SALES TAX STATIONARY & PRINTING SERVS BUSINESS CARDS:D.MYERS SALES TAX SHUTTLE:BRAINSHARE CF:3/20:TH REFUND: MARTIAL ARTS 190-183-999~5330 190-183-999-5330 001-140-999-5222 001-140-999-5222 001-150-999-5222 001-171-999-5222 001-171-999-5222 320-199-999-5258 190-183-4980 192.00 128.00 30.48 2.36 190.52 38.25 2.96 77.05 75.00 320.00 264.57 77.05 75.00 54943 54944 54944 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 002037 002139 002139 NEXUS INTEGRATED SOLUTI NORTH COUNTY TIMES - AT NORTH COUNTY TIMES - AT DATA/COMM.RELOCATION-CITy HALL RECRUITMENT ADS FOR HR RECRUITMENT AD:MAIL RM ASSIST. 210-190-158-5804 001-150-999-5254 001-150-999-5254 1,319.89 66.53 80.64 1,319.89 147.17 54945 54946 54946 54946 54947 54948 54949 54949 54949 54949 54949 54949 54949 54949 54949 54949 54949 54949 54949 54949 54949 54949 54949 54949 54949 54949 54949 54949 54949 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 002100 002105 002105 002105 003589 002297 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 O00245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 OBJECT RADIANCE, INC. OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE PACIFIC COAST ENTERPRIS PACIFIC RELOCATION CONS PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS (HEALTH INSUR, PRE PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS (HEALTH INSUR, PRE PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT JAN-MAR STREET ADDRESSING OCT-DEC RELOCATION CONSULT SVC 000245 AETNA SO 000245 AETNA SO 000245 AETNA SO 000245 AETNA SO 000245 AETNA SO 000245 BLSHIELD 000245 BLSHIELD 000245 BLSHIELD 000245 CIGNA 000245 ClGNA 000245 HELTHNET 000245 HELTHNET 000245 HELTHNET 000245 HELTHNET 000245 HELTHNET 000245 HELTHNET 000245 HELTHNET 000245 NELTNNET 000245 HELTHNET 000245 KAISER 000245 KAISER 000245 PACIFICR 000245 PACIFICR 190-183-999-5330 001-163-999-5214 001-162-999-5214 001-164-601-5214 001-162-999-5250 280-199-999-5248 001-2090 165-2090 190-2090 194-2090 280-2090 001-2090 190-2090 280-2090 001-2090 300-2090 001-2090 190-2090 191-2090 192-2090 193-2090 194-2090 280-2090 330-2090 340-2090 001-2090 190-2090 001-2090 190-2090 778.40 285.66 305.90 196.56 1,025.00 1,500.00 459.37 215.66 251.60 83.86 71.88 1,190.40 370.65 3.57 871.91 40.84 6,719.76 823.29 16.48 54.25 432.12 263.03 3.83 164.41 870.29 2,233.26 164.83 4,412.02 802.90 778.40 788.12 1,025.00 1,500.00 VOUCHRE2 04/01/99 14:02 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 54949 04/01/99 000245 54949 04/01/99 000245 54949 04/01/99 000245 54949 04/01/99 000245 54949 04/01/99 000245 54949 04/01/99 000245 54949 04/01/99 000245 54949 04/01/99 000245 54949 04/01/99 000245 54949 04/01/99 000245 54949 04/01/99 000245 54949 04/01/99 000245 54949 04/01/99 000245 54949 04/01/99 000245 54949 04/01/99 000245 54949 04/01/99 000245 54949 04/01/99 000245 54949 04/01/99 000245 54949 04/01/99 000245 54949 04/01/99 000245 54950 04/01/99 001958 PERS (HEALTH INSUR, PRE 000245 PACIFICR 193-2090 19.72 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PC 001-2090 16.00 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000Z45 PERS CHO 001-2090 2,535.16 PERS (HEALTH ]NSUR. PRE 000245 PERS DED 001-2090 1,124.29 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PERS-ADM 001-2090 120.29 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 AETNA SO 001-2090 4].82 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 AETNA SO 165-2090 111.4] PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 AETNA SO 280-2090 ]7.14 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 BLSHIELD 001-2090 18.92 PERS (HEALTH INSUR, PRE 000245 BLSHIELD 190-2090 83.52 PERS (HEALTH INSUR, PRE 000245 CIGNA 001-2090 2.14 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 HELTHNET 001-2090 ]67.99 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 HELTHNET 190-2090 57.86 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 HELTHNET 340-2090 27.42 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 KAISER 001-2090 8.48 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PACIFICR 001-2090 197.83 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PACIFICR 190-2090 ]1.81 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PACIFICR 19]-2090 1.67 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PERS CHO 001-2090 168.84 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PERS REV 001-2090 1,158.87- PERS LONG TERM CARE PRO 001958 PERS L-T 001-2122 73,84 24,335.67 ~.~ 54951 04/01/99 002861 PETSMART FOOD & SUPPLY FOR POLICE K-9 001-170-999-5127 77.54 77.54 54952 04/01/99 000249 PETTY CASH 54952 04/01/99 000249 PETTY CASH 54952 04/01/99 000249 PETTY CASH 54952 04/01/99 000249 PETTY CASH 54952 04/01/99 000249 PETTY CASH 54952 04/01/99 000249 PETTY CASH 54952 04/01/99 000249 PETTY CASH 54952 04/01/99 000249 PETTY CASH 54952 04/01/99 000249 PETTY CASH 54952 04/01/99 000249 PETTY CASH 54952 04/01/99 000249 PETTY CASH 54952 04/01/99 000249 PETTY CASH 54952 04/01/99 000249 PETTY CASH 54952 04/01/99 000249 PETTY CASH 54952 04/01/99 000249 PETTY CASH 54952 04/01/99 000249 PETTY CASH 54952 04/01/99 000249 PETTY CASH 54952 04/01/99 000249 PETTY CASH 54952 04/01/99 000249 PETTY CASH 54952 04/01/99 000249 PETTY CASH 54952 04/01/99 000249 PETTY CASH 54952 04/01/99 000249 PETTY CASH 54952 04/01/99 000249 PETTY CASH 54952 04/01/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-161-999-5222 001-161-999-5260 001-161-999-5260 001-140-999-5220 001-161-999-526] 001-161-999-5261 001-111-999-5260 001-150-999-5250 001-164-601-5260 001-16]-999-5260 001-101-999-5280 190-180-999-5222 001-140-999-5220 001-120-999-5261 001-120-999-5262 001-120-999-5220 001-164-604-5220 001-162-999-5260 001-162-999-5262 190-180-999-5260 001-140-999-5260 190-1990 001-2175 190-2920 14.16 13.65 39.01 6.02 9.29 40.10 17.47 7.48 15.00 39,39 26.69 5.]9 31.09 11.20 35.88 32.31 9.69 7.85 15.08 15.47 20.00 15.00 49.70 13.99 490.91 54954 04/01/99 000254 PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN PUBLIC NOTICE:PW98-09 001-120-999-5256 86.94 VOUCHRE2 04/01/99 14:02 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 54954 54954 54954 54955 54955 54956 54956 54957 54957 54957 54957 54957 54957 54958 54958 54959 54960 54960 54961 54962 54963 54964 54964 54964 54964 54964 54965 54966 54967 54968 54969 54970 54970 54971 CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 000254 000254 000Z54 PRESS-ENTERPRISE CONPAN PRESS-ENTERPRISE CONPAN PRESS-ENTERPRISE CONPAN 002110 PRIME EQUIPMENT 002110 PRIME EQUIPMENT 000635 R & J PARTY PALACE 000635 R & J PARTY PALACE 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C 000262 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER 003591 000353 000353 000418 000418 000955 002181 002181 002181 002181 002181 003282 000873 000278 000403 RENES COMMERCIAL NANAGE RIVERSIDE CO. AUDITOR RIVERSIDE CO. AUDITOR RIVERSIDE CO. CLERK & R RIVERSIDE CO. CLERK & R ITEM DESCRIPTION PUBLIC NOTICE: PW98-09 PUBLIC NOTICE:PA98-0462 SUBSCRIPTION:FINAL BILL:RDA EQUIPMENT RENTAL FOR PW CREW EQUIPMENT RENTAL:VARIOUS PARKS RENT TABLECLOTHS FOR t~3RKSHOP SALES TAX BLUEPRINTS AND MISC SUPPLIES DUPL.BLUEPRINTS:PRONENADE MALL SALES TAX BLUEPRINTS AND MISC SUPPLIES DUPL.BLUEPRINTS:ROTARY PK IMPR BLUEPRINT REPRO:PALA RD BRIDGE 01-99-02003-0 FLOATING METER MAR:O2-79-10100-1:NW SPORTS PK LDSC NAINT:S.GERTRUDEIS TRAIL JAN 99 PRK CIT. ASSESSMENTS JAN 99 PRK CIT. ASSESSMENTS NOTICE EXEMPTION FILING FEE WEED ABATEMENT LIEN RELEASE RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF-B DEC 98 BIKE PATROL RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION FEB PRGSS PMT:R.C./I-15 BRIDGE FEB C/O PRGS PMT:RC/115 BRIDGE FEB C/O PRGS PMT:RC/I15 BRIDGE RETENTION W/H PMT:R.C./I15 BRG REPAIR COSTS:TRAFFIC SIGNAL RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION- RETENTION TO ESCROW ACCT. ROBERTS, RONALD H. REIMB:NAT'L LEAGUE:3/5-10/99 SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE RECRUITMENT AD:INFO.SYS.TECH. SCAN NATOA SHAMPAY, PAUL SHAW, JANET SHAW, JANET SHAWN SCOTT POOL & SPA CABLE TV CONF:P.RUSE:4/14/99 REFUND: TEEN MAKE OVER CLASS REFUND: TEEN MAKE OVER CLASS REFUND: OVERPAYMENT/TEEN CLASS MAR POOL NAINTENANCE:TEM.ELEM. ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-120-999-5256 001-161-999-5256 280-199-999-5228 001-164-601-5238 190-180-999-5238 001-100-999-5260 001-100-999-5260 210-165-631-5804 001-162-999-5222 001-162-999-5222 210-165-604-5804 210-190-162-5804 210-165-631-5804 001-164-601-5250 190-1270 190-180-999-5212 001-2260 001-2265 001-161-999-5250 001-1215 001-170-999-5326 210-165-601-5804 210-165-601-5804 210-165-601-5804 210-2035 210-165-601-5804 210-1035 001-100-999-5258 001-150-999-5254 190-1990 190-183-4980 190-183-4980 190-183-4980 190-180-999-5212 ITEM AMOUNT 27.60 17.25 2.0O 12.50 138.95 83.95 6.50 83.53 970.63 ~.22 13.58 64.29 96.11 209.76 256.78 950.00 1,895.00 220.00 78.00 10.00 2,796.30 23,098.93- 59,185.91 58,677.67 9,476.47- 1,080.00- 9,476.47 12.41 500.98 149.00 45.00 45.00 20.00 400.00 CHECK AMOUNT 133.79 151.45 90.45 1,303.36 466.54 950.00 2,115.00 78.00 IO.O0 2,796.30 84,208.18 9,476.47 12.41 500.98 149.00 45.00 65.00 VOUCHRE2 04/01/99 14:02 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 54971 54972 54973 54973 54974 54975 54976 54977 54977 54977 54977 54977 54977 54977 54977 54977 54977 54977 54978 54979 54979 54980 54980 54980 54981 54981 54981 54981 54981 54981 54981 54981 54982 54982 54983 54983 CHECK DATE 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 VENDOR NUMBER 000403 000645 003002 000824 000537 000537 000537 000537 000537 000537 000537 000537 000537 000537 000537 001212 000465 000465 000305 000305 000305 001547 001547 001547 001547 001547 001547 001547 001547 001672 001672 VENDOR NAME SHAWN SCOTT POOL & SPA SJURSEN, CONNIE SLATER, WAYNE SLATER, WAYNE SMART & FINAL, INC. SMOOTHILL SPORTS DISTRI SOUTHERN CALIF ASSOC OF SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CAL]F EDISON SOUTHERN CAL[F EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF GAS COMP STRADLEY, MARY KATHLEEN STRADLEY, MARY KATHLEEN TARGET STORE TARGET STORE TARGET STORE TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 TEMECULA DRAIN SERV & P TEMECULA DRAIN SERV & P TEMECULA HOOPSTERS BOOS TEMECULA HOUPSTERS BOOS ITEM DESCRIPTION MAR POOL MAINT.SUPPLIES:TES REFUND: COOKING WITH TIA REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT ADD'L ROOM RENTAL SET UP MATERIALS FOR MEETINGS MISC SKATEPARK EQUIPMENT SCAG'S 99 ASSEMBLY:GT:4/08/99 2-11-007-0455 SIXTH ST. MAR:2-10-747-1393:MONROE PED MAR:2-14-204-1615:FRONT STRDIO MAR:2-15-830-2307:FRONT MAR:Z'18-937-3152:MORENO RD MAR:2-02-351-4946/41845 6TH 2-18'555'7006 MORENO RD TC1 2-18-799-7911 MORENO ROAD TC1 MAR:2-O2-502-8077:VARIOUS MTRS MAR:65-77'804'2263'O1:BEDFORD FEB:65-77'804'6630-O1:RNBO CYN MAR:O91-O24-9300-5:CRC TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS MISC. RECREATION SUPPLIES MISC RECREATION SUPPLIES RECREATION SUPPLIES:SR CENTER 001547 UN DUES 001547 UN DUES 001547 UN DUES 001547 UN DUES 001547 UN DUES 001547 UN DUES 001547 UN DUES 001547 UN DUES PLUMBING SVCS:SKATE PARK PLUMBING SVCS:SENIOR CENTER REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT ADD#L ROOM RENTAL ACCOUNT NUMBER 190-180-999-5212 190-183-4980 190-2900 190-183-4990 001-150-999-5260 190-183-999-5305 001-161-999-5258 001-164-603-5240 190-199-999-5240 340-199-701-5240 190-199-999-5240 190-185-999-5240 190-181-999-5240 001-164-603-5319 001-164-603-5319 340-199-702-5240 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 190-182-999-5240 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5370 190-180-999-5301 190-181-999-5301 001-2125 190-2125 191-2125 192-2125 193-2125 194-2125 320-2125 330-2125 190-180-999-5212 190-181-999-5212 190-2900 190-183-4990 ITEM AMOUNT 273.50 15.00 100.00 6.75- 38.76 290.24 65.00 255.90 38.30 18.15 39.91 104.95 633.34 98.64 57.06 80.95 173.42 116.80 2,011.70 5O4.00 308.00 294.22 14.39 31.81 471.50 82.00 1.03 2.05 14.35 3.07 20.50 20.50 47.00 57.00 100.00 15.00- CHECK AMOUNT 673.50 15.00 93.25 38.76 290.24 65.00 1,617.42 2,011.70 812.00 340.42 615.00 104.00 85.00 54984 04/01/99 TEMECULA VALLEY BAPTIST REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900 100.00 54984 04/01/99 TEMECULA VALLEY BAPTIST ADD'L ROOM RENTAL 190-183-4990 31.00- 69.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 04/01/99 14:02 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 10 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 54985 04/01/99 003140 TEMECULA VALLEY TAEK~,/ON TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 200.00 200.00 54986 04/01/99 000642 TEMECULA, CITY OF - FLE EMPLOYEE 54986 04/01/99 000642 TEMECULA, CITY OF - FLE EMPLOYEE 54986 04/01/99 000642 TEMECULA, CITY OF ' FLE EMPLOYEE 54986 04/01/99 000642 TEMECULA, CITY OF ' FLE EMPLOYEE 54986 04/01/99 000642 TEMECULA, CITY OF - FLE EMPLOYEE 54986 04/01/99 000642 TEMECULA, CITY OF - FLE EMPLOYEE 54986 04/01/99 000642 TEMECULA, CITY OF - FLE EMPLOYEE 54986 04/01/99 000642 TEMECULA, CITY OF - FLE EMPLOYEE 54986 04/01/99 000642 TEMECULA, CITY OF - FLE EMPLOYEE 54986 04/01/99 000642 TEMECULA, CITY OF - FLE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX 001-1020 165-1020 190-1020 194-1020 193-1020 280-1020 300-1020 320-1020 330-1020 340-1020 2,863.68 290.00 589.65 20.00 1.00 190.00 10.00 350.00 80.00 5.00 4,399.33 54987 04/01/99 002107 TRANS-GENERAL LIFE INS. 002107 54987 04/01/99 002107 TRANS-GENERAL LIFE INS. 002107 54987 04/01/99 002107 TRANS-GENERAL LIFE INS. 002107 54987 04/01/99 002107 TRANS-GENERAL LIFE INS. 002107 54987 04/01/99 002107 TRANS-GENERAL LiFE INS. 002107 54987 04/01/99 002107 TRANS-GENERAL LIFE INS. 002107 54987 04/01/99 002107 TRANS-GENERAL LIFE INS, 002107 54987 04/01/99 002107 TRANS-GENERAL LIFE INS, 002107 54987 04/01/99 002107 TRANS-GENERAL LIFE INS. 002107 54987 04/01/99 002107 TRANS-GENERAL LIFE INS, 002107 54987 04/01/99 0O2107 TRANS-GENERAL LIFE INS. 002107 54987 04/01/99 002107 TRANS-GENERAL LIFE INS, 002107 54987 04/01/99 002107 TRANS-GENERAL LIFE INS. 002107 54987 04/01/99 002107 TRANS-GENERAL LIFE INS, 002107 VL ADVAN VOL LIFE VOL LIFE VOL LIFE VOL LIFE VOL LIFE VOL LIFE VL REVER VOL LIFE VOL LIFE VOL LIFE VOL LIFE VOL LIFE VOL LIFE 001-2510 001-2510 190-2510 192-2510 193-2510 194-2510 340-2510 001'2510 001-2510 190-2510 192-2510 193-2510 194-2510 340-2510 209.20 191.40 7.68 .34 1.70 3.40 4.68 191.70- 173.90 7.68 1.70 3.40 4.68 418.40 54988 04/01/99 003560 TRANSAMERICA 003560 AD&D 54988 04/01/99 003560 TRANSAMERICA 003560 AD&D 54988 04/01/99 003560 TRANSAMERICA 003560 AD&D 54988 04/01/99 003560 TRANSAMERICA 003560 AD&D 54988 04/01/99 003560 TRANSAMERICA 003560 AD&D 54988 04/01/99 003560 TRANSAMERICA 003560 AD&D 54988 04/01/99 003560 TRANSAHERICA 003560 AD&D 54988 04/01/99 003560 TRANSAMERICA 003560 AD&D 54988 04/01/99 003560 TRANSAMERICA 003560 AD&D 54988 04/01/99 003560 TRANSAMERICA 003560 AD&D 54988 04/01/99 003560 TRANSAMERICA 003560 AD&D 54988 04/01/99 003560 TRANSAMERICA 003560 AD&D 001-2360 165-2360 190-2360 191-2360 192-2360 193-2360 194-2360 280-2360 300-2360 320-2360 330-2360 340-2360 126.76 3.01 22.39 .08 .23 2.45 1.34 1.49 ,74 3.00 1.50 3.51 166.50 54989 04/01/99 001065 U S C M/PEBSCO (OEF. C 001065 54989 04/01/99 001065 U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF, C 001065 54989 04/01/99 001065 U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 54989 04/01/99 001065 U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF, C 001065 54989 04/01/99 001065 U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 54989 04/01/99 001065 U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF, C 001065 54989 04/01/99 001065 U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF, C 001065 54989 04/01/99 001065 U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF, C 001065 54989 04/01/99 001065 U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF, C 001065 54989 04/01/99 001065 U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF CQNP DEF CONP DEF CONP DEF CONP DEF COMP DEF CONP DEF CONP DEF CONP DEF CONP DEF CGNP 001-2080 165-2080 190-2080 192-2080 193-2080 194-2080 280-2080 300-2080 320-2080 340-2080 7,450.07 210.23 1,619.77 2.50 33.38 25.00 85.23 96.35 635.06 158.34 10,315.93 VOUCHRE2 04/01/99 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 54990 54990 54990 54990 54990 54990 54990 54991 54992 54992 54992 54992 54992 54992 54992 54992 54993 54994 54995 54996 54997 54998 14:02 CHECK DATE 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 04/01/99 VENDOR NUMBER 000389 000389 000389 000389 000389 000389 000389 002621 000325 000325 000325 000325 000325 000325 000325 000325 000345 VENDOR NAME U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA) U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA) U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA) U S 0 M/PEBSCO (OBRA) U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA) U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA) U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA) UNION BANK/FOR PURCHASE UNITED WAY UNITED WAY UNITED WAY UNITED WAY UNITED WAY UNITED WAY UNITED WAY UNITED WAY VERBRYCK, KAREN WILKIE, S.M. WILKIE, SUSAN WOLF, SONJA WONEN'S COUNCIL OF REAL XEROX CORPORATION BILLI CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION 000389 PT RETIR 000389 PT RETIR 000389 PT RETIR 000389 PT RETIR 000389 PT RETIR 000389 PT RETIR 000389 PT RETIR PRIZES FOR SPRING 99 EGG HUNT 000325 UW 000325 UM 000325 UW 000325 UW 000325 UW 000325 UU 000325 UW 000325 UU REFUND: PARKING CIT. #27293 REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT REFUND: EQUIPMENT RENTAL REFUND: PARKING CIT. #19523 REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT FEB BASE CHRG:FIERY 200 COPIER ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-2160 165-2160 190-2160 280-2160 320-2160 330-2160 340-2160 190-183-999-5370 001-2120 165-2120 190-2120 280-2120 300-2120 320-2120 330-2120 340-2120 001-170-4055 190-2900 190-180-999-5238 001-170-4055 190-2900 330-199-999-5239 ITEM AMOUNT 1,688.96 170.87 680.46 52.79 85.92 41.12 93.74 150,00 228.64 3.75 20.00 1.55 .25 3.81 5.00 2.00 145.00 100.00 40.40 75.00 100,00 110.00 PAGE 11 CHECK AMOUNT 2,813.86 150.00 265.00 145.00 100.00 40.40 75.00 100.00 110.00 TOTAL CHECKS 324,317.76 VOUCHRE2 03/25/~ 15:58 CITY OF TENECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERZOOS PAGE FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 190 CQNNUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 210 CAPITAL [NPROVENENT PROJ FUND 340 FACILITIES ANOUNT 27,585.01 30,056,00 1,150.00 22,188.00 214,591.77 541.00 TOTAL 296,111.78 VOUCHRE2 03/25/99 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 54859 54859 5486O 54861 54861 54861 54861 54861 54861 54861 54861 54861 54861 54861 54861 54861 54862 54863 54863 54864 54865 54866 54867 54868 54869 54869 54869 54870 54871 15:58 CHECK DATE 04/13/99 0~/13/99 04/13/99 04/13/99 04/13/99 04/13199 04/13/99 04/13/99 04/13/99 04/13/99 04/13/99 04/13/99 04/13/99 04/13/99 04/13/99 04/13/99 04/13/99 04/13/99 04/13/99 04/13/99 04/13/99 04/13199 04/13/99 04113199 04/13/99 04/13/99 04/13/99 04/13/99 04/13/99 VENDOR NUMBER 001945 001945 000164 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 002166 001339 001339 002256 002993 002072 002072 002072 002181 002181 002181 003495 003545 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER E A MENDOZA CONTRACTING E A MENDOZA CONTRACTING ESGIL CORPORATION EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANOSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE ZNGRAM ELECTRIC NORTON INTERNATIONAL, MORTON iNTERNATiONAL, P & D CONSULTANTS, INC PARSORS, BRINCKERHOFF, RANCHO CAL]F MATER DIST RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST RANCHO CALIF WATER DZST RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ED] THINK JACOBSON& ROTH MAR PRGSS:RNCH CAL SPT SIDEWLK 210-190-154-5804 RETENTION W/H SPK PRK SIDEWALK 210-2035 FEB 99 PLAN CHECK SERVICES 001-162-999-5248 FEB LDSCP MAINT:STREETSCAPE FEB LDSCP MAINT: PARKS FEB LDSCP NAINT:WINCH CRK PRK FEB LDSCP NAINT: SLOPES FEB LDSCP MAINT: SOUTH SLOPES FEB LDSCP MAINT: MEDIANS FEB LDSCP MAINT: SPORT PARKS' FEB LDSCP MAINT: CRC FEB LDSCP MAINT: TCC FEB LOSCP MAINT: CITY HALL FEB LDSCP MAINT:OLD TWN PRKING FEB LDSCP MAINT: SR CENTER FEB LDSCP MAINT: STATION 8~ 190-199-999-5415 190-180-999-5415 190-180-999-5415 193-180-999-5415 193-180-999-5415 191-180-999-5415 190-180-999-5415 190-182-999-5415 190-184-999-5415 340-199-701-5415 001-164-603-5415 190-181-999-5415 001-171-999-5212 PHONE LINE CONDUIT t SAM HICKS 210-190-808-5804 PAINT/MISC SUPPLIES FOR ROADS 001-164-601-5218 PAINT/NISC SUPPLIES FOR ROADS 001-164-601-5218 FEB BLDG INSPECTION SERVICES 001-162-999-5118 SEP-FEB DESIGN SVCS:WINCH/I-15 210-165-697-5802 PLAN CK/INSPECTION FEES:RC/I15 210-165-601-5801 INSTALL 1METER:NARGARITA RD ' 210-165-681-5801 INSTALL 2 METERS:WINCH/NARG RD 210-165-683-5801 PRGS PNT#3:WINCH/[-15 OFF-RAMP 210-165-697-5804 C/O PRGS PMT#3:WINCH/]-15 RAMP 210-165-697-5804 RET.W/H PMT:WINCH/I15 OFF-RAMP 210-2035 CONST/INSTALL LIGHTS:MARG/YNEZ 210-165-683-5804 PROF. DESIGN SVCS:TEN. MUSEUH 210-190-808-5804 ITEM AMOUNT 14,652.96 1,465,30- 12,071.28 106.00 7,806.00 1,568.00 8,813.00 13,375.00 1,150.00 18,578.00 1,444.00 193.00 541.00 250.00 361.00 400.00 9,750.00 5,322.40 2,341.33 7,200.00 5,602,83 16,343.06 5,588.00 11,176.00 58,049.20 8,172.69 6,622.19' 21,879,52 71,465.00 PAGE 1 CHECK AMOUNT 13,187.66 12,071,28 54,585.00 9,750.00 7,663.75 7,200.00 5,602.83 16,343.06 5,588.00 11,176.00 59,599.70 21,879.52 71,465.00 TOTAL CHECKS 296,111.78 VOUC~RE2 04/01/99 14:23 CiTY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS TOTAL AMOUNT 25,775.23 19,094.10 34,728.60 79,597.93 VOUCHRE2 04/01/99 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 55001 55002 55002 55003 55004 55005 55006 55006 14:23 CHECK DATE 04/13/99 04/13/99 04/13/99 04/13/99 04/13/99 04/13/99 04/13/99 04/13/99 VENDOR NUMBER 001916 000944 000944 002037 000406 000955 003576 003576 VENDOR NAME ALBERT A. UEBB ASSOCIAT MCCAIN TRAFFIC SUPPLY, MCCAIN TRAFFIC SUPPLY, NEXUS INTEGRATED SOLUTI RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF-B SYS TECHNOLOGY, INC. SYS TECHNOLOGYt INC. CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION RANCHO CA 8 1-15 DESIGN SVCS TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLES TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLES DIGITAL REMOTE UNIT - OFF SITE JAN 1999 BOOKING FEES ROD RUN 1999 PATROL 10 COMPUTER UORKSTAT]ONS SALES TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER 210-165-601-5801 210-165-681-5804 210-165-681-5804 320-1970 001-170-999-5273 001-170-999-5370 320-1970 320-1970 ITEM AMOUNT 13,317.23 2,888.44 2,888.43 9,903.00 6,513.60 19,261,63 23,040.00 1,785.60 PAGE 1 CHECK AMOUNT 13,317.23 5,776.87 9,903.00 6,513.60 19,261.63 24t825.60 TOTAL CHECKS 79,597.93 ITEM 4 APPROYAL ~ CITY ATTORNEY ~ DIRECTOR OF FIN E CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Genie Roberts, Director of Finance~.~/ April 13, 1999 City Treasurer's Report as of February 28, 1999 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 February 28, 1999. 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 February 28, 1999. FISCAL IMPACT: ATTACHMENTS: None 1. City Treasurer's Report as of February 28, 1999 2. Schedule of Assets, Liabilities, and Fund Equity as of February 28, 1999 3. Fund Equity Detail by Fund as of February 28, 1999 City of Temecuin City Treuurer's Report As ofFebruary2~, 199~ Cash Acfi~T for the Month of February Cash and Investments as of February 1, 1999 Cash Receipts Cash Disbmements Cash and Investments as of February 28, 1999 55,977,101 2,707,094 (3,817,120) 54°867,075 Cash and lnvm'mmta Portfolio: Maturity/ Contraetual/ T~rminatioa Market TyI~ of Investment Institution Yield Date Valu~ Petty Cash City Hall n/a $ 1,500 $ General Checking Union Bank n/a (985,004) Sweep Account Union Bank 4.026 % 1,515,748 (Money Market A~c~uat) CHighmark U.S. Treasury) B~ne~t Demand Deposits Union Bank n/a 4,097 Local Agency Investmant Fund State Treasurer 5.210 % 41,669,187 Ce~i~cate of Deposit CommuaityBaak 5.000 % 393,535 (Retention Escrow) Savings Account California Bank Trust 4.400 % 149,787 (Retention Escrow) Savings Account Union Bank 4.880 % 219,735 (Retention Escrow) Checking Account Union Bank n/a 8,875 (Parking Citations) Trust Accounts- CFD 88-12 U.S. Bank (First An~ Treasury) 4.193 % 3,590,256 (Money Market Account) Reserve Account- CFD 88-12 CDC Funding Corp 5.430 % 9/1/2017 1,531,469 (lnveXunant Agreement) Delinq. Main. Rev3t've 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. Tnasury) 4.193 % 505,644 (Money Market Account) Reserve Account- CFD 98-1 State Treasurer 5.210 % 929,000 (Local Agency Investment Fund) Trust Accounts - Measun A U.S. Bank (First Am. Treasury) 4.193 % 58,142 (Money Market Account) Trust Accounts-TCgD COPs U.S. Bank (First Am. Treasury) 4.193 % 17,777 (Money Market Account) Reserve Aocount-TCSD COPs Baycrisohe Landesbank 6.870 % 10/1/2012 502,690 (Investment Agreement) Trust Accounts-RDABends U.S. Bank (First Am. Treasury) 4.193 % 2,805,717 (Money Market Accotmt) Restnve Account-RDABonds Bay~'risohe Lendesbank 7.400 % 2/1/2013 1,448,920 (Investment Agreement) $ Par/Book Balance 1,500 (985,004) (1) 1,515,748 4,097 (1) 41,669,187 (2) 393,535 149,787 219,735 8,875 3,590,256 1,531,469 500,000 505,644 929,000 58,142 17,777 502,690 2,805,717 1,448,920 54,867,075 ( 1 )-This mount is net of outstanding checks. (2)-At February 28, 1999 total market value (including accrued interest) for the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) was $34,530,873,187. Th~ City's proportionate shah of that value is $42,108,255. All investments are liquid and currently available. The City of T=mecula's portfolio is in complienc~ with the investment policy. Adequate funds will be available to meet budgeted and a~tual expendituns of the City of Temecula for the ne~'t six mentits. City of Temecula Schedule of Assets, Liabilities, and Fund Balances As of February 28, 1999 Assets: Cash and investments $ 35,904,371 Receivables 4, 105,685 Duc from other funds 734,695 Land held for resale 530,401 Prcpakl assets 161,362 Deposits 506,850 Fixcd assets-act 942,453 Total assets $ 42,885,817 $ Community Services District Rcdcvelopment Agency 2,195,345 $ 9,073,294 712 1,419,910 139,479 377,368 2,220,245 2,335,536 $ 13,090,817 Community Facilities Districts (2) Total $ 7,694,065 $ 54,867,075 5,526,307 1,251,542 2,750,646 161,362 1,124,300 1,631,150 942,453 $ 8,818,365 $ 67,130,535 Liabilit~ and fund equity: Liabilities: Duc to othor funds $ 563,587 $ Other liabilities 6,413,115 139,479 $ 377,368 195,890 930,477 $ 171,108 4,490,867 $ 1,251,542 12,030,349 Total liabilities 6,976,702 335,369 1,307,845 4,661,975 13,281,891 Fuad equity: Contributed capital 1,281,781 R~taincd earnings 843,192 Fund balances: Reserved (3) 23,457,300 Designated (3) 7,857,476 UndesignateA 2,469,366 Total fund equity 35,909, 115 838,399 1,161,768 2,000, 167 2,335,536 7,654,645 4,128,327 11,782,972 13,090,817 $ 42,885,817 $ 1,124,300 3,032,090 4,156,390 8,818,365 Total liabilities and fund equity 1,281,781 843,192 33,074,644 16,179,661 2,469,366 53,848,644 $ 67,130,535 (1) Includes Gtraeral 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 fired balance arc dctailud on the following pages. ITEM 5 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/Acting City Manager Anthony J. Elmo, Chief Building Official April 13, 1999 Contract Inspection Services for Building and Safety RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Approve a First Amendment to an existing Agreement for Consultant Services with JAS Pacific, Inc. in the amount of $44,960 to provide building inspection services to the Building and Safety Department. The total Contract amount will be $109,920. BACKGROUND: The Building and Safety Department has experienced an increase in the volume of inspection activity. In an effort to service this increased volume of inspection requests, part-time contract building inspection assistance has been used to supplement the department's core inspection staff. The use of contract inspection services on an as needed basis, gives the Chief Building Official the ability to manage increases in inspection workload in a timely manner, as they occur. Due to the anticipated impact of accelerated construction on the mall project and continuing high volume of residential construction it is necessary to continue these inspection services for the remainder of this fiscal year. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are currently available in Account No. 001-162- 999-5118, "Temporary Help", for this purpose. Expenditures from this account are offset by building permit revenue collection. No further appropriation of funds is necessary for this purpose. ATTACHMENT: First Amendment to Agreement R: \ BROCKMEI \AGENDA \JAS98. WPD I 4/7/99 FORM OF AMENDMENT TO CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND JAS PACIFIC, INC. THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of April 13. 1999 by and between the City ofTemecula, a municipal corporation ("City" and JAS Pacific, 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: A. On December 15, 1998 the City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement entitled "City of Temecula Agreement for Consultant Services" ("Agreement"). Amendment. The parties now desire to amend the Agreement as set forth in this 2. Section 4a of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: "Contractor shall receive the sum of one hundred and nine thousand nine hundred and twenty dollars ($109,920.00) payable in accordance with the Scope of Work, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A." 3. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. R:LBROCKMEI~AGMTSXFIRST AMENDMENT TO JAS. DOC 1 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: BY: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk Approved As to Form: BY: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT JAS Pacific, Inc. BY: NAME: Jason Smith TITLE: President R:~BROCKMEIL4GMTS~FIRST.,4MENDMENT TO J.,,IS. DOC 2 ITEM 6 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER ~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manag~ April 13, 1999 Notice of an Addendum of a Negative Declaration for the Construction of Overland Drive between Margarita Road and Jefferson Avenue; Addendum to EA-6 (Revised) Prepared By: Stephen Brown, Senior Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: It is requested that the City Council Approve the Addendum to the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment Number 6 Revised, the proposed construction of Overland Drive between Margarita Road and Jefferson Avenue. BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula previously approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding the construction of a four-lane overpass for Overland Drive on January 14, 1992. This Negative Declaration was subsequently revised and re-adopted by the City Council on August 8, 1995. Since then, the City has decided to establish a 24-hour construction schedule to accelerate the completion of the project. Additionally, the City is in receipt of two studies that examined the effects of vibration on the manufacturing process in Guidant Corporation's building "A". These are the changes being considered by this Addendum. A copy of this draft addendum was sent to Caltrans for comment on February 24, 1999. A verbal response was returned to the City on March 18, 1999 indicating that they did not have any concerns. A project Vicinity Map is included in Attachment No. 1. Based on the re-examination of this case, Staff concludes that the impacts are insignificant with the proposed mitigation measures. This exemption does not imply approval by Caltrans for a 24-hour construction schedule; that decision by Caltrans is still pending. FISCAL IMPACT: The Receipt of this Addendum will have no fiscal impacts to the City. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map - Page 2 2. Revised Initial Environmental Study - Page 3 \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\6EAadd. CC.doc 1 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 VICINITY MAP \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\6EAadd .CC.doc 2 CITY OF TEMECULA I/ II I Illl ill II \,~ Project Location CASE NO. -EA-6 ADDENDUM OVERLAND OVERCROSSING ATTACHMENT 1 VICINITY MAP ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ADDENDUM TO THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION \\TEMEC FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\6EAadd.CC.doc 3 Addendum to the Negative Declaration For the Overland Drive Overcrossing and Extension February 22, 1999 Prepared by: City of Temecula Community Development Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA R:%BROWNS%general correspondence%overland drive ea comments.doc Addendum to the Nel/ative Declaration for the Overland Drive Overcrossint, and Extension Authority An addendum to a previously adopted Negative Declaration can be prepared when a project is modified or changed and only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the Environmental Assessment adequate. The addendnm can only be used if the changes do not raise important new issues or significant effects on the environment, and none of the conditions would require preparation of a Subsequent Negative Declaration. These conditions include substantial changes in the environmental setting or circumstances under which the project is being undertaken or new information has become available which suggests that the project could have a significant impact on the environment. Project Description and Changes The original Negative Declaration was adopted on January 14, 1992 and subsequently revised and readopted by the City Council on August 8, 1995. Since then, the City has proposed to establish a 24-hour construction schedule to accelerate the completion of the project. Additionally, the City is in receipt of two studies that examine the effects of bridge and road construction induced vibration on the manufacturing process in Guidant Corporation's building "A", adjacent to the overpass. Based on a 24-hour construction schedule, the following two items will be examined: air quality and noise. Because of the potential for increased construction activity within a 24-hour period, the short-term air quality impacts may be greater. This Addendnm will consider this change. Moreover, additional noise may be generated by the modified schedule. Vibration studies that were not available at the time of the previous two Environmental Assessments will also be considered under this addendum. Items 5 and 9 shown below shall be considered as addenda to the original Environmental Assessment text. 5. Air Quality Short-term increases in localized auto emissions will likely result upon project completion due to increased traffic volumes at the project site. However, the proposal will reduce long-term air pollutant emissions by reducing the amount of emissions generated by idling vehicles. Temporary deterioration of localized air quality or the generation of objectionable odors is also likely during construction activities due to operation of diesel-powered machinery/vehicles and dust generated during grading activities. Revised project proposes to establish a 24-hour construction schedule to accelerate the completion of the overpass. Short term air quality impacts are mitigated through site-specific remedies such as, on-site watering during grading activities, properly tuning and maintaining all construction equipment, use of Iow-sulfur fuels for equipment used on the project site, and washing off trucks leaving the site. 9. Noise Temporary, localized increases in noise levels are anticipated during construction activities on a 24-hour work schedule based on the following proposed construction time line. This schedule has been established for a 7 am to 11 p.m. work day. The proposed 24-hour construction schedule would accelerate this timetable depending on the availability of materials and weather. R:%CEQA\6ea addendum.doc Addendum to the Negative Declaration for the Overland Drive Overcrossin~ and Extension These impacts are expected to be short term and largely confined to the project site. Noise generated by such activities is considered a nuisance impact and is mitigated primarily by limiting the noisier construction activities to daylight hours. Sensitive noise receptors have not been identified in the project vicinity. Permanent increases in localized noise levels can be expected as an inevitable impact of overpass construction as auto traffic in the vicinity increases. Such impacts will be hard to detect due to the proximity of the 1-15. Much of the project site is currently located within the 70 CNEL area of 1-15. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PILE FOOTINGS BASED ON A 7 AM TO 11 PM WORK DAY pile designation piles 2-6, 7R and 8R Pile 1 Piles 7 and 8 Piles for abutment 9 Piles for abutment 9 wing walls dates begin/end construction May 5-17 May 17-27 May 17-June 20 June 24-27 June 28-July 3 Temporary ground vibration can be expected to result from the pile driver. As noted in the table above, this activity will occur on an intermittent basis during the construction window. Two reports were prepared by Vibration Engineering Consultants to assess the impacts of the project on Guident Corporation's Building "A", adjacent to the project site. The report was commissioned to assess the long and short-term impacts of the project on the wire winding factory within building "A". The following was assessed: Long-term vibration levels that could be expected from traffic on the proposed overcrossing next to building "A". Establish the floor vibration level in building "A" resulting from a vibratory compactor (heavy earth compacting equipment). Establish the floor vibration level on sensitive equipment in building "A" produced by a pile driver at the project site. The reports concluded that a small vibratory compactor would not impact the sensitive wire winding equipment within building "A". The contractor can mitigate impacts to the wire winding equipment by using a compactor similar in size and attributes to the one used in the test program. The new overcrossing should not produce vibration that would impact the present manufacturing process within building "A" if the vibration level is similar to the Winchester Road interchange. A diesel pile drive was employed to test the impact on the wire winding equipment in building "A". The pile driver produced serious problems with the wire winding equipment while in operation. This impact can be mitigated by limited to pile driving activity only during the hours of non-operation of the wire winding equipment. Currently wire winding does not occur during the weekend. R:~BROWNS~general correspondenceSoverland drive ea comments.doc Addendum to the Negative Declaration for the Overland Drive Overcrossinp and Extension Project Mitigation A review of the revised project indicates impacts of this project can be mitigated to the level of insignificance if the following mitigation measures are imposed: The contractor shall use a vibratory compactor similar in size and attributes to the one used in the Vibration Site Survey Report prepared by Vibration Engineering Consultants on November 5, 1998. The contractor shall limit pile driving activity during the hours of non-operation of the wire winding equipment in Guidant Corporation's Building "A". R:\BROWNS~general correspondence\overland drive ea comments.doc ITEM 7 APPROVAL' CiTY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City ManagedCity Council ,/~f~.William G. Hughes, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer April 13, 1999 Santa Gertrudis Valley, Margarita Road - Date Street Storm Drain Line B Project No. 7-0-0179, Tract Map No. 28778 - Cooperative Agreement PREPARED BY: Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works )Clement M. Jimenez, Assistant Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Approve the Margarita Road - Date Street Storm Drain Line B, Project No. 7-0-0179, Tract Map No. 28778 - Cooperative Agreement with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the County of Riverside, and Woodside Homes of California, Inc. Authorize the execution of such agreement in its final form by the Mayor, City Attorney, and City Clerk. BACKGROUND: Tract Map No. 28778 is located outside of the City of Temecula City Limits in the unincorporated Santa Gertrudis Valley area of western Riverside County. As a condition of approval, the developer must construct certain flood control storm drain facilities in order to provide flood protection for this planned development. The required facilities to be constructed include approximately 644 lineal feet of underground concrete pipe as shown on Exhibit "A". Pursuant to the Cooperative Agreement, the developer will construct said facilities, and the County Flood Control Distdct will assume ownership and maintenance responsibility of mainline storm drain improvements. Furthermore, in accordance with the cooperative agreement, County Flood Control District will review and approve all construction plans associated with the storm drain improvements, inspect the construction of the project (County and City Inspectors will have indirect contact with the contractor via District Inspectors), and accepts ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of Storm Drain Line B after construction. Participation by the City includes the review and approval of plans and specifications prepared by the Developer, granting permission to the County Flood Control District to inspect, operate and maintain Storm Drain Line B within City rights of way, and acceptance of the operation and maintenance of all inlets and connector pipes located within City rights of way. r:~agdrptL99\0413~tr28778co.agr The County will accept and hold Faithful Performance and Labor and Material Bonds for the storm drain improvements. Following City Council adoption of the Cooperative Agreement, it will be sent to the County Flood Control District and County of Riverside Board of Supervisors for their approval. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachments: 1. Location Map (Exhibit "A") 2. Cooperative Agreement (5 copies) r:'agdrpt~99~0413~tr28778co.agr AGREEMENT 1 2 (TRACT NO. 28778) 3 The RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER 4 CONSERVATION DISTRICT, hereinafter called "DISTRICT", the COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, 5 hereinafter called "COUNTY", the CITY OF TEMECULA, hereinafter called "CITY", and 6 WOODSIDE HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation, hereinafter called 7 "DEVELOPER", hereby agree as follows: 8 RECITALS 9 A. DEVELOPER has submitted for approval Tract No. 28778 in the 10 11 unincorporated Santa Gertrudis Valley area of westem Riverside County, and as a condition for 12 approval DEVELOPER must construct certain flood control facilities in order to provide flood 13 protection for DEVELOPER'S planned development; and 14 B. The required facility includes approximately 644 lineal feet of underground 15 concrete pipe, hereinafter called "PROJECT", as shown in concept in red and orange on Exhibit 16 "A" attached hereto and made a pan hereof; and 17 C. PROJECT connects to an existing downstream underground concrete pipe 18 hereina~er called "MARGARITA ROAD STORM DRAIN", as shown in concept in green on 19 Exhibit "A", constructed by the County of Riverside Assessment District 161; and 20 21 D. DISTRICT has not accepted ownership and responsibility for the operation 22 and maintenance of MARGARITA ROAD STORM DRAIN; and 23 E. DEVELOPER desires DISTRICT to accept ownership and responsibility for 24 the operation and maintenance PROJECT, excluding all PROJECT inlets and connector pipes 25 within COUNTY and CITY rights of way. Therefore, DISTRICT must review and approve the 26 plans and specifications and subsequently inspect the construction of PROJECT; and 27 28 -1- F. DISTRICT is willing to (i) review and approve plans and specifications 1 2 prepared by DEVELOPER for PROJECT, (ii) inspect the construction of PROJECT, and (iii) 3 accept ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT, excluding 4 all PROJECT inlets and connector pipes within COUNTY and CITY rights of way, provided 5 DEVELOPER (i) complies with this Agreement, (ii) pays DISTRICT the mounts specified 6 herein to cover DISTRICT'S construction inspection costs, (iii) constructs PROJECT in 7 accordance with plans and specifications approved by DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY, (iv) 8 accepts ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT after 9 completion of PROJECT construction until such time as DISTRICT accepts ownership and 10 11 responsibility for the operation and maintenance of MARGARITA ROAD STORM DRAIN and 12 PROJECT, (v) obtains all regulatory permits, and (vi) obtains and conveys to DISTRICT the 13 necessary rights of way for the inspection, operation and maintenance of PROJECT as set forth 14 herein; and 15 G. COUNTY is willing to (i) review and approve plans and specifications 16 prepared by DEVELOPER for PROJECT, (ii) accept and hold faithful performance and payment 17 bonds submitted by DEVELOPER for PROJECT, (iii) consent to the recordation and 18 conveyance of Irrevocable Offer(s) of Dedication furnished by DEVELOPER as provided 19 20 herein, (iv) grant DISTRICT the fight to inspect, operate and maintain PROJECT within 21 COUNTY rights of way, and (v) accept ownership and responsibility for the operation and 22 maintenance of all PROJECT inlets and connector pipes within COUNTY rights of way 23 provided PROJECT is constructed in accordance with plans and specifications approved by 24 DISTRICT. COUNTY and CITY; and 25 H. CITY is willing to (i) review and approve plans and specifications prepared 26 by DEVELOPER for PROJECT, (ii) grant DISTRICT the fight to inspect, operate and maintain 27 PROJECT within CITY rights of way, and (iii) accept ownership and responsibility for the 28 -2- operation and maintenance of all PROJECT inlets and connector pipes within CITY rights of 1 2 way provided PROJECT is constructed in accordance with plans and specifications approved by 3 DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY. 4 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: 5 SECTION I 6 DEVELOPER shall: 7 1. Prepare plans and specifications for PROJECT in accordance with 8 DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY standards, and submit the plans and specifications to 9 DISTRICT for its review and approval. 10 2. Deposit with DISTRICT, at the time of providing written notice to 11 12 DISTRICT of the start of PROJECT construction as set forth in Section 1.9. herein, or prior to 13 recordation of the final map for Tract 28778, whichever occurs first, the estimated cost of 14 providing construction inspection for PROJECT, in an amount as determined and approved by 15 DISTRICT in accordance with Ordinance Nos. 671 and 749 of the County of Riverside, 16 including any amendments thereto, based upon the bonded value of PROJECT facilities to be 17 inspected, operated and maintained by DISTRICT. 18 3. Secure, pursuant to its sole cost and expense. all necessary licenses, 19 20 agreements, permits and rights of entry as may be needed for the construction. inspection, 21 operation and maintenance of PROJECT. DEVELOPER shall furnish DISTRICT. at the time of 22 providing written notice to DISTRICT of the start of construction as set forth in Section 1.9. 23 herein, or not less than twenty (20) days prior to recordation of the final map for Tract No. 24 28778, whichever occurs first, with sufficient evidence of DEVELOPER having secured such 25 necessary licenses, agreements, permits and rights of entry, as determined and approved by 26 DISTRICT. 27 28 -3- 4. Furnish DISTRICT with draft copies of all permits, approvals or agreements 1 2 required by various resource/regulatory agencies for the construction, operation and maintenance 3 of PROJECT. Such documents include but are not limited to those issued by the U.S. Army 4 Corps of Engineers, California Regional Water Quality Control Board and California State 5 Department of Fish and Game. 6 5. Provide COUNTY, at the time of providing written notice to DISTRICT of 7 the start of construction as set forth in Section 1.9. herein, with faithful performance and payment 8 bonds, each in the amount of 100% of the estimated cost for construction of PROJECT as 9 determined by DISTRICT. The surety, amount and form of the bonds shall be subject to the 10 11 approval of DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY. The bonds shall remain in full force and effect 12 until PROJECT is accepted by DISTRICT as complete; at which time the bond amount may be 13 reduced to 10% for a period of one year to guarantee against any defective work, labor or 14 materials. 15 6. Grant DISTRICT, by execution of this Agreement, the fight to enter upon 16 DEVELOPER'S property where necessary and convenient for the purpose of gaining access to, 17 and performing inspection service for, the construction of PROJECT. 18 7. Obtain and provide DISTRICT, at the time of providing written notice to 19 DISTRICT of the start of construction of PROJECT as set forth in Section 1.9. herein, or not less 20 21 than twenty (20) days prior to the recordation of the final map for Tract No. 28778, whichever 22 occurs first, with duly executed Irrevocable Offer(s) of Dedication to the public for flood control 23 and drainage purposes, including ingress and egress, for the fights of way deemed necessary by 24 DISTRICT for the construction, inspection, operation and maintenance of PROJECT, as shown 25 in concept cross-hatched in blue on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. The 26 Irrevocable Offer(s) of Dedication shall be in a form approved by DISTRICT and shall be 27 executed by all legal and equitable owners of the property described in the offer(s). 28 -4° 8. Furnish DISTRICT, when submitting the Irrevocable Offer(s) of Dedication 1 as set forth in Section 1.7., with Preliminary Reports on Title, dated not more than thirty (30) 3 days prior to date of submission for all the property described in the Irrevocable Offer(s) of 4 Dedication. 5 9. Notify DISTRICT in writing (Attention - Dale V. Anderson), at least twenty 6 (20) days prior to the start of construction of PROJECT. Construction shall not begin on any 7 element of PROJECT, for any reason whatsoever, until after DISTRICT has issued to 8 DEVELOPER a written Notice to Proceed authorizing DEVELOPER to initiate construction. 9 10. Furnish DISTRICT, at the time of providing written notice to DISTRICT of 10 the start of construction as set forth in Section 1.9., with a complete list of all contractors and 11 12 subcontractors to be performing work on PROJECT, including the corresponding license number 13 and license classification of each. At such time, DEVELOPER shall further identify in writing 14 its designated superintendent for PROJECT construction. 15 11. Fumish DISTRICT with the final mylar plans for PROJECT and assign their 16 ownership to DISTRICT prior to the start of construction on any element of PROJECT. 17 12. Not permit any change to or modification of the plans and specifications for 18 PROJECT without the prior written permission and consent of DISTRICT. 19 13. Construct, or cause to be constructed, PROJECT at DEVELOPER'S sole cost 20 21 and expense in accordance with plans and specifications approved by DISTRICT, COUNTY and 22 CITY. 23 14. Upon completion of construction of PROJECT, and upon acceptance of all 24 "on-site" and "off-site" street rights of way by COUNTY and "off-site" street rights of way by 25 CITY as deemed necessary by DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY for the operation and 26 maintenance of PROJECT, but prior to DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT for ownership, 27 operation and maintenance, convey, or cause to be conveyed to DISTRICT flood control 28 -5- easement(s), including ingress and egress, in a form approved by DISTRICT, to the right of way 1 as shown in concept cross-hatched in blue on Exhibit "B". 2 3 15. At the time of recordation of the conveyancing document(s) set forth in 4 Section I. 14., furnish DISTRICT with policies of title insurance, each in the amount of not less 5 than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) for each easement parcel to be conveyed to DISTRICT, 6 guaranteeing DISTRICT'S interest in said property as being free and clear of all liens, 7 encumbrances, assessments, easements, taxes and leases (recorded and unrecorded), and except 8 those which, in the sole discretion of DISTRICT, are acceptable. 9 16. Accept sole ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance 10 of PROJECT, until such time as DISTRICT accepts ownership and responsibility for operation 11 12 and maintenance of MARGARITA ROAD STORM DRAIN and PROJECT. Further, it is 13 mutually understood by the parties hereto that prior to DISTRICT acceptance of ownership and 14 responsibility for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT as set forth herein, PROJECT 15 shall be in a satisfactorily maintained condition as approved at the sole discretion of DISTRICT. 16 17. Pay, if suit is brought upon this Agreement or any bond guaranteeing the 17 completion of PROJECT, all costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable 18 attorneys' fees, and acknowledge that, upon entry of judgment, all such costs, expenses and fees 19 shall be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. 20 21 18. Upon completion of construction of PROJECT, but prior to DISTRICT 22 acceptance of PROJECT for ownership, operation and maintenance, DEVELOPER'S civil 23 engineer of record or construction civil engineer of record, duly registered in the State of 24 California, shall provide to DISTRICT redlined as-builts of PROJECT. After DISTRICT 25 approval of redlined as-builts, engineer shall schedule with DISTRICT a time to transfer the 26 redlines on to DISTRICT original mylars at DISTRICT'S office, after which the engineer shall 27 review, stamp and sign PROJECT plans as as-built. 28 -6- SECTION II 1 DISTRICT shall: 2 3 1. Review and approve plans and specifications prepared by DEVELOPER for 4 PROJECT, prior to the start of construction. 5 2. Provide COUNTY and CITY an opportunity to review PROJECT design 6 plans prior to DISTRICT final approval. 7 3. Upon execution of this Agreement, record or cause to be recorded, a copy of 8 this Agreement in the Official Records of the Riverside County Recorder. 9 4. Record, or cause to be recorded, the Irrevocable Offer(s) of Dedication 10 11 provided by DEVELOPER pursuant to Section 1.7. 12 5. Inspect the construction of PROJECT. 13 6. Keep an accurate accounting of all DISTRICT construction inspection costs, 14 and within forty-five (45) days after DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT as being complete, 15 submit a final cost statement to DEVELOPER. If the deposit, as set forth in Section 1.2., exceeds 16 such costs, DISTRICT shall reimburse DEVELOPER the excess amount within sixty (60) days 17 after DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT as being complete. If at any time the costs exceed the 18 deposit or are anticipated by DISTRICT to exceed the deposit, DEVELOPER shall pay such 19 20 additional amount, as deemed reasonably necessary by DISTRICT to complete PROJECT, 21 within thirty (30) days after receipt of billing from DISTRICT. 22 7. Accept ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of 23 PROJECT, excluding inlets and connector pipes within COUNTY and CITY street rights of way 24 upon (i) DISTRICT acceptance of ownership and responsibility for the operation and 25 maintenance of MARGARITA ROAD STORM DRAIN, (ii) DISTRICT acceptance of 26 PROJECT construction as being complete, (iii) recordation of all conveyancing documents 27 described in Section 1.14, and (iv) acceptance by COUNTY and CITY of all necessary street 28 -7- rights of way as deemed necessary by DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY for the operation and 1 maintenance of PROJECT. 2 3 8. Provide COUNTY and CITY reproducible duplicate "as-built" mylar prints 4 for all PROJECT facilities constructed within COUNTY and CITY rights of way, upon 5 DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT as being complete. 6 SECTION III 7 COUNTY shall: 8 1. Review and approve plans and specifications prepared by DEVELOPER for 9 those portions of PROJECT within COUNTY rights of way, prior to the start of construction of 10 PROJECT. 11 12 2. Accept the COUNTY and DISTRICT approved faithful performance and 13 payments bonds submitted by DEVELOPER as set forth in Section 1.5., and hold said bonds as 14 provided herein. 15 3. Consent, by execution of this Agreement, to the recording of any Irrevocable 16 Offer(s) of Dedication furnished by DEVELOPER pursuant to this Agreement. 17 4. If requested by DISTRICT, accept the Irrevocable Offer(s) of Dedication as 18 set forth herein, and any other outstanding offers of dedication necessary for the construction, 19 20 inspection, operation and maintenance of PROJECT, and convey sufficient rights of way to 21 DISTRICT to allow DISTRICT to construct, inspect, operate and maintain PROJECT. 22 5. Grant DISTRICT, by execution of this Agreement, the right to construct, 23 inspect, operate and maintain the portion of PROJECT within COUNTY rights of way shox~ in 24 red on Exhibit "A", as set forth herein. 25 6. Upon DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT as being complete, accept 26 ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of all PROJECT inlets and 27 connector pipes within COUNTY rights of way. 28 -8- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Not grant any final inspections or occupancy permits for any units within any portion of Tract No. 28778, until construction of PROJECT is complete, unless otherwise approved in writing by DISTRICT. SECTION IV CITY shall: 1. Review and approve plans and specifications prepared by DEVELOPER for those portions of PROJECT within CITY fights of way, prior to start of construction of 8 PROJECT. 9 2. Grant DISTRICT, by execution of this Agreement, the fight to construct, 10 11 inspect, operate and maintain the portion of PROJECT within CITY fights of way shown in 12 orange on Exhibit "A" , as set forth herein. 13 3. Upon DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT as being complete, accept 14 ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of all PROJECT inlets and 15 connector pipes within CITY fights of way. 16 SECTION V 17 It is further mutually agreed: 18 1. All work involved with PROJECT shall be inspected by DISTRICT and shall 19 not be deemed complete until approved and accepted in writing as complete by DISTRICT. 20 21 2. COUNTY, CITY and DEVELOPER personnel may observe and inspect all 22 work being done on PROJECT, but shall provide any comments to DISTRICT personnel who 23 shall be responsible for all quality control communications with the contractor during the 24 construction of PROJECT. 25 3. DEVELOPER shall complete construction of PROJECT within twelve (12) 26 consecutive months after execution of this Agreement and within sixty (60) consecutive calendar 27 days after commencing work on PROJECT. It is expressly understood that since time is of the 28 -9- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 essence in this Agreement, failure of DEVELOPER to perform the work within the agreed upon time shall constitute authority for DISTRICT to perform the remaining work and require DEVELOPER'S surety to pay to COUNTY the penal sum of any and all bonds. In which case, COUNTY shall subsequently reimburse DISTRICT for DISTRICT costs incurred. 4. DEVELOPER shall, during the construction period of PROJECT, provide Workers' Compensation Insurance in an amount required by law. A certificate of said insurance policy shall be provided to DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY at the time of providing written notice pursuant to Section 1.9. 5. DEVELOPER shall, commencing on the date notice is given pursuant to Section 1.9., and continuing until DISTRICT accepts PROJECT as complete for ownership, operation and maintenance: (a) Provide and maintain or cause its contractor(s) to provide and maintain comprehensive liability insurance coverage which shall protect DEVELOPER from claim from damages for personal injury, including accidental and wrongful death, as well as from claims for property damage which may arise from DEVELOPER'S construction of PROJECT or the performance of its obligations hereunder, whether such construction or performance be by DEVELOPER, by any of its contractors, subcontractors, indirectly by any of them. COUNTY and CITY as or by anyone employed directly or Such insurance shall name DISTRICT, additional insureds with respect to this Agreement and the obligations of DEVELOPER hereunder. Such insurance shall provide for 'limits of not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence. -10- (b) Cause its insurance carrier(s) or its contractor's insurance carrier(s), 1 2 who shall be authorized by the California Department of Insurance to 3 transact business of insurance in the State of California, to furnish 4 DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY at the time of providing written 5 notice to DISTRICT of the start of construction as set forth in Section 6 1.9., with certificate(s) of insurance showing that such insurance is in 7 full force and effect and that DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY are 8 named as additional insureds with respect to this Agreement and the 9 10 obligations of DEVELOPER hereunder. Further, said certificate(s) 11 shall state that the issuing company shall give DISTRICT, COUNTY 12 and CITY sixty (60) days written notice in the event of any 13 cancellation, termination, non-renewal or reduction in coverage of the 14 policies evidenced by the certificate(s). In the event of any such 15 cancellation, termination, non-renewal or reduction in coverage, 16 DEVELOPER shall, forthwith, secure replacement insurance meeting 17 the provision of this paragraph. 18 Failure to maintain the insurance required by this paragraph shall be deemed 19 20 a material breach of this Agreement and shall authorize and constitute authority for DISTRICT, 21 at its sole discretion, to proceed to perform the remaining work pursuant to Section V.3. 22 6. In the event that any claim or legal action is brought against DISTRICT, 23 COUNTY or CITY in connection with this Agreement because of the actual or alleged acts or 24 omissions by DEVELOPER, DEVELOPER shall defend, indemnify and hold DISTRICT, 25 COUNTY and CITY harmless therefrom, without cost to DISTRICT, COUNTY or CITY. Upon 26 DEVELOPER'S failure to do so, DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY shall be entitled to recover 27 28 -11- 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 from DEVELOPER all of their cost and expenses, including, but not limited to, reasonable 1 2 attorneys' fees. 3 7. DEVELOPER shall defend, indemnify and hold DISTRICT, COUNTY and 4 CITY, their respective officers, agents, employees and independent contractors free and harmless 5 from any claim or legal action whatsoever, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of 6 the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or any other 7 law or ordinance which seeks to impose any' other liability or damage whatsoever, for the design, construction or failure of PROJECT or from the diversion of the waters from the natural drainage patterns, save and except claims and litigation arising through the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of DISTRICT, COUNTY or CITY. DEVELOPER shall defend DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY without cost to DISTRICT, COUNTY or CITY, and upon DEVELOPER'S failure to do so, DISTRICT, DEVELOPER all of their cost attorneys' fees. 8. COUNTY and CITY shall be entitled to recover from and expenditures, including, but not limited to, reasonable DEVELOPER for itself, its successors and assigns hereby releases DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY, their respective officers, agents, and employees from an3' and all claims, demands, actions, or suits of any kind arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or future, including, but not limited to any claim or liability, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or any other law or ordinance which seeks to impose any other liability or damage, whatsoever, for the design, construction or failure of PROJECT, or the discharge of drainage within or from PROJECT. Nothing contained herein shall constitute a release by DEVELOPER of DISTRICT, COUNTY or CITY, their officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, demands, actions or suits of any kind arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or -12- future, for the negligent maintenance of PROJECT, after the acceptance of PROJECT by DISTRICT. 1 2 3 9. Any waiver by DISTRICT, by COUNTY or by CITY of any breach of any 4 one or more of the terms of this Agreement shall not be construed to be a waiver of any 5 subsequent or other breach of the same or of any other term hereof. Failure on the part of 6 DISTRICT, COUNTY or CITY to require exact, full and complete compliance with any terms of 7 this Agreement shall not be construed as in any manner changing the terms hereof, or estopping 8 DISTRICT, COUNTY or CITY from enforcement hereof. 9 10. If any provision in this Agreement is held by a court of competent 10 11 jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will nevertheless 12 continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way. 13 11. This Agreement is to be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Califomia. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12. Any and all notices sent or required to be sent to the parties of this Agreement will be mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the following addresses: RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1995 Market Street Riverside, CA 92501 WOODSIDE HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 30211 Avenida De Las Banderas Rancho Santa Marrgarita, CA 92688 Attn: Nate Pugsley Project Manager, Assistant Secretary COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Post Office Box 1090 Riverside, CA 92502 Arm: Transportation Department CITY OF TEMECULA City Hall 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 13. Any action at law or in equity brought by any of the parties hereto for the purpose of enforcing a fight or rights provided for by this Agreement, shall be tried in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Riverside, State of California, and the parties hereto -13- waive all provisions of law providing for a change of venue in such proceedings to any other 1 2 county. 3 14. This Agreement is the result of negotiations between the parties hereto, and 4 the advice and assistance of their respective counsel. The fact that this Agreement was prepared 5 as a matter of convenience by DISTRICT shall have no import or significance. Any uncertainty 6 or ambiguity in this Agreement shall not be construed against DISTRICT because DISTRICT 7 prepared this Agreement in its final form. 8 15. The rights and obligations of DEVELOPER shall inure to and be binding 9 upon all heirs, successors and assignees. 10 16. DEVELOPER shall not assign or otherwise transfer any of its rights, duties 11 12 or obligations hereunder to any person or entity without the written consent of the other parties 13 hereto being first obtained. In the event of any such transfer or assignment, DEVELOPER 14 expressly understands and agrees that it shall remain liable with respect to any and all of the 15 obligations and duties contained in this Agreement. 16 17. This Agreement is intended by the parties hereto as a final expression of their 17 understanding with respect to the subject matter hereof and as a complete and exclusive 18 statement of the terms and conditions thereof and supersedes any and all prior and 19 20 contemporaneous agreements and understandings, oral or written, in connection therewith. This 21 Agreement may be changed or modified only upon the written consent of the parties hereto. 22 // 23 // 24 25 26 27 28 - 14- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on (to be filled in by Clerk of the Board) RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT By DAVID P. ZAPPE General Manager-Chief Engineer APPROVED AS TO FORM By JAMES A. VENABLE, Chairman Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors ATTEST: WILLIAM C. KATZENSTEIN County Counsel By JOE S. RANK Assistant County Counsel Dated GERALD A. MALONEY Clerk of the Board By Deputy (SEAL) RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE By DAVID E. BARNHART Director of Transportation By ROY WILSON, Chairman County of Riverside Board of Supervisors ATTEST: GERALD A. MALONEY Clerk of the Board By Deputy (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: By City Attorney CITY OF TEMECULA By Mayor ATTEST: By City Clerk (SEAL) -15- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JRH:DVA:mcv PC\56038 03/03/99 WOODSIDE HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC. a California corporation By · IIM MCGINNIS Division Manager, Senior Vice President (NOTARY) -r"':7)., E~ENDA AUSTIN ~:" k Cs'-nmissic. r, = i 150760 '- -~::. :/"-':' .';;7 5, c- =-,' %s": -- Ccfifomia :: .:;.:,:.:;,;,.:7 R;versceCounty (' "~7-'''/,'/y Cc~m. Exp'res See 6, 2001 -16- CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of CALIFORNIA County of RIVERSIDE On ~_r~/DZ.F~/~ ~ before BRENDA AUSTIN, NOTARY PUBLIC personally appeared --~)~,~ 0 ~ ~ , ~ pe~onally known to me - OR - ~d to me on the basis of satisfa~o~ evidence to be the pe~on(s) same' er/their authortz~city(ip~,and that by (~e~;ignature~the instrument the person,~, or the entity upon behalf of which the person,~ acted, executed the instrument. OPTIONAL Though the infotma~on t~elow is not required t3y lew. it fray I~rove v~lul~le to I~emor~ Nlying on the ~;cument ~n~l coul~l prevent fraudulent removll ir~l re~ltrnent of ~i~ form to ,Inother ~locumenL Description of Attached Document T~tle or Type of Document: ~ Document Date: ~ I I~"~- Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Number of Pages: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name- ~~ir')r~' o0 ~--~C)0 Signer's · V Corporate Officer l~tle(s): Partner- ~ Limited .: General Attorney-in-Fact Trustee .'.. Guardian or Conservator Other. TeD = Name: Individual Corporate Officer TrUe(s): Partner- ~ Limited; General Attorney-in°Fact Trustee Guardian or Conservator Other. Tog of mum~ here Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: k~T.T Page 1 of 2 VIC~BTY MAP INDEX MAP EXHIBIT "A" Page 2 of 2 ,I _ f .v. 3Nn EXHIBIT "B" ITEM 8 APPROVAL E~ CiTY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City ManagedCity Council William G. Hughes, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer Apdl 13, 1999 Tract Map No. 29033, Located South of La Serena Way, East of Temeku Drive, West of Meadows Parkway in the Margadta Village Specific Plan No. 199 PREPARED BY: Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works <~Clement M. Jimenez, Assistant Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve 1)Tract Map No. 29033 in conformance with the Conditions of Approval 2) Subdivision Improvement Agreement 3) Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Faithful Performance Bond, Labor and Material Bond and Monument Bond as secudty for the agreements. BACKGROUND: Tract Map No. 29033, formerly Tentative Tract Map No. 23371-12, is Planqing Area 42 of the Margarita Village Specific Plan No. 199. As a result of Specific Plan Amendment No. 3, the density of Planning Area 42 was revised to allow higher density residential uses where Medium High density residential uses were originally planned. Thus, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map No. 29033, Planning Application No. PA98-0431, on December 16, 1998. The approval is effective until December 16, 2000. The Developer has met all of the Conditions of Approval for recordation of the final map. Final Tract Map No. 29033 is a seventy (70) lot single family residential subdivision with one (1) open space lot, of 13.6 acres, located south of La Serena Way, East of Temeku Drive, West of Meadows Parkway and within Temeku Hills. The site is currently vacant. The following fees have been deferred for Tract Map No. 29033: Development Impact Fee due prior to issuance of a building permit. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. Development Fee Checklist Fees & Securities Report Project Vicinity Map Tract Map No. 29033 r:~agdrpt~99M::)413~tr29033,map CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO. 29033 The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project. FEE Flood Control (ADP) Development Impact Fee CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Paid To be paid prior to issuance of a building permit 2 ~TEMEC_FS2OI%DATA~EPTS~PW~GDRPTLqg~0413~TR29033.MAp. DOC CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT TRACT MAP NO. 29033 IMPROVEMENTS Street and Drainage Water Sewer Monument TOTAL FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE SECURITY $ 241,500 $ 98,000 $ 67,500 $ 37,232 $ 444,232 DATE: April 13, 1999 MATERIAL SECURITY $ $ $ $ & LABOR 121,000 49,000 34,000 204,000 DEVELOPMENT FEES City Traffic Signing and Striping Costs RCFCD (ADP) Fee Development Impact Fee SERVICE FEES Planning Fee Comprehensive Transportation Plan Plan Check Fee Monument Inspection Fee Fees Paid to Date Balance of Fees Due $ 0.00 $ 27,148.35 $ 205,380.00 $ 171.00 $ 8.00 $ 2,150.00 $ 1,861.61 $ 4,190.61 $ 0.00 3 ~TEMEC_FS201~ATA~DEFTSM~V~GDR~I3~TR29033,MAP. DOC RANCHO TEMECULA ~ SITE TEMECULA N.T.S. VICINITY MAP (9091 782-0707 g:\d_ 13 193\ 193xbi'48.dgn VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT SCALE: N/A I DATE: MAR 31, 1999 PLOT DATE: 31-MAR-1999 JN 13193 LLI ' ~\ /~ / I I I /- ITEM 9 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City ManagedCity Council DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER A~William G. Hughes, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer April 13, 1999 Accept Subdivision Monumentation in Tract No. 23142. (Northeasterly of Intersection of Meadows Parkway at Rancho California Road) PREPARED BY: f.~ Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works Albert K. Cdsp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council 1. ACCEPT the Subdivision Monumentation in Tract No. 23142 2. AUTHORIZE the release of the Subdivision Monument Security 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. Vineyard Crest Development Partners, L.P., 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 R:~agdrpt~99\0413~tr23142. mon 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: 1. 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. 2. 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. 4533338 in the amount of $8,500 to cover subdivision monumentation. On February 9, 1999, the City Council accepted the public improvements, initiated the one-year warranty pedod, and authorized reduction in the Faithful Performance secudty 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 has been reviewed and the requisite Certificate of Correction filed. Therefore, Staff recommends release of the following security Bond No. 453333S in the amount of $8,500 to cover subdivision monumentation. The affected street was accepted into the City Maintained-Street System by Resolution No. 99-11 on February 9, 1999. The street accepted is a portion of Merlot Crest. FISCAL IMPACT: ATTACHMENT: None Location Map R :~agdrpt%99~0413~tr23142. mon VICINITY A6qP 8- 7-~t I /7 /3 ~.~ ~\ _A,I / 40 169'/16'YI'~ Tract No. ?.3149- NOTIP~: MAPS NOT TO SCALE ITEM 10 APPROVAL ~ CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: City ManagedCity Council 4~/Villiam G. Hughes, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: March 25, 1999 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Grant of Easement for Traffic Signal Equipment GMS Realty, LLC PREPARED BY: Brian Guillot, Assistant Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopts a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99-~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING A MAINTENANCE EASEMENT FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT AND APPURTENANT STRUCTURES, RELATED TO THE INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND VIA LAS COLINAS. BACKGROUND: The installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Rancho California Road and Via Las Colinas was approved by the City Council in the Fiscal Year 1998/99 Capital Improvement Program. The northerly leg of said intersection serves a private commercial development, via a driveway, owned by GMS Realty, LLC. In order for the traffic signal to be fully traffic actuated, detector loops must be installed in the pavement of the private drive. The underlying fee owner of the affected land and grantor of the several rights in the land are: GMS Realty, LLC, a Delaware Corporation The attached documents are for a maintenance easement for the proposed traffic signal at Rancho California Road and Via Las Colinas. GMS Realty agreed to provide an easement to the city for the required traffic signal equipment as shown herein. The easement must be accepted by the City and recorded to facilitate construction activities. FISCALIMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 99- 2. Easement Deed executed by GMS Realty, LLC, dated March 17, 1999. 3. Legal Description labeled Exhibit "A" and Plat labeled Exhibit "B" R:\agdrpt~99/041 3/GMS Realty Easement 1 RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING A MAINTENANCE EASEMENT FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT AND APPURTENANT STRUCTURES, RELATED TO THE INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND VIA LAS COLINAS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, GMS Realty, LLC, a Delaware Corporation has granted an easement to the City of Temecula for the purpose of the installation of traffic signal equipment and appurtenant structures on the northerly leg of the proposed traffic signal located at Rancho California Road and Via Las Colinas; and, WHEREAS, the legal description labeled Exhibit "A" and the plat labeled Exhibit "B" for the said parcel are attached hereto and describe the limits of the easement; and, WHEREAS, the City desires to accept the grant of easement in order to construct and maintain that portion of the traffic signal facilities located within the easement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby accepts the Easement Deed for traffic signal maintenance purposes, as offered by GMS Realty, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, in substantially the form attached hereto, with the referenced legal description and plat map, for the purposes stated therein, excluding for street or other maintenance purposes, at this time. The City Engineer is hereby authorized to make minor modifications to the legal description on said documents. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of Apdt 1999. Steven J. Ford, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:\agdrpt~99/0413/GMS Realty Easement 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) l, 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 13th day of April 1999, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:\agdrpt~99t041 3/GMS Realty Easement 3 RECORDING REQUESTED BY: CITY OF TEMECULA WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF TEMECULA 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE P.O. BOX 9033 TEMECULA, CA 92589-9033 Space above this line for Recorder's Use MAINTENANCE EASEMENT FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, GMS Re~lf~, LLC, ,~ D~iau/~re Covporaf~ow do_P,l__ hereby grant to the CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under the Constitution of the State of California, an easement for traffic signal equipment and appurtenant structures including the fight to maintain said equipment and appurtenant structure in the real property in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows: See legal description labeled EXHIBIT "A" and plat labeled EXHIBIT "B" attached hereto and by this reference made part hereof. It is understood that each undersigned grantor grants only that portion of the above described land in which said grantor has an interest. For XT Y~,: I I i ,~ .4 ~sidevff ALL SIGNATURE MUST BE WITNESSED BY A NOTARY CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT personally appeared N~(s) of Signer(s) ' ' personally known to me - OR - ~ proved to me on the basis of satisfacto~ evidence to be the pe~on(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Pubtic OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to petsons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Signer's Name: [] Individual [] Individual [] Corporate Officer [] Corporate Officer 'Rtle(s): Title(s): [] Partner -- ~ Limited [] General [] Partner -- [] Limited [] General [] Attorney-in-Fact [] Attorney-in-Fact [] Trustee [] Trustee [] Guardian or Conservator [] Guardian or Conservator [] Other: Top of thumb here [] Other: Top of thumb hem Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: 995 National Notary Association · 8236 Rernmet Ave., RO. Box 7184 · Canoga Park, CA 91309-7184 Prod. No. 5907 Reorder. Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Those portions of Parcels 5,11, and 14 of Parcel Map 22863, in book 150 pages 51-57 oftnaps, in the office of the County recorder of Riverside County within the area described as follows: Beginning at the south castefly comer of parcel 14 of said Parcel Map 22863, said poim also being the northerly fight-of-way line of Rancho California Road, thence along a tangent curve concave southeasterly and having a radius of 4055 feet, a radial line to said curve bears N 33° 22' 31" W, thence southwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 01 ° 55' 10" an arc length of 135.85' to the Tree Point of Fleginning: continuing along said tangent curve through a central angle of 00° 10' 15" an arc length of 12.09'; thence along a non- tangent curve concave southeasterly and having a radius of 4055 feet, a radial line to said curve bears N 35 ° 08' 09" W, thence southwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 0° 25' 27" an are length of 30.02'; thence along a non- tangent curve concave southeaste~y and having a radius of 4055 feet, a radial line to said curve bears N 35' 3Y 36" W, thence southwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 0° 11' 48" an are length of 13.92'; thence N 33 ° 22' 31" W a distance of 25.01'; thence N 54° 54' 55" E a distance of 56.02'; thence S 33° 22' 31" E, a distance of 25.01' to the Tree Point of Flel/inning. SCAIZ: 1°=48' SOUTHEASITRLY CORNER OF PARCEL 14 hnslech POINT OF BEGINNING 55' DEDICATED k ACCel'B) PER MB 54/25-30 EDWARD BEN LEE RCE 28525 PLAT MAP EXHIBIT "R" u~N~c~ u~rr! CITY OF TEMECULA MNN"I~NANCE EASEMENT I DRWG. NO. i NOISY SIDE OF RANClIO CALet3RNIA ROAD AND VIA LAS COUNAS ITEM 11 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: ITY APPROVAL i~ C ATTORNEY ,~ DIRECTOR OF FINANC CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council -/~,R~illiam G. Hughes, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer Apdl 13, 1999 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Discharge Permit Implementation Agreement PREPARED BY: John Pourkazemi, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED "NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM STORMWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT" AND MAKING FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH Approve the New Implementation Agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. BACKGROUND: The Cities of Temecula and Murrieta, portions of County of Riverside and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) are within the Santa Margadta Watershed as it relates to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. At the time the NPDES program was introduced, said agencies elected RCFC&WCD as the "Principal Permittee". The latter was therefore the recipient of the initial NPDES permit issued by San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) in 1990. Subsequently, RCFC&WCD became responsible to lead and administer the development and implementation of the NPDES program and an Implementation Agreement was duly processed. In 1991, in order to finance the program and fund the expenditures, RCFC&WCD established the Santa Margarita Watershed Benefit Assessment Area (SMWBAA) where the property owners were assessed for the benefit derived from the development and implementation of the municipal stormwater programs. Assessments were calculated by RCFC&WCD and enrolled on the property tax bills generated by the Riverside County Tax Assessor's Office. The amount of the assessment was based on a parcel's proportionate contribution to stormwater runoff which was related to the size and existing use of the parcel. Since the SMWBAA was an area- wide revenue source, certain activities that were considered of common and equal benefit to the R :\agdrpt\99~)41 3\pollutantReso/ajp 1 entire area were financed, either wholly or in part, by the funds generated by RCFC&WCD's benefit assessment revenue. Upon termination of the initial permit, SDRWQCB issued a new permit on May 13, 1998 (Order No. 98-02). RCFC&WCD was the recipient of the new NPDES permit. Similar to the initial permit, the new permit requires that a new Implementation Agreement be approved. This new Implementation Agreement forrealizes the roles and responsibilities of each party with respect to the permit. The agreement also establishes a cost sharing mechanism for consultant services. Section 3 of the agreement document states that. "The total shared cost of consultant services shall not exceed $75, 000 annually" this amount if necessary will cover any consultants' services to prepare manuals, develop additional stormwater management or NPDES Permit compliance programs, or perform studies relevant to the entire permitted area. To date RCFC&WCD, Riverside County and Cities of Temecula and Murrieta staff have satisfactorily carried out all the required tasks without consultant services. The agreement further covers the cost of area wide activities which include the stormwater monitoring program (Consolidated Program for Water Quality Monitoring), support of the County's Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Team (HAZMAT Response Team), support of the County's Household Hazardous Waste (HHVV) collection program, support of the stormwater education program (Stormwater/Clean Water Protection Program) and RCFC&WCD's administrative duties as lead Permittee. In the event that additional programs are necessary and consultants' services are required, a future request for an appropriation will be presented to the City Council, FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 99- 2. Implementation Agreement R:\agdrpt\99\041 3~pollutantReso/ajp 2 RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED "NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHAGRE ELIMINATION SYSTEM STORMWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT" AND MAKING FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council approves that certain Agreement entitled "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Discharge Permit Implementation Agreement" and the findings contained therein and authorizes the Mayor to execute the Agreement in substantially the form attached as Exhibit "A". Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of April, 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, CMC, 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 13th day of April, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:~agdrpt~9\041 3\pollutantReso/ajp 3 RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED "NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHAGRE ELIMINATION SYSTEM STORMWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT" AND MAKING FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council approves that certain Agreement entitled "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Discharge Permit Implementation Agreement" and the findings contained therein and authorizes the Mayor to execute the Agreement in substantially the form attached as Exhibit "A". Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 13t" day of April, 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, CMC, 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 I Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 13 h day of Apdl, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: 0 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R :%agdrpt\99~041 3%pollutantReso/ajp 3 DAVID P. ZAPPE General Manager-Chief Engineer RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT November 2, 1998 1995 MARKET STREE' RIVERSIDE. CA 92501 909/955-1200 909/788-9965 FAX 54446.1 Mr. Ron Bradley City Manager City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: John Pourkazemi Dear Mr. Bradley: Re: Santa Margarita NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit - Adoption of New Implementation Agreement The District is transmitting herewith the final form Implementation Agreement (IA) for the Santa Margarita NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit. As you are aware, adoption of a new IA is a requirement of the new Municipal Stormwater Permit adopted by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) on May 13, 1998 (Board Order No. 98-02). A draR IA was sent to your agency for review and comment on August 25, 1998. The District has incorporated Permittee comments into the revised text. A final draft IA was faxed to your agency on October 15, 1998. The attached final form IA has been reviewed and approved by the District's legal counsel and is currently scheduled for adoption by the District's Board of Supervisors on November 17, 1998. At this time, we are requesting that your agency take action to adopt the new IA in the most expeditious manner possible. Please execute each of the three attached signature pages and return two executed signature pages to the District for processing. Keep the third signature page for your files. Once the requested signature pages have been received from all parties, the District will transmit a conformed copy of the IA to each City and the SDRWQCB Executive Officer. Your prompt attention to this matter is requested. Our goal is to submit the fully executed IA to the SDRWQCB's Executive Officer by December I, 1998. Significant delay could prompt the SDRWQCB to undertake an enforcement action against the Permittees for non-compliance with Order No. 98-02. Thank you for your continued cooperation in this endeavor. Mark Wills at 909/955-1273. Attachments If you have any questions, please contact Mr. yours~ C' County of Riverside Attn: Craig Manning San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Attn: Greg Gearheart Coen Couwenberg MHW:pln PC\51643 1 2 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 26 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Discharge Permit Implementation Agreement San Diego Region (Santa Margarita Drainage Area) This Agreement, entered into as of this day of , by the RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (herein called DISTRICT), the COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE (herein called COUNTY), and the CITIES OF TEMECULA AND MURRIETA (herein called CITIES), establishes the responsi- bilities of each party concerning compliance with the National Pollutan~ Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Discharge Permit (NPDES Permit) issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control-Board - San Diego Region pursuant to its Order No. 98-02. RECITALS WHEREAS, Congress in 1987 added Section 402(p) to the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. §1342(p)); and WHEREAS, Section 402(p) requires certain municipalities to obtain NPDES Permits in order to discharge stormwater from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) to waters of the United States; and WHEREAS, Section 402(p) also requires operators of certain industrial facilities to obtain NPDES Permits for stormwater discharges associated with designated industrial activities, including construction activities; and 27 28 -1- PC\51643 3 6 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 26 27 28 WHEREAS, Section 402(p) Environmental Protection regulations requiring NPDES industrial activities; and WHEREAS, 1990; and WHEREAS, further requires the United States Agency (USEPA) to promulgate Permits for designated MS4s and USEPA promulgated such regulations in November USEPA has delegated to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board-San Diego Region (CRWQCB-SDR) the authority to administer the NPDES permitting process within the boundaries of that region; and WHEREAS, DISTRICT was created to provide for the control of flood and stormwaters within 'the County of Riverside and is empowered to investigate, examine, measure, analyze, study and inspect matters pertaining to flood and stormwaters; and WHEREAS, in January 1995, DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITIES submitted a Report of Waste Discharge as an application to renew NPDES Permit No. CAS 0108766; and WHEREAS, the NPDES Permit Application was submitted in accordance with the provisions of the previous NPDES Permit (Order No. 90-46, NPDES No. CAS 0108766) which expired on July 16, 1995; and WHEREAS, on May 13, 1998, CRWQCB-SDR adopted Order No. 98-02 to serve as Waste Discharge Requirements in accordance with Section 13263(a) of the California Water Code and as an NPDES Permit pursuant to Section 402(p) of the CWA; and -2- PC\51643 ! WHEREAS, the NPDES Permit issued pursuant to Order No. 98-02 meets both the requirements of Section 402(p) (3)(B) of the CWA 3 and all requirements applicable to an NPDES Permit issued under 4 , CRWQCB-SDR discretionary authority in accordance with Section · 5 402 (a) (1) (B) of the CWA; and WHEREAS, the NPDES Permit designates DISTRICT as the 7 "Principal Permittee", and COUNTY and CITIES as "Co-Permittees"; 8 and 9 WHEREAS, cooperation between DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITIES in the administration and implementation of the NPDES Permit is in ]] the best interests of DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITIES; and WHEREAS, DISTRICT is willing to utilize its staff to 13 coordinate the activities of' DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITIES to ]4 facilitate compliance with the NPDES Permit and CWA requirements; and WHEREAS, DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITIES are to perform certain ]7 activities prescribed in the NPDES Permit that will benefit all ]8 parties. 19 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows: 1. Incorporation of the NPDES Permit. The NPDES Permit issued to DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITIES by CRWQCB-SDR pursuant to Order No. 98-02 is attached to this Agreement as EXHIBIT A and is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety and made a part of this Agreement. 27 -3- PC\51643 6 7 8 9 lO II 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2~ 26 27 28 2. Delegation of Responsibilities. The responsibilities of each of the parties shall be as described in the NPDES Permit and reiterated as follows: a. DISTRICT, at no cost to COUNTY and CITIES, shall assume the responsibilities and meet the requirements of the NPDES Permit by: (1) Complying with Section II.B. (RESPONSIBILITIES (2) (3) OF THE PRINCIPAL PERMITTEE). Complying with Sections II.D. (DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS), II.E. (RECEIVING WATER LIMITATIONS), and II.F. (PROVISIONS) as they pertain to DISTRICT facilities and operations. Performing all sample collection and laboratory analyses, including stormwater, dry weather and receiving water sampling, as described in Section II.F.26. et seq. (MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS). Performing all reporting requirements described in Section II.F.26. et seq. (MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS). With respect to such reporting, DISTRICT shall specifically: (a) Prepare the required narrative for all reports; and (b) Provide COUNTY and CITIES an opportunity to review and comment on any such narra- tive. (4) -4- 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 26 27 28 PC\51643 (5) Corresponding with CRWQCB-SDR, USEPA, SWRCB, and other parties concerning NPDES Permit matters on behalf of COUNTY and CITIES. With respect to such correspondence, DISTRICT shall specifically: (a) Prepare the required narrative for such correspondence; (b) Provide COUNTY and CITIES an opportunity to review and comment on any such correspondence; and (c) Provide copies of all such correspondence to COUNTY and CITIES. COUNTY and CITIES shall, at no cost to DISTRICT, assume the responsibilities and meet the require- ments of the NPDES Permit for land area within their respective jurisdictions and facilities that they own or operate by: (1) Complying with Section II.C. (RESPONSIBILITIES (2) (3) OF THE PERMITTEES). Complying with Sections LIMITATIONS), II.E. LIMITATIONS), and II.F. II.D. (DISCHARGE (RECEIVING WATER (PROVISIONS) as they pertain to COUNTY and CITIES facilities and operations. Demonstrating compliance with all NPDES Permit requirements through timely implementation of the approved Drainage Area Management Plan -5- 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 26 27 28 PC\51643 (DAMP) and any approved modifications, revi- sions, or amendments thereto. (4) Providing to DISTRICT (on DISTRICT provided forms) all informaEion needed to satisfy the reporting requirements as described in Section II.F.26. et seq. (MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS). COUNTY and CITIES shall specifically: (a) Provide information on existing stormwater facilities and/or other data as it pertains to COUNTY or CITIES facilities when requested by DISTRICT. (b) Submit their individual NPDES Permit compliance reports to DISTRICT for incorporation into DISTRICT'S narrative no later than September 15 of each year. 3. Shared Costs. In the event DISTRIdT requires the services of a consultant or consultants to prepare manuals, develop additional stormwater management or NPDES Permit compliance programs, or perform studies relevant to the entire permitted area, the cost of said consultant services shall be shared by DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITIES. be allocated as follows: Party DISTRICT COUNTY & CITIES The shared costs shall Percentage Contribution 50 -6- PC\51643 The individual percentage contribution from COUNTY and individual CITIES shall be a function of population. More specifically, such contribution shall be calculated as the population of COUNTY' or individual CITIES, divided by the total population of all the Co-Permittees multiplied by 50, i.e.,: Contribution (%) = 50 (x./xto=) Xn = population of COUNTY' or individual CITIES Xto= = total population of COUNTY' and CITIES 50 = total percentage excluding DISTRICT portion ' Population within the Santa Margarita drainage area The popuia~ion of COUNTY and CITIES shall be based on the latest California State Department of Finance population figures issued in May of each year. The total shared cost of consultant services shall not exceed $75,000.00 annually. COUNTY and CITIES shall be notified in writing of DISTRICT'S request for proposals from consultants, selection of consultant(s), associated fee(s), contract timetable(s) and contract payment schedule(s). COUNTY and CITIES shall pay to DISTRICT their portion of any shared costs within 60 days of receipt of an invoice from DISTRICT. 4. Term of the Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date the last duly authorized representa- tive of DISTRICT, COUNTY or CITIES executed it. The term of this Agreement shall be indefinite or as long as required for compliance with the CWA, unless each of the Co-Permittees withdraws in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. -7- PC\51643 5. Additional Parties. Any City which incorporates after the date of issuance cf the NPDES Permit and/or after the date of execution of this Agreement may file a written request with DISTRICT asking to be added as a party. Upon receipt of such a request, DISTRICT shall solicit the approval or denial of each Co-Permittee. If each of the Co-Permittees approves the addition of the City, DISTRICT, on behalf of the Co-Pel~nittees, shall ask CRWQCB-SDR to add the City to the NPDES Permit as an additional Co-Permittee. Once the City is made an additional Co-Permittee to the NPDES Permit, this Agreement shall be amended to reflect the addition, and the City shall, thereafter, comply with all provisions of the NPDES Permit and this Agreement. Upon execution of the amended Agreement, the City shall be responsible for the shared costs discussed in Section 3 of this Agreement for the current and any subsequent budget year. 6. Withdrawal from the Agreement. Any party may withdraw from this Agreement sixty (60) days after giving written notice to DISTRICT and CRWQCB-SDR. The withdrawing party shall agree in such notice to file for a separate NPDES Permit and to comply with all of the requirements established by CRWQCB-SDR. In addition, withdrawal shall constitute forfeiture of all of the withdrawing party's share of the costs described in Section 3 of this Agreement. The withdrawing party shall be responsible for all lawfully assessed penalties as a consequence~of withdrawal. The cost allocations to the remaining parties shall be recalculated in the following fiscal year. PC\51643 ! 7. Non-compliance with Permit Requirements. Any party found in non-compliance with the conditions of the NPDES Permit 3 shall be solely liable for any lawfully assessed penalties. 4 · Common or joint penalties shall be calculated and allocated between the parties according to the formula outlined in Section 3 of this Agreement. 7 8. Amendments to the Agreement. This Agreement may be 8 amended only by consent of all parties to this Agreement. No 9 amendment to this Agreement shall be effective unless it is in writing and signed by the duly authorized representatives of all parties to the Agreement. 9. Authorized Signatories. The General Manager-Chief Engineer of DISTRICT, the Chief Executive Officer of COUNTY and the City Managers of CITIES (or their designees) shall be authorized to execute all documents and take all other procedural steps necessary to file for and obtain an NPDES ]7 Permit ( s ) or amendments thereto. ]8 10. Notices. All notices shall be deemed duly given when ]9 delivered by hand; or three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid. 11. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with laws of the State of California. 23 If any provision or provisions of this Agreement shall be held 24 to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired hereby. 27 -9- PC\51643 ] 12. Consent to Waiver and Breach. No term or provision 2 hereof shall be deemed waived and no breach excused, unless the 3 waiver or breach is consented to in writing, and signed by the 4 , party or parties affected. Consent by any party to a waiver or breach by any other party shall not constitute consent to any different or subsequent waiver or breach. 7 13. Applicability of Prior Agreements. This Agreement and 8 the exhibits attached hereto constitute the entire Agreement 9 between the parties with respect to the subject matter; all prior agreements, representations, statements, negotiations and ]] undertakings are superseded hereby. 14. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be 13 executed and delivered in any. number of counterparts or copies ]4 ("counterpart") by the parties hereto. When each party has signed and delivered at least one counterpart to the other parties hereto, each counterpart shall be deemed an original ]7 and, taken together, shall constitute one and the same ]8 Agreement, which shall be binding and effective as to the ]9 parties hereto. // // 23 -]0- PC\51643 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement executed as of the day and year first above written. has been RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: DAVID P. ZAPPE General Manager-Chief Engineer RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT By JAMES A. VENABLE, Chairman Riverside County Flood Control And Water Conservation District Board Of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM: WILLIAM C. KATZENSTEIN County Counsel Deputy Dated Io/~$/q~ ATTEST: GERALD A. MALONEY Clerk of the Board By Deputy (SEAL) RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By LARRY PARRISH County Executive Officer Dated COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE By JOHN F. TAVAGLIONE, Chairman County of Riverside Board of Supervisors ATTEST: GERALD A. MALONEY Clerk of the Board By Deputy ( SEAL ) VLD:MHW:pln -11- 6 8 9 10 11 12 14 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2~ 26 27 28 APPROVED AS TO FORM: By 3 City Attorney -12- CITY OF TEMECULA By Mayor ATTEST: By City Clerk (SEAL) PC\51643 Nationai Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storewater Discharge Pemit Implementation Agreement San Diego Region Exhibit A Order No. 98-02 California Regional Water Quality Control Board - San Diego Region Cal -PA San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board , 9771 Clait~nont Iv'lea BIrd., Suite A San Diego, CA 92124 (619) 467-2952 FAX (619) 571-6972 May 14,1998 To all on Distribution List: ":ERSIDE CCU?ITY FLOOD COrITRO Transmittal Of Adopted Order No. 98-02, Waste Discharge Requirements And NPDES Permit No. CAS0108766 For Urban Runoff From The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, The County of Riverside, and the Incorporated Cities of Riverside County within the San Diego Region On May 13, 1998, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region (SDRWQCB), adopted Order No. 9g-02. Enclosed is a copy of the adopted Order. If you have any questions or comments, please call Mr. Greg Gearheart of my staff at (619) 627-3941. V~.~truly you,~~ GTG:dsj:gtg Attachments: Order No. 98-02 Distribution List Gene Diepholtz, City of Murrieta Mark Wills, Riverside County Flood Control Christopher Hans, Riverside County Executive Office John Pourkazemi, City of Temecula Chris Crompton, Co. of Orange, Environmental Management Agency Michael Adackapara, RWQCB, Region 8 Jon Van Rhyn, County Of San Diego, Depa~ment Of Environmental Health Bruce Fujimoto, SWRCB, Division of Water Quality, Regulatory, Storm Water Unit Eugene Bromley, USEPA, Region IX Bob Wheeler, Elsinore-Murrieta Resource Conservation District Jayne Joy, USMCB Camp Pendleton Borre Winkler, Riverside County BIA Pet~ Wilso $Rec~,cted Pal~er Our m:xsyo, :$ Io preserve and enhance Ihe qua/:.n/ of ('ahfornsa ~ ~vater resources. and e~t.wtt# · t/~etr proper aliacairo, and e.[fictenf use for tbe b4,ne[tr o[presenf and [uture generations CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SAN DIEGO REGION ORDER NO. 98-02 NPDES NO. CAS0108766 WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR URBAN RUNOFF FROM THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, AND THE INCORPORATED CITIES OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY WITHIN THE SAN DIEGO REGION TABLE OF CONTENTS I. FACt SHEET 2 IL WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ,. -, · 6 A. FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................................................................................6 B. KESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PRINCIPAL PERMITTEE .............. C. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PERMITTEES ......................................................................................................................12 D. DISCHAROE LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................................1 E. RECEIVING WATER LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... F. PROVISIONS .............................................................................................................................................................................. GE, NER.4L ...................................................................................................................................................................................I .$ IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT. .........................................................................................................................................I6 LEGAL ,4 UTHORITY. ................................................................................................................................................................. ENFO RCEMENT/COMPL1ANCE STP,,4 TEG Y .........................................................................................................................17 PUBLIC EDUC..41'ION AND OU'I'RF_~CH ...............................................................................................................................17 MUNICIP,4L F/ICILITIES ..................................................................................................................................................17 PERAHITEE-OWNED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTv~/JCTIVITIES ...................................................................................... 18 NEW DEVELOPMENT (INCLUDING RE-DEVELOPMENT) ................................................................................................19 FISC.4L RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................................................19 MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENT3' ............................................................................................................19 PERMIT EXPIR.~ TION /tND RENEW/IL ..................................................................................................................................20 HI. GLOSSARY ..................................... 22 ATTACHMENT !: MAP OF PROJECT AREA SUBJECT TO PERMIT ....... 25 Order No. 98-02 (NPDES No. CAS0108766) The RCFC4r~WCD, County of Riverside, and !ncorporuted Cities Aruwlde Munidpai Storm Water NPDES Permit Page 2 of 25 I. FACT SHEET PROJECT The auached pages contain information concerning an application for renewal of waste discharge requir~nents and a :National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, Order No. 98-02, NPDES No. CAS0108766, which prescribes waste discharge requirements for urban storm water runoff from the cities and the unincol"porated areas in Riverside County within the jurisdiction of the SDRWQCB. On January 17, 1995 the Riverside County Flood Conu'ol and Water Conservation District (RCFC~WCD), the County of Rivehide, the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta (Cities), heroinafter collectively referred to as Permittees, submitted NPDES Application No. CAS0108766 for an area-wide storm water discharge permit under the NPDES program. The permit application was submitted in accordance with the previous NPDES permit (Order No. 9046) whie, h expired on July I, 1995. Additionally, the permit application follows guidance provided by staff of the State Water Resoumes Control Board (State Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards CRWQCBs). PROJECT AREA The permitted area is delineated by the Santa Ana RWQCB-SDRWQCB boundary line on the north, the SDRWQCB - Colorado River Basin RWQCB boundary line on the east, and the County of Riverside (County) boundary line on the south and west. The permitted area is shown on Attachment I (Western Riveaide County NPDES Permit Area). CLEAN WATER ACT REOUIREMENTS The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) allows the United States Environmental Protection Agency CtJSEPA) to delegat~ its NPDES pertaining authority to states with an approved environmental regulatory program.. The State of California is one of the delegated states. The California Water Code (CWC) authorizes the State Board, through its Regional Boards, to regulate and control the discharge of pollutants into waters of the State and tributaries thereto. Section 405 of the Water Quality Act (WQA) of ! 987 added Section 402(p) to the CWA. Pursuant to Section 402(pX4) of the CWA, the USEPA promulgated regulations for storm water permit applications for storm water discharges associated with industrial activities and municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) serving a population of 100,000 or more. As shown in Appendix I to 40 CFR 122 (the final Phase I storm water regulations), the County of Riverside has an unincorporated, urbanized-area population of greater than 100,000 and less than 250,000 (based on the 1980 decenniai census) and is therefore require! to obtain coverage under a municipal NPDES storm water permit. USEPA intended that Phase I municipal NPDES storm water permits focus on the areas within a county which are either already highly urbanized or are rapidly developing. The portion of Riverside County within the jurisdiction of the SDRWQCB is one the fastest growing areas in the State. Riverside County was Califomia's fastest growing county from 1980 to 1990. Riverside County grew three times faster than Orange County and more than two times faster than San Diego County during that same time period. Temecula is c.rrently the fastest growing city in Riveaide County. From 1990 to 1997 Temecula was the 1 lth fastest growing city in the State. This permit governing municipal and industrial storm water discharges meets both the statutory requirements of Section 402(pX3) of the CWA and all requirements applicable to an NPDES permit issued under the issuing authority's discretionary authority in accordance with Section 401(aX! XB) of the CWA. Order No. 98-02 (NPDES No. CAS0108766) The RCFCAWCD, County of Rivm. sld~ and iaeorporated Cities Artawhie Municipal Storm Water NPDES Permit Page 3 of 2S AREA-WIDE STORM WATER PERMIT To regulate and control storm water discharges from the Riverside County area to the MS4s, an area-wide approach is essential. The entire MS4 is not controlled by a single entity; the RCFC&WCD, the County, several Cities, and the State Department of Transportation (C. allrans), in addition to other smaller entities, manage the systemi. In addition to the Cities, the County and the RCFC&WCD, there are a number of other contributors of urban storm water runoff to these storm drain systems. While there are other contributors to their MS4s, the Permittees are responsible for all discharges from their MS4s. Together with the SDRWQCB and USEPA, the Permittees share a responsibility to enforce the laws, regulations, and ordinances that apply to discharges of storm water runoff. The management and control of the entire MS4 cannot be effectively carried out without the cooperation and efforts of all these entities. Also, it would not be practical at this time to issue a separate storm water permit to each of the entities w/thin the permitted area whose land/facilities drain into the storm drain systems operated by the Permittees. The SDRWQCB has concluded that the best management option for this portion of Rivers/de County is to issue an area-wide storm water permit to the RCFC~V/CD, Rivers/de County, and the {:ities in Riverside County. Storm water discharges from other state, federal, utility, or special district facilities and sta~ or federal lands will either be added to the Riverside County permit or permitted separately if required. COORDINATION WITH OTHER REGIONAL AGENCIES In developing best management practices (BMPs) and monitoring programs, consultation/coordination with other drainage management entities and other Regional Boards is highly desirable. SDRWQCB staff will coordinate the program with other Regional Boards, other dischargers, and other entities on an "as needed" basis. The municipal storm water permit/program process is at the same stage of development in both the Santa Aria RWQCB and SDRWQCB areas of Riverside County. EXISTING FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS Within the San Diego Region, the MS4 owned and operated by the RCFC~WCD currently serves a population of approximately I00,000, occupying an area of approximately 630 square miles. The RCFC.&WCD's MS4 includes an estimated 30 miles of open and closed storm drains. The MS4s owned and operated by the remaining Permittees include an estimated 2 miles of open and closed storm drains. Storm water discharges from urbanized areas consist mainly of surface runoff from residential, commercial, and industrial developments. In addition, the MS4 receives storm water discharges from agricultural !and uses. Although the CWA specifically excludes agricultural discharges from regulation under an NPDES permit, SDRWQCB encourages the Permittees to seek cooperative ways to control these discharges to and from their MS4s. The constituents of concern and significance in storm water discharges are: human pathogens, total suspended solids, biochemicai oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), oil and grease (O&G), heavy metals, nutrients and organic chemicals such as pesticides and petroleum hydrocarbon components. This permit places an emphasis on the Permittees' programs to control the discharge of sediment from construction sites through their MS4s. During the past S years, SDRWQCB staff has observed a significant occurrence of sediment discharges from constraction activities which threaten to impair the beneficial uses of the Santa Margarita River and its tributaries. During this period, SDRWQCB staff estimates to have expanded over 50% of its storm water resources to address this specific problem. These resources have been ~pent in efforts to ensure that dischargers comply with applicable NPDES permits. SDRWQCB staff anticipate that this level of effort will be necessary for the next few years as the Permitted area continues to grow. Theerapid development occurring in the area subject to this Permit presents both a special problem and a special opportunity for the Permittees. Due to the number of construction activities ongoing at any time and the erosive nature of the soil in the area, the Perminees need to increase their oversight of construction activities, conduct increased site inspections (for compliance with their ordinances), and diligently enforce their ordinances as appropriate. The fact that the Pertained area is currently developing (as opposed to fully "built-out"), provides the Permittees with a · Order No. 98-02 (NPDES No. CA$0108766) The RCFC&WCD, County of Riverside.. and !neorportmi Cities Ariawide Municipal Storm Water NPDES Permit Page 4 of 25 unique opportunity and responsibility to incorporate BMPs into their general and specific plans. Careful consideration of water quality issues during the planning ,and zoning decision-making process is an effective means for reducing sediment and other pollutants in urban runoff. Structural BMPs an also very effective in nducing pollutants and can be cost-effective in developing areas since installation of new smactural BMPs is less costly ~an retrofitZing. To protect the beneficial uses of waters of the State, the pollutants from all sources need to be conlzolled. Recognizing this, and the fact that urban runoff discharges contain polluumts, the Perminces and the SDRWQCB have agreed that an area-wide municipal storm water permit is the most effective way to develop and implement a comprehensive municipal storm water management program in a timely and cost-effective manner. This area- wide municipal storm water permit contains requirements with time schedules that will allow the Permittees to continue to address water quality problems caused by urban runoff through their existing storm water management programs. PERMIT REOUIREMENTS In accordance with Section 402(pX3), as part of a program to reduce the pollutants in urban runoff dise, harges, the Permittees have been required to submit existing management plans and programs being implemented or developed in the previous municipal storm water NPDES permit to reduce pollutants in urban runoffdischarges. In addition, the Permittees will be required to report, review and/or revise these management programs and control measures in accordance with a time schedule approved by the Executive Officer of the SDRWQCB for this municipal storm water permit. If existing municipal storm water management programs are not effective in controlling pollutant loading from urban runoff discharges and in achieving the water quality objectives of the receiving waters, additional programs shall be developed and implemented upon consultation and approval of the Executive Officer. The permit also requires further development and implementation of management programs and/or BMPs during the life of the permit such that the quality of urban runoff discharges can be improved and the water quality objectives of the receiving waters ultimately can be met. It is also expected that through implementation of these programs and/or BMPs the beneficial uses of the receiving waters will be protected. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR STORM WATER AND NON-STORM WATER DISCHARGES The Permittees are required to reduce all discharges of pollutants in storm water and non-storm water from their MS4s to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). In addition, this permit regnlatcs the Permittees' industrial discharges (including construction discharges), which are subject to the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) / Best Conventional Po!lutant Control Technology (BCT) performance standards. BENEFICIAL USES / RECEIVING WATERS Storm water flows, which are discharged to and from MS4s in Riverside County, are tributary to various water bodies of the state, including inland surface stnams, the Santa Margarita River, the Santa Margarita Lagoon, and the Pacific Ocean. The beneficial uses of the inland water bodies in this watershed include municipal and domestic supply, agricultural supply (AGR), industrial service supply (IND), industrial process supply (PROC), groundwater recharge (GWR), contact water recreation (RECI), non-contact water recreation (REC2), warm freshwater habitat (WARM), cold freshwater habitat (COLD), wildlife habitat (WILD), and preservation of rare and endangered species (RARE). The beneficial uses of the Pacific Ocean are industrial sekice supply (I~ID), navigation (NAV), contact water recreation (RECI), non-contact water nereation (REC2), commercial and sport fishing (COMM), wildlife habitat (WILD), rare, threatened, or endangered species (RARE), marine habitat (MAR), aquacuiture (AQUA), migration of aquatic organisms (MIGR), spawning, reproduction, and/or early development (SPWN), and shellfish harvesting (SHELL). The ultimate goal of this municipal storm water management program is to protect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters. Order No. 98-02 (NPDES No. CAS0101766) Tht RCFC&WCD, County of Riverside, and i,,corporiud rifles Aruwide Municipal Storm Water NPDE$ Permit h~e3 afT~ ANTIDEGRADATION ANALYSIS The SDRWQCB has considered whether a complete antidegradation analysis, pursuant to Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR), Part 131.12 and State Board Resolution No. 68-16, is required for these municipal storm water d.ischarges. The SDRWQCB finds that the poilutant loading rates from urban runoff discharges to the receiving waters should not degrade water quality with the implementation of the r~quirements in this order. As a result, the quality of urban n~noff discharges and _receiving waters will be impwved, thereby prote~tin8 the beneficial uses of waters of the United States. This is consistent with the federal and state antidegradation requirements and a complete antidegradation analysis is not necessary. PUBLIC WORKSHOP The SDRWQCB azcognizes the significance of Riverside County's Storm Water/Cleanwater Protection Program and will conduct, participate, and/or assist with at least one workshop every year during the term of this permit to promote and discuss the objectives of the municipal storm water management program. The details of these workshops will be published in local newspapers and mailed to interested parties. Persons wishing to be im:iuded in the mailing list for any of the items related to this permit may register their name, mailing address and phone number with the SDRWQCB office at the address given below. PUBLIC HEARfNG On April 8, 1998, the SDRWQCB held a public hearing in Temecula regarding the proposed waste discharge requirements. fNFORMATIQN AND COPYING Persons wishing additional information may write to the above ~,ddress or call Greg Gearheart at (619) 627-3941. Copies of the application, proposed waste discharge requirements, and other documents (other than those which the Executive Officer maintains as confidential) are available at the SDRWQCB office for inspection and copying by appoinunent scheduled between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday (ex~:luding holidays). REGISTER OF INTERESTED PERSONS Any person interested in a particular application or group for applications may leave his name, address and phone number as part of the file for an application. Copies of tentative waste discharge requirements will be mailed to all interested parties. Order No. 98-02 (NPDES No. CAS0108766) The RCFCAWCD, County of Rheenide, and Incorporated Cities Areawide Municipal Storm Water NPDES Permit Page 6 of 25 II. WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS A, FINDINGS The SDi~WQCB fads that: PERMrITEES: These entities are hereinafter referral to in ~is Order as Permittees or dischargers. The t~rms and conditions of this Order apply to discharges to and from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) owned or operated by the following: the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC~WCD); the County of Rjverside (County); the City of Temecula; and the City of Murriea (collectively referred to as Cities). LEGAL AUTHORfrY: This Order implements all of the portions of the CWA, the CWC, the CFR and the California Code of Regulations (CCR) applicable to ~e discharge of urban runoff in ~e San Diego Region. BASIS AND SCOPE OF REISSUED PERMIT: In July of 1990, the Permittees (except for Murrieta, which had not yet been incorporated) voluntarily sought and obtained an NPDES storm water permit (Order No. 90-46) that preceded USEPA's November 1990 final NPDES storm water r~gulations for dischm'ges from MS4s. This type of permit was called an "Early Pe.~.it." As shown in Appendix ! to 40 CFR 122 (the final Phase I storm water regulations), the County of Riverside has an unincorporat~d, urbanized-area population of greater than 100,000 and less than 250,000 (based on the 1980 ~ial census) and is therefore required to obtain coverage under a municipal NPDES storm water permit. USEPA intended that Phase I municipal NPDES storm water permits focus on the are, as within a county which are either already highly urbanized or are rapidly developing. The portion of Riverside County within the jurisdiction of the SDRWQCB is one of the fastest growing areis in the State. Each Permittee owns and operates an MS4 which discharges into one or more surface water bodies in the San Diego Region including numerous creeks, the Santa Margaria River, the Santa Margaria Lagcon, the Pacific Ocean and tributaries thereto. Permittees' discharges contain pollutants which may adversely affect the water quality of waters of the United Sates. These surface waters are waters of the United States as defined in 40 CFR 122.2. The .Permittees may lack legal jurisdiction over storm water discharges into their systems horn Native American tribal lands. The SDRWQCB encourages the Permittees to seek cooperative ways to control these discharges to and fi'om their MS4s. POLIJUTANT SOURCES: Pollutants occur in urban runoff. The sources of these pollutants occur primarily in commercial, industrial, and residential urban land use areas. The most impot'mnt poilutant sources include motor vehicles; construction site runoff; industrial site runoff; sewage spills; illegal dumping; illicit connections or improper plumbing of sewage; commercial site runoff; paved surfaces; animal waste; and residential site runoff (e.g., home and garden care). The most important po!!utant categories include meals (e.g., copper, lead, zinc and cadmium), human pathogens (e.g., bacteria, parasites and viruses), synthetic organics (e.g., petroleum products, pesticides, an~ PAlls), sediment; nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers), and oxygen demanding substances (decaying vegetation, animal waste, and other organic matxer). DRAINAGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN (DAMP): Order No. 90-46 required the Permittees to develop and implement a DAMP; develop and implement storm water and receiving water monitoring Page 7 of 2S Order No. 98-02 (NPDES No. CAS0108766) The RCFC&WCD, County of Riverside, and Incorporated CIties Areswide Municipal Storm Water NPDES Permit plans; to eliminate illegal and illicit discharges to the storm drain systems; and, to cnact the necessary legal authority to effectively prohibit illegal and .illicit discharges. On Apr/l 26, 1996 the Executive Officer of the SDRWQCB approved the DAMP for the Santa Margarita Watershed. :REPORT OF WASTE DISCHARGE / NPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION: On January 17, 1995 the RCFC&WCD submitted a Report of Waste Discharge (NPDES permit renewal application), : which included the following major components: eo A map of the drainage area and maps of existing storm drain facilities A summary of the storm water management program A Consolidated Program for Water Quality Monitoring A copy of a Proposed Storm Water/Urban Run-off Management and Discharge Control Ordinance A copy oft he current Implementation Agreement A copy of the Interagency Agreements The Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) A copy of Proposed Riverside County Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance On April 26, 1996 the Executive Officer of the SDRWQCB approved the Report of Waste Discharge submitted as an application for renewal of the NPDES permit. SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTORS OF POI.I.UTANTS CONSI3)ERATIONS: Each of the Permittees are significant contributors of pollutants to waters of the United States in the Santa Margarita Watershed based on the following considerations: Monitoring data collected by municipal dischargers within the San Diego Region (including the Permittees) and others indicate that urban runoff discharges contain metals, pathogens, sediment, and nutrients in concentrations that could adversely affect receiving waters. bu Po!lutant loads during the first several storms of the wet season may be significantly higher than poilutant loads from storms later in the season because the semiarid San Diego Region has an extended dry season. In the semiarid San Diego Region, most receiving water streams are essentially ephemeral in nature. Non-storm water flows containing pollutants discharge into these streams during dry weather conditions. During the dry weather season these sirearns have no reliable dilution waters available to aid in protection of the public health and wildlife and to provide sufficient assimilative capacity to ensure that discharges do not contribute to violations of receiving water quality. objectives. Accordingly, non-storm water flows to these sue, ares during dry weather periods could adversely affect receiving waters. e, All watercourses in the Santa Margarita Watershed terminate into the Santa Margarita Lagoon, which has poor flushing characteristics and little assimilati~: capacity. Discharges of storm water containing suspended sediment from construction..~ctivity sites in the areas of the Santa Margarita Watershed subject to this Permit, have threatened to cause and/or contribute to the impairment of beneficial uses in portions of the Santa Margarita River and its tributaries. These types of discharges violate Basin Plan Prohibition No. 14. The area covered by this Permit is rapidly growing, so there is a significant potential for these types of discharges to continue through the life of this Permit. Order No. 98-02 (NPDES No. CA50108766) The RCFC.&WCD, County of Riverside, and Incorporated CIties" Areawide Municipal Storm Water NPDES Permit Page 8 o1'25 CWA SECTION 303(D) WATER BODIES: The discharge of urban runoff po!lutants by the Permittees into CWA Section 303(d) water bodies is significant because they may conlzibtne to violations of applicable water quality standards. The Santa Margarita Lagoon, which is impaired by eutrophication, is : ~he only CWA Section 303(d) Water Body that receives discharges subject to this permit. :PERFORMANCE STANDARD: As specified in CWA Section 402 (pX3) and 40 CFR 122.26, the performance standards applicable to the Perminces' discharges of storm water and non-storm water which are covered by this Permit are summarized below: STORM WATER AND NON STORM WATER RUNOff FROM All Permines-Owned MS4s unless specified below Permittee-Owned Industrial Facilities Permirtee-Owned Consu'uction Sites PRAC'HC~BLE (MEP) [for Municipal Discharges deftned in CWA Section 402 CoX3)(B)] X X [If the activity at the facility is not one of the 11 c-_Legofies listed in 40 CFR 122.26 CoXI4Xi-xi)] X [Sites that disturb less than acres] BEST AV.A H ABLE TECHNOLOGY (BAT) / BEST CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY (BCT) [for !nduslrial Discharges u deftned in CWA Section 402 (pX3XA)] X [If the activity at the facility is one of the 11 categories listed in 40 CFR 122.26 CoXl4Xi-xi)] X [Sites that disturb 5 acres or more, or less than 5 acres but are part of a larger common plan of development or sale] 10. 11. POLLUTION PREVENTION: The SDRWQCB and the Permittees fully support pollution prevention as a fundamental principle of the SDRWQCB's mission to protect the quality of the Region's ground and surface waters. CONSTRUCTION A~ SITES: The rapid development occurring in the area subject to this Permit presents both a special problem and a special opportunity for the Permittees. Due to the sheer number of construction activities ongoing at any time and the erosive nature of the soil in the area, the Permittees need to increase their oversight of construction activities, conduct increased site inspections (for compliance with their ordinances), and diligently enforce their ordinances as appropriate. Order No. 98-02 (NPDES No. CAS0108766) The RCFCAWCD, County of RIverside, and !acnqmomted ClUes Areswide Munleipai Storm Water NPDES Permit Page 9 oir~5 12. IMPORTANCE OF PLANNING: The fact that the Permitted area is currently developing (as opposed to fully "built-out"), provides the Permittees w/th a unique opportunity and responsibility to incorporate BMPs into their general and specific plans. Careful consideration of water quality issues during the planning and zoning decision-making process is an effective means for reducing sediment and other .. 'pollutants in urban ranoff. Structural BMPs are also very effective in reducing pollutants and can be cost- effective in developing areas since installation of new structural BMPs is Jess costly than retrofitring. 13. RECEIVING WATER LIMITATIONS: The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses to be protected in the receiving water bodies, and contains both humeric and narrative receiving water quality objectives (including all incorporated plans, policies, and resolutions). Attainment of these water quality objectives ensures water quality necessary to sustain the beneficial uses. Receiving water limitations, based on the nnmeric and narrative receiving water quality objectives, are required in this Order to ensure that water quality needed to sustain the beneficial uses is attained in spite of the discharges of storm water and non- storm water flows regulated by this Order. 14. 16. 17. 18. RECEIVING WATER LIMITATIONS: Numeric effluent limitations do not provide an appropriate mechanism for regulating discharges from MS4s at this time because such discharges are generally not susceptible to conventional wastewater treaunent approaches (i.e., removal of po!iutants in a conventional wastewater treatment plant). Such full scale treatment of all flows from MS4s may be technologically and economically infeasible. For discharges from MS4S, best management practices (BMPs), rather than nnmeric effluent limitations, are used to promote attainment of receiving water quality objectives. RECEIVING WATER LIMITATIONS: Development and implementation of storm water management programs that include both nonstructural as well as smzcturai BMPs designed to reduce discharges of pollutants into and from storm water conveyance systems can protect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters by promoting attainment of receiving water quality objectives. RECEIVING WATER LIMITATIONS: Implementation of BMPs is not equivalent to attainment of receiving water quality objectives. If there are violations of receiving water quality objectives as determined by the SDRWQCB and the USEPA, an iterative process of BMP development, education, implementation, enforcement assessment, and adjnsunent by the Discharger is necessary to assure that its storm water management program is sufficiently comprehensive and effective to promote consistent compliance with receiving water quality objectives. BENEFICIAL USES OF INLAND SURFACE WATERS: The beneficial uses of inland surface waters in the Santa Margarita Watershed designated in the Basin Plan are: Municipal and Domestic supply (MUN); Agricultural supply (AGR); Industrial process supply (PROC); Industrial service supply (IND); Ground Water Recharge (GWR); Contact water recreation (KEC1); Non-contact water recreation (REC2); Warm freshwater habitat (WARM); Cold freshwater habitat (COLD); Wildlife lmbitat (WILD); and Rare, threatened, or endangered species (RARE). Beneficial uses of inland surface waters vary. The beneficial uses for specific inland surface waters are described in the Basin Plan. Inland surface waters consist of all waters exclusive of the waters or the Pacific Ocean, enclosed bays and estuaries, coastal lagoons, and ground waters. BENEFICIAL USES OF COASTAL WATERS: The beneficial uses of coastal i, aters in the Santa Margarita Watershed and the Pacific Ocean designated in the Basin Plan are: Industrial service supply (IND); Navigation ('NAV); Contact water recreation (R.ECI); Non-contact water recreation CREC2); Commercial and sport fishing (COMM); Estuarine habitat (EST); Wildlife habitat (WILD); Preservation of biological habitats of special significance (BIOL); Rare, threatened, or endangered species (RARE); Marine habitat (MAR); Aquaculture (AQUA); Migration of aquatic organisms (MIGR); Spawning, Ordcq' No. 9842 (NPDES No. CAS0108766) The RCFCAWCD, County of Riverside, and Incorporated CIties Areawide Munieipal Storm Water NPDES Permit Page lO of 2.S 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. reproduction, and/or early development(SPWN); Warm freshwater habitat (WARM); and Shellfish harvesting (SHELL). Beneficial uses of coastal waters vary. The beneficial uses for specific coastal waters are described in the Basin Plan. Coastal waters ate defined as waters subject to tidal action and include ocean waters and enclosed bays and estum'ies. ANTIDEGRADATION: The Basin Plan contains the following general antidegradation water quality : objective which applies to all waters of the State within the San Diego Region: "Wherever the existing quality of water is better than the quality of water established herein as objectives, such existing quality shall be maintained unless otherwise provided by the provisions of the State Water Resources Conlroi Board Resolution No. 68-16, 'Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining of Waters in California', including any revisions thereto, or the federal antidegradation policy, 40 CFR 13 1.12 (for surface waters only)." Discharges from Permittee storm water conveyance systems in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Order should not degrade surface water quality. Furthermore, the purpose of this Order is to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges to the MEP in conformance with CWA section 402(pX3XBX ii). Therefore, the SDRWQCB finds that this Order is in conformance with SWRCB Resolution No. 68-16 and the federal antidegradation policy described in 40 CFR 13 1.12. NPDES PERMIT: This Order shall serve as an NPDES permit pursuant to CWA section 402, and waste discharge requirements pursuant to CWC section 13260 for the discharge of urban runoff to surface waters of the project area of the Santa Margarita Watershed. CEQA: The issuance of this Order for the discharge of urban runoff is exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents under'the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Division. 13, Chapter 3, section 21000 et seq.) in accordance with the CWC section 13389 and as provided in categorical exemption classes of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, CCRs sections 15301-15329). PRINCIPAL PERMITFEE: The RCFC.&WCD will serve as the principal Permittee for this permit. PUBLIC NOTICE: The SDRWQCB has notified the Permittees and all known interested parties of its intent to renew an NPDES permit for the existing discharge of swrm water and non-storm water. PUBLIC HEARING: The SDRWQCB has, at a public meeting on April 8, 1998, held, or provided an opportunity for, a public hearing, and heard and considered all comments pertaining to the terms and conditions of this Order. 0 Order No. 98-02 (NPDES No. CAS0108766') Tbe RCFC&WCD, County of Riverside, and incorporated Cities Areswide Municipal Storm Water NPDES Permit Pap I1 of 2~ IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Riverside County Flood Conlroi and Water Conservation Dislrict, the County of Riverside, the City of Temecula, and the City of Murrieta (hereinafter referred to as the Dischargers, or Permittees), in order to meet the provisions contained in Division 7 of the California Water Code and regulations adopted thereunder, and the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended, and regulations and guidelines adopted'thereunder, shall each comply with the following: RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PRINCIPAL PERMITTEE The principal Permittee (R.CFC&:WCD) shall be responsible for managing the overall storm water program and shall: Conduct water quality monitoring of the MS4 outfalls within the Santa Margarita River drainage area. 2. Develop criteria for inspections of the MS4s. 3. Conduct inspections of the MS4s owned and operated by the RCFC,&WCD. Implement management programs, monitoring programs, and related plans as required by this order. Enact and revise policies and ordinances necessary to establish and maintain adequate legal authority within the scope of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Act, as required by the Federal Storm Water Regulations, 40 CFR, Part 122.26(dX2XiXA-F). Respond and/or arrange for responding to emergency situations such as accidental spills, leaks, illicit dischargedillegal connections, etc., to prevent or reduce the discharge of poilutants to the MS4s and to waters of the United States. 0 Prepare and submit to the Executive Officer of the Regional Board, unified reports, plans, and programs necessary to comply with this order. The activities of the principal Permittee shall include, but not be limited to, the following: Coordinate permit activities and participate in any committees/subcommittees formed to coordinate permit compliance activities. Provide technical and administrative support and inform the Permittees of the progress of other pertinent municipal programs, pilot projects, research studies, etc. 10. 11. Coordinate the implementation of storm water quality management activities within the Santa Margarita River drainage area such as monitoring programs, public education, other pollution prevention measures, household hazardous waste collection, etc. Gather and disseminate information on the progress of statewide municipal stoma water programs and evaluate the information for potential use in the execution of this order. - 12. Monitor the implementation of the plans and programs required by this order and determine their effectiveness in reducing pollutant loadlags to surface waters to the applicable performance standard, as described in Finding No. 9. Order No. 98-02 (NPDES No. CAS0108766) The RCFC&WCD, County of Rfverside, and Incorporated Cities Areawide Municipal Storm Water NPDES Permit Page 12 13. Coordinate activities pertaining to implementation of this order with the SDRWQCB. 14. Solicit and coordinate public input for any major proposed storm water management programs and implementation plans. 15. Develop and implement mechanisms, performance standards, etc., to promote consistent implementation of BMPs among the Perminces. 16. In conjunction with the Permittees, implement the BMPs listed in the approved DAMP. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PERMITTEES Each Permittee shall be responsible for managing the storm water program within its jurisdiction and shall: Conduct storm drain system inspections in accordance with the criteria developed by the principal Permittee. Enact and revise policies and ordinances necessary to establish and maintain adequate legal authority as required by the Federal Storm Water Regulations, 40 CFR, Part 12226(dX2XiXA-F) within 120 days dadoption of this order. Implement management programs, monitoring pwgrams, and related plans as required by this order. Respond and/or arrange for responding io emergency situations such as accidental spills, leaks, illicit discharges/illegal connections, etc., to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants to the municipal separate storm drain systems and to waters of the United States. The Permittees' activities shall include, but not be limited to, the following: Administer and enforce the storm water and erosion conu'ol ordinances adopted pursuant to Items !. and 3., above. Conduct and coordinate with the principal Permittee any surveys, monitoring and/or characterizations needed to identify the poilutant sources and drainage areas. Review and comment on all plans, strategies, management programs, monitoring programs, as deveioped by the principal Permittee or any subcommittee to comply with this order. Participate in committees and/or subcommittees formed by the principal Permittee to address compliance with this order. In conjunction with the principal Permittee, implement the BMPs listed in the appwved DAMP. · ~ Submit to the principal Permince any information necessary to develop untf~d report submittals to the Executive Officer of the SDRWQCB. II. Prepare and submit any specific reports/information related to the Permittees' storm water program as deemed necessary by the Executive Officer of the SDRWQCB. · · Pap 13 of 2~ Order No. 98-02 (NPDES No. CAS0108766) The RCFC&WCD, County of Riverside, and Incorporated Cities Areawide Municipal Storm Water NPDES Permit DISCHARGE LIMITATiONS I. The Pertniuees shall prohibit illicit discharges from entering into the MS4s and require controls to reduce the discharge of poilutants to the applicable pe~ormance standard, as described in Finding No. 9. This order regulates storm water discharges to waters of the United States from the Permittees' existing MS4s. Accordingly, the Permittees shall implement the BMPs (structural and/or non- structural control measures) necessary to reduce the poilutants in ~e discharge to the applicable performance standard, as described in Finding No. 9. All other discharges are prohibited except those listed under Item 3., below, those for which the SDRWQCB has issued individual permits or waived waste discharges requirements, and those discharges which are in accordance with Item 5. below. , The following discharges need not be prohibited by the Permittees unless identified by the Permittees or the SDRWQCB as sources of poilutants to the waters of the United States. a, Discharges authorized by an NPDES permit, or for which an approval has been issued by the SDRWQCB or State Board office; b. Discharges from potable water line flushing and other potable water sources; c. Discharges from fire fighting and fire hydrant testing and flushing; d. Discharges from landscape irrigation, lawn watering and other irrigation activities; e. Diverted stream flows: f. Rising ground waters and natural springs; g, Uncontaminated groundwater infiltration (as defined in 40 CFR 35.2005(20)) and uncontaminated pumped Foundwater; h. Passive foundation drains; Air conditioning condensate; j, Water from crawl space pumps; k. Passive footing drains; m, Discharges from individual residential vehicle washing (not including discharges from mobile sources such as automobile/equipment detailing or washing); Flows from riparian habitats and wetlands; ~ Dechlorinated swimming pool discharges; Street wash water and run-off from fire fighting (program descriptions shall address discharges or flows from fire fighting only where such discharges are identified as Order No. 9802 (PiPDES No. CAS0108766) The RCFC&WCD, Couaty of Riverside., and Incorporated Cities Areawide Municipal Storm Water NPDES Permit Pap 14 of 25 significant sources of pollutants to waters of the United States), p. Waters not otherwise containing wastes as defined in CWC Section 13050 (d); and Other types of discharges identified and recommended by the Permittees and approved by the SDRWQCB. For purposes of this order, a discharge may include storm water and other types of discharges as indicated above. , The Permittees shall take necessary steps as required under Item 1., above, to ensure that non- storm water discharges to their MS4s do not cause or contribute to violations of water quality objectives or discharge pollutants to waters of the United States. e Non-storm water discharges from Permittees' activities into waters of the state ate prohibited unless the non-storm water discharges are permitted by an NPDES permit or are included in Item 3., above. If permitting or immediate elimination of the non-storm water discharges. is impractical, the Permittees shall include in the Municipal Facilities Slrategy, required under Section II. F., Provision 14. of this order, a proposed plan to address the non-storm water discharges. The discharge of storm water and non-storm water shall not cause or contribute to degradation of groundwaters. Pollutants in storm water discharges from the Permittees' MS4s shall be reduced to the applicable performance standard, as described in Finding No. 9. E. RECEIVING WATER LIMITATIONS , Storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water discharges to any surface or ground water shall not adversely impact human health or the environment. The DAMP shall be designed and implemented, or shall be in the process of being revised in accordance with the procedures set forth below to ensure that discharges authorized by this permit shall not cause or substantially (in more than a de minimus mount) contribute to a continuing or recurring exceedante of any applicable water quality standards contained in a Statewide Water Quality Control Plan or the SDRWQCB's Basin Plan. If the discharges cause or contribute to an exceedante of the applicable water quality standards, Permittee shall take the following steps: ae Upon a determination by either the Permittee or the SDRWQCB that discharges are causing or contributing to an exceedance of an applicable water qt~ality standard, the Permittee shall promptly notif), and thereafter submit a report to tlg SDRWQCB that describes BMPs that are currently being implemented and additional BMPs that will be implemented to prevent or reduce any pollutants that are causing or contributing to the exceedance of water quality standards. The report may be incorporated in the annual update to the DAMP unless the SDRWQCB directs an earlier submittal. The SDRWQCB may require modifications to the report; Order No. 98-02 (NPDES No. CA30108766) The RCFCAWCD, County of Riverside., sad lneorpormted Cities Aruwide Municipal Storm Water NPDES Permit Page IS of 25 F, be Submit any modifications to the report required by the SDRWQCB within 30 days of notification; Ce Within 30 days following appwval of the report described above by the SDRWQCB, the Permittee shall revise its DAMP and monitoring program to incorporate the approved modified BMPs that have been and will be implemented, the implementation schedule, and any additional moniwring required; de Implement the revised DAMP and monitoring pwgram in accordance with the approved schedule; and ee Reduce pollutants in storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water discharges, following implementation of the DAMP revised in accordance with paragraph 3 above, to levels which shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of any applicable water quality standards. So long as Permittees have complied with the procedures set forth in paragraph 3 above and are implementing the revised DAMP, they do not have to repeat the same procedure for continuing or recurring exceedances of the same receiving water limitations unless directed by the SDRWQCB to develop additional BMPs. PROWSIONS GENERAL The Permittees shall demonstrate compliance with all the requirements in this order and specifically with Section D., Discharge Limitations, and Section E., Receiving Water Limitations, through timely implementation of their approved DAMP and any modifications, revisions, or amendments thereto, which are developed pursuant to this order. The DAMP and any amendments thereto are hereby made an enforceable part of this order. Permittees shall implement all elements of the DAMP. Each Permittee shall develop and, at the SDRWQCB Executive Officer's request, submit a plan describing how they will implement the applicable portions of the DAMP. Any proposed revisions to the DAMP shall be submitted to the SDRWQCB Executive Officer. The Permittees shall comply with the Consolidated Program for Water Quality Monitoring required by the Monitoring and Reporting Requirements contained in this order The SDRWQCB Executive Officer may revise the MRP to allow the Permittees to participate in regional, statewide, national, or other monitoring programs in lieu of the Consolidated Program for Water Quality Monitoring. All plans, reports and subsequent amendments submitted in compliance with this order shall be implemented immediately and sh~ii be an enforceable part of this Order upon submission to the SDRWQCB Executive Officer. All submittals by the Permittees must be adequat,~ to implement the requirements of this order. The Permittees shall report to the SDRWQCB Executive Officer: a. Any enforcement actions and known discharges of storm or wastewaters to MS4s owned or Order No. 98-02 (NPDES No. CA50108766) The RCTCAWCD, County of RiversMe., and Incorporated Cities Ar~wide Municipal Storm Water NPDES Permit Page 16 of 25 , -b. Ce operated by the Permittees which may impair domestic water supply sources (e.g., discharges due to a levee break, sewer overflows, illegal discharges to the street, etc.) or which may have an impact on human health or the environment. Any industrial facilities and/or construction sites found not to be in compliance with the Permittees' ordinances or where the activities may be contributing po!!utants to the waters of the U.S.; and Any suspected or reported activities on federal, state, or other entity's !and or facilities, where the Perminees do not have any jurisdiction, and where the suspected or reported activities may be contributing poilutants to waters of the United States. The Perminees shall not issue occupancy permits, or any other use entitlemenu, unless the applicant is informed of his obligation under the State's NPDES industrial general permit, The Permittees shall not issue grading or building permits to developments that may result in land disntrbance of five a~es or more (or less than five acres, if it is part of a larger common plan of development or sale which is five a~es or more) unless the applicant shows proof of coverage under the State's NPDES General Consrotation Activity Storm Water Permit. The proof of coverage may include a letter fi'om the Regional Board office, a copy of the Notice of Intent, etc. The Permittees shall coordinate the activities of the various departments/sections within each Permittee's jurisdiction to insure consistent implementation of storm water regulations. Permit application and special NPDES program requirements contained in 40 CFR 122.21 (a), (b), (d) (2), (f), and (p), 122.41 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f}, (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (!); and 122.42 (c) are incorporated into this order by reference. IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT Within 120 days of issuance of this Order, the Permittees shall submit to the SDRWQCB F,x~ve Officer an updated copy of an implementation agreement with authorized signatures of each of the Permittees. Any subsequent revisions to the implementation agreement shall be forwarded to the SDRWQCB Executive Officer within 30 days of approval by the Permittees. At a minimum, the implementation agreement should include all the essential elements of the existing agreement, developed in accordance with Order No. 90-46. LEGAL AUTHORITY The Permittees shall adopt a Storm Water/Urban Run-off Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. Within 180 days of issuance of this Order, each Permittee's Chief Legal Counsel shall certify to the SDRWO CB Executive Officer that it has adequate legal authority to control the discharges of poilutants into the municipal storm drain system and that it has, at a minimum, satisfied each of the following regnlatory requirements [contained in 40 CFR Section 122.26(dX2X iXA-F)]: control through ordinance, permit, contract order or similar means, the conu'ibution of poilutants to the MS4 by storm water discharges associated with indusu'ial activity (including construction activity) and the quali.ty of storm water discharge from sites of industrial ~ctivity (including construction activity); b. prohibit through ordinance, order or similar means, illicit discharges to the MS4; c. control through ordinance, order or similar means, the discharge to a MS4 of spills, dumping, or Order No. 98-02 (NPDES No. CAS0108766) Tbe RCFC&WCD, County of Rfvemde, and Incorporated Cities Aruwide MunieipaJ Storm Water NPDES Permit Page 17 of 2S 10. II. 12. 13. 14. disposal of materials other than storm water; control through interagency agreemenu among Permittees the contribution of poilutants from one portion of the MS4 to another, require compliance with conditions in ordinances, permits, contracts and orders; and carry out all inspection, surveillance and monitoring procedures necessa~ to determine compliance and noncompliance with permit conditions including prohibition on illicit discharges to the MS4. ENFORCEMENT/COMPLIANCE STRATEGY Within 360 days of issuance of this Order, the Permittees shall develop, submit to the SDRWQCB Executive Officer, and implement an enforcement/compliance strategy which describes each Permittees' programs for enforcing their storm water and erosion control ordinances. This enforcement/compliance strategy should include a mechanism to determine compliance of industrial facilities and consUttction sites with the Permittees' ordinances, and notification to the SDRWQCB Executive Officer any finding of non- compliance and any proposed local enforcement action. PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH The Permittees shall continue to implement the public education efforts already under, ray and shall implement all of the proposed efforts identified in the Report of Waste Discharge. When feasible, the Permittees shall participate in joint outreach with other programs including, but not limited to, other municipal storm water props to ensure that a consistent message on storm water pollution prevention is brought to the public. The Permittees shall develop public education materials to encourage the public to report illegal dumping from residential, industrial, construction and commercial sites into public streets, storm drains and other water bodies. MUNICIPAL FACILITIES This Order regulates the discharge of storm water and non-storm water from Permittee-owned facilities associated with industrial activity. The Permittees shall reduce poilutants (to the applicable performance standards, as defined in Finding No. 9) in such discharges through implementation of BMPs. The Permittees shall develop a pollution prevention strategy to address their' public agency facilities and associated activities which are determined by the Permittees to be sources of concern regarding storm water pollution. The pollution prevention strategy shall be developed to ensure that public agency facilities and associated activities that are currently not required to obtain coverage under the State's general storm water permits are not sources of po!lutants into the waters of the United States. The pollution prevention strater..' shall be submitted to the SDRWQCB Executive Officer within 180 days of issuance of this Order. In developing the pollution prevention strategy, the Permittees shall consider the following: .t Identification of public agency facilities and associated activities that are potential contributors of pellutants to waters of the United States; b. Potential poiluta.ts of concern that are associated with the facilities and associated activities; Order No. 9802 (NPDES No. CA$0108766) The RCFC~WCD, County of Riverside, and incorporated Cities Annwide Municipal Storm Water NPDES Permit Page 18 of 1S 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Proposed BMPs and a schedule for their implementation to ensure that these facilities arc not sources of poihtants into the waters of the United States; :'d. A monitoring program to measure the effectiveness of the BMPs; ': e. A schedule for training of public agency staff to ensure proper implementation of the BMPs; and Identification of any non-storm water discharges from the public agency facilities/activities, frequency of the discharge, characterization of the discharge, volume, flow and duration of the discharge, short term source control BMPs to mitigate the impacts from the discharge, end a schedule for elimination or permitting of the discharge. PERMITfEE-OWNED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS/ACtIVITIES This Order regulates the discharge of storm water run-off from congwuction projects, regardless of size, that are under ownership and/or direct responsibility of any of the Permittees. The Permittees shall prevent and control (to the applicable performance stanclards, as defined in Finding No. 9) discharges of contaminated runoff from all construction sites under ownership and/or direct responsibility of any of the Permittees through implementation of BMPs. Prior to commencement of Permittee-owned construction activities, the Permittees shall notify the SDRWQCB Executive Officer of proposed construction projects that disturb more than one (l) acre of land. Upon completion of the project, the SDRWQCB Exec,tive Off.'cer shall be notified of the completion of the project. For Permittee-owned projects that will disturb more than five (5) acres (or less than five acres, but part of a larger common plan of sale or development), the Permittees shall develop and implement a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and a monitoring program that is specific for the conslruction project prior to the commencement of any of the construction activities. The SWPPP and monitoring program shall be implemented throughout the duration of the construction project. The SWPPP shall be kept at the construction site and released to the public and/or SDRWQCB staff upon request. The SWPPP and the monitoring program for the Permittee-owned construction projects shall be consistent with the requirements of the State's General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities (State Board Order No. 92-08 DWQ). The Permittees shall give advance notice to the SDRWQCB Executive Officer of any planned changes in the Permittee-owned construction activities which may result in non-compliance with this Order. In the event of conditions at a Perminee-owned project site which constitute non-compliance with this Order, the Permittees shall: 1) notify the SDRWQCB Executive Officer within 3 days of the of the non-compliance; 2) take all reasonable steps to minimize or correct any adverse impact on the environment resulting from non-compliance with this Order; and 3) shall, within 30 days of notification, report the following to the SDRWQCB Executive Officer: ' a, a description of the events which lead to the non-compliance; b, a description of the actions taken by the responsible Permittee to minimize or correct any adverse impacts on the environment resulting from the non-compliance; Order No. 9842 CNPDES No. CAS0108766) The RCFC.e, WCD, County of Rh, emde, and Incorporated Cities Areawide Munidpal Storm Water NPDES Permit Pap 19 of 25 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 26. 27. c. an assessment of the adverse impacts on the environment resulting from the non-compliance. All other terms and conditions of State Board Order No. 92-08 DWQ shall be applicable. -NEW DEVELOPMENT (INCLUDING RE-DEVELOPMENT) The Permittees shall immediately require all construction operations not under ownership and/or direct responsibility of any of the Permittees, regardless c,f size, to prevent and control (to the MEP, as def'med in Finding No. 9) discharges of contaminated mnoff from construction sites. Within 270 days of issuance of this Order, the Permittees shall implement and submit to the SDRWQCB Executive Officer Supplement B to the DAMP for Erosion Conlroi which describes the following: 1 ) the Permittees' recommended BMPs which prevent and control discharges of contaminated runoff from construction sites; and 2) the Permittees' programs (i.e., Permittees' ordinances, inspection program, enforcement program, etc.) to require consulorion operations to implement BMPs. Within ! 80 days of issuance of this Order, the Permittees shall implement the new development BMPs (DAMP Supplement A) that were developed pursuant to SDRWQCB Order No. 90-46. For new development projects where the Permittees act as lead agency for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Permittees shall ensure that their processes for approving General Plan CEQA checklist documents, and any other CEQA documents approved by the Permittees for new developments, comply with the requirements of this Order. If necessary, these processes shall be revised to include requirements for evaluation of ~orm water-related impacts and identification of appropriate mitigation measures. The Permittees shall establish a mechanism to insure proper maintenance and operation of all permanent flood control structures. For new developments, the parties responsible for the maintenance of the flood conu'oi structures and funding sources for maintenance and operation of the facilities shall be identified prior to issuance of grading permits. FISCAL RESOURCES The Permittees shall prepare and submit a unified fiscal analysis report appropriate for implementation of the requirements of this order to the Executive Officer of the SDRWQCB. The fiscal analysis report shall be submitted as part of the Annual Report no later than October 15 of each year and shall at a minimum include the following: a, Each Permittees expenditures for the previous fiscal year;, Each Permittee's budget for the current fiscal year; A description of the source of funds; MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS The Permittees shall ;-'nplement the Consolidated Program for Water Quality Monitoring (submitted as part of the Report of Waste Discharge) until development and implementation of other acceptable monitoring programs. All reports and other submittals required by this order shall be signed by the principal Permittee and copies shall be submitted to the Executive Officer of the SDRWQCB under penalty of perjury. ,. hge20of2S Order No. 9802 (NPDES No. CAS0108766) The RCFCAWCD, County of Riverside, and Incorporated Cities Areawide Munleipai Storm Water NPDES Permit 28. 29. 30. The Permittees shall submit three copies of an ANNUAL REPORT to the Exe~:utive Officer of the SDRWQCB and one copy of an ANNUAL REPORT to the Regional Administrator of USEPA, Region 9 no later than October 15 of each year. This report may be submitted in a mutually agreed upon electronic format. At a minimum, the annual report shall include the following: A review of the status of program implementation and compliance (or non-compliance) with the schedules contained in this order. An assessment of the effectiveness of control measures established under the illicit discharge elimination program and the DAMP. The effectiveness may be measured in terms of how successful the program has been in eliminating illicit connections / illegal discharges (IC/IDs) and in reducing poilutant loads in storm water discharges. C, An assessment of any storm water management program modifications made to comply with CWA requirements to reduce the discharge of poilutants to the applicable performance standard. d, The results and information described in the Consolidated Program for Water Quality Monitoring for the previous year. e. Fiscal Resources Report, as required by Section II.F25. Permittees shall be responsible for the submittal of all.required information/materials needed to comply with this Monitoring and Reporting Program in a timely manner to the principal Permittee. All such submittals shall be signed by a duly authorized representative of the Permittee under penalty of perjury. All information/materials required by this order shall be submitted to the SDRWQCB Executive Officer in accordance with the following schedule: Revised Implementation Agreement Legal Authority. Certification Municipal Activities Pollution Prevention Strategy Supplement B to the DAMP for Erosion Control Enforcement Compliance Strategy Report of Waste Discharge (IVPDES Renewal Application) Annual Report, including: 1. Program Status 2. Effectiveness Assessment of lllegal Discharge Elimination Program 3. Program Modifications 4. Monitoring Program Results S. Fiscal Resources Report September 1 O, 1998 November 9, ] 998 November 9, 1998 February 9, 1999 May 13, 1999 November 9, 2002 October ! 5 of each year (next report due in 1998) PERMIT EXPIRATION AND RENEWAL · -$ This Order expires five years from the date of issuance of this Order and the Perminces must file a Report of Waste Discharge (NPDES permit renewal application) no later than 180 days in advance of such expiration date as application for issuance of new waste discharge requirements. The Report of Waste Discharge shall, at a minimum, include the following: Order No. 98-02 (NPDES No. C&S0108766) The RCFC&WCD, Couaty of RJvenjde, and incor~orated Cities Areawide Municipal Storm Water NPDE3 Permit Page 21 of 2S Any revisions to the DAMP including, but not limited to, all the activities the Permittees propose to undertake during the next permit term, goals and objectives of such activities, an evaluation of the need for additional source conn-oi and/or structural BMPs, any proposed pilot studies, etc.; ,.b. Changes in land use and/or population including map updates; and Any significant changes to the storm drain systems, outfalls, detention or retention basins or dams, and other controls, including map updates of the storm drain systems. 31. The SDRWQCB may modify, revoke or reissue this Order prior to its expiration date for the following To address significant changes in conditions identified in the technical reports requited by the Regional Board which were unknown at the time of the issuance of this order; To incorporate applicable requirements of statewide water quality control plans and policies adopted by the State Board or any amendments to the Basin Plan approved by the SDRWQCB, the State Board, and, if necessary, by the Office of Administrative Law;, or To comply with any applicable requirements, guidelines, or regulations issued or approved under the Clean Water Act, if the requirements, guidelines, or regulations contain different conditions or additional requirements than those included in this order. To incorporate new or revised program elements and compliance schedule(s) necessaz7 to comply with Section II.E. of this Order. 32. This order shall serve as a NPDES permit pursuant to Section 402 Lo) of the CWA, or amendments thereto, and shall become effective ten days after the date of its adoption provided the Regional Administrator of the USEPA has no objections. If the Regional Administrator objects to its issuance, the permit shall not become effective until such objection is withdrawn. 33. Order No. 90-46 is hereby rescinded. I, John H. Robertus, Executive Officer, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, U'ue, and correct copy of an Order adopted by the SDRWQCB, on May 13, 1998. Jo . Robertus Executive Officer Order No. 98-02 (NPDES No. CA50108766) The RCFCAWCD, County of Riverside, sad Incorporated Cities Areswide Municipal Storm Water NPDES Permit III. GLOSSARY Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) / Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) BAT and BCT are treatment-based performance standards which measure the effectiveness of pollutant reduction in discharges, as defined in CWA 402(p) and 40 CFE 122, for specific categories of industrial facilities subject to storm water effluent limitations, new source performance standards, or toxic poilutant effluent standards. Effluent limitations have been defined in 40 CFE for the reduction of toxic poilutants using BAT, and the reduction of conventional poilutants using BCT. Best Management Practices (B1VIPs) BMPs are defined in 40 CFR 122.2 as schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of waters of ~e United States. BMPs also include treatment requirements, operating procedures and practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage. Controls Controls are defined in Section 402 CDX3)(BXiii) of the Clean water Act (CWA) as a means to reduce the discharge of po!!utants to the maximum extent practicable (MEP), including maintenance practices, control techniques and system design and engineering methods, and such other provisions as the Adminislzator or State determines appropriate for ~e control of such pollutants. CWA Section 303(d) Water Bodies Certain water bodies receiving storm water discharges are designated by the SWRCB and USEPA as CWA section 303(d) water bodies. A "section 303(d) water body" is an impaired water body in which water quality does not meet applicable water quality standards and/or is not expected to meet water quality standards, even a~ter the application of technology based pollution conm~ls required by ~e CWA. The discharge of storm water and non- storm water po!!utants by the Permittees are significant because these discharges contribute to violations of applicable water quality standards. Maximum Extent Practicable (]V[EP) Under Section 402(p) of the CWA, municipalities are required to reduce the disch~ge of pollutants from their storm water conveyance systems to the MEP. MEP is the critical performance standard which municipalities must attain in order to comply with their municipal storm water pennin. To achieve the MEP standard, municipalities must employ whatever BMPs are technically feasible (i.e., are likely to be effective) and are not cost prohibitive. The major emphasis is on technical feasibility. Reducing poilutants to the MEP means choosing effective BMPs, and rejecting applicable BMPs only where other effective BMPs will serve the same purpose, or the BMPs would not be technically feasible, or the cost would be prohibitive. In selecting BMPs to achieve the MEP standard, the following factors may be useful to consider: e, Effectiveness: Will the BMPs address a poilutant (or pollutant source) of concern? ' Regulator), Compliance: Is the BMP in compliance with storm water regulations as well as other environmental regulations? -~ Public Acceotance: Does the BMP have public support? Cost: Will the cost of implementing the BMP have n reasonable relationship to the pollution con~'ol benefits to be achieved7 Technical Feasibility: Is the BMP technically feasible considering soils, geography, water resources, etc.? Order No. 98-02 (NPDES No. CAS0108766) The RCFC&WCD, County of RIverside, and Incorporated Cities Areswide Municipal Storm Water NPDES Permit Page 23 of 2~ The final determination regarding whether a municipality has reduced pollutants to the maximum ex~nt practicable can only be made by the Regional or State Water Boards, and not by the municipal discharger. If a municipality reviews a lengthy menu of BMPs and chooses to select only a few of the least expensive, it is likely that MEP has not been met. On the other hand, if a municipal discharger employs all applicable BMPs except those where it can show that they are not technically feasible in the locality, or whose cost would exceed any benefit~ derived, it would have met the standard. Where a choice may be made between two BMPs which should provide generally comparable effectiveness, the discharger may choose the least expensive alternative and exclude the more expensive BMP. However, it would not be acceptable either to reject all BMPs which would address a pollutant source, or to pick a BMP based solely on cost, which would be clearly less effective. In selecting BIVIPs the municipality must make a serious attempt to comply and practical solutions may not be lightly rejected. In any case, the burden would be on the municipal discharger to show compliance with its permit. After selecting a menu of BMPS, it is the responsibility of the discharger to ensure that all BMPs are implemented. [Source: February ! 1, 1993 memo entitled "Definition of Maximum Extent Practicable" by Elizabeth Jennings, Senior Staff Counsel, SWRCB]. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) A conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streeu, catch basins, curbs, gunera, ditches, man-made channels, or storm drains): (i) owned or operated by a State, city, town, borough, county, parish, district, association, or other public body (created by or pursuant to State law) having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, storm water, or other wastes, including special districts under State law such as a sewer district, flood control district or drainage district, or similar entity, or an Indian tribal organization, or a designated and approved management agency under section 208 of the CWA that discharges to waters of the United States; (ii) designated or used for collecting or conveying storm wateF, (ifi) which is not a combined ~ and (iv) which is not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined at 40 CFR 122.2. Non-Storm Water Non-storm water consists of all discharges to and from a storm water conveyance system which do not originate from precipitation events (i.e., all discharges from a conveyance system other than storm water). Non-storm water includes illicit discharges, non-prohibited discharges, and NPDES permitted discharges. An illicit discharge is defined at 40 CFR 122.26(bX2) as any discharge to a municipal storm water conveyance system that is not composed entirely of storm water except discharges pursuant to a separate NPDES permit and discharges resulting from emergency fire fighting activities. Person A person is defined as an individual, association, partnership, corporation, municipality, State or Federal agency, or an agent or employee thereof. [40 CFR 122.2]. Pollution Prevention Pollution prevention is defined as practices and processes which reduce or eliminate the generation of poilutants, in contrast to source control, pollution control, treatment or disposal. Public Agency Facilities Facilities owned and operated by public agencies, including corporate yards, fire stations, vehicle maintenance facilities, etc. Pap 24 of 2S Order No. 98-02 (NPDES No. CAS0108766) The RCFC&WCD, County of Riverside, sad !acorporated Cities Areawide Municipal Storm Water NPDES Permit .. Storm Water Storm water is defined as ranoff from precipitation and snow melt consisting only of those discharges which originate from precipitation events. Storm water is that pert/on of precipitation which flows gross a surface to the storm drain system or _receiving waters. Examples of this phenomenon include: water that flows off a buiiding's roof wh.en it rains (runoff from an impervious surface); water that flows into streams when snow on the ground begins to melt (ranoff from a semi-pervious surface); and water that flows from a vegetated surface when rainfall is in excess of the rate at which/t can infiitrate into the underlying soil (runoff from a pervious surface). When all factors:are equal, runoff increases as the perviousness of a surface decreases. During precipitation events in urban areas, storm water picks up and transperts poilutants into and through storm water conveyance systems, and ultimately to waters of the United States. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) A conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, caU:h basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels, or storm drains): (i) owned or operated by a State, city, town, borough, county, parish, district, association, or other public body (created by or pursuant to State law) having jurisdiction over dispesai of sewage, industrial wastes, storm water, or other wastes, including special districts under State law such as a sewer district, flood control district or drainage district, or similar entity, or an Indian tribal organization, or a designated and appruved management agency under section 208 of the CWA that discharges to waters of the United States; (ii) designated or used for collecting or conveying storm water, (iii) which is not a combined sewer;, and (iv) which is not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined at 40 CFR 122.2. Urban Runoff Urban runoff is defined as all flows in a MS4 and consists of~he following compenents: (!) storm water (wet weather flows) and (2) non-storm water illicit discharges (dry weather flows). Waste As defined in California Water Code Section 13050(d), "waste includes sewage and any and all other waste substances, liquid, solid, gaseous, or radioactive, associated with human habitation, or of human or animal origin, or from any producing, manufacturing, or processing operation, including waste placed within containers of whatever nature prior to, and fdr purposes of, dispesal." ITEM 12 APPROVAL CItY ATTORNEY TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City ManagedCity Council 4N.~illiam G. Hughes, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer April 13, 1999 Professional Services Agreement for Overland Drive Overcrossing, Project No. PW95-11 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Approve a Professional Services Agreement for Structural Bridge Inspection for the Ovedand Drive Overcrossing, Project No. PW95-11 to Caltrop Engineering Corporation for $45,408.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $4,540.80, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. BACKGROUND: The City Coundl awarded the construction contract for Overland 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 Ovedand Drive between Jefferson Avenue and Ynez Road including a bridge over Interstate Route 15, new traffic signals at Jefferson Avenue, relocation of an existing utilities, landscape and irrigation improvements. This project will reduce traffic at Winchester Road and Rancho California Road Interchanges. Caltrans requires structural bridge inspections that must be accomplished by Caltrans approved bridge inspectors. Caltrop Engineering Corporation has been selected to perform the bridge structural inspection services based on their ability to provide qualified personnel with specific knowledge of Caltrans work and are Caltrans approved inspectors. The scope of work and houdy rates are described in Exhibit "A" of the attached agreement. Caltrop Engineering Corporation will function as the Structural Bridge Inspector for this project and will work under the direction of City staff. Staff has entered into an interim agreement with Caltrop to expedite the inspection services, which was approved by the City Manager in the amount of $22,704.00. The additional inspection services of $45,948.00 plus the contingency of $4,540.80 will amount to a total contract amount of $72,652.80. FISCAL IMPACT: This Project is funded with CFD 88-12, TENSTP, Capital Project Reserves, Redevelopment Agency (RDA), and Developer Impact Fees. Adequate funds are available for this work in Account No. 210-165-604-5801 for the following professional service agreement of $45,408.00 and the contingency amount of $4,540.80 for a total cost of $49,948.80. ATTACHMENT: Professional Services Agreement R:~agdrpt~99\0413~pw95-11 caltropagrmt/ajp CITY OF TEMECULA AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL STRUCTURAL INSPECTION SERVICES OVERLAND DRIVE OVERCROSSING PROJECT NO. PW95-11 THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of April 13, 1999, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and CALTROP ENGINEERING CORPORATION, ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on April 13, 1999, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than December 31, 2000, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. PAYMENT. a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B other than the payment rates and schedule of payment are null and void. This amount shall not exceed Forty Five Thousand Four Hundred Eight Dollars and No Cents {$45,408.00) 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 wdtten 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 between the first and fifteenth business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all nondisputed fees. If the City disputes any of consultant's fees it shall give written notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. r:~cip~orojects~pw95~pw95-11 ~caltropagrmt/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 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 dght, 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 cleady identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. 2 r:~cip~projects~pw95~pw95-11 ~caltropagrmt/ajp c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the rouse of the design at a location other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant. 8. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property adsing out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City. 9. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injudes to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: (1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. (2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code I (any auto). If the Consultant owns no automobiles, a non-owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. (3) Workers Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. (4) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (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) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. r:~cip~projects~ow95~pw95-11 ~caltropagrmt/ajp (4) Professional Liability coverage: Two million ($2,000,000) per claim and in aggregate. c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability polides 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 adsing 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, offidals, 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' pdor written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. r:~cip~projects~pw95~v95-11 ~caltropagrmt/ajp f. Verification of Covera.ae. Consultant shall furnish the City with odginal 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, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 11. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. 12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION. a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's 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, headng or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's dght to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. r:%cip%projects%pw95%pw95-11%caltropagrmt/ajp 13. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in wdting and may be given either by (I) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. To City: To Consultant: City of Temecula Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 43200 Business Park Ddve Temecula, California 92590 Attention: City Manager CALTROP INGINEERING CORPORATION 1037 W. Ninth Street Upland, California 91786 Attn: S. Michael Tahan 14. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without pdor wdtten consent of the City. Because of the personal nature of the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement, only Frank Hearth shall perform the services described in this Agreement. Frank Hearth, 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 Frank Hearth 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 such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgement, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 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 r:~cip~projects~pw95~pw95-11 ~caltropagrrnt/ajp 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 Shawn D. Nelson, Acting City Manager Attest: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT CALTROP ENGINEERING CORPORATION 1037 W. Ninth Street Upland, CA 91786 (909) 931-9331 By: S. Michael Tahan, Dir. Of Business Devel. By: Name: Print Title: (Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) r:~cip~orojects~pw95~pw95-11%caltropagrmt/ajp EXHIBIT A TASKS TO BE PERFORMED PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE r:%cip%projects%pw95~pw95-11 ~caltropagrmtJajp CALTROP April 5, 1999 ENGINEERING CORPORATION l'rol'essional ('onqruclion Mana~t'rs William Hughes, P.E., Senior Engineer City of Temeeula Department of Public Works 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Dear Mr. Hughes, RECEIVED: APR 6 1999 CITY OF TEbiECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMEN Per our conversation, CALTROP Engineering Corporation is providing the City of Temecula with a cost proposal for the Overland Bridge project, on which our services may be utilized. As you know, CALTROP is proposing that the City of Temeeula utilize our staff and services on an "on-call,' as needed basis for its construction management and inspection needs. This would provide the city with a cost-effective means to obtain experienced and specialized engineers to assist in resolving specific project concerns. CALTROP is proposing the services of Mr. Frank Hearth as Structures Representative for the Overland Bridge project. The cost proposal includes the following conditions: Hourly Loaded Rate - $80/hour Overtime Rate - $107.50/hour Nightwork Rate, from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. $107.50/hour Minimum of four (4) hours billed, per site visit Truck Expenses - $6/hour Use of Professional License - Additional cost, to be determined Project: Overland Bridge Assignment Duration Working Days Hours Needed Total Hours Needed 6 Months 22 Working Days per Month 4 Hours Per Day 528 Hours If you have any questions or require further staff augmentation, please feel flee to call CALTROP at (909) 931-9331 or to email us at CALTROPt~msn.com. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. We are looking forward to providing our services to the City of Temecula. Sincerely, CALTROP ENGINEERING CORPORATION S. Michael~ O Director of Business Development Houdy Billing Rate Overtime Billing Rate ~lightwork Billing Rate Subtotal Truck Expense Subtotal Total Cost $8O.00 $107.50 $107.50 $6.00 Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour $42,240.00 $3,168.00 $45,'108.00 CALTROP Engineering Corporation 1037 W. Ninth Street Upland, CA 91786 Tel: (909) 931-9331 Fax: (909) 931-0061 CALTROPOmsn.com ITEM 13 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City ManagedCity Council '~jLVilliam G. Hughes, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer April 13, 1999 Professional Services Agreement for Pala Road Bridge Improvements, Project No. PW97-15 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Approve a Professional Service Agreement with Caltrop Engineering Corporation in an amount of $60,544.00 for Structural Bridge Inspection for the Pala Road Bridge Improvements, Project No. PW97-15, and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. 2. Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $6,054.40 which is equal to 10% of the agreement amount. BACKGROUND: On February 9, 1999, the City Council awarded a construction contract to Granite Construction Company for the Pala Road Bridge. The 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 the demolition of the existing bridge. Caltrans requires structural bridge inspections that must be accomplished by Caltrans approved bridge inspectors. Caltrop Engineering Corporation has been selected to perform the bridge structural inspection services based on their ability to provide qualified personnel with specific knowledge of Caltrans work and are Caltrans approved inspectors. The scope of work and hourly rates are described in Exhibit "A" of the attached agreement. Caltrop Engineering Corporation will function as the Structural Bddge Inspector for this project and will work under the direction of City staff. FISCAL IMPACT: 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 consultant services in Account No. 210-165-631-5801 for the following professional service agreement of $60,544.00 and the contingency amount of $4,540.80 for a total cost of $66,598.40. ATTACHMENTS: Professional Services Agreement R:~GDRPT~99~0413\PW97-15\pw97-15caltropagrmt/ajp CITY OF TEMECULA AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL STRUCTURAL INSPECTION SERVICES PALA ROAD BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PROJECT NO. PW97-15 THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of April 13, 1999, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and CALTROP ENGINEERING CORPORATION, ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on April 13, 1999, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than April 13, 2001, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. 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 A, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B other than the payment rates and schedule of payment are null and void. This amount shall not exceed Sixty Thousand Five Hundred Forty Four Dollars and No Cents ($60,544.00) 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 wdtten 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 between the first and fifteenth business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all nondisputed fees. If the City disputes any of consultant's fees it shall give wdtten notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. r:'cip~projects~pw97~pw97-15~caltropagrmt/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 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 pedod of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. 2 r:~cip~projects~v97',pw97-15~caltropagrmt/ajp c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not be liable for any injudes 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, indemnity, protect and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property adsing out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions adsing out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability adsing out of the negligence of the City. 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: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. (2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covedng Automobile Uability, cede 1 (any auto). If the Consultant owns no automobiles, a non-owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. (3) Workers Compensation insurance as required by the State of Califomia and Employers Uability Insurance. If the Consultant has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. (4) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commerdal 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) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employers Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. r:~cip~projects~pw97~pw97-15~caltropagrmt/ajp (4) Professional Liability coverage: Two million ($2,000,000) per claim and in aggregate. c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability polides 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' pdor written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a cun'ent A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. r:~cip~projects~pw97~pw97-15~caltropagrmtJajp f. Verification of CoveraGe. Consultant shall furnish the City with odginal 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, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 11. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. 12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION. a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's 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, headng or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's dght to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. r:%cip%projects~ow97%pw97-15%caltropagrmt/ajp 13. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (I) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. To City: To Consultant: City of Temecula Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 43200 Business Park Ddve Temecula, California 92590 Attention: City Manager CALTROP INGINEERING CORPORATION 1037 W. Ninth Street Upland, California 91786 Attn: S. Michael Tahan 14. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without pdor wdtten consent of the City. Because of the personal nature of the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement, only Frank Hearth shall perform the services described in this Agreement. Frank Hearth, 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 Frank Hearth 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 pedod. 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 dghts, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one parly against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgement, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 17. 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 r:~cip~projects~pw97~pw97-15~caltropagrmtJajp 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 Shawn D. Nelson, Acting City Manager Attest: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT CALTROP ENGINEERING CORPORATION 1037 W. Ninth Street Upland, CA 91786 (909) 931-9331 By: S. Michael Tahan, Dir. Of Business Devel. By: Name: Pdnt Title: (Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) r:%cip%projects%pwg7~pw97-15~caltropagrmt/ajp EXHIBIT A TASKS TO BE PERFORMED PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE r:~cip~projects~N~97~pw97-15~caltropagrmtJajp CALTROP April 5, 1999 ENGINEERING CORPORATION I'r4ffc~si,nal C,n~trucli~Ha Mana~t, lrs William Hughes, P.E., Senior Engineer City of Temecula Department of Public Works 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Dear Mr. Hughes, Per our conversation, CALTROP Engineering Corporation is providing the City of Temecula with a cost proposal for the Pala Bridge project, on which our services may be utilized. As you know, CALTROP is proposing that the City of Temecula utilize our staff and services on an "on-call,. as needed basis for its construction management and inspection needs. This would provide the city with a cost-effective means to obtain experienced and specialized engineers to assist in resolving specific project concerns. CALTROP is proposing the services of Mr. Frank Hearth as Structures Representative for the above referenced project. The cost proposal, to the right, includes the following conditions: Hou~y Loaded Rate - $80/hour Project: Pala Bridge Overtime Rate - $107.50/hour A~i~p~mnt Duration 8 Months Nightwork Rate, from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. - $107.50/hour Working Days 22 Working Days per Month Minimum of four (4) hours billed, per site visit Truck Expenses - $6/hour Hours Needed 4 Hours Per Use of Professional License - Additional cost, to be detcrrnined Total Hours Needed 704 Hours If you have any questions or require further staff augmentation, please feel free to call CALTROP at (909) 93 1-9331 or to email us at CALTROP~msn.com. Hou~y Billing Rate Overtime Billing Rate Nightwork Billing Rate $80.00 Per Hour $107.50 Per Hour $107.50 Per Hour Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. We are looking forward to providing our services to the City of Temecula. Subtotal Truck Expense $6.00 Per Hour $56,320.00 Sincerely, CALTROP ENGINEERING CORPORATION Director of Business Development Subtotal Tolal Cost $60,544.00 CALTROP Engineering Corporation 1037 W. Ninth Street Upland, CA 91786 Tel: (909) 931-9331 Fax: (909) 931-0061 CALTROP~msn.com ITEM 14 CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council 'lAJ~William G. Hughes, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer April 13, 1999 Old Town Streetscape Project, Project No. PW97-05 Private Property Access Improvements RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Approve a Contract for Miscellaneous work associated with completing the Old Town Project, Project No. PW97-05 to Rizzo Construction Inc. in an amount not to exceed $17,000.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $1,700 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. BACKGROUND: On June 11, 1998 the Old Town Streetscape project was awarded to Valley Crest Inc. During the construction of the Old Town Streetscape project, several items of work were found that were not included in the original construction plans and are necessary to satisfactorily complete access and transition from private properties to the new public improvements. Valley Crest has elected not to perform the work on a contract change order basis. The Pubic Works Department requested proposals from several capable local contractors, however only one (1) contractor, Rizzo Construction agreed to perform the work. A contract not to exceed $25,000 was negotiated with Rizzo Construction on a time and material basis. The contract required Rizzo Construction to perform work in the Old Town on a case by case basis on a time and material basis as directed by the City. The original contract of $25,000.00 and the remaining work $17,000.00 will total $42,000.00 which requires City Council's approval. Due to the scope and character of the work being done the bonding requirements were not required and have been waived for this contract. The following proposal was received April 5, 1999: Rizzo Construction ...........................................................$ 17,000.00 Informal Bidding procedures were utilized due to the highly specialized type of work and the size of the work to be completed. R:'agdrptL99\0413~pw97-05rizzoawd/ajp FISCAL IMPACT: This project is a Capital Improvement Project funded through RDA bond proceeds. Adequate funds are available in Account No. 280-199-824-5804. ATTACHMENT: Rizzo Construction Inc. Contract R:~agdrpt~99\0413~pw97-05dzzoawd/ajp CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACT FOR PROJECT NO. PW97-05 OLDTOWN STREETSCAPE PRIVATE PROPERTY ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 13th day of April, 1999,by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and Rizzo Construction, Inc., 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. PW97-05, OLDTOWN STREETSCAPE, PRIVIATE PROPERTY ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS, Insurance Forms, this Contract, and all modifications and amendments thereto, the State of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications (1992 Ed.) where specifically referenced in the Plans and Technical Specifications, and the latest version of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, including all supplements as written and promulgated by the Joint Cooperative Committee of the Southern California Chapter of the American Associated General Contractors of California (hereinafter, "Standard Specifications") as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO. PW97-05, OLD TOWN STREETSCAPE PRIVATE PROPERTY ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS. Copies of these Standard Specifications are available from the publisher: Building New, 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 Provision, and Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO. PW97-05, OLD TOWN STREETSCAPE PRIVATE PROPERTY ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS. In case of conflict between the Standard Specifications and the other Contract Documents, the other Contract Documents shall take precedence over, and be used in lieu of, such conflicting portions. 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-1 R:\cip~orojects~ow97~w97-05~rizzocontract2/ajp o 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. PW97-05, OLD TOWN STREETSCAPE PRIVATE PROPERTY ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS All of said work to be performed and materials to be furnished shall be in strict accordance with the Drawings and Specifications and the provisions of the Contract Documents hereinabove enumerated and adopted by CITY. CITY APPROVAL. All labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and work performed and completed under the direction and supervision, and subject to the approval of CITY or its authorized representatives. CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHDULE. The CITY agrees to pay, and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept, in full payment for, the work agreed to be done for TIME, MATERIALS AND OVERHEAD for an amount not to exceed SEVENTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS and NO CENTS ($17,000.00). CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed Thirty (30) working days, commencing with delivery of a Notice to Proceed 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 LUMP SUM BID SCEHDULE: 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. UNIT PRICE BID SCHEDULE: Pursuant to Section 20104.50 of the Public Contract Code, within fifteen (15) days after submission of a payment request to the CITY, the CONTRACTOR shall be paid a sum equal to one hundred percent (100%) 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. CONTRACT CA-2 R:\cip~orojects~pw97~w97-05\rizzocontract2/ajp Payments shall be made on demands drawn in the manner required by law, accompanied by a certificate signed by the City Manager, stating that the work for which payment is demanded has been performed in accordance with the terms of the Contract, and that the amount stated in the certificate is due under the terms of the Contract. Partial payments on the Contract price shall not be considered as an acceptance of any part of the work. Interest shall be paid on all undisputed payment requests not paid within thirty (30) days pursuant to Public Contracts Code Section 20104.50. Public C~ntract 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 Contract 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. 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. 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 Section 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. TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this contract. 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. CONTRACT CA-3 RAcip~projects~pw97~pw97-05\rizzocontract2/ajp 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 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. GRATUITIES. CONTRACTOR warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents, or representatives has offered or given any gratuities or promises to CITY's employees, agents, or representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or secudng favorable treatment with respect thereto. 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. 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. 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. 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 CONTRACT CA-4 R:%cip%projects%pw97%pw97-05\rizzocontract2/ajp 19. 20. Court, shall be entitled to actual and reasonable attomey 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: William G. Hughes, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 CONTRACT CA-5 R:\cip~projects~pw97~ow97-05~rizzocontract2Jajp IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the date first above written. DATED: CONTRACTOR RIZZO CONSTRUCTION, INC. P.O. Box 301 Temecula, CA 92593 (909) 676-3001 By: Charles M. Rizzo, President DATED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF TEMECULA By: Shawn D~ Nelson, Acting City Manager Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk CONTRACT CA-6 R:%cip%projects%pw97%pw97-05\rizzocontract2/ajp ITEM 15 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council /~]~William G. Hughes, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer April 13, 1999 Accept Public Improvements in Parcel Map No. 28384. (Northeast corner of the Intersection of Margarita Road and Highway 79 South) PREPARED B,~ Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council 1. ACCEPT the public improvements in Parcel Map No. 28384. AUTHORIZE reduction in Faithful Performance security to the warranty amount, and initiate the one-year warranty period. 3. DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. BACKGROUND: On August 12, 1997, the City Council approved Parcel Map No. 28384, and entered into Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement with: American Stores Properties, Inc. 348 East South Temple Salt Lake City, UT 84111 for the improvement of streets and drainage, Median Island construction, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) facilities, Traffic Signal, and subdivision monumentation, and Median Island Landscaping and Irrigation, respectively. The following securities were posted by Safeco Insurance Company on behalf of the developer: Bond No. 5882162 in the amount of $363,000 ($130,000, $116,500, and $116,500, respectively, for street and drainage, RCFC&WCD facilities, and traffic signal) for faithful performance. e Bond No. 5882161 in the amount of $181,500 ($65,000, $58,250, and $58,250, respectively, for street and drainage, RCFC&WCD facilities, and traffic signal) for labor and materials. 3. Bond No. 5882159 in the amount of $3,500 for subdivision monumentation. R; Jagdrpt~99~0323~0m28384. acc Bond No. 5882157 in the amount of $26,500 for Faithful Performance for median island landcaping and irrigation. Bond No. 5882158 in the amount of $13,500 for Labor and Materials for median island landscaping and irrigation. The developer also posted Bond No. 5882160 in the amount of $30,900 for Traffic Signalization Mitigation Fees. This security was based on gross acreage at the fee rate in effect at the time of parcel map approval. On February 23, 1999, the City Council authorized release of this Traffic Signalization Mitigation Fee security as the Public Facilities Development Impact structure adopted by Ordinance 97-09 converted from a per gross acreage fee structure to a square f0otage of building area basis. Thus the posted securities no longer served the purpose for which they were intended. Public Works Staff has reviewed and inspected the public improvements, including the median island construction and the traffic signal installation, TCSD has approved the median island landscaping and irrigation, and the RCFC&WCD has approved their system. The City acts as the lead agency in administering the improvement securities. Therefore Staff recommends City Council acceptance of the public improvements which the City will maintain and which the RCFD&WCD has accepted into their maintenance system for operating and maintenance, initiation of the one-year warranty period, and reduction in the Faithful Performance securities to the ten-percent (10%) warranty amounts as follows: Bond No. 5882162 in the amount of $36,300 ($13,000, $11,650, and $11,650, respectively, for street and drainage, RCFC&WCD facilities, and traffic signal) for Faithful Performance warranty purposes. Bond No. 5882157 in the amount of $2,600 for median island Faithful Performance warranty purposes. Staff has reviewed the subdivision monumentation. There are several items to be completed. When the issues have been addressed and satisfactorily completed, Staff will recommend release to the City Council. The Labor and Materials securities for the public improvements will be retained for the contractual six-month lien period which follows City Council acceptance of the public improvements. The affected street within the subdivision boundary are portions of Margarita Road. Margarita Road was a part of the County-Maintained Road System prior to incorporation and became a part of the City-Maintained Street System on December 1, 1989. FISCAL IMPACT: ATTACHMENT: None Location Map R;lagdq:~t99~323~pm28384,ac,~ Parcel MaD No. 28384 Location Ma-._ NOTE: MAPS NOT TO SCALE ITEM 16 ORDINANCE NO. 99-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN (NO. 1) OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF MARGARITA ROAD AND NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD (SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD) AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 910-130-056, 910-130- 059, 910-130-060, 921-090-052, 921-090-058, 921-090-059, 921 - 090-060 AND 921-090-061 (PLANNING APPLICATION PA99- 0015). WHEREAS, Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities to implement such general plans as may be in effect in any such city; and WHEREAS, Sections 65860 of the Government Code requires that a zoning ordinance shall be consistent with the adopted general plan of the city; and WHEREAS, there is a need to amend the Campos Verdes Specific Plan to accurately reflect private property and to be consistent with the adopted General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on February 3, 1999, and recommended that the City Council approve the attached amendments to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan as shown in Attachment 1 of Exhibit B (Amendment No. 1 to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan); and WHEREAS, that this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances; and WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library, Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on March 23, 1999 to consider the proposed amendments to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. THE FOLLOWS: CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. FINDINGS (Specific Plan Amendment) A. The City Council in approving the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, makes the following findings, to wit: Planning Application No. PA99-0015 (Amendment No. 1 to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan) as proposed and conditioned is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. R:Ords 99-08 1 Planning Application No. PA99-0015 (Amendment No. 1 to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan) is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's adopted General Plan. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the site and is consistent with the overall concept of Specific Plan No. 1. The amendment to Specific Plan No. 1 does not increase the impacts associated with the development of the overall intensity of the development as analyzed in Environmental Impact Report No. 348. Section 3. AMFNDMFNTS TO THE CAMPOS VFRDFS SPFCIFIC PI AN: The City Council hereby amends the Campos Verdes Specific Plan for the City of Temecula for as specified below and as shown on Attachment 1 of Exhibit B (Amendment No. I to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan): A. The ten (10) acre elementary school site in Planning Area 7 has been increased by ten (10) acres and will now accommodate a 20-acre middle school. B. The park site in Planning Area 1 has been decreased by 7.6 acres to 3.1 acres. The park site will primarily serve Campos Verdes residents and not residents from other developer projects as previously contemplated by the adopted Specific Plan. C. The residential component of the Land Use Plan has decreased in size. The residential area has been reduced from 72.2 acres to 57.9 acres, a reduction of 14.3 acres. The number of dwelling units has been reduced from 308 to 242, a reduction of 66 dwelling units. Planning Area 3 has been reduced from 76 to 75, Planning Area 5 decreased from 86 dwelling units to 63, Planning Area 6 decreased from 72 to 46 dwelling units, Planning Area 8 decreased from 56 dwelling units to 42, and Planning Area 9 decreased from 18 to 16 dwelling units. D. The commercial areas have been increased by a total of 8 acres. Planning Area 4 which will consist entirely of retail commercial uses, has increased by 5.5 acres, and the commercial/office/church component of Planning Area 2 has increased by 2.5 acres. E. Sandealing Way at the boundary of Campos Verdes and Rodpaugh Estates and Roripaugh Road at the boundary of Campos Verdes and Rodpaugh Estates shall be closed to through traffic. The Developer shall install a decorative gate at each location to effect the closure. The gate shall be equipped with a "Knox Box" to allow emergency access to the streets and shall provide for pedestrian access through the gate. The location, design, and landscaping for the gates and areas surrounding them shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. F. In those areas in which a retaining wall will exceed six feet (6'), the Developer shall install a crib wall with landscaping and irrigation, subject to approval of the plans for the crib wall and landscaping by the Director of Community Development. In those areas in which the retaining wall is less than six feet (6'), the Developer shall have the option of installing a crib wall with landscaping and irrigation or a retaining wall screened with landscaping, subject to approval of the plans for the crib wall or landscaped retaining wall by Director of Community Development. The Director of Community Development may waive the requirements of this section for a crib wall or R:Ords 99-08 2 landscaped retaining wall upon the mutual written agreement of the Developer and adjacent landowners to fill the ditch on the border of the Tract and replace the existing fencing. Section 4. FNVIRONMFNTAL RFVIF:W The City Council, based upon the information contained in the Initial Environmental Study, finds that the changes proposed to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan were determined to be minor based on an environmental Addendum (No. 4) to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 348). The addendum concluded that the changes did not increase the impacts associated with the development or the overall intensity of the development as analyzed in the odginal Environmental Impact Report. The environmental addendum contained a comparative analysis of impacts and mitigation measures. This analysis concluded that the proposed changes to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan are substantially the same as or less than the impacts analyzed in the certified EIR. In addition, there is no new information that was not known at the time the EIR was certified and completed. Therefore, no significant impacts or additional mitigation measures are required given the existing mitigation measures contained in the certified EIR No. 348. The mitigation measures prepared for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be applied to this project. The Environmental Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 348, therefore, is hereby adopted. Section 5. SFVERABILITY The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 6. NOTICF OF ADOPTION The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. Section 7. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk. Section 8. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13rd day of April, 1999. ATTEST: Steven J. Ford, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:Ords 99-08 3 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 the foregoing Ordinance No, 99-08 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 23rd day of March, 1999, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 13th day of April, 1999 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:Ords 99-08 4 ITEM 17 ORDINANCE NO. 99-09 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION NO. 2.40.100 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO MONTHLY COMPENSATION FOR CITY COMMISSIONERS. THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings, The City Council for the City of Temecula hereby finds the following: A. That the City Council wishes to amend Section 2.40.100 to provide monthly compensation for City Commissioners. B. Monthly compensation for Commissioners is currently set at: Planning Commission Public Safety/Traffic Commission Community Services/Parks Commission $100 per month $ 50 per month, and $ 50 per month Section 2. Section 2.040.100 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read: "City Commissioners shall receive monthly compensation as follows: Planning Commission Public Safety/Traffic Commission Community Services/Parks Commission $100 per month $100 per month, and $ 50 per month." Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13rd day of April, 1999. ATTEST: Steven J. Ford, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] Ords\99-09 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) SS I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance No. 99-09 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 23rd day of March, 1999 and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 13th of April, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk Ords\99-09 2 ITEM 18 ORDINANCE NO. 99-10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING "STORMWATER/URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT AND DISCHARGE CONTROLS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PROGRAM" AS AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 8 OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amendment. A new chapter 8.28 entitled "Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls" is hereby added to Title 8 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code, to read as follows: TITLE 8 HEALTH AND SAFETY Chapter 8.28 Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls SUBARTICLI= 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 8.28.100 Section 8.28.105 Section 8.28.110 Section 8.28.115 Section 8.28.120 Title Purpose and Intent Definitions Responsibility for Administration Regulatory Consistency SUBARTICLE 2. MANAGEMENT AND DISCHARGE CONTROLS Section 8.28.210 Section 8.28.215 Section 8.28.220 Section 8.28.225 Reduction of Pollutants in Stormwater Illicit Connections/Discharges Non-Stormwater Discharges Discharges in Violation of Permit SUBARTICLE 3. ENFORCEMENT Section 8.28.310 Enforcement SUBARTICI F 1. GFNFRAI PROVISIONS 8.28.100. Title. This ordinance shall be known as the City of Temecula Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls Ordinance and may be so cited. R:\ords. 99-10 8.28.105. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this ordinance is to ensure the future health, safety, and general welfare of City citizens by: Reducing pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable; B. Regulating illicit connections and discharges to the storm drain system; and C. Regulating no-stormwater discharges to the storm drain system. The intent of this ordinance is to protect and enhance the water quality of City watercourses, water bodies, ground water, and wetlands in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1342). 8.28.110. Definitions. The terms as used in this ordinance shall have the following meanings: Best Management Practice (BMP's) shall mean any activities, prohibitions, practices, procedures, programs, or other measures designed to prevent or reduce the discharge or pollutants directly or indirectly into waters of the United States. BMP's shall include, but are not limited to, those measures specified in the California Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbooks for Municipal, Industrial/Commercial and Construction Activity and those measures identified by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. B. City shall mean City of Temecula. Director of Public Works shall mean the Director of Public Works/City Engineer or his designated representative. D= Illicit Connection shall mean any physical connection to a storm drain system which has not been permitted by the City of Temecula. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit shall mean a stormwater discharge permit issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board or the State Water Resources Control Board in compliance with the Clean Water Act. Municipal NPDES Permit shall mean an area-wide NPDES permit issued to a government agency or agencies for the discharge of stormwater from a stormwater system. Non-Stormwater Discharge shall mean any discharge to the storm drain system that is not entirely composed of stormwater. Person shall mean any natural person, firm, association, club, organization, corporation, partnership, business trust, company or other entity which is recognized by law as the subject of rights or duties. Pollutant shall mean anything which causes the deterioration of water quality such that it impairs subsequent and/or competing uses of the water. Pollutants may include but are not limited to paints, oil and other automotive fluids, soil, rubbish, trash, garbage, debris, refuse, waste, fecal coliform, fecal streptococcus, enterococcus, heavy metals, hazardous waste, chemicals, fresh concrete, yard waste from commercial landscaping R:\ords. 99-10 2 operations, animal waste, materials that result from the process of constructing a building or structure, nauseous or offensive matter of any kind. Premises shall mean any building, lot, parcel of land, land or portion of land whether improved or unimproved. Storm Drain System shall mean any facility within the city limits of the City of Temecula by which stormwater may be conveyed to waters of the United States. Storm drain system includes but is not limited to any roads with drainage systems, streets, curbs, gutters, catch basins, natural and artificial channels, ditches, aqueducts, storm drains, inlets, conduit or other drainage structure. Stormwater Runoff shall mean surface runoff and drainage associated with rainstorm events and snowmelt. II/icit Discharge shall mean any discharge to the storm drain system that is not composed entirely of stormwater runoff except discharges made pursuant to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit or as otherwise authorized by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. 8.28.115. Responsibility for Administration. This ordinance shall be administered for the City by the Director of Public Works. 8.28.120. Regulatory Consistency. This ordinance shall be construed to assure consistency with the requirements of the Clean Water Act and acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, applicable implementing regulations, and any existing or future municipal NPDES Permits and any amendments or revisions thereto or reissuance thereof. SUBARTICI F 9. MANAGFMFNT AND DISCHARGF CONTROl S 8.28.210. Reduction of Pollutants in Stormwater. General. It is a violation of this ordinance to throw, deposit, leave, maintain, keep or permit to be thrown, deposited, placed, left or maintained, any pollutant in or upon any street, alley, sidewalk, storm drain, inlet, catch basin, conduit or other drainage structures, business place, or upon any public or private plot of land in the City. The only exception being where such pollutant is temporarily placed in an appropriate container with a spill containment system for later collection and removal. It is a violation of this ordinance to cause or permit any dumpster, solid waste bin, or similar container to leak such that any pollutant is discharged into any street, alley, sidewalk, storm drain, inlet, catch basin, conduit or other drainage structures, business place, or upon any public or private plot of land in the City. Construction Sites. Any person performing construction work in the City shall comply with the provision of this ordinance. Cm New Development and RedevelopmenL New development or redevelopment projects shall control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water. The Director of Public Works shall identify the BMP's that may be implemented to prevent such R:\ords. 99-10 3 deterioration and shall identify the manner of implementation. The BMP's may, among other things, require new developments or redevelopment's to comply with the following: Increase Permeable Areas, by leaving highly porous soil and low-lying areas undisturbed: by incorporation landscaping and open space into the project design: by using porous materials for or near driveways and walkways: and by incorporating detention ponds and infiltration pits into the project design. Direct Runoff to Permeable Areas, by orienting it away from impermeable areas to swales, berms, green strip filters, gravel beds, and french drains; by installing rain-gutters odented towards permeable areas; by modifying the grade of the property to divert flow to permeable areas and minimize the amount of stormwater runoff leaving the property; and by designing curbs, berms or other structures such that they do not isolate permeable or landscaped areas. Maxirnize Stormwater Storage for Reuse, by using retention structures, subsurface areas, cisterns, or other structures to store stormwater runoff for rouse or slow release. Existing DevelopmenL Existing development shall control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water. The Director of Public Works shall identify the BMP's that may be implemented to prevent such deterioration and shall identify the manner of implementation· 8.28.215. Illicit Connections/Discharges. It is a violation of this ordinance to establish, use, maintain, or continue illicit connections to the storm drain system, or to commence or continue any illicit discharge to the storm drain system. This prohibition against illicit connections and discharges is expressly retroactive and applies to connections and discharges made in the past, regardless of whether permissible under the law or practices applicable or prevailing at the time of the connection or discharge. 8.28.220. Non-Stormwater Discharges. The discharge of non-stormwater into the storm drain system is a violation of this ordinance except as specified below. The discharge prohibition shall not apply to any discharge regulated under an NPDES Permit or waiver issued to the discharger and administered by the State of California under the authority of the EPA, provided that the discharger is in full compliance with all requirements of the permit or waiver and other applicable laws or regulations. Discharges from the following activities will not be considered a violation of this ordinance when properly managed: water line flushing and other discharges from potable water sources, landscape irrigation and lawn watering, irrigation water, diverted stream flows, rising ground waters, infiltration to separate storm drains, uncontaminated pumped ground water, foundation and footing drains, water from crawl space pumps, air conditioning condensation, spdngs, individual residential car washing, flows from riparian habitats and wetlands, swimming pool discharges or flows from fire fighting. R:\ords. 99-10 8.28.225. Discharges in Violation of Permit. Municipal NPDES Permit. Any discharge that would result in or contribute to a violation of an existing or future Municipal NPDES Permit(s) or any amendment or revision thereto or reissuance thereof, either separately considered or when combined with other discharges, is a violation of this ordinance and is prohibited. Liability for any such discharge shall be the responsibility of the person(s) causing or responsible for the discharge, and such persons shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City in any administrative or judicial enforcement action relating to such discharge. NPDES Permit for Industrial/Commercial and Construction Activity. Any industrial discharger, discharger associated with construction activity, or other discharger subject to any NPDES permit issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, shall comply with all requirements of such permit. Such dischargers shall specifically comply with the following permits: The Industrial Stormwater General Permit, the Construction Activity Stormwater General Permit, and the Dewatering General Permit. Proof of compliance with said NPDES General Permits may be required in a form acceptable to the Director of Public Works prior to issuance of any City grading, building, or occupancy permits. SUBARTICLE 3. ENFORCEMFNT 8.28.310. Fnforcement. Violation of the provisions of Chapter 8.28 may be prosecuted pursuant to the provisions of Chapters 1.20 and 1.21 of this code and may be abated as public nuisances pursuant to chapter 8.12 of this code. SECTION 2. SFVFRABII ITY. If any provision, clause, sentence, or paragraph of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person, establishment, or circumstances shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or application of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance am hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 3. ADOPTION. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and shall publish a summary of this ordinance and post a certified copy of the full ordinance in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of the proposed ordinance; and within fifteen days after adoption of the ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of the ordinance with the names of the councilmembers voting for and against the ordinance. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days from the date of its adoption. PASSED APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13rd day of April, 1999. ATTEST: Steven J. Ford, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:\ords. 99-10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 99-10 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 23rd day of March, 1999, and that thereafter the said ordinance was duly and regularly adopted at a meeting of the City Council on the 13th day of April, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:\ords. 99-10 6 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ITEM I MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT FEBRUARY 23, 1999 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 7:43 P.M., Temecula, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, 4 DIRECTORS: Ford, Lindemans, Stone, and Comerchero. ABSENT: I DIRECTORS: Roberts. Also present were General Manager Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones. PUBLIC COMMENTS No input. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1. Approve the minutes of January 26, 1999. 2 Crowne Hill/Tract No. 23143 - 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) RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 99-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ACKNOWLEDGING THE FILING OF A REPORT WITH RESPECT TO SERVICE LEVEL B, SERVICE LEVEL C, AND SERVICE LEVEL D RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT NO. 23143 AND ITS SUBSEQUENT PHASES BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 3 Ratification of Election Results - Tract No. 28553-1 and 28553-2 4 RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 99-03 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 29, 1999, DECLARING THE RESULTS AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW 1998-99 Mid-Year Budget Adjustments RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Review and approve the 1998-99 mid-year budget. Authorization for Public Bid for the Rotary Park Improvement Project RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Determine that the installation of a picnic shelter, split rail fencing, and related appurtenances at Rotary Park is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15305 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; 5.2 Authorize the filing of a Notice of Exemption with the appropriate filing fee for the project with the County Clerk of Records Office; 5.3 Approve the construction documents and authorize the release of a formal public bid for the Rotary Park Improvement Project. MOTION: Director Stone moved to approve consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-5. The motion was seconded by Director Ford and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Director Roberts who was absent. DISTRICT BUSINESS 6 Cultural Arts Master Plan RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Receive the Cultural Arts Master Plan in its substantial form as a Iong- range planning guide for the continued support and enhancement of art and culture in Temecula; 6.2 Direct staff to coordinate with the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) and the Arts Council of Temecula Valley (ACTV) to explore the feasibility of establishing an ad hoc Art Education Committee to teach our local youth about arts and culture; 6.3 Direct staff to explore the feasibility of establishing an agreement with the Art Council to support, encourage, and market arts and culture in Temecula and ensure cultural marketing efforts are integrated into the City's existing marketing plan, identified in the Economic Development Strategic Plan; 6.4 Direct staff to investigate the feasibility of developing a public art ordinance or resolution to encourage art in public places; 6.5 Direct staff to continue to explore every opportunity to develop a community performing arts center; 6.6 Direct staff to coordinate efforts with the Arts Council to promote the preservation of local Temecula Historic sites and artifacts. Community Services Director Parker presented the staff report (of record); and introduced Project Manager Arthur Greenberg, consultant for AMS Planning and Research. By way of overheads, Mr. Greenberg presented the Cultural Arts Master Plan; highlighted the goals, objectives, and implementation portion of the plan (per agenda material); for Director Lindemans' querying with regard to the timing of the building phase of the plan, clarified that the next phase would be to develop an operational analysis, a conceptual plan, for submittal to an architect; and thanked Directors Lindemans and Comerchero, Community Services Director Parker, and staff for their efforts associated with the development of the plan. For Director Lindemans, referencing the agenda material, Director Ford recommended moving forward, as follows: a) commitment to the development of a small-to-mid-sized Performing Arts Center, and b) to tie that plan with another planned Municipal Building Project. Director Stone concurred with Director Lindemans' comments to continue moving forward with a building plan; recommended that the Community Services Commission investigate a partnership with the Temecula Unified School District to begin implementing a plan; and, echoed by President Comerchero, thanked Mr. Greenberg, the Community Service Commissioners, and the Arts Council for their diligent efforts regarding the development of the current plan. For President Comerchero, Ms. Martha Minkler, representing the Arts Council of Temecula Valley, relayed concurrence with the proposed Cultural Arts Master Plan. MOTION: Director Lindemans moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Director Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Director Roberts who was absent. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT No comments. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT Community Services Director Parker relayed that the tentative scheduled date for the Grand Opening Dedication Ceremony for the 15-acre Margarita Park will be April 22, 1999. Mr. Parker noted that the project regarding the lighting for the eight tennis courts at the Temecula Valley High School will be open for bid on February 25, 1999, in order to facilitate presentation of a contract for construction at the March 23, 1999 City Council meeting; relayed that a construction schedule has been coordinated with the school to begin the project at the end of May. Mr. Parker relayed that staff is currently receiving design and architectural proposals to pursue the expansion of the Mary Phillips Senior Center. Mr. Parker noted that staff is in the process of planning the 4th of July Celebration activities in order to bring forward a specific contract to the Council at a future point in time. For Director Ford, Mr. Parker further clarified the expansion of the Mary Phillips Senior Center; noted that the project will be funded through Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds; and specified the expansion will encompass an additional 2500-3000 square feet. Director Lindemans commended Community Services Director Parker for his diligent efforts associated with addressing the concerns of one community member who had been in phone contact with Director Lindemans, regarding her concern with the lighting at the sports park. GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT A. Acting City Manager Nelson commended the Community Services Department staff; relayed that the City received two additional State awards at the annual conference in Santa Clam from the California Parks and Recreation Society, as follows; 1) an Award of Excellence for the holiday poster, and 2) an Award of Merit for the 1998 summer/fall recreation brochure. BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS No comments. ADJOURNMENT At 8:07 P.M., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, March 2, 1999, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, President ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/District Secretary MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MARCH 2, '1999 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 7:26 P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. President Comerchero presiding. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone, and Comerchero. ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None. Also present were General Manager Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones. PUBLIC COMMENTS No input. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Authorization to Bid and Determination of Categorical Exemption for the Construction of the Santa Gertrudis Trail Under Crossing at Winchester Road RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Determine that the installation of the Santa Gertrudis Trail Under Crossing at Winchester Road is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301 (c) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; 1.2 Authorize the filing of a Notice of Exemption, with the appropriate filing fee, for the project with the County Clerk of Records Office; 1.3 Approve the construction documents and authorize the release of a formal Public bid for the Santa Gertrudis Trail Under Crossing Project at Winchester Road. 2 Letter of Support tO the Boys and Girls Club of Temecula Valley RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the letter supporting the Boys and Girls Club of Temecula Valley's Effort to obtain a grant to expand their existing facility. MOTION: Director Stone moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and 2. The motion was seconded by Director Lindemans and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Minutes CSD\030299 1 DISTRICT BUSINESS 3 Namin,cl of the Museum Facility RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve a recommendation from the Community Services Commission to name the Museum Facility located on Mercedes Road in Old Town the Temecula Valley Museum. Community Services Director Parker presented the staff report (as per agenda material). MOTION: Director Stone moved to approve the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Director Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 4 Creation of a Sports Park Subcommittee RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Create an ad hoc Sports Park Subcommittee of the Board of Directors to study The feasibility of developing a sports complex; 4.2 Appoint two Board Members to serve on the Sports Park Subcommittee. Community Services Director Parker reviewed the staff report (of record). Director Ford suggested that staff explore the Flood Control facility as an alternative location for the sports complex. MOTION: Director Roberts moved to approve the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Director Ford and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. At the appropriate time, President Comerchero requested that the matter be forwarded to the Community Services Commission for review. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT Community Services Director Parker informed the Directors that the site selection for the Library facility has been completed; that the Community Services Commission will be reviewing this matter at the March 8, 1999, Commission meeting; and that the matter will be presented for the Board of Directors' review at the April 13, 1999, meeting. GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT Acting General Manager Nelson relayed delight with the formation of the Sports Park Subcommittee and upcoming efforts to proceed with this project. Minutes CSD\030299 2 BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS No comments. ADJOURNMENT At 7:33 P.M., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, March 23, 1999, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, President ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/District Secretary Minutes CSD\030299 3 ITEM 2 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: General ManagedBoard of Directors (:~Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services April 13, 1999 SUBJECT: Award of Construction Contract for the Rotary Park Improvement Project, Project No. PW98-09CSD for the Temecula Community Center PREPARED BY: :/~illiam G. Hughes, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer Scott Harvey, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: Award a construction contract for the Rotary Park Improvement Project, PW98-09CSD for the Temecula Community Center to J.K. Weigle Engineering Contractor in amount of $22,561.40 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. 0 Authorize the City Manger to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $2,256.14, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. BACKGROUND: On February 23, 1999 the Board of Directors authorized staff to proceed with construction documents and publicly bid the project. This project will provide improvements, which include the installation of a picnic shade structure, two picnic tables, and split rail fencing in the back of the park at the top of the creek bank. This project is funded by Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the Temecula Community Center, which the Rotary Park is located adjacent to the Temecula Community Center building and occupies the same property. The installation of the picnic shelter was requested by the Community Services Commission with the intention of providing a shaded seating area for the enjoyment of park visitors. The split rail fencing will provide a sight barrier to the creek bed as well as a more finished look for the park. Two (2) bids were publicly opened on February 25, 1999, and the results for the bid are as follows: 1. J.K. Weigle Engineering Contractor $22,561.40 2. Sean Malek Engineering &Construction, Inc. $32,100.00 Staff has reviewed the bid proposals and found J.K. Weigle Engineering Contractor to be the lowest responsible bidder for this project. J.K. Weigle Engineering Contractor has satisfactory completed other project for other public agencies in the past. The specifications allow Seventy (70) working days for the completion of this project. A copy of the bid summary is available for review in the City Engineers office. r: \agdrpt041399\pw98-O9csd. awd FISCAL IMPACT: This project is a Capital Improvement Project funded through a Community Development Block Grant. These funds have been appropriated in Account No. 210-190-162-5804 for the construction contract of $22,561.40 and the contingency amount of $2,256.14 for a total contract amount of $24,817.54. ATTACHMENT: Contract r: \agd rpt041399\pw98-O9csd, awd TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACT FOR PROJECT NO. PW98-OgCSD ROTARY PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 13th day of April, 1999, by and between the Temecula Community Services District of the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "DISTRICT", and J.K. Weigle Engineering Contractor, hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR." WITNESSETH: That DISTRICT 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. PW98-09, ROTARY PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, 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 California (hereinafter, "Standard Specifications") as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO. PW98-09, ROTARY PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. Copies of these Standard Specifications are available from the publisher: Building New, 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 Provision, and Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO. PW98-09, ROTARY PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. In case of conflict between the Standard Specifications and the other Contract Documents, the other Contract Documents shall take precedence over, and be used in lieu of, such conflicting portions. 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 CONTRACT CA-1 R:\cip~projects'~3w98~pw98-09%contracl , specified, the CONTRACTOR shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and do all the work involved in executing the Contract. The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is called for by anyone shall be as binding as if called for by all. Any conflict between this Contract and any other Contract Document shall be resolved in favor of this Contract. SCOPE OF WORK. CONTRACTOR shall perform everything required to be performed, shall provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation services required for the following: PROJECT NO. PW98-09, ROTARY PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT All of said work to be performed and materials to be furnished shall be in strict accordance with the Drawings and Specifications and the provisions of the Contract Documents hereinabove enumerated and adopted by DISTRICT. DISTRICT 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 DISTRICT or its authorized representatives. CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHDULE. The DISTRICT agrees to pay, and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept, in full payment for, the work agreed to be done, the sum of: Twenty-Two Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty-One DOLLARS and Fouty CENTS ($22,561.40), the total amount of the base bid. CONTRACTOR The work to be performed shall be completed within seventy (70) calendar days after execution of contract and Notice to Proceed has been issued. Commencement of work shall be limited to ordering improvements, fence to be installed including the picnic shelter structure. Actual sitework shall start no sooner than thirty- five (35) calendar days after notice to proceed has been issued. 5. CHANGE ORDERS. All change orders shall be approved by the District Board of Directors, except that the General Manager is hereby authorized by the District Board of Directors to make, by written order, changes or additions to the work in an amount not to exceed the contingency as established by the District Board of Directors. PAYMENTS UNIT PRICE BID SCHEDULE: Pursuant to Section 20104.50 of the Public Contract Code, within thirty (30) days after submission of a payment request to the DISTRICT, 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 DISTRICT on forms provided by the DISTRICT. CONTRACT CA-2 R:\cip~projects~pw98~pw98-09\contract Payments shall be made on demands drawn in the manner required by law, accompanied by a certificate signed by the General Manager, stating that the work for which payment is demanded has been performed in accordance with the terms of the Contract, and that the amount stated in the certificate is due under the terms of the Contract. Partial payments on the Contract price shall not be considered as an acceptance of any part of the work. Interest shall be paid on all undisputed payment requests not paid within thirty (30) days pursuant to Public Contracts Code Section 20104.50. Public Contract Code Section 7107 is hereby incorporated by reference. Do In accordance with Section 9-3.2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction and Section 9203 of the Public Contract 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 DISTRICT shall retain a portion of the Contract award price, to assure warranty performance and correction of construction deficiencies according to the following schedule: CONTRACT AMOUNT $25,000 0 $75,000 RETENTION PERIOD RETENTION PERCENTAGE 180 days 3% $75,00 - $500,000 180 days $2,250 + 2% of amount in excess of $75,000 Over$500,O00 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 DISTRICT 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 DISTRICT. CONTRACTOR is required to promptly notify DISTRICT of any such delay. WAIVER OF CLAIMS. On or before making each request for payment under Paragraph 6 above, CONTRACTOR shall submit to DISTRICT, 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 DISTRICT related to the payment. CONTRACTOR shall be required to execute an affidavit, release, and indemnity agreement with each claim for payment. CONTRACT CA-3 R:~cip~projects%pw98~ow98-09\contract 10. PREVAILING WAGES. This is a Federal assisted project and Davis-Bacon Fair Labor Standards Act (Wage #CA980036 of wage determination Mod #7 Published 11/27/1998, 10 days prior to bid opening) will be enforced. Whenever there is State funding involved, the highest of the two (State and Federal) wage decision prevails. Federal Labor Standards Provisions 4010 of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is incorporated into this contract and attached. All contractors shall be verified for eligibility through the current HUD List of Debarred, Suspended, or Ineligible Participants, and the General Services Administration's Consolidated List of Debarred, Suspended, and Ineligible Contractors prior to being authorized to participate on this project. Any Sub-tier Contract(s) resulting from this contract must contain the same contractual language as the original contract. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the Distdct Board of Directors 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 Section 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 DISTRICT, 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 DISTRICT, 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 DISTRICT. CONTRACTOR shall hold the County of Riverside, the Temecula Community Services District and the City of Temecula, its officers, agents and employees free and harmless from any liability whatsoever, including wrongful death, based or asserted upon any act or omission of principal, its officers, agents, employees or Sub-contractors relating to or in any way connected with or arising from the accomplishment of the work, whether or not such acts or omissions where in furtherance of the work required by the Contract Documents and agrees to defend at his expense, including attorney fees, County of Riverside the Temecula Community Services District and the City of CONTRACT CA-4 R:%cip%l:>rojects~pw98~pw98-09%conlract 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Temecula, its officers, agents, employees and Independent Architect in any legal action base on any such alleged acts or omissions. The CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and be responsible for reimbursing the DISTRICT for any and all costs incurred by the DISTRICT as a result of Stop Notices filed against the project. The DISTRICT shall deduct such costs from Progress Payments or final payments due to the DISTRICT. GRATUITIES. CONTRACTOR warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents, or representatives has offered or given any gratuities or promises to DISTRICT's employees, agents, or representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or securing favorable treatment with respect thereto. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CONTRACTOR warrants that he has no blood or marriage relationship, and that he is not in any way associated with any District 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 DISTRICT within one year of the date of the Notice Inviting Bids. CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT. After the completion of the work contemplated by this Contract, CONTRACTOR shall file with the General 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. NOTICE TO DISTRICT OF LABOR DISPUTES. VVhenever 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 DISTRICT. 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 DISTRICT. INSPECTION. The work shall be subject to inspection and testing by DISTRICT 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. CONTRACT CA-5 R:~cip~rojects~ow98~pw98-09~contract 20. GOVERNING LAW. The District 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 Temecula Community Services District of 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. 21. 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. 22. 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 DISTRICT addressed as follows: William G. Hughes, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the date first above written. DATED: CONTRACTOR J.K. Weigle Engineering Contractor 41827 Corte Lara Temecula, CA 92592 (909) 699-9112 DATED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: J.K. Weigle, Owner TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CITY OF TEMECULA By: Jeff Commerchero, President Peter M. Thorson, City Attomey ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk CONTRACT CA-6 R:~cip~projects~pw98~pw98-09~contract ITEM 3 PRO CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINA CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Board of Directors -Ierman D. Parker, Director of Community Services April 13, 1999 Crowne Hill/Tract No.23143 - Public Headng for 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.) ~Y~Beryl Yasinosky, Development Services Analyst That the Board of Directors: Conduct a Public Hearing in Connection with the Levy of Service Level B, Service Level C, and Service Level D Rates and Charges, and tabulate written protests. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 99 - A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ADOPTING SERVICE LEVEL B, SERVICE LEVEL C, AND SERVICE LEVEL D RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT NO. 23143 AND ITS SUBSEQUENT PHASES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-01. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 99 - A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ORDERING, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON JUNE 2, 1999 REGARDING SERVICE LEVEL B AND SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT NO. 23143 AND ITS SUBSEQUENT PHASES IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH SERVICE LEVEL B AND SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIIID, SECTION 6 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION. Approve the Election Notice, Ballot, and Procedures for the Completion, Return and Tabulation of the Ballots. R:\yasinobk\election\23143.eletionslb 04113199 Authorize staff to mail the ballots to the affected property owners pursuant to the aforementioned process. 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 refuse collection services to numerous residential subdivisions within the City of Temecula through Service Levels B, C, and D, respectively. Pursuant to the request of the property owners, staff has initiated proceedings to assume the responsibility for long-term residential street lighting, perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance, and refuse collection services within Tract No. 23143 and its subsequent phases beginning Fiscal Year 2000-01. On February 23, 1999, the Board of Directors adopted the resolution acknowledging the filing of a levy report for 1,026 undeveloped residential lots within Tract No. 23143 and its subsequent phases. The Notice of Public Hearing was subsequently mailed to the property owners identifying the proposed TCSD Rates and Charges for each affected parcel as follows: Service Level B $25.68 per subdivided residential parcel Service Level C $175.00 per subdivided residential parcel Service Level D $170.64 per occupied residential parcel At tonighrs Public Hearing, the Board of Directors must hear and consider all objections or protests to the levy report for Tract No. 23143 and the proposed rates and charges. If a written protest is presented by a majority of the property owners, the Board must reject the proposed fees and abandon any further proceedings. If the property owners do not submit a written protest against the proposed rates and charges, the Board of Directors may then adopt the proposed rates and charges, subject to majority voter approval of Service Level B and Service Level C rates and charges by the owners of the property subject to those charges. In this instance, the Board of Directors can order and call an election for June 2, 1999, and authorize staff to proceed with mailing a notice and ballot to the property owners of Tract No. 23143, a copy of which is attached for your review. With respect to Service Level D, mailed ballot proceedings are not required to impose rates and charges for refuse collection services. Pursuant to the ballot process, staff is also recommending the approval of the attached Procedures for the Completion, Return and Tabulation of Ballots. The ballot procedure explains the process for completion, return and tabulation of the ballot and will be included as part of the mailed ballot documents. The ballot can only be completed by the property owner or his or her authorized representative of each parcel. In order to be counted, the ballot must be completed in compliance with these procedures and returned to the City Clerk/District Secretary prior to 3:30 p.m. on June 2, 1999. The ballot(s) will be opened by the City Clerk/District Secretary on June 2, 1999 at 4:00 p.m. in the Main Conference Room in City Hall. The results of the election shall be announced by the City Clerk/District Secretary at the Community Services District meeting on June 22, 1999. FISCAL IMPACT: In the event that the Board of Directors calls for an election, staff will prepare the notices, ballot and election procedures in-house. If voter approved, upon build-out of the development, the proposed rates and charges of $25.68 and $175.00 per parcel will generate an annual levy of $26,347.68 and $179,550.00 respectively, for the Service Level B and Service Level C maintenance programs. The proposed Service Level D charge of $170.64 R:\yasinobk\election\23143.eletionslb 04/13/99 per parcel will generate an annual levy of $175,076.64. Pursuant to Proposition 218, these amounts may be increased by the TCSD for Fiscal Year 2000-01 after conducting an additional public hearing, however, mailed ballot proceedings are not required to increase Service Level D rates and charges. Actual costs for providing long-term residential street lighting and perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance services within Tract No. 23143 will be absorbed into Service Level B and Service Level C upon installation of said improvements. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Calling and Noticing the Election. Notice and Ballot Form. Procedures for Completion, Return and Tabulation of Ballots. R:\yasinobk\election\23143.eletionslb 04/13/99 RESOLUTION NO. CSD 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COIvlMUN1TY SERVICES DISTRICT ADOPTING SERVICE LEVF~L B, SERVICE LEV~',I, C, AND SERVICE LEVEL D RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT NO. 23143 AND ITS SUBSEQUENT PHASES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES 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. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 61621 and 61621.2, the TCSD has prescribed, revised and collected rates and charges for 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, property taxes collected within the TCSD in the manner prescribed by Government Code Sections 61765.2 to 61765.6, inclusive. By previous resolution, the TCSD proposed to levy such rates and charges for the operation, maintenance, servicing and administration of street lighting, perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance, and refuse collection beginning fiscal year 2000-01. Section 3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 61621.2, the TCSD caused a written report ("Report") to be prepared and fried by the Secretary of the TCSD, which Report contains a description of each parcel of real property within Tract No. 23143 and the proposed amount of the rates and charges against each parcel for fiscal year 2000-01. A summary of the Report containing the proposed rates and charges is attached hereto as Exhibit A, entitled "Project Summary," and incorporated herein by this reference. A copy of the Report is on f'~e in the office of the Secretary of the TCSD, and is available for public inspection. Section 4. By previous resolution, the Board of Directors acknowledged the fding of the Report, and appointed a time and place for a public hearing on the Report and the proposed rates and charges. Notice of the public hearing was mailed and published as required by law and affidavits of publication and mailing are on fde with the Secretary of the TCSD. Section 5. On April 13, 1999, the Board of Directors conducted a public hearing on the Report and the proposed rates and charges. At the public hearing, the Board of Directors heard and considered aH oral and written objections, protests and comments by any interested person concerning the Report, the proposed rates and charges, and the method of collection of such rates and charges. R\yasinobk'election%23143publichearingreso 041399 Section 6. The Board of Directors hereby f'mds and determines that, based on the Report and the District budget, the rates and charges as set out on Exhibit A do not exceed the reasonable cost of the services to be provided by the TCSD for fiscal year 2000-01. Section 7. The Board of Directors hereby overrules any and all objections and protests and adopts the rates and charges for fiscal year 2000-01 as set out on Exhibit A for the services to be provided by the TCSD for fiscal year 2000-01. Section 8. The TCSD shall collect such rates and charges at the same time and in the same manner and by the same persons as, together with and not separately from, the property taxes collected within the TCSD. These rates and charges shall be delinquent at the same time and thereafter be subject to the same delinquency penalties as such property taxes. All laws applicable to the levy, collection, and enforcement of property taxes, including, but not limited to, those pertaining to the matters of delinquency, correction, cancellation, refund and redemption, are applicable to these rates and charges, except for California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 4831. However, if for the first year the charge is levied, the real property to which the charge relates has been transferred or conveyed to a bona fide purchaser for value, or ff 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 unsecumd roll for collection. Section 9. If a property owner subject to these rates and charges questions the classification of the owner' s property for fiscal year 2000-01, or claims that an error has been made with respect to the implementation of the rates and charges or the application of the rates and charges to the owner' s property for that fiscal year, such property owner must appeal the levy by ~ing an appeal with the Secretary of the TCSD before 5:00 p.m. on December 1, 2000, pursuant to procedures established by the TCSD, in order to be considered under the appeal of classification or correction of errors program. Section 10. If a property owner subject to these rates and charges believes that payment of the rates and charges for fiscal year 2000-01 would create a hardship for that property owner during that fiscal year, such property owner must appeal the levy by f~ing a hardship appeal with the Secretary of the TCSD before 5:00 p.m. on December 1, 2000, pursuant to procedures established by the TCSD, in order to be considered under the hardship appeal program. Section 11. The Secretary of the TCSD is hereby ordered to transmit or cause to be transmitted to the County Auditor of the County of Riverside, California before August 10, 2000 the Report and the property tax roll with such rates and charges enumerated for each parcel not exempt therefrom; and the County Auditor is hereby designated, required, empowered, authorized, instructed, directed and ordered to make collection of all such rates and charges as shown on that roll and to perform any and all duties necessary therefor. -2- Section 12. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the levy and collection of these rates and charges is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8) and Section 15273 of the State CEQA Guidelines because the rates and charges are necessary to maintain existing improvements within the TCSD. Resolution. Section 13. The Secretary of the TCSD shall certify to the adoption of this Section 14. The Service Level B and Service Level C rates and charges adopted by this resolution shall take effect only if they are approved by a majority of the property owners of the property subject to the rates and charges voting at an election to be held on June 2, 1999. PASSED, APPROVli'J~ AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District this 13th day of April, 1999. Jeff Comerchem, President ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/District Secretary [Seal] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) SS I HER~Y CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. CSD 99- was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District at the regular meeting thereof, held on the 13~h day of April, 1999, by the following vote of the Board of Directors. AYES: DIRECTORS NOES: DIRECTORS ABSENT: DIRF_,CTORS -3- EXHIBIT A PROJECT SUMMARY TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT TRACT NO. 23143 SERVICE LEVELS B, C, AND D MBIA MuniFinancial, Inc, has prepared the Levy Report for the Temecula Community Services (TCSD) regarding 1,026 future residential lots within Tract No. 23143 and its subsequent phases for the Fiscal Year 2000-01. Pursuant to the Community Services Distdct Law, Division 3 of Title 6 of the Government Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 61000 et seQ., the TCSD has the power to levy and collect rates and charges in order to carry on its operations and to provide the services and facilities furnished by it. The levy and collection of the rates and charges is accomplished by the identification and description of each parcel within a specific service level· A Service Level is a defined area that provides a specific service, operation and maintenance and/or program to only those parcels contained within that service level, as follows: = Service Level B - Residential Street Lights. Operations, maintenance, utility costs and administration of all residential street lights. Service Level C- Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance. Operations, maintenance, utility costs, improvements, and administration for all perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance areas maintained by the TCSD. Service Level D - Refuse Collection, Recycling and Street Sweeping. Operation and administration of the refuse and recycling program, and street sweeping services for all single-family residential homes. RESOLUTION NO. CSD 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ORDERING, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON JUNE 2, 1999 REGARDING SERVICE LEVEL B AND SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT NO. 23143 AND ITS SUBSEQUENT PHASES IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH SERVICE LEVEL B AND SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIIID, SECTION 6 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES, DECLARES, DETERMINES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Pursuant to the requirements of Article XIIID, Section 6 of the California Constitution, there is hereby called and ordered to be held on June 2, 1999, an election for the purpose of submitting to the property owners of Tract No. 23143 in the City of Temecula proposed Service Level B and Service Level C Rates and Charges beginning Fiscal Year 2000- 01 Section 2. The notice and ballot to be submitted to the property owners shall be substantially in the form attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. Section 3. The Board of Directors hereby approves the Procedures for the Completion, Return and Tabulation of Ballots ("Ballot Procedures") presented to the Board at this meeting and directs such procedures be placed on file in the office of the Secretary of the Temecula Community Services District and open to public inspection. Section 3. All ballots must be received by the Secretary of the Temecula Community Services District no later than 3:30 p.m. on June 2, 1999. In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided in the Ballot Procedures. Section 4. The Secretary of the Temecula Community Services District is hereby authorized to canvass the returns of the election. The officers and staff of the Temecula Community Services District are hereby authorized and directed to take such further action as may be necessary or appropriate in preparing for and conducting the election. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District this 13th day of April, 1999. Jeff Comerchero, President R:\yasinobk\eleetionX23 143 .electionresolution 4/13/99 ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/District Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) SS I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. CSD 99- was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services Distdct at the regular meeting thereof, held on the 13th day of April, 1999, by the following vote of the Board of Directors. AYES: DIRECTORS: NOES: DIRECTORS: ABSENT: DIRECTORS: R:\yasinobk\election~3143electionresolution 4/13/99 NOTICE OF ELECTION PROPOSED SERVICE LEVEL B AND SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT NO. 25143 AND ITS SUBSEQUENT PHASES BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001. Pursuant to the request of the property owners of 1,026 future residential lots within Tract No. 23143 and its subsequent phases, the Temecula Community Services District has initiated proceedings to assume maintenance of residential street lighting and perimeter landscaping and slopes within Tract No. 23 143 beginning with the Fiscal Year 2000/2001. Pursuant to this request, and pursuant to Government Code Section 61621.2, the TCSD caused a written report ("Report") to be prepared and filed with the Secretary of the TCSD, which contains a description of each parcel of property to be charged for this maintenance and the proposed amount of the maintenance charges for each parcel for Fiscal Year 2000/2001. The proposed Service Level B rate and charge against each of the 1,026 above mentioned parcels within Tract No. 23 143 beginning Fiscal Year 2000-2001 is $25.68. The proposed levy rate of $25.68 per parcel provides revenue for residential street lighting services within this subdivision. This amount was calculated by dividing the total estimated maintenance cost upon build-out of the development ($26,347.68) by the total number of anticipated parcels in this subdivision. The proposed Service Level C rate and charge against each of the 1,026 parcels beginning Fiscal Year 2000-2001 is $175.00. The proposed levy rate of $175.00 per parcel provides revenue for the maintenance of perimeter landscaping and slope areas within this subdivision. This amount was calculated by dividing the total estimated maintenance cost upon build-out of the development ($179,550.00) by the total number of estimated parcels within the subdivision. On April 13, 1999, the Board of Directors conducted a public hearing on the Report and the proposed Service Level B and Service Level C rates and charges. At the public hearing, the Board of Directors heard and considered all objections or protests to the Report and to the proposed rates and charges. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board determined that written protests against the proposed fees were presented by less than a majority of owners of the parcels on which the proposed fees were to be imposed, and levied the rates and charges subject to approval by the property owners subject to the proposed rates and charges. The Board of Directors encourages you to retum the enclosed ballot indicating whether you support or oppose the proposed Service Level B and Service Level C rates and charges. Ballots may be mailed to the City Clerk/District Secretary at P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, California, 92589-9033, or otherwise delivered to the City Clerk/District Secretary at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, 92590 no later than 3:30 p.m. on June 2, 1999. The proposed Service Level B and Service Level C rates and charges will be abandoned if the ballot is not retumed in favor of the proposed rates and charges. Enclosed is your ballot and the District's Procedures for the completion, return and tabulation of Ballots. Please consult these Procedures for details regarding the ballot process. You may also contact the City Clerk/District Secretary's Office at (909) 694-6444; by mall, at P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, California, 92589-9033; or in person, at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, Cafifomia 92590, for further information regarding this matter. OFFICIAL BALLOT TRACT NO. 23143 {all ohases) TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT: SERVICE LEVEL B AND SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES FOR RESIDENTIAL STREET LIGHTING AND PERIMETER LANDSCAPING AND SLOPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES PROPERTY: Future 1,026 residential parcels within Tract No. 23 143 and its subsequent phases, further identified as a resubdivision of Parcel Map 22429 as shown in Book 147, Pages 14-19 respectively on file in the Office of the County Recorder, Cotrely of Riverside, State of California. OWNER: Mr. Thomas D. Pomeroy, President Communities Southwest 181 Old Springs Road Anaheim, CA 92808 YES, I approve of the proposed annual levy of $25.68 for Service Level B and $175 for Service Level C on each subdivided parcel on the property identified on this ballot. [] NO, I do not approve of the proposed annual levy of $25.68 for Service Level B and $175 for Service Level C on each subdivided parcel on the property identified on this ballot. I hereby declare, under penalty of perjury that I am the record owner, or the authorized representative of the record owner, of the parcels identified above. Signature Date Print Name CHECK ONLY ONE BOX. BALLOTS MUST BE COMPLETED IN INK AND RETURNED TO THE CITY CLERUDIS~CT SECRETARY AT THE CITY OF TEMECULA, P.O. BOX 9033/43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE, TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, 92589-9033 PRIOR TO 3:30 P.M. ON JUNE 2, 1999. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT PROCEDURES FOR THE COMPLETION, RETURN, AND TABULATION OF BALLOTS L Comnletion of Ballots Who may complete a ballot A ballot may be completed by the owner of the parcel to be charged. As used in these Procedures, the term "owner" includes the owner's authorized representative. If the owner of the parcel is a partnership, joint tenancy, or tenancy in common, a ballot may be completed by any of the general partners, joint tenants, or tenants in common. · Duplicate ballots If a ballot is lost, destroyed or never received, the City Clerk/District Secretary will provide a duplicate ballot to the owner upon receipt of a request in writing, mailed to the City Clerk, at P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, California, 92589-9033, or otherwise delivered to the City Clerk/District Secretary at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. The duplicate ballot will be marked to show the date on which the ballot was provided and to identify it as a duplicate ballot. · Marking and signing the ballot To complete a ballot, the owner of the parcel must (1) mark the appropriate box supporting or opposing the proposed rate and charge, and (2) sign, under penalty of perjury, the statement on the ballot that the person completing the ballot is the owner of the parcel or the owner's authorized representative. Only one box may be marked on each ballot. Ballots must be completed in ink. · Only ballots provided by the District will be accepted The District will only accept ballots mailed or otherwise provided to owners by the District. Photocopies, faxes, and other forms of the ballot will not be accepted. IL Return of Ballots · Who may return ballots A ballot may be returned by the owner of the parcel or by anyone authorized by the owner to return the ballot. · Where to return ballots Ballots may be mailed to the City Clerk/District Secretary's Office, at P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, California, 92589-9033, (the District has provided a retum postage-paid envelope). Ballots may also be delivered in person to the City Clerk/District Secretary's Office at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. Ballots may not be returned by fax. · When to return ballots All returned ballots must be received by the City Clerk/District Secretary's Office prior to 3:30 p.m. on June 2, 1999. The City Clerk/District Secretary will stamp on the ballot the date of its receipt. · Withdrawal of ballots After retuming a ballot to the District, the person who signed the ballot may withdraw the ballot by submitting a written request in person to the City Clerk/District Secretary at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. Such request must be received by the City Clerk/District Secretary prior to 3:30 p.m. on June 2, 1999. If any ballot has been withdrawn, the person withdrawing the ballot may request a duplicate ballot. The City Clerk/District Secretary will retain all withdrawn ballots and will indicate on the face of such ballots that they have been withdrawn. llI. Tabulation of Ballots · Which ballots will be counted Only ballots which are completed and retumed in compliance with these procedures will be counted. Ballots received by the City Clerk/District Secretary alter 3:30 p.m. on June 2, 1999 will not be counted. Ballots which are not signed by the owner will not be counted. Ballots with no boxes marked, or with more than one box marked, will not be counted. Ballots withdrawn in accordance with these procedures will not be counted. The City Clerk/District Secretary will keep a record of each duplicate ballot provided to an owner and will verify, prior to counting any duplicate ballot, that only one ballot has been returned for the parcel. If a non-duplicate ballot has been returned, the District will count the non-duplicate ballot and disregard all duplicate ballots. If only duplicate ballots have been retumed, the District will count the earliest provided duplicate ballot and disregard the later provided duplicate ballots. · How ballots will be tabulated Ballots may be counted by hand, by computer or by any other tabulating device. · Who will tabulate ballots Ballots will be tabulated by the City Clerk/District Secretary. · When and where will the ballots be tabulated Ballots will be opened and tabulated on Wednesday, June 2, 1999, at 4:00 p.m. in the Main Conference Room at City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, 92590. This process is open to the general public. · Results of tabulation The results of the tabulation will be announced following the completion of the tabulation and entered in the minutes of the next Board of Directors meeting on June 22, 1999. IV. Resolution of Disputes In the event of a dispute regarding whether the signer of a ballot is the owner of the parcel to which the ballot applies, the District will make such determination from the last equalized assessment roll and any evidence of ownership submitted to the City Clerk/District Secretary. The District will be under no duty to obtain or consider any other evidence as to ownership of property and the District's determination of ownership will be final and conclusive. In the event of a dispute regarding whether the signer of a ballot is an authorized representative of the owner of the parcel, the District may rely on the statement on the ballot, signed under penalty of perjury, that the person completing the ballot is the owner's authorized representative and any evidence submitted to the City Clerk/District Secretary. The District will be under no duty to obtain or consider any other evidence as to whether the signer of the ballot is an authorized representative of the owner and the District's determination will be final and conclusive. V. General Information For further information, contact the City Clerk/District Secretary at (909) 694-6444; by mail, at P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, Califomia, 92589-9033; or in person, at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. ITEM 4 APPR(~ CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAN CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: Board of Directors FROM: QHerman D. Parker, Director of Community Services DATE: April 13, 1999 SUBJECT: Facility Use Agreement - James L. Day Middle School PREPARED BY: Todd Holmes, Development Services Administrator RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: Approve the agreement for the joint use of athletic fields and parking lots at James L. Day Middle School in the Campos Verdes development. The parties to this agreement are the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) and the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD). DISCUSSION: The Community Services Department has negotiated an agreement for the use of parking lots and athletic fields at James L. Day Middle School in an effort to provide additional facilities for community youth sport organizations during afternoon, evening and weekend hours. The athletic fields include two baseball fields with a soccer overlay and a separate soccer field. Subsequent to the execution of this agreement, the TCSD intends to install a lighting system to illuminate the fields for night use. The school is under construction and will open in the fall. Under the terms of the agreement, the TCSD will maintain the lights and infields and the school district will water and maintain the fields. The TCSD will also maintain approximately one and one-half acres of perimeter slope landscape areas and reimburse the District for 25% of the cost to re-seal the parking lot every few years. The attached agreement describes the rights and responsibilities of the TCSD and the District in detail. Site plans of the joint use and perimeter slope areas are included in the agreement. The proposed sports field lighting system will be subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). To comply with CEQA it is likely that a public hearing will be held. In any event, the Board of Directors will consider input from residents before authorizing the design and construction of the lighting system. r:\msc-p\agc**ndas\Wksli~.cs<l The proposed agreement is in conjunction with the "Joint Facility Use Agreement between the TCSD and TVUSD" adopted April 23, 1991. The James L. Day Middle School Joint Use Agreement has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and School District Staff. On March 8, 1999, the Community Services Commission reviewed approved this agreement and recommended that it be forwarded to the Board of Directors and the School Board for final consideration. This agreement will essentially add a nine acre sports park to the facilities available to the residents of the City of Temecula. The capital outlay for the lights, budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program at $345,000, is about one-fifth the cost of constructing a new park of a similar size. Another benefit to the TCSD is the cost of watering and maintaining the turf will be borne by the School District. The agreement contains a provision that will allow the TCSD to terminate the Facility Use Agreement in the event that the sports field lighting system is not installed. FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated annual maintenance cost to maintain the infields and backstops is ~6,000. The parking lot will be refurbished approximately every four years; the TCSD's 25% share of that cost will total approximately ~2,000. These funds will be drawn from the Parks/Lighting Services Special Tax and will be contained in the fiscal year 1999/2000 budget. After the lighting system is installed, the annual cost for electricity and slope maintenance will be approximately e28,000. The source of this funding will be the Parks/Lighting Services Special Tax. $345,000 for the installation of the lighting system is budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 1999/2000. ATTACHMENTS: James L. Day Middle School Joint Use Agreement Vicinity Map Letter of support and City Manager's response letter AGREEMENT BETWEEN THF~ TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFW, I~ SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR ~ JOINT USE OF A FORTION OF JAMES L. DAY 1VH~DLE SCHOOL THIS AGREEM!~.NT is made and entered into as of ,1999 by and between the Temecula Community Services District (hereafter the "TCSD"), and the Temecula Valley Unified School District (hereafter the "District"). In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 1. Recitals. This Agreement is entered into with respect to the following facts and for the following purposes, each of which is acknowledged as true and correct by the parties: a. Chapter 10 of Division 1 of the Education Code, commencing with Section 10900, authorizes public school districts and cities to cooperate with one another for the purpose of authorizing, promoting and conducting programs of community recreation which will contribute to the attainment of general recreational and educational objectives for children and adults of the State. In this regard, school districts and cities may enter into agreements with each other to aid and cooperate in carrying out these objectives. The governing body of any school district is authorized by these provisions to use the buildings, grounds, and equipment of the district, or any of them, to carry out the recreational and educational objectives, or may grant the use of any building, grounds, or equipment of the district to any other public authority for such purposes, whenever the use of the buildings, grounds, or equipment for community recreational purposes will not interfere with use of the buildings, grounds, and equipment for any other purpose of the public school system. Accordingly, the district is authorized to enter into the Agreement with the TCSD; b. District is the owner of certain real property within the City of Temecuh, known as the site for proposed James L. Day Middie School, located at 40775 Camino Campos Verdes Drive; c. District and TCSD desire to jointly develop and utiliTe a potion of James L. Day Middie School for park, recreational and education purposes bene~ting the citizens of Temecula; d. The potion of the James L. Day Middle School to be developed for these joint purposes is approximately 9.8 acres (8.7 acres of sports fields and 1.1 acres of parking lots) located on the James L. Day Middie School pwperty depicted on R:~holmm\Cmpo~ Vetdes Joint Use Agreement vl0.doc AGRE~NT BETWEEN ~ TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFr~x} SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR ~ JOINT USE OF A FORTION OF JAMES L. DAY MIDDLE SCHOOL l~,ge 2 Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (hereafter the "Joint Use Facilities"); and e. TCSD desires to install a sports field lighting system in the future to enable use of the Joint Use Facilities at night. 2. Use of Joint Use Facilities as Park. District hereby grants to TCSD a license to use the Joint Use Facilities as a public park in accordance with the terms and restrictions as set forth in this Agreement and ordinances, rules and regulations of the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District governing the use of parks. 3. Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of twenty (20) years beginning ,1999 and shall terminate ,2019; with one ten year renewal at the TCSD's option, provided, however, that this Agreement may be mended at any time by mutual consent of both parties. In the event that the TCSD determines that Sports Field Lighting will not be installed, the TCSD reserves the right to terminate this agreement in its entirety. 4. Apportionment of Use of Joint Use Facih'ties by TCSD and District. The Joint Use Facilities shall be used for school purposes as a part of the James L. Day Middle School by the District during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except on School Holidays, and during such other hours as are required to carry out normal school purposes, including activities scheduled pursuant to the District' s calendar of events, which calendar shall be prepared and sent to the TCSD prior to the beginning of each school year. At all other times, the Joint Use Facilities shall be used for public park purposes by the TCSD and subject to such park rules and regulations for the use of the park as the TCSD may enact. TCSD shall be responsible for coordinating all use of the joint use facilities during hours of TCSD use. 5. Improvement of the Joint Use Fac'dities. The District shah install landscaping, irrigation and related improvements necessary to contact two softball fields (to include backstops, brick dust infields and dugouts), a soccer field and parking lot as shown on Exhibit A. The district shall also install, at its expense, landscaping and irrigation, on perimeter slopes adjacent to Camino Campes Verdes Drive and North General Kearny Road, depicted on Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (hereafter the "Perimeter Slope Areas"). District shall provide an irrigation controller in a separate enclosure for the Perimeter Slope Areas. The District will consider input from the TCSD regarding the standards to be used for construction and maintenance of improvements in the Perimeter Slope Areas. All improvements to be installed pursuant to this section shall be at the District' s sole cost and expense. AGREEMENT BETWEEN ~ TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFw, I} SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR ~ JOINT USE OF A FORTION OF JAMES L. DAY MYr}DLE SCHOOL l~age 3 6. TCSD Maintenance Responsibilities. During the term of this Agreement, the TCSD shall, at its sole expense, perform the following maintenance on the Joint Use Facilities and Perimeter Slope Areas pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, in accordance with reasonable maintenance standards and schedules approved by the TCSD and the District. a. Maintain the infield areas, dugouts and bachtops of all ball fields; b. Provide brick dust and mound mix for infields as needed; c. Drag and water infields before TCSD sponsored games as needed; d. Maintain, pursuant to TCSD landscaping standards, the approximately 1.5 acres of Perimeter Slope Areas. Maintenance to include all landscape material and irrigation systems. Irrigation system maintenance limited to spray heads, hterals, control valves, low voltage control wiring, main lines and rehted appurtenances within the Perimeter Slope Areas. TCSD will not maintain utilities outside Perimeter Slope Areas, entry monuments, lighting, backflow prevention devices, electrical service or meter enclosure, even if located in Perimeter Slope Areas. The Penmeter Slope Areas will only be accepted for maintenance by the TCSD if a sports field lighting system is constructed at the Joint Use Facilities; e. Maintain aH park and recreational facilities installed by the TCSD pursuant to this Agreement; and Pay for all utility costs of ball field lighting and snack bar/restroom facilities. 7. TCSD Acceptance of Maintenance Responsibility. Upon completion of the sports field lighting system, the TCSD will accept maintenance of areas shown in Exhibit B. 8. School District Maintenance Responsibilities. During the term of this Agreement, the District shaH, at its sole expense, unless otherwise provided herein, perform all maintenance on the Joint Use Facilities and the impwvements which is not being performed by the TCSD pursuant to Section 6 of this Agreement, in accordance with reasonable maintenance standards and schedules appwved by the Director of Community Services of the City and the District, including but not limited to: a. Maintain and mow the athletic field tuff on a weekly scheduled basis; b. Maintain all irrigation equipment, controllers and sprinkler heads, and repair and replace irrigation equipment or systems on athletic fields in a timely manner; AGREEMY~NT BETWEEN THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR TRE JOINT USE OF A FORTION OF JAMES L. DAY MIDDLE SCHOOL Page 4 c. Renovate the athletic ball fields on a yearly basis, to include tuff repair, aeration, and fertilization. Renovation schedule to be determined by the TCSD and the District; d. Provide water for the irrigation of the TCSD maintained Perimeter Slope Areas, at no cost to the TCSD. District to maintain water line from meter to Perimeter Slope Areas. District to maintain backflow prevention device. District aim to provide and maintain electrical service, including meter to supply separate irrigation controller for Perimeter Slope Areas. TCSD shall rephce any plant material in Perimeter Slope Areas lost to freezing or other cause. District shall be responsible for the repair of damage to the Perimeter Slope Areas due to erosion, slope failures or other damage caused by defects in the construction of the Perimeter Slope Areas; and e. TCSD shall provide sweeping of the parking lot within the Joint Use Facilities on a weekly basis. TCSD and District shall share in the actual costs of slurry seal and striping the parking lot and District shall invoice the TCSD for the TCSD's share of the costs, not to exceed 25 %, with documentation of all costs incurred, and TCSD shall pay such invoice within forty five (45) calendar days of the date of the invoice. 9. Indemnification a. TCSD agrees to hold harmless, defend, and indemnify District against all actions, claims, or demands for injury, death, loss or damages, regardless of fault or cause, by anyone whomsoever (except where such injury, death, loss, or damage was solely due to the negligent acts or omissions of District, its agents, servants, or employees), whenever such injury, death, loss or damage is a consequence of, or arises out of, or is incidental to, the use or maintenance of the Joint Use Facilities by TCSD or any other persons or parties (other than District) authorized to so use or maintain the Joint Use Facilities by TCSD pursuant to this Agreement. b. District agrees to hold harmless, defend, and indemnify TCSD against all actions, claims, or demands for injury, death, loss, or damages, regardless of fault or cause, by anyone whomsoever (except where such injury, death, loss, or damage was solely due to the negligent acts or omissions of TCSD, its agents, servants, or employees), whenever such injury, death, loss, or damage is a consequence of, or arises out of, or incidental to, the use or maintenance of the Joint Use Facilities by District or any other persons or parties (other than TCSD) authorized to so use the Joint Use Facilities by District pursuant to this Agreement. AGREEM'E~ BETWEEN THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND TEMECULA VALLEY UNWWX} SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THY~ JOINT USE OF A FORTION OF JAMES L. DAY MIDDLE SCHOOL Page 5 10. Defaults and Remedies a. Subject to the extensions of time set approved in writing by a party, failure or delay by either party to perform any term or provision of this Agreement constitutes a default under this Agreement. A party claiming a default (claimant) shah give written notice of default to the other party, specifying the default complained of. b. The claimant shall not institute proceedings against the other party nor be entitled to damages if the other party within fourteen (14) days fwm receipt of such notice immediately, with due diligence, commences to cure, correct or remedy such failure or delay and shah complete such cure, correction or remedy within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of such notice. Such cure, correction and remedy shah include payment of any costs, expenses (including attorney fees) or damages incurred by the non-defaulting party resulting from the default or during the period of default. c. Exc~t as otherwise expressly stated in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative, and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shah not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party. d. Any failure or dehys by either party in asserting any of its fights and remedies as to any default shah not operate as a waiver of any default or of any such fights or remedies, or deprive either such party of its fight to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert or enforce any such rights or remedies. e. If a default is not fully cured by the defaulting party as provided in this Paragraph, the defaulting party shah be liable to the other party for any damages caused by such default, and the non-defaulting party may thereafter (but not before) commence an action for damages against the defaulting party with respect to such default. f. If a default under this Agreement is not fully cured by the defaulting party as pwvided in this Section, the non-defaulting party at its option may thereafter (but not before) commence an action for specific performance of terms of this Agreement. g. In the event litigation is fried by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court' s judgment, shah be enti~ed to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. AGREEM~ BETWEEN ~ TEMECULA COMIVIUN1TY SERVICES DISTRICT AND TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFI~x} SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR ~ JOINT USE OF A FORTION OF JAMES L. DAY lV!IIIDLE SCHOOL Page 6 11. Force Maj eure. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, ff the performance of any act required by this Agreement to be performed by either District or TCSD is prevented or delayed by reason of any act of God, strike, lockout, labor trouble, inability to secure materials, restrictive governmental laws or regulations, or any other cause (except financial inability) not the fault of the party required to perform the act, the time for performance of the act wffi be extended for a period equivalent to the period of delay and performance of the act during the period of delay will be excused. However, nothing contained in this Section shall excuse the prompt payment by a party as required by this Agreement or the pe~ormance of any act rendered difficult or impossible solely because of the financial condition of the party required to perform the act. 12. Notices to Parties. Written notices, demands and communications among the District and TCSD, shah be sufficiently given by personal service or dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the principal offices of the District or TCSD as follows: District: Temecula Valley Unified School District 31350 Rancho Vista Road Temecuh, California 92592 Attention: Superintendent TCSD: Temecula Community Services District 43200 Business Park Drive Temecuh, California 92590 Attention: City Manager Such written notices, demands and communications may be sent in the same manner to such other addresses as either party may from time to time designate by mail as provided in this Section. 13. Agreement Bindin9 on Heirs and Successors. This Agreement shah be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, execuWrs, administraWrs, successors, and lawful assigns of the parties hereto. 14. Assignment. Neither Party shah assign or transfer this Agreement or any portion thereof without the prior written consent of the other party; provided, however, that TCSD may assign all or part of the benefits and obh'gations of this Agreement to the City of Temecuh without further consent of the District. AGREEME~ BETWEEN THY~ TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND T~MECULA VALLEY UNIFier} SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR ~ JOINT USE OF A FORTION OF JAMES L. DAY MIDDLE SCHOOL Page 7 15. Sole and Only Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the sole and only agreement between District and TCSD respecting the joint use of the Joint Use Facilities for school and park purposes. Any agreements or representations, either oral or written, respecting the matters discussed in this Agreement pertaining to the Joint Use Facilities which are not expressly set forth in this Agreement are null and void. Agreement. Time of Essence. Time is expressly declared to be of the essence of this 17. Authority to Execute. Each party hereto expressly warrants and represents that he/she/they has/have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of his/her/their governmental entity and warrants and represents that he/she/they have the authority to bind his/her/their entity to the performance of its obligations hereunder. 18. ln~rance. Each party to this Agreement shah carry public liability insurance in a reasonable mount satisfactory to the other party to protect itself and the other party, its officers, agents, servants, and employees, against claims for damage to persons and/or property, including death, arising from that party' s use of the Joint Use Facilities as provided in this Agreement. The form of the insurance sb311 be satisfactory to the other party and may include serf-insurance at levels acceptable to the other party. AGI~EEMF, NT BETWEEN THE TEh!ECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND TEMECULA VALLEY UNIF!~,r} SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR ~ JOINT USE OF A FORTION OF JAMES L. DAY MIDDLE SCHOOL Page 8 IN WITNESS WltERF~F this Agreement has been executed by the authorized representatives of the parties hemto. TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFieD SCHOOL DISTRICT President of School Board Attest: Secretary to the School Board Approval as to Form: Counsel to District TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT BY: Attest: Jeff Comerehero President Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk Approval As to Form: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney AGREEM~NT BETWEEN ~ CITY OF TEMECULA AND TEMECULA VALLEY ~ SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR ~ JOINT USE OF A FORTION OF MII)DI.~. SCHOOL NO. 4 Page 9 / / / / / I / / / / ! JOINT USE FACILITIES EXHIBIT "A" ,JOINT USE FACILITIES AGRg~!Y~NT BETWEEN ~ CITY OF TEMECULA AND TEMECUIA VALLEY UN'IF~.r~ SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR ~ JOINT USE OF A PORTION OF I~,IIDDLE SCHOOL NO. 4 Page 10 / / / / / / / / / / PERIMETER SLOPE AREAS TO BE MAINTAINED BY CITY EXHIBIT"B" PERIMETER SLOPE AREAS TO BE MAINTAINED BY CITY ,/\ / / / /X,,/// ,'/"/Cf,,~ 30241 Corte Cantarea Temecula. CA 92591 March 2. 1999 Mr. Sham Nelson Acting City Manager City o f Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 Dear Mr. Nelson: I'm a sixth grader who is a Boy Scout. Also I play club soccer. One of the things I like about living in Temecula is all the sports programs. One thing I don't like is that there are not enough fields with lights. From late fall to early spring it is difficult to get a practice time because there are too many teams on each field. I think all the middle schools should have lighted 'fields. Sports are a great way to keep kids out of trouble. We as a city need to support these activities. Sincerely, Brian Meckes Ci of ty Temecula 43200 Business Park Drn/e · Temecula. CA 92590 · Marlrr'~,,'~ddress: P.O. Box 9033 · Temecula, CA 92589-9033 (909) 6944~444 · Fax (909) 694-I 999 Man:h 9, 1999 Brian Meckes 30241 Corte Cantania Temecula, CA 92591 Dear Brian: Thank you for writing to n:H trio how much you like the sports programs in Temecul~t I am glad that you at= able to play club soccer. Not only is soccer on= of my favorin: sports, but both my daughtexs play club socca as well. I agree that the City does not have enough fields with lights, although the City's Rancho Califomia Sports Park and Paloma Sports Park do have iightext fields. Your idea to histall lights at all tlg middle schools is a great idea. In fact, it is such a good idea that the City of Temecula installed lights at Temecula Middle School and is considering lighting several middle schools in the future. Of course, this takes the cooperation of both the City and School District to install the lights and make it happen. We are hoping that additional middle school lighting projects will be in our future Capital Improvement Program for major construction projects. I appreciate your interest in tlg City's sports programs, and will share your letter with our Director of Commumty Services, who oversees them. By the way, when you get olcka', w= could sum use a sharp thinknr lilm yon in our recreation division. Best of luck to you in the future. Shawn D. Nelson Acting City Managcr cc: Herman Parker, Director of Community Services REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEM I MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FEBRUARY 23, 1999 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order 8:23 P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 4 AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Ford, Stone, and Lindemans. ABSENT: I AGENCY MEMBER: Roberts. Also present were Executive Director Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones. PUBLIC COMMENTS No input. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOM M E N DATI ON: 1.1 Approve the minutes of February 9, 1999. 2 Review and Approval of 1998-99 Mid-Year Budqet Adiustments RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 99-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1998-99 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGETS MOTION: Agency Member Stone moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and 2. The motion was seconded by Agency Member Ford and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Agency Member Roberrs who was absent. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT No comments. at EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT No comments. AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS No comments. ADJOURNMENT At 8:24 P.M., the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, March 2, 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 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MARCH 2, 1999 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 7:33 P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Ford, Roberts, Stone, and Lindemans. ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBER: None. Also present were Executive Director Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones. PUBLIC COMMENTS No input. CONSENT CALENDAR Sale of Property at 27500 Jefferson Avenue to Richardson RV, Inc. pursuant to the 1994 Lease Option A~reement RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 99-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS, DATED AS OF MARCH 2, 1999, RELATING TO THE REAL PROPERTY AT 27500 JEFFERSON AVENUE WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1-1988 City Attorney Thorson noted that minor revisions were made to the Purchase Agreement (copies were provided to the Agency Members). MOTION: Agency Member Stone moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1 as amended. The motion was seconded by Agency Member Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT No comments. Minutes,RDA\030299 I AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS No comments. ADJOURNMENT At 7:34 P.M., the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, March 23, 1999, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ATTEST: Karel Lindemans, Chairman Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/Agency Secretary [SEAL] Minutes. RDAM:)30299 2 ITEM 19 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager DATE: April 13, 1999 SUBJECT: 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 District 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. R:\STAFFRP'T'~.I 9pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 4-13-99.doc 1 BACKGROUND: On January 12, 1999 the City Council heard oral communications from Larry LeDoux, a resident on Merlot Crest, who requested that the Council overturn the Planning Commission's decision of January 6, 1999 approving this project. Councilman Karel Lindemans filed a formal appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the appeal was heard on February 9, 1999. After taking testimony, the City Council continued the matter and asked the applicant to consider alternative sites and an alternative design for the project. Staff met with the applicant several times since the hearing to discuss possible sites for the project· The applicant spoke with the owners of other potential sites and with the Cox engineers, and in all cases, were unsuccessful in securing an alternate site for the project. The applicant's efforts are detailed a letter which is attached to this staff report dated March 31, 1999 from John Murphy of TDI, Inc. With regards to an alternate design for the project, the applicant proposes to enhance the monopine with additional camouflaging options: 1) To install throe Italian Stone Pine trees 48" box-sized rather than 36" box for faster growth 2) To install additional Italian Stone Pine trees on the property's south slope as an additional buffer between the site and the residential properties on Merlot Crest. ANALYSIS: Studies have concluded that there is no demonstrated evidence that exposure to wireless service facilities is harmful to people. The 1996 Wiroless Communications Act exprossly proempts state and local government regulation of the placement, construction, and modifications of wiroless service facilities on the basis of environmental effects. Wireless service providers may appeal local decisions to the state Public Utilities Commission which may overturn decisions and modify City-imposed Conditions of Approval. The proposed Cox PCS facility 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 rosidential and non-rosidential land use designations. The water tanks and Pacific Bell monopole alroady existed at the site prior to the construction of homes on Merlot Crost Drive. The equipment is proposed to be located over 400 feet from the nearost rosidence on Merlot Crest Drive and approximately 1,100 feet from the nearost rosidence in the Chardonnay Hills subdivision to the north. The applicant has worked diligently and cooperatively with staff to addross the Council's concems. The applicant's proposed design enhancements have been added to the Conditions of Approval. 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 R:~STAFFRP'I'~.I 9pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 4-13-99.doc 2 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 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 six Italian Pine trees, 48" box in size, on both the north and south slopes of the site, 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 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. 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. R:\STAFFRP'I~219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 4-13-99.doc 3 Attachments: City Council Resolution No. 99- - Page 5 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Page 9 Correspondence dated March 31, 1999- Page 13 Minutes of the City Council hearing of February 9, 1999 - Page 14 Staff Report to the City Council dated February 9, 1999 - Page 15 R:%STAFFRPT~219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 4-13-99.doc 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 99- R:\STAFFRPT~219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 4ol 3-99.doc 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 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 public headngs pertaining to Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit - Appeal) on February 9, 1999, and April 13, 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: R:\STAFFRPT~.I 9pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 4-13-99.doc 6 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 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 residencas. 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 six Italian Pine trees, 48" box in size, on both the north and south slopes of the site, 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 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 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. 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. R:\STAFFRP'I'~.I 9pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 4-13-99.doc 7 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 ("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, 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 thirteenth day of April, 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 thirteenth day of April, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:\STAFFRPT~I 9pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 4-13-99.doc 8 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFRPT%219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 4ol 3-99.doc 9 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Revised by City Council Ap~ll3, 1999 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) buRantenna 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. Assessor's Parcel No. Approval Date: Expiration Date: 953-060-022 April 13, 1999 April 13, 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 California 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 heraby 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 R:\STAFFRPT~ 19pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 4-13-99.doc 10 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 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. Three (3) Italian Stone Pine trees shall be installed at a minimum of 3=_," 48" boxed size, on the north side of the site in accordance with approved plans, and on the south side of the site. The applicant shaft submit a revised plan that locates the three trees on the south side of the site to the Planning Manager for review and approval prior to installation. (Amended by City Council, April 13, 1999) 10. All electrical wiring associated with the antenna shall be buded underground or hidden in a manner acceptable to the Building Official. 11. The antenna must be adequately grounded, for protection against a direct stdke 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. R:\STAFFRP'I'~I 9pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 4-13-99,doc 11 14. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Manager a copy of the annual recerti~cation document issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that ensures compliance of the project with its standards and regulations. 15. The applicant shall periodically refurbish or paint as necessary to maintain the color and texture of the monopine as originally approved by the Commission. 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 extedor 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 R:~STAFFRPT~219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 4-13-99.doc 12 Date 6- 9-98 2:32 PM ;B_ANCHO WATER t90967806i5;~ i; ~ Bard of Directors: CsabaF. Ko President hlph IL St. Vi~ P~sident ~sa D. ~g K~rg d~y ~ ~kler Dirsetor of Finanee- K P. "Bob'* LeDtoms Director of Engin~nng Linda M. Fregoso Dis~nc~ 8ecr~tary/Adminiatrativ~ C. Michael Coweft Bes~ Best & Krieger LLP G2ntra| Couns,l June 9, 1998 pest-it* Fax Note 7671 I:)ststt ~/~'e> [~b ~_ BY FACSIMn .F. TRANSMLSSION (909} 694-6479 CAW of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 ~ APP!EATION NO..PA.q84)219 (MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMID Dear Sir: In accordance with the City of Temecula Development Review Comnxittee's request in connection with the above subject application, please be advised that the properW in question is located within the boundaries of the Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Currently, RCWD is considering entering into a lease agrepment with the applicant, THecommunications Development and Innovations (TDD/Cox Communications for the purpose of illstailing 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 funare plans to install radio tr~nsmi,~Sion equipment for the SCADA Systom (frequencies must be compatible). RCWD's Operations Department requests that a frequency interference study be performed at the expense of Cox Communications to verify compatibiliW of transmitting frequendes. · A separate power meter be obtained at the site from Southern California Edison (SCE). · All necessary City permitting processes be obtained prior to collstrtlctiort · An9 california Environmental QualiW 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 requiroments, and others, construction of TDI's facilities will be allowed by RCWD. naneho CaUtonda WmSsr mawlot 42135 Winchester Road · Post Office Box 9017 · Tsmecula, California 92586-9~17 * (909) 676-4101 * FAX (909) 676-0615 6- 9-98 2:32 PM ;RANCHO WATER City of Temecula Page 2 June 9, 1998 If you have any questions regarding this matter, or ff you need further clarification of the items listed, please contact me. Sincerely yours, Paul J. Go General Services Manager k\199~\ceffes'~onz .lezX9~ 1 B2.doc DAVID P. ZAPPE General Manager-Chief Engineer RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909./2~-1200 909/788-9965 FAX 51180.1 C.' City of Temecula Plannin De artment Post~glce~i~x9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 A.e. on: C-ARt>/F. Z)ONr HOE, Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: F)/~t ~ ~ -- ~ ~ I ~ ~e Distd~ d~s not no~ally r~mmend ~ndi~ons ~ land dMions or o~er land u~ ~s~ in i~mted d~. ~e Dis~ al~ d~s not lan ~ ~ I~ ~ ~, or pm~de Site DMion of R~i B~e I~em or o~er ~ h~ m~ b su~ ~. Di~ ~~m~~ ~ s~ ~es am ~ally limR~ to fiems of s~c ~e~t to be D~ i~n ~ Mine Dmina e Plan MallS, ~r ionat ~ ~e Dis~ has not mview~ ~e pm~s~ pmj~ in devil and ~ fdlo~ng ~ ~mmen~ do not in any way ~nsUt~e or imply Dis~ approval ~ e~o~ent of ~ ~s~ pmj~ ~ ~ to ~ ~ffi, p~lic ~a~ and Bfe~ or any o~er su~ issue: t/~is pr~j~ would not ~ im~ by Dis~ Master Drainage Plan ~dlffi. nor am offier ~l~es of r~ional roterest pm~. ~is proje~ involves Di~ Master Plan Idl~. ~ Di~ ~11 a~ ~mhi d s~ ~dl~es on ~en r~u--t of ~ c~. Fadlt. mu~ ~ ~~ to Dis~ i~s, ~ ~s~ plan ~ and ins~on ~11 ~ ~ui~ ~ ~ ~pt~. Plan ~, ins~on and admini~e f.s ~11 ~ r~uir~. ~is pmj~ pm~s. ~nnels, sto~ drains ~ in~. or larg~ in diameter, or ~er ~dl~es ~at ~uld ~ ~ns~demd ~ional in na~re an~or a I i~l e~ension of ~e adopt~ Master Dmi~ Plan. ~e Di~ ~ ~i~r a~pUng ~hip ~ s~ ~aliUes on ~en r~uest of ~e C~. Fadlffi. mu~ ~ ~~ ~ Di~ slnda~s, a~ D~ ~an ~ and ins~on ~11 ~ ~uir~ for Di~ a~p~n~. plan ~, ins~ and admini~Uve f~s ~11 ~ ~ui~. GENE~L INFO~ON ~is pmj~ mam uim a Na~l P~lmnt Dilate EliminaEon System (NPDES ~ S~te Water Resour~s Con~l ~. Cbamn~ br gmdi~, ~a~on, ~ ~er fi~l appmva~ s~uld ~m ~e CiW has dete~in~ ~at ~e ~j~ has ~n gmnt~ a ~R or is sh~ to ~ exempt. not ~ given un~l ~e If ~is pro'e~ involves a F~eml ~e~ Ma~gement Age~ (F~ map~ ~ plain, bn ~e C' should pdor to grading, re~a~on or o~er final appmva~f ~e pmj~, and a Le~er of Map Revision (LOMR~ pdor to ~upancy. If a natural water~ume or reaped fi~ plain ~s im a~ by ~is proj~ ~e CiW should r~uire the a li~nt to obtain a Se~on 1601/1603 Agrement ~m be Ca~mia ~padment o~ Fish and Game and a Clean ~ter Ad Sealion 4~ Petit from the U.S. ~y Co~s of Enginere, or ~en ~es~ndence ~m these a endes indicting the pmje~ is exempt ~m these ~u~rements. A Clean Water Ad Se~on 401 Water Quaff CeSSation may be required from the Io~1 California Regional Water Quali~ Control Board pdor to issuance of ~e Co~s 404 petit. ")~J ~' VeW truly youre, STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engin~r TO,' FROM: RE: County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT T : Carole Don e, AICP . ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PA98-0219 DATE: June 2, 1998 The Departmcnt 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 (9O9) 955-8980 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CORRESPONDENCE DATED MARCH 31, 1999 R:\STAFFRPT%219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 4-13-99.doc 13 De~opmmts & tnnova~ons TDI, lac. 31~08fls~lSm~t Sult~ 2~0 CoetaM~s~ CA92626 March 31,1999 714'668'B28~ FaX 714'668'8289 City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Cox Communications PCS L.P. respectfully requests that the decision to approve Planning Application PA98-0219 by the Planning Commission be upheld by the City Council. We appreciate the suggestions the City Council made at the February 9 meeting regarding our application. Cox remains committed to being as responsive as possible to the Couneil's requests. There are very specific guidelines used in selecting a monopolc site, the most critical of which are zoning approval, property owner approval, and testing for optimum radio frequency (RF) signal communication with other existing antennas which requires a maximum distance of 3miles between antennas. Please fred listed below our response to Council requests to locate other suitable locations and provide adequate illustrations of the monopine design. We believe our responses will demonstrate that Cox has worked diligently to address these issues. 1) Efforts to locate other suitable sites. Cox has researched a total of 5 different locations within and adjacent to the established search ring and within the City's zoning restrictions for this area. A short synopsis of these sites is listed below and a location map is also attached. 31008 Rancho California Road (map candidate C) Owner/Tenant: Rnncho California Water District (RCWD) Status: Current Site. This proposed location offers the best system coverage and signal communication with existing antennns within the City. The antenna would also be located near an existing PacBell antenna and other utilities, which is recommended by City ordinances. Moving this proposed location, even within a designated search ring, will impact signal strength and system coverage. 41280 BerksweH Lane (map candidate A) Owner/Tenant: Mobile Home property Status: In addition to zoning restrictions, research by our radio frequency engineers indicates this is also a technologically infeasible site due to surrounding topography and the distance from existing antennas, impacting antenna signal communication and coverage. City of Temecula March 31, 1999 Page 2 32720 Raneho California Road (map candidate B) Owner/Tenant: Calloway Winery Status: Property owner indicated that they were not interested in our proposal, as it would require them to enter into a long-term lease and interfere with current property improvements. 32575 Raneho California Road (map candidate E) Owner/Tenant: Thorton Winery Status: The property owner was willing to discuss possible options for locating on the property. However after further research by our radio · frequency engineers it was determined that this location is technologically infeasible due to the surrounding topography and that the distance from existing antennas could not adequately complete a signal. 33820 Raneho California Road (map candidate D) Owner/Tenant: Mount Palomar Winery Status: The property owner was willing to discuss possible options for location on the property, however nfter further research by our radio frequency engineers it was determined that this location is technologically infeasible due to the distance from existing antennas that could not adequately complete a signal. 2) Stealthing options. Cox has provided a stealthing option for the antenna in the form of an artificial Italian Stone pine tree. As a condition for approval from the Planning Commission, Cox is required to place three 36" box live Italian Stone pines near the base of the antenna for added coverage. However, in an effort to further disguise the antenna, Cox would be willing to increase the size of the pine trees from 36" to 48"boxes. Cox would also entertain the option of providing additional pine trees on the slope of the southern side of the water tank as an additional buffer between residential property and the antenna site. After approximately 10 months of thorough research and review with planning staff, we are confident this site not only concurs with the City ordinances but will also provide for the best service coverage to Temecula and Southwest County residents. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, TDI, Inc. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL HEARING OF FEBRUARY 9, 1999 R:\STAFFRP'T'~.I 9pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 4-13-99.doc 14 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 9, 1999 CLOSED SESSION A meeting of the City of Temecula City Council was called to order at 5:00 P.M. It was duly moved and seconded to adjourn to Closed Session pursuant to Govemment Code Sections: 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 Reclevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and First and Front, LLP and Cleveland Investment Company. Under negotiation is the pdce 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 Attomey and legal counsel pursuant to Govemment 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 Contrector's Network vs. Temecula Valley Museum and b) Claim of Westside City II (Bill Dendy). 3. Conference with City Attomey pursuant to Govemment 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 position of City Manager pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers: Comerchero, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone, and Ford. Absent: Councilmember: None. PRELUDE MUSIC The prelude music was provided by Eve Craig. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Reverend Lyle Peterson. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Mayor Pro Tem Stone. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Certificate of Special Achievement to Neil Everett Plummer for attaininn Eanle Scout rank Mayor Pro Tem Stone presented the Certificate to Neil Everett Plummer. Certificate of Special Achievement to Scott C. Robertson for attaininn Eanle Scout rank Mayor Pro Tem Stone presented the Certificate to Scott C. Robertson. Certificate of Special Achievement to Robert Bdan Slater for attaininn Eanle Scout rank Mayor Pro Tem Stone presented the Certificate to Robert Bdan Slater. Certificate of Appreciation to Honorable Arunia "Vic" Saravdadan Mayor Pro Tem .Stone presented the Certificate to Honorable Saraydadan who, with appreciation, was in attendance to accept the Certificate. Certificate of Appreciation to the Assistance Leahue of Temecula Valley Mayor Pro Tem Stone presented the Certificate which was accepted by Ms. Peggy Wiley and Ms. Maryann Edwards. Certificate of APpreciation to Joseph Kicak Mayor Ford presented the Certificate to retidng Public Works Director Kicak who relayed his delight with having had the opportunity to work for the City of Temecula. At this time, Mayor Ford presented to Councilman Comerchero his five-year service pin. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Kay Williams and Ms. Melody Brunsting, representing the Temecula Town Association on behaff of the Temecula Rod Run, presented the Councilmembers with Rod Run momentos and invited all to attend the planned Red Run festivities. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Mayor Pro Tem Stone advised that he had attended a California League of Cities meeting at which the fallout of the Vehicle License Fee was discussed, advising that there is no allocation guarantee to the cities from the State if the economy were to decline but that there will be an allocation guarantee for the upcoming second and third phase reductions. B. Impressed with the number of Eagle Scout Certificates the City has presented, Mayor Pro Tern Stone encouraged all non-profit organizations to apply for the second phase of the City's Community Services Funding Program, noting that the application deadline is March 5, 1999. C. Reviewing the ongoing progress of RTA services, Councilman Lindemans noted that in the near future individuals will be able to travel by bus to Lake Elsinore, Hemet, and Riverside. D. Commenting on the benefits the City has dedved from retidng Public Works Director Kicak's experience, Councilman Roberts noted that Mr. Kicak will be greatly missed. E. Councilman Roberts informed the City Council that he has been selected to serve on the 1999 Transportation Infrastructure and Services Steedng Committee which develops polides and recommendations for consideration and review by the Policy Committee. F. Councilman Roberts advised that he will be attending the upcoming Riverside County Transportation Committee at which a vote will be taken which would allocate $816,000 to the City for the Jefferson Avenue/Front Street rehabilitation. G. Mayor Ford advised that he has been appointed as Vice Chairman of the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency and that discussions are pursuing with regard to the multi-species plan/open space plan for Riverside County, noting that he will keep the Council apprised. CONSENTCALENDAR 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 3 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of January 12, 1999; 2.2 Approve the minutes of January 21, 1999. (Due to his absence from the January 21, 1999, City Council meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Stone noted that he would be abstaining with regard to this issue.) Resolution Approvina List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 5 6 7 8 City Treasurers Report as of December 31, 1998 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurers Report as of December 31, 1998. City Delenation to Voorbum, The Netherlands RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve an official City delegation to travel to Voorburg, The Netherlands in a joint tdp with the Temecula Sister Cities Association. First Amendment to Actinn City Mananer Anreement RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the First Amendment to the Employment Agreement. Property Insurance Renewal RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve the City of Temecula Property 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 AOOroval RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve the scheduled destruction of certain City records in accordance with the City of Temecula approved Records Retention Policy. 10 State Historical Desicanation for Bumham Store (Temecula Mercantile) 11 12 13 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Authorize the Mayor to sign the attached letter of support forwarding the Point of Historical Interest Application for the Bumham Store to the State Office of Histodc Preservation. (This Consent Calendar Item was continued to the meeting of February 23, 1999.) 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: RESOLUTION NO. 99-11 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 Califomia Road) RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Accept the Public Improvements in Tract No. 23142; 12.2 Authorize the reduction in Faithful Performance secudty to the warranty amount and initiation of the one-year warranty pedod; 12.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. Marc~adta Road/Overland Ddve and Lon~3 Canyon Creek Improvements Reimbursement AGreement with Rancho Califomia Water Distdct for Work Performed Dudno Construction - Project No. PW97-07 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Approve the attached reimbursement agreement with Rancho Califomia Water District (RCWD) for the cost to relocate existing water improvements necessary for the construction of Margadta Road/Overland Ddve 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. 14 15 Rancho Califomia Road at Interstate Route 15 - Bddcle Widenin.a and Northbound Ramp Improvements - Project No. PVV95-12 -Increase Construction Contin.aencv 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. PVV95-12) in an additional amount of $82,000.00 above the previously approved 10% contingency. Professional Services AGreement with Parsons Bdnckerhoff Quade & Dou~31as, Inc. for the Final Design Southbound Off-Ramp and 1-15 Widenine north of Winchester Road- Project No. PW98-07 - and Northbound On-Ramp Widening RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Approve the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Temecula and Parsons Bdnckerhoff 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 AGreement with Parsons Bdnckerhoff Quade & Dou~ilas, Inc. for Final Desk3n Southbound Off-Ramp and 1-15 Widenine north of Rancho California Road - Proiect No. PVV98-08 RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Approve the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Temecula and Parsons Bdnckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. for the final design of the southbound Off-Ramp and 1-15 widening north Rancho California Road - Project No. PVV98-08 - 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 18 19 20 Professional Services Aclreement for Pile DesiGn Revisions and Review and Processino of Retaining Wall ChanGes for the Ovedand Ddve Overcrossin{3 at Interstate Route 15 - Project No. PVV95-11 RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Approve a professional services agreement with TYLIN-IntemationaI-McDaniel in an amount not to exceed $35,500 for foundation pile redesign and review of revised retaining walls for the Ovedand 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. Amendment No. I to Professional Services Aareement with Petra Geotechnical. Inc. for the Rancho California Road/Interstate Route 15 InterchanGe - Project No. PW95-12 RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Approve Amendment No. I to Professional Services Agreement between the City of Temecula and Petra Geotechnicel, Inc. to provide additional Professional Inspection Services for the Rancho California Road/Interstate Route 15 Interchange- Project No. PVV95-12 - in an amount not to exceed $29,000.00 and authorize the Mayor to sign Amendment No. 1. Professional Services AGreement with Parsons Bdnckerhoff Quade & DouGlas. Inc. for Additional Improvements for the Rancho California Road InterchanGe RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Approve a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Temecula and Parsons Bdnckerhoff 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 SiGn Replacement Proiect - Project No. PW98-18 RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Approve the plans and sped~cations and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Street Name Sign Replacement - Project No. PW98-18. 21 Maroadta Road/Overland Ddve Street Img>rovement Sewer Ag3reement wilt Pacific Century Homes for Work to be Performed dudng3 Project No. PW97-07 RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 Approve the attached Agreement with Pacific Century Homes for the cost to install certain sewer improvements willin the Margadta Road/Overland Ddve Street Improvement - Project No. PW97-07 - that is necessary to serve lie 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. 22 Professional Services Acareement for Ovedand Ddve Overcrossing3 - Project No. PW95-11 RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 Approve a Professional Services Agreement for Construction Support Services for Ovedand Ddve Overcrossing - Project No. PW95-11 - to TYLIN Intemational- McDaniel for $38,270.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute lie contract; 22.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed contingency amount of $3,827.00 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. 23 Acceleration of Budcaeted Funds for Ovedand Ddve Overcrossinca - Project No. PW95-11 RECOMMENDATION: 23.1 Approve the acceleration of $4,230,000.00 from lie Capital Improvement Budget for FY 1999-2000 to the current FY1998-1999 budget for the Ovedand Drive Overcrossing - Project No. PW95-11. 24 Second Readinca 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 MOTION: Councilman Roberrs moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-9,11-13, 15-22, and 24 (Item No. 10 was continued to the FebmaW 23, 1999, City Coundl meeting; Item Nos. 14 and 23 were pulled for separate discussion; see below). The motion was seconded by Coundlman Lindemans and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Mayor Pro Tern Stone who abstained with regard to Item No. 2.2. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS SEPARATELY DISCUSSED 14 Rancho Califomia Road at Interstate Route 15 - Bddcie Widenin.a and Northbound Ramp Improvements - Proiect No. PVV95-12 - Increase Construction Contin.aency RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Authorize the Acting City Manager to approve change orders with Riverside Construction Company for Rancho Califomia Road at Interstate Route 15 - Bddge Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements (Project No. PVV95-12) in an additional amount of $82,000.00 above the previously approved 10% contingency. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Stone, Public Works Director Kicak presented the staff report (as per agenda material) with Senior Engineer Hughes further clarifying the proposed change order increase, commenting on the unpredictable utility conflicts, and noting that the change orders for this project have been carefully reviewed and monitored by staff and that the proposed costs are justifiable, MOTION: Councilman Lindemans moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 23 Acceleration of Budc~eted Funds for Ovedand Dd've Overcrossino - Project No. PW95-11 RECOMMENDATION: 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 Ovedand Ddve Overcrossing - Project No. PVV95-11. Public Works Director Kicak reviewed the staff report (of record). MOTION: Councilman Comerchero moved to approve the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PUBLIC HEARINGS 25 ADDeal of the Planninn Commission's Denial of Planninca AoDlication No. PA98-0347 (Development Plan) - The desion. construction and operation of 15 speculative industrial/manufactudn~office buildincas t~~~in~ 81,885 scauara feet located on two Darcels consistinca of 6.02 acres with assodated Darkinca and landscaDinca (located on the west side of Commerce Center Ddve adiacent to Murdeta 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 96- 0347 DEVELOPMENT PLAN - THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF 15 SPECULATIVE INDUSTRIAL, MANUFACTURING, OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 81,886 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. 921400-017 AND 921-400-044 In light of the submittal time of the information received from the application, Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that staff was unable to provide it in the staff report and that staff has not had the opportunity to fully review the information which Mr. Markham will be orally reviewing. At this time, Mayor Ford opened the public headng. Referencing submitted matedal of record (copies provided to the Councilmembers), Mr. Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, representing the applicant, informed the Coundl of the applicant's willingness to construct a concrete block/tilt-up wall along the south side; reviewed the parking requirements for office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses, noting that the proposed project will exceed those requirements, as per the Development Code, by 54 spaces; and clarified that parking spaces are being assigned to each individual building, advising that there will be no shared parking. Mr. Markham further noted the following: that each individual owner will own the individual building pad and that the landscaping, driveways, and parking area will be owned by the property association; 10 · that the proposed CC&Rs have been provided to staff for review; · that the proposed development will as well fall under the jurisdiction of the Winchester Commerce Centers CC&Rs, which also prohibits outside storage; · that the potential tenants/owners have expressed a desire to retain the gated areas; that the developer will provide fencing but that the gates will not be installed unless the particular buyer and/or tenant is desirous to have them installed at which time a gate could be installed at the owners own accord; that the applicant has requested the imposition of two Conditions of Approval - one permiffing the installation of fencing and gating after the racordation of the Final Map and after the formation of the property association and another condition prohibiting outside storage. If the Council were to disapprove of the proposed fencing and gating plans, Mr. Markham noted that the applicant would request that the Council approve, at a minimum, fencing between the vadous units to cieady delineate the individual parking areas for each unit. With respect to a suggestion mentioned at the January 26, 1999, City Coundl meeting, Mr. Markham advised that the placement of a from gate for the overall project would not be feasible in that it would limit off- hour derivedes. Addressing the concem with regard to outside storage and related Code enforcement, Mr. Markham, for Coundlman Comerchero, advised that with the Council's imposition of a Condition of Approval prohibiting outside storage, the City would have measures in place to address such a violation. Councilman Lindemans requested that the proposed individual unit fencing be higher and that it be moved back, ensudng enough room four parked cars, and that the proposed fencing, for the middle units, be removed. By way of overheads, Mr. Markham further elaborated on the proposed fencing and gating plan, noting that the applicant, at a minimum, would request that the delineating fences be approved with no gates. Mr. Markham advised that if gates were approved, the necessary access would be provided to the Fire DepartmenL It was noted, by Mr. Markham, that the parcel merger has been filed but that it was put on hold after the Planning Commission hearing. City Attomey Thorson advised that the City Council may impose a Condition of Approval requiring the removal of the fencing within a specified time if outside storage ware to occur; noted that prior to enforcing the condition, the Planning Commission must hold a public headng to determine failure of adhedng to the Condition of Approval; suggested that the Council approve two Conditions of Approval - one to prohibit outside storage and another which would address the number of allowable violations pdor to it being reviewed by the Planning Commission for possible revocation of the fencing; and clarified that imposition of a condition with regard to the outside storage would grant the City the authority to address this issue. Deputy City Manager Thomhill advised, for Mayor Ford, that each property must adhere to its own parking requirements and if those requirements are not met, the owner must apply for an adjustment. 11 Commenting on the City's need for such units and noting that once a business outgrows such a unit and parking requirements are no longer met, the owner/tenant could relocate to a larger site within the City; therefore, in light of the proposed changes, Mayor Pro Tem Stone, echoed by Councilman Roberts, spoke in support of the request. As well commenting on the City's need for such a project, Deputy City Manager Thomhill spoke in support of the proposed project with the proposed changes relative to fencing material, block wall, conditions of approval with regard to outside storage and number of allowable violations pdor to it requiring a Planning Commission public headng. Mr. Thornhill noted that the Fire Department had expressed no concem with regard to this project. Echoing Mayor Pro Tern Stone's comment with regard to the City's need for such a project, Councilman Comerchero relayed his apprehension with regard to the fencing but advised that his pdmary concern was with regard to the outside storage, noting that this concem has been addressed. Although he would favor the elimination of additional fencing, Coundlman Comerchero relayed his support of the project if the elimination of the gates were acceptable. If the center gates were removed, Councilman Lindemans relayed his support of the project. Following some additional discussion with regard to the fencing and the gates, it was the consensus of the City Coundl that the fencing be set back two parking spaces for each unit, thereby, providing additional room in front of the gate and less room behind the gate and, thereby, decreasing the potential space for outside storage. Mr. Markham voiced no objection to Council's recommendation to set the fencing further back and as well agreed to eliminate the center gates (6 total) but relayed the applicant's desire to retain the cross fencing to propedy delineate parking spaces per unit. In response to City Attomey Thorson's comments, the following motion was offered: MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to direct staff to amend the proposed resolution to appropriately reflect the changes as recommended by the City Council and to agendize the matter for the February 23, 1999, City Council meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberrs and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. At 9:04 P.M., Mayor Ford called a short recess and reconvened the meeting at 9:16 P.M. 26 ADDeal Of the Plannina Commission's ADOroval of Planning ADDlication No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit) - Cox Communications Wireless Personal Communications Svstem (PCS) with antennas mounted atoD a 60-foot hk3h monoDole dis.auised as an everareen Dine tree ("monoDine") at the Rancho California Water Distdct 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: 12 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 Although staff had as well expressed some concem with regard to the aesthetics of the proposed monopole, Deputy City Manager Thornhill presented the staff report (of record) and advised that, in light of given studies indicating that such facilities pose no health problems, staff has no concam with regard to this issue; and advised that the zoning for this facility is in conformanca with the City's General Plan. City Attomey Thorson noted that Coundlman Lindemans had appealed this matter on the basis of the importance of the issue and the need for the City Coundl to review it; a~lvised that the appeal documents are contained in the record; and noted that the applicant has the burden of proof. In response to the residents' concem relative to health threats posed by such a facility, City Attorney Thorson referenced the opinions of several experts in the electromagnetic emissions field which is that there are not health dsks associated with such facilities. Mr. Thorson as well referenced Federal law which states that no State or local government may regulate the placement, construction, or modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of environmental affects of electromagnetic emissions. He noted that the Federal government has assumed jurisdiction over this issue which precludes any State/County/City regulations. At this time, Mayor Ford opened the public headng. Mr. Greg Moralson, representing Cox Communications, addressed several concerns/questions from the City Council, noting the following: · that the Pacific Bell site is 50' high and that it was constructed in 1996 pdor to the construction of the existing homes; · that alternative sites were explored but in light of the existing water tank and the existing pole viewed this as the most suitable location; · that the proposed pole could be 60' high but that the extra branches for aesthetic purposes raises the height to 65'; · that he has attempted to address the residents' concams with regard to the health issues in vadous ways including wdtten communications from the Amedcan Cancer Society; Mr. Morrison provided additional explanation of radio signal frequency; · that the 65' pole raises no FAA concerns; 13 · that a majodty of the pole will be located behind the existing water tank and that the residents will actually see approximately 30' of the pole; · that additional foliage could be provided to further address the aesthetic appearance and to hide the panels; · that the life expectancy of the fake foliage is approximately 5 to 10 years, advising that the Planning Commission had added a condition requiring inspection of the foliage every couple of years to ensure aesthetic maintenance. Mr. Paul Gonzalez, representing the Water District, informed the Councilmembers that he was in attendance to answer any questions and/or concems. Referencing the FCC's ruling regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless services, Mr. Larry LeDoux, 32004 Medot Crest, noted that the ruling does provide the local agency the ability to regulate placement of such facilities and stated that the City may deny such a fadlity. Concurring with Mr. LeDoux's comment, Mayor Pro Tern Stone noted that the City may deny such a facility as long as it is not based on health concerns as preempted by the Federal government. Viewing the proposed project as visually unacceptable, Mr. Frank DiGiacomo, 32032 Medot Crest, relayed his opposition to the proposed project and suggested that the City Coundl determine whether or not them may be a conflict of interest between the Board Members for Cox Communications and the Water District. In response to Mr. DiGiacomo's comment, Mayor Pro Tern Stone noted that the Board Members of the Water Distdct are elected officials and, therefore, must adhere to annual filing requirements of the Fair Political Practice Commission. Submitting a petition in objection to the project, Mr. Shawn Biede, 32016 Medot Crest, questioned the cumulative impact additional facilities of this kind would have on the noted health concerns; viewed the public notification process for this project as limited; objected to the visual appearance of this facility; and stated that such a facility should not be located in a residential area. City Attomey Thorson noted that the City may deny this project as long as substantial evidence can support the denial and that it not be related to aesthetic appearance. Mayor Pro Tem Stone suggested that the height of the tower be lowered. Councilman Lindemans relayed his concems with such facilities with regard to aesthetic appearance and health issues. Viewing the site as aesthetically unpleasing, Councilman Roberts as well commented on the cumulative impacts such facilities may have on the health issues and, therefore, suggested the exploration of another location. Referencing the communication from the Amedcan Cancer Society, Mayor Pro Tem Stone voiced no concern with regard to electromagnetic emissions; noted that the area of discussion has been zoned to accommodate a facility such as the one which is being proposed; objected to the proliferation of such poles and, therefore, suggested that the Zoning Ordinance be 14 readdressed and that architectural guidelines for such facilities be created; and staid that such facilities should require regularly scheduled evaluations to address health concerns. If this project were approved, Mr. Stone suggested the formation of a subcommittee comprised of City Councilmembers and the residents in order to create a suitable design. Although echoing the concem of cumulative impact of such facilities, Councilman Comerchem spoke in support of the project but relayed his desire that pedodic maintenance inspections be conducted as imposed by the Planning Commission and further ciadfied that such inspections should be conducted every two years. Although he is not of the opinion that these type of facilities create a health dsk, Mayor Ford relayed a concem as to the proliferation of such facilities. If the City were to deny this project, Mr. Ford noted that the project would be appealed at which time the City would have no enforcement guidelines. Mayor Ford suggested that Cox Communications explore altemative sites. Noting that although the zoning for the site is accurate, Mr. Ford advised that such zoning was initially intended for the Water Distdct tank. City Attorney Thorson suggested that the public headng not be closed in order to give the applicant the opportunity to investigate alternative sites as well as to explore alternative foliage coverings for aesthetic purposes. MOTION: Councilman Comerchero moved to keep the public headng open and to direct staff to address with the applicant altemative sites as well as address the aesthetic appearance and that the matter be continued to the March 23, 1999, City Council meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COUNCIL BUSINESS 27 Award of Construction Contract for Pala Road Brid.ae Proiect - Project No. PVV97-15 - Federal Prciect No. BRLS-5459(003) RECOMMENDATION: 27.1 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; 27.2 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; 27.3 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 vadous accounts as follows: · Environmental $ 780,000.00 · Administration $ 820,700.00 · Construction $3,000,000.00 15 Director of Public Works Kicak reviewed the staff report including the amended supplemental matedal (of record) and provided darffication as to the timing of the vadous phases of this project. MOTION: Councilman Roberts moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT On behalf of City staff, Acting City Manager Nelson wished retidng Public Works Director Kicak and his wife a joyous retirement and noted that Senior Engineer Hughes will be serving as the Acting Public Works Director. In closing, he wished his wife, Stephanie, a Happy Birthday. In light of the contributions the City has bene~ted as a result of retidng Public Works Director Kicak's experience and background, Mayor Pro Tern Stone requested that the naming of the Public Works Yard be agendized for the next City Council meeting and suggested that it be named the Joe Kicak Public Works Yard. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT City Attomey Thorson advised that there were no reportable actions from the Closed Session under the Brown Act. ADJOURNMENT At 10:40 P.M., Mayor Ford formally adjoumed the City Council meeting to Thursday, February 18, 1999, 5:00 P.M., for the purpose of Closed Session with a Workshop meeting scheduled at 6:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula, California. ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, rk [SEAL} 16 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL DATED FEBRUARY 9, 1999 R:\STAFFRPT%219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 4-13-99.doc 15 APPROV, TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager 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 Califomia Water District water tank site at 3100 Rancho Califomia 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 ~)ATA~)EPTS~PLANNING~TAFFRpT~219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-AppeaI.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' Assodation at the project site to hear concams of adjacent property owners. For the next three months TDI and staff worked together to research altemative locations and monopole heights. On October 14, 1998 TDI presented a creative solution to address the concems of the adjacent homeowners, by Iowedng 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 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 regarding the emission of electromagnetic fields (EMF) from the Cox equipmenL They protested the time of the headng 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 Medot Crest Ddve 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 Attomey 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 Medot Crest, who requested that the Coundl overturn the Planning Commission's decision. 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 facilities 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 Preemotion The concem 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 Attomey 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. ~\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING%STAFFRpT~.I 9pa98.CC STAFFR PT-Appeal.doc 2 Land Use Compatibility The applicant proposes to locate the Cox Communications equipment on a site zoned for Public and Institutional fadlities. The site is owned by the Rancho California Water Distdct and currently has two existing above-ground water tanks and assodated pump equipment, as well as a 50--foot high Padtic 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 dustedrig of public and institutional radiities to the extent possible in both residential and non- residential land use designations. The water tanks and Padtic Bell monopole existed at the site pdor to the construction of homes on Medot Crest Ddve. Project Design The applicanrs 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 Padtic Bell monopole. Three (3) Italian Stone Pine trees and an irhgation 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 Padtic 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 fadlities already at the site. The design of the fadlities 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 radiities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or Courtall 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 concem 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 hybdd of vadous standards developed by others. The FCC controls frequendes used by various entities and regulates the certification of their fadlities. 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 Attomey 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 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. Attachments: 3. 4. 5. 6. City Council Resolution No. 9cJ- - Page 5 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Page 9 Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision- Page 10 Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission headng of December 16, 1998 - Page Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission headng 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 ~)ATA%DEPTS~LANNING~STAFFRPT~I 9pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal.doc 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 99- \\TEMEC_FS201~DATA\DEPTS~LANNING~STAFFRpT~.19pa98.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 Applicahon 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. Findinas. That City Council, in denying Planning Application No. PA98-02 19 (Conditional Use Permit -Appeal) and upholding the Planning Commission's decision approving \\TEMEC_FS201 ~:)ATA~DEPTS~PLANNING\STAFFRPT~I 9pa98.CC STAFFR PT-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 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 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 ("monopme") located at the Rancho California ',\TEMEC_FS201~)ATA%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~EPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRpT~219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal.doc 8 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL \~TEMEC_FS201 ',DATA~DEPTS~LANNING~STAFFRPT~219pa98. 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. Assessor's Parcel No. 953-060-022 Approval Date: January 6, 1999 Expiration Date: January 6, 2001 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within 1. 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 R:~STAFFRPT~lJ~L98 PC STAFF REK)RT 2.doc 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 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 shaft 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 fimbs 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 cdteria as set forth in the Uniform Building Code when deemed necassanj 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 periodically refurbish or paint as necessary to maintain the color and texture of the monopine as originally approvod by the Commission. R:~STAFFRPT~2191n.98 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 extedor 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 electricel 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:~TAFFRPT~Igp~g8 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc 11 Board orDirecr~r8: Csabaf. Ko Presiaent Raild~ H, D~dly Sr. Vice Premdent Lisa D. Herman Deal K-tberg $oe~C &, Mclntyre JefFrey L Misskler George ~. Woods Of Sc~rs: Job. n F, Henxlilnr General ManBier Phillip I, Forbes /~r~ctnr ar Finknee - ~. P. *~ob~ Direc~r ef~nEmeennf ICenneek C. De~ly Perry P,, Louek Linda M. Serviees Martage~ Be~t Best & F,.rieger LLP ~nml Counsel June 9, 1998 · - BY FACSnvm' .'F. TRANS1Vn'-~-qON (909) 694-,6479 CRy of Temecula Pl3nning Department P,O, Box 9033 TPmectfia, CA 92589-9033 PLANNING APHr, ATION NO,. PA,qSO219 (MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PER..~ De~ S~ 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 gancho Cslifornia Water District (RCWD). Currently, RCWD is considering entering into a lease agrepment with the applicant, Telecommunications Development and Innovations CIDI)/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 requtrpments: · 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 radio tran~mi.~sion 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 frequencies. · A separate power meter be obtained at the site from Southern California Edison (SCE). · All necessary City permit~g processes be obtained prior to construction. · ANT;, 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 facililies will be allowed by RCWD. Rmncho Caatfmfnia Wardr Dimetot 42135 Winchester P, aad , Post 0ffice Box 9017 · Temecuh, Califema 925899017 * (929) 6764101 , FAX (909) 676-0615 J City or Temecula Paffe 2 June 9, 1998 If yOU have any questions regarding this matter, or if you need further clarification of the items listed, please contact me. Sincerely yours, Paul J. Gonz:~ez _~~~--_L) General Sexyices Manager DAVID P. ZAPPE General Manager-Chief Engineer ~~95 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 1 / 51180.1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT C.' C~y of Temecula Plannin De artmerit Posto ? .i x9033 Temecula. Califomia 92589-9033 Attention: · adies and eentieme.: Re: The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not an check ~ land use cases, or provide Sits Division of Real Estate letters or offer flood hazard reJ~.rts for su~:~ic~es. Disffict comments/reCommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific roterest to co=ol and dreina · f. ci.. ,, ich ld. consi reU a co.,po.e.P or .=ension of a .,aster'-',, s stem. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way constitute or imply Distdct approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue: t/This pm. ject would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan radiities nor am other fadlilies of regional anterest proposed. This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will acce ownershi of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and ~strict plan check and inspection will be requir~l for Disti'iot a__r~e_ptsnce. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other fadlilies that could be consadered regional in nattam and/or a I ical extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The District ~w~o~al°~ consider accepting ownership of such taalmes on written _r.~uest of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards and Dmtrict I~_an check and inspection will be required for District ac<'e__ptance. plan check, inspection and ~administrative fees will be required. ,/This project is located within the limits of the Districts RR, I ?F% CREE~ ?"Er,'/ECUL..A VFaLL~e. GENERAL INFORMATION This project ma re uire a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES permit Resources Con~x~l ~oard. Clearance for grading, redordation, or other final appmvat should from the State Water City has determined that the project has 10~en granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. not be given until the If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project, the City should require the a ticant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement fr6m the CalifOrnia Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Pv~Xter Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these a endes indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quail CeR~cation pmeaymlibt.e required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board pdor to issuance Of ~e Corps 404 Very truly yours, ...: . STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer TO: FROM: County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT : Carole Don e, AICP mental Health Specialist III CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PAgg-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-S980 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION \~TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA~DEPTS~oLANNING~STAFFRPT~I 9pa98,CC STAFFRPT-Appeal.doc 10 c~ty of Community Development Department 43200 Business Park Drive · Temecula · CA · 92590 P.O. Box 9033, Temecuh · CA · 92S89-9033 (909) 694-6400 · FAX (909) 694-6477 Appea Original Case Number(s) A. PLANNING APPLICATION N0, PA98-0219 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) The purpose of the appeal procedure is to provide a method of recourse for persons aggrieved by or dissatisfied with an action takP. m by an administrative agency of the City in the administration or enforcement of any provisions of the Development Code. B. FI~.IN(~ RF. QtlIRF. IViFNT,~ 1. Development Application. 2. Appeal Form. 3. Filing Fee. C. NOTICE OF APPI~.AI. - TIIViF. Y .IM]T A notice of an aplx:al 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 wiltfin fifL_,~n (15) calendar days after service of written notice of the decision. D. NOTICE OF APP~AT. - ~ONT~,NT~ Appealing the decision of: Planning Commission on January 6, 1999. (Specify ~e~tor of Ph--ing or 1~ Commim~ion ~ A~tion Specify exactly what is being appealed: Decision of approval. 1~: \FA.~!~.%f'tla~C\i%!~.,~t~ "//16197 kl.b ] Reason or justification to support the appeal. Appellant must submit with this appeal each issue whi,-' the appellant alleges was wrongly determined together with every agreement and a copy of every it~ of evidence. (Attach separat~ sheet of paper if necessary). The application raises a number of imDortant land use issues which should be decided by the City Council. Desired action to be taken: I express no opinion either in favor of or in oDDosition 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 C5) calendar days in which to re~le the notice of al~x~l. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING OF DECEMBER 16, 1998 \\TEMEC_FS201~DATA~)EPTS~LANNING~STAFFRpT~219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal.doc 11 DRAFT 4. Plannina ADDlication 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 Heanng. 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 Medot 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 Moralsion, 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. DRAFT 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 h~s 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 Biede Mr. Frank DiGiacomo Mr. Mede Campbell Mr. Leo Finegold 32004 Medot Crest 32016 Medot Crest 32032 Medot Crest 32027 Medot Crest 32036 Medot 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 Amedcan 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. Biede almost conclusively focused on powedine electdc 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 Cudey clarified that since the Federal Communication Act of 1996. expressly considered the environmental effects that it is not in our jurisdiction to base the criteda of the land use findings on the EMF emissions, due to the aforementioned preemption, noting that DRAFT the Public Utilities Commission could overfide a decision, if based upon the stated cdtena; 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 Slaven 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 Slaven and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exceDtion 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'Gredy 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 ~DATAM:)EPTS~PLANN ING~STAFFRPT~I 9pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal.doc 12 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. PC 99-1)0t 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 architectural elevations per staff recommendation Condition No. 16, section C, to not replace the Deodar Cedar tree 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. Plannina 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 60-foot monopole constructed to simulate a pine tree ("~onopine"), one (1) Global PosiUoning System (GPS) antenna, and six (6) cabinets housing a base transceiver steUon (BTS) unit and other electronic and battery 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 report (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 pertaining 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 assodated with this project, presenting data from the Amedcan Cancer Society, clarifying that non-ionizing radiation (i.e., radio frequency waves) is not a carcinogen and does not promote the growth of can~er once it has started; by way of overheads, presented a detailed overview of the site selection process, the criteria used to determine potential site locations, and the rationale forthe present proposed site plan (per supplemental agenda material). DRAFT Mr. Paul Gortzalez, rapresenting RCWD (Rancho California Water District), provided a brief summary of District. Palicy 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 wii offset rate increases; and relayed that RCWD has corresponded with Lany LeDoux, a concerned 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 tollowing individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed project, pdman'ly due to health ooncems associated with the radiowave emissions from the monopole: Shawn Biede Terry Hood Robert Rasband 32016 Medot Crest 32040 Medot Crest 32044 Medot Crest ChainNoman Slaven dosed the public hearing. Attorney Curley 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 parlicular projed (spedfed in the agenda material); 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 parlk:ular 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 concems; and dadfled the PUC's (Public Utility Commission) state constitutional ability to override the City's governing body's decision if the decision negatively affects its charge to ensure fadlitation of the public telecommunication system. Commissioner Naggar expressed difficulty voting on this padicular project, noting that he had researched the legal information Attorney 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 wolfare of the community. Commissioner Soltysiak expressed that although he had compassion for the cornmunity's noted concern, since there was deady 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 dadred the rationale for continuing the project at the December 16, 1999 Planning Commission meeting; noted that the Commission's charge had been clarified to make a determination based on the Findings (of record) reiterated by Attomey Cudey, operating under the Laws of the State of Califomia; for informational puffDoses, 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 suppod the project. MOTION: Commissioner Soltysiak moved to dose the public hearing; adopt a Notice of Exemplion for Planning Application No. PA98-0219; and adopt Resolution No. 99-(X)2 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 APPUCATION 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 CAUFORNIA 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 Guerriero 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 wil 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 of terms 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 Amedcan 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 appredated 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, concerning conformance of the architectural standard for specific uses, Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that staff could investigate and expand the guidelines to improve the dadty. ATTACHMENT NO. 5 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DATED DECEMBER 16, 1998 ~\TEMEC_FS201 ~)ATA~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT,,219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-AppeaI.¢Ioc 13 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 1998 °/i'lel/v4 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 California 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) PROPOSEDZONING: 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 ~:)ATA%DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~.I 9PA98.PC .cloc 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 monapole heights. On October 14, 1998 TDI presented a creative solution to address the concems of the adjacent homeowners, by lowering the antennas on the monapole 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 Directors Heanng was conducted on November 12, 1998. Five homeowners from the new Appalachia tract located to the south of the project site testified to voice concems 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 monapine 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 monapole. 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 Proiect Desjan 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 owners. Electromaanetic Fields The concem 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 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. ~\TEMEC_F S201 ~DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT~.I 9PA98.PC .doc 2 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. 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 California, Berkeley, to attend the Commission headng 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 I (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." 4. 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~EPTS\PLANNING~STAFFR PT~I 9PA98.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 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. 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~219PA98.PC,doc 4 · ATTACHMENT NO. 2 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'$ HEARING OF NOVEMBER 12, 1998' ~%TEMEC_FS201%DATA~DEPTS~LANN ING~STAFFR FT~I laAgB. pC .~io¢ 13 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR NOVEMBER 12, 1998 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Pl.nn{ng 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 P13--er Carole Donahoe and Minute Clerk Catlay Davis. 1. Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Project PI~--er Carole Donahoe presented the staff report for PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Perm/.'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 ('monopine'), one (1) Global Positioning System (GPS) antenna, and six (6') cabinets housing a base tr'~n~ceiver station (BTS) unit and other electronic and banery equipment located at the Rancho California Water District water ~nJ~ site at 3 100 Rancho CaJifornia 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 th~.~ could be located somewhere else. Shawn Bierle, 32016 Merlot Crest, Temecula spoke in opposition to the project due to health conceF~s. Frank DiGiacomo, 32032 Merlot Ciest, 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 poss~le 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:W=ORM~DIRHK*,R.MIN 1111~/9~ lab Applicant Adan Madrid, TDI, Inc., 3150 Bristol Strut, Suite 250, Costa Mesa, 'CA concurre-' with the modifie~l Conditions of Approval. Senior Planner Matthew Fagan continued this matter to a noticed Plnnning Commission meeting for the following reasons: 1. Requests from homeowners for me to further study the issues. 2. Requests from homeowners for additional hfformation regarding EMFs 3. Requests from homeowners for additional exhibits such as line of sight 4. RequestS from homeowners to hold a hearing at a more convenient time for residents who work. The me~ting was adjourned at 2:23 P.M. Matth~ SeEPlanner R:~FORM~DIRHF. AR. MIN II/i~/~ klb · ATTACHMENT NO. 3 .~. ':~:,-'.. , _ EXHIBITS %%TEMEC_FS201 ~DATAIDEPTS%PLANNING%STAFFRPT'219PA98.PC.i:kx: 14 CITY OF TEMECULA PROPOSED FACILITY CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998 VICINITY MAP R:\STAFFP, PT~ 19PA98. 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:~STAFFRPTX2 19PA98.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 CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT D SURROUNDING LAND U~' PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998 R:~STAFF~ 19PA98.PC.doc CITY OF TEMECULA ([) le \ (() ROe'E) IU~II. NN C£) TR([ ([) CHNN UNK FiNC -(E) e'-O' W GUTTER (E) S[w(n M&N,O~ CATCH BArN ,/ "'~[) C~WN U;~ rO~S ~--(C) O~T/Oe4SS mqt. x-~ 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 PLY" PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998 R: ~STAFFRPT~219PA98. PC .doc CITY OF TEMECULA [},_fVATION NOT SHOWN IN T~L/E PLNq[ NORTH ELEVATION j SCALE:0 ~/S'-~'- ' ~ 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~ 19PAs)8. PC. doc ; ; : _, .- ,, ; Exposure in Mjcrowatts/cm2 CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT I PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 16, 1998 TYPICAL EXPOSURE CHART CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (MInor Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT J SITE CROSS SECTIO 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_FS201M:)ATA~EPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~I 9pa98.CC STAFFR PToAppeal,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 ("monopine"). LOCATION: North of Rancho California Road, west of Butterfield Stage Road, east of Meadows Parkway, and south of La Serena Way on Rancho California Water Distdct property. CASE STATUS: This project was presented to the Planning Commission on Decamber 16, 1998, at which time the Commission heard testimony from the applicanrs representatives including Dr. Jerrold T. Bushberg. The Commission also received testimony and a petition in opposition from adjacent homeowners on Medot Crest. The Commission continued the case to January 6, 1999 and asked the applicanrs 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:~TAFFRPT'~ 19pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc l 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 Attomey'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 headng of December 16, 1998, the Commission considered the following items as possible additions to the Conditions of Approval: Pdor 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~lgpag8 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc 2 ATTACHMENTS: PC Resolution 99- - Blue Page 4 Exhibit A Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8 Documents from the City Attomey'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 Distdct to Larry Ledoux dated December 21, 1998 - Blue Page 13 Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated December 16, 1998 - Blue Page 14 R:%STAFFRPT~Igpa.98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 99- R:~STAFFRP'I~lgpag8 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doe 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 9g- 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 headngs 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. FindinGs. 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~Igpa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doe 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 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. 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 Categoncal Exemption under Section 15301 Existing Facilities, Class I (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:~STAFFRFI'x219pa98 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:~STAFFRPT~219pag8 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 MUNICATIONS FACILITIES," PAGES 129-130 R:~TAFFRFF,219pt98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc 12 ' . Attachment A idled ALJ/BDP/sid · "-'-' "'MAY 14 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 OP, DEit 159-A I~UT.~--~ 2ELATING TO THE UQ~S'x'KuCTION OF r~T.T.ULAR RADIOT~.~ItONE FACTT.ITT~.~ 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 oppo~nity to present their positions. "The '~11u1~ utiliey'~ill have-the burden of" proof to demonstrate that accommodating local. agency requirements - I - R. 9o-o1-o12 AX, J/ aOP/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 Juris~iction pu~SU~n~ ~o"~its -authority under Article XII, Section 8 of the California Constitution. Backerround The issue before the Conunission 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 ~egulation 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 t0 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 i 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 Apprpve 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. GOIS9-A ~6n~s t0crecc~j~e:that'-primary authority regarding cell siting ~SsUes should=continUe tO'be deferred to local authorities. Local authorities would continue to issue permits, oversee-'California-Enviroru~ne&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 Remslate 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 =hat 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 interes=s of their community, they should be the ones to determine whether or not they wan= 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 la~d 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 CEQAi and (c).=he satisfaction of~noticing procedures for both land use approvals and CEQA_~rocedures. However, because statewide - 6 - R.90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/sid telecommunications interests in some infrequent cases may be i'n 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 regulatorypolicy, or that the Commission should exercise oversight over individual cell site applications currently being handled by local agencies. Local Governments Should Not and Have Not Demonstrated the Ability or Interest ~- Investigating Adverse Health and Safetv 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 =echnologies. In addition =o =he na=ional research being conduc=eu on Elec=romagnetic Field (EMF) effects of cellular =ransmission, there is increased scrutiny of GSM technology for Personal Communications Services (PCS) facilities. AcCording to UCAN, problems associa=ed with GSM are becoming increasingly apparent, particularly to users of hearing aids, and pacemakers. Also, UCAN argues tha= local governments do not have the expertise to determine whether GSM technology should be.~used in this country. UCAN notes that GO 159-Amands=es that local governments shall issue land use approvals and act as the Lead Agency to satisfy CEQA. UCAN believes 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 con=rol 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 providers throughout the United States are addressing this matter and are currently working with the hearing-impaired community, hearing aid manufac=urers; 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 - R.90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/sid .. ~-~ ~~- =--. 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 ALJ/BDP/sid Many of the Terms 4. the Proposed 80 159-A .v~h{~,~,A UCAN argues that particular words in the proposed GO 159-A are ambiguous. :.-- F{r.t. 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 context7 and, thus far have caused no problems to the Commission or local agencies. Furtherefore, 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.) - l0 - R. 90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/sid .~-. · ~econa, 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 UCANws concern. For new sites and modifications, the carriers are required i.n the notification letter to provide the Commission with the lot address and the .assessor0s parcel number. W~ believe that when the carriers file quarterly 8 reports, 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){2) 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 fair accomDli. 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 build facilities under emergency circumstances, the utility must 8 GO 159-A states: 'Section V - QI~tRTERLYUPDRa'T,~ 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 January 30 of each year, with the Commission's Safety & Enforcement Division." (P. 7.) - 11 - R.90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/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 provider s~all, am 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 Should be Modified toRe claire D~eempti~e]~thoritTtobe Exerc.~sed on an E~nea~tednae~s Pacific Bell Mobile Service (PBMS) submits that upon application by the cellular service provider for preemptive authority, the Commission 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 civil actions "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 couldbe put in place which would allow these matters to be handled most promptly. Alternatively, PBMS suggests that the' Commission exercise its preemptire authority on an expedited basis, perhaps by "issuing a de novo decision" on an application for preemptire authority within 30-60 days. Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company (BACTC) agrees with PBMS and urges the Commission to exercise its preemptiv. 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 preemptire 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. o 13 - R. 90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/sid On the other. hand, the carriers (CCAC) believe the Commission's record of filings for preemption demons=ra=es tha= Ehe 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 applica=ions for preemptive authority through a de novo decision within 30 to 60 days. The carriers point out that any matters that cannot be resolved be=ween the local government and the wireless provider are likely to involve complicated, and/or highly contes=ed issues. In such cases, the carriers believe =hau 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 a=tempting 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 sigh= of the face 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 CPUC2d '133 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 =he 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. Ccements of Parents for the o~ the SchoolvardTower (PEST) PEST opposes the settlement and urges the Commission 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 · enforcinglagency. 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 Mo,,nta~n View, C.~tv of Los Gatos .and, in 1991, PacTs1 Cellular, applied for, then subsequently withdrew a request for preemptive authority for construction in the Sacramento area. o 15 - property.11 PEST's concern is that the revised general order does no= ensure that parents receive notice of potential cell sites o~ school property in order to address health 6oncerns 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 mandated by 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 Laguna 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.) - 16 - 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 the 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 to 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 utilities. (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 proper~y. 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 =hat a parcel number be furnished. We-believe 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 T~cal A~ncies 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 C~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 o~ opinion with regard to three questions posed in the ALJ's .ruling which transmitted the proposed GO 159-A for comment. Responses to Ouestions in ~T~Ru.l~na The responses to the three questions posed in the ALJ's ruling are summarized below: Issue No. 1 The proposedGO shou/d specificallyprovide for local citizens to be able to appeal to the C~mmission 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 C~mission has delegated to local agencies so that they mayuse 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 ma~ 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 ~.~...~-sion should completely abrogate its jurisdiction over cell siting matters. This' solution would be an' alternative to the propose~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 ~-'~ 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 proposed GO 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. Noncell.l.w Pv~v~a~v~ 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 local 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 policyby effectively "leveling the playing field" for all CMRS providers regarding the construction of cellular towers. The Joint Motion In the Joint Motion filed on Januar~ 3, 1996, pursuant to Rule 51.1, the SponsOring Parties request that the Commission approve the settlement which sets forth the proposed GO 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 reaffi~,~s 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 =he 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 shor~. 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 the public's interest that the settlement proffered with the Joint Motion should be adopted, andGO 159 should be replaced with GO 159-A. Findinas 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, followedby 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 con=inues =o recognize thaE 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 - 90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/sid ORDBR 1. General Order (C~) 159-A, aEtached ~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 ~n 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 carriersshall'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 attached GO 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 noncel]ular 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 of record 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 /aL.T/BDP/sid PUBLIC GENERAL ORDER 159A UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RULES RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICE FACILITIES IN CALIFORNIA (Adopted May 8, 1996. 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 requiredby 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. 1 R.90-01-012 II. III. IV. Ve VI. VII. VIII. APPENDIX A. /ALJ/BDP/sid APPEIDII A..,ae · Pqe 2 ,~'~.. TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE ....................... 3 DEFINITIONS - : ............... 4 NOTIFICATION LETTER ................ 4 Ae B. C. D. Generally ............ ' .... . . . 4 Contents · - . ................ 5 Service By Mail .............. 5 Exemptions .................. 6 (2) Minor Maintenance and Repair Work ..... 6 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 R.gt,.)-01-01 2 _ .: . .- _. _... ~ ~ .. ~,a.:. ::_~ :,~::~.;:: .....~_ .; ..,.,;:...._ .:-. :- .: ..: ..... .- -_. - .,.. ....... .. · The Co~ission has previousZy fo~d in nume~us decisions 'authorizing specific cellular sysne~ chat cons=mc~ion of cellular s~s=ems generally sexes =he p~lic conveni~ce ~d necessity. - ~e' Comission has also fo~d =~= =he i~ac=s of-cell sites and ~SOS are highl~ localized. The. Comission reco~izes interests of local gove~en= ~d ~he state ~ crea~e competing demands. This ~neral Order bal~ces ~he ~ve mentioned sna=ewide interests with local aoncems regarding =he siting, desi~, consnmc=ion of cell si~es ~d ~SOs.- The procedures described herein should appl~ ~ifo~l~ on a s=a~ewi~e basis. 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 cellsites and 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 providers 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: Sites 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 rfghC:Eo. preempt a local government determination on siting when there is a clear conflict with the Commission's goals and/or statewide interests. In those instances, the cellular service provider Sh~ll have the burden of demonstrating that accommodating local 3 90-01-012 ILC3'IBDPle d APPENDIX Page 4' government's requirements for"VanYz'TsPeC~ff~"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 k./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 A. The following terms are used throughout this General Order: Construction includes the construction of any new cellsite or MTSO 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 all of the public. Local Government or Local Gover-mental Agencies means any government entity with land use approval authority over the proposed cellsite or MTSO. Local Gover-ment or Local Governmental Agencies includes, but is not limited to, cities, counties, school districts, and agencies that administer state and federal lands. Emergency Cell Site or Emergency MTSO Facility means temporary sites or facilities constructed in response to disaster or emergency circumstances· SECTION IV - NOTIFICATION L~-A'A'm~ 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. 90-ol -012 /aLl/SDP/sid* 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: a. (for new sites) the number of antennae to be installed, the tower design, appearance and height, and =he building size(s)· b. (for modifications) a description of the modification work. 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. 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 af%er ~11 land use approvals are initially' issued or there is a determination that no such approvals are required. '2. 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 5 It. 90-01-012 /XU/BDP/sid APPgIfD~X A P&gs 6. director, the clerk of the board of supervisors, and the county executive. D. Exemptions 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 R .90-01-012 ........ :, ~,~..~.:[:-,.~ _..~..: ..... ,,;, .: ..... . - , ..... request "B[:" any"" 'l~al'~:~/'ov'~ental agency or official acting in an 8fficial capacity. Emergency cell.sites or MTSO facilities must be demolished or removed by the cellular service' provider within a reasonable period of time following the disaster or. emergency circumstances_ which engendered them, unless the cellular service provider complies with the provisions of this Order for ne~ facilities, including obtaining all requisite land use approvals required by the Local Governmental Agency and serving the Commission with 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 sererice 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 prorider 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 /XL. /BDP/e :.APPFa'DII. A' ~ -Page 8' SAMPLE NOTIFICATION 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 CO: Mr. City or County name and address (.END OF APPENDIX A) 8 Attachment B Overview A. Pollore Peer The legal basis for all land use regulation is the police power of the cityI to protect the public health, safety and welfare of its residents. Benaft ~. Pm4ter, 348 U.S. 26 (1954). A land use regulation lies within the police power if it is reasonably rdated to the public welfare. Associated Bmildo~ Ira. ~. City o. f Li, off'more, 18 Cal. 3d 582 (1976). As Justice William O. Douglas, speaking for the United States Supreme Cour~ shred: The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive .... The values it represems are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled. Berman, 348 U.S. at 33. This statement is recognized by CaLifornia corms "as a correct descril>- tion of the authority of a state or city to enact legislation under the police power., Mezmmd/s, Inc. v. Cityof,~an Diego, 26 Cal. 3d 848, 861 (1980). The police power, even though emblished by common law, is set forth in the California Constitution, which confers on cities the power to and enforce within [their] limits all local police, sanitary and other ordinances The California Supreme Court has stated: Under the police power granted by the Conmtution, counties and cities have plenary authority to govern, subject only to the limitation that they exercise this power within their territorial limits and subordinate to state hw. [Gution omittecl.] Apart from this limitation, the 'police power [of a county or city] under this provision... is as broad as the police power exer- cisable by the Legishmre i~elf.' Cdmdid Enzerpri~, In~ v. Gruffmint Union High .~,ool D/ft., 39 CaL 3d 878, 885 (199S~ 1. lAbhen die word 'city' is used, it also means 'county"; 'city council' also mum 'board of supervison." CURTIN°S CALIFORNIA LAND USE AND PLANNING LAW 211 In exerd,4~g the police power, the city must act within aH applicable samtory provisions so there will be no "conflict with general law~ ' The city's actions must also meet cor=~iiAttional prin- ciples of due process, that is, they must be rea- sonable, nondiscriminatory and not arbitrary or co. ~. c/~ ofMmTsu~, 12 Cal. App. 3dgS9 (1970). Of course, 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., Peoj0k ez .1. Dndm~ian ~. County of Menda~, 36 Cal. 3d 476, 483-85 (1984); Morehart ~/. County of Smst~ Barbard, 7 Ca]. 4th 725 (1994). Land use regulations are a mauifesution of the local police powers conferred by the 5tare Constitution, not an exercise of authority dele- gamd by suture. Scrumm v. County of S~rmnent0, 275 CaLApp. 2d 412, 417 (1969). For example, sute zoning laws peruining 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 connty's power to control its own land use decisions derives from rids inherent police power, not from the delegation of authority by the state. (Set, e.g., Cmuiid Enterprises, Inc. ~. Grossm~t Union HiArb Sd~0ol D/~r., 39 CaL 3d 878, 88S-86 (1985) (upholding a school facilities impact fee imposed by a county without stabtory authorization); Birkenfidd v. City o/Berkeley, 17 Cal. 3d 129, 140-42 (1976)(upholding city rent control initiative despite lack of express stamtoty authority).) De~tts ~. Couty of Naps, 9 Cal. 4th 763, __ (1995). Under the 5rate Constitution an ordinance cannot conflict with general h~ 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 Bdnk of the Orient z/. To~n of Ti~ron, 220 CalApp. 3d 2. For an excellent discussion on preemption, see Gov~nor's O~i~ of Phsming snd R~mrc~, Pr~m~z of Lo~ Land Usc Au~hority in Cslifomis, 1~9. 992 (1990) (holding that a city could not have an interim moratorium ordinance in dfect beyond the two years prescribed in state law);, Mm/~t, 7 Cal. 4th at 725 (finding that a county's zoning ordinances rela~ng to merger of antiquated lots were impliedly prcempted by the merger provi- sions of the Map Act). Also at times, the Legish- ture will adopt policies and critma for establish- meat of certain types of residential uses which preempt local zoning. See, e.g., 1992 California Child Day Care Act, Health & Safety Code ~ 1~96.64-1596.70 (in particular ~ 1597.30 relat- ing to family day care centers). This Act occu- pies the ~dd to the exclusion of municipal 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 hws for other se- lected uses. For example, see the Community Car~ Facility Act, Health & Saf~y Code §§ 1500- 1~7.8 for homes for mentally disabled or han capped persons for residential facilities servh., six or fewer persons. ld. at ~ 1~(~.3. The police power is an elastic power. Regu- lations are sustained under the complex condi- tions of today which, but a short ~me ago, might have been condemned as arbitrary and unrea- sonable. Euclid ~..4taMer Realty C0., 272 U.S. 365; 387 (1926). In the 1970s, Justice Doughs, speaking for the United States Supreme Court, upheld a vii- lage's zoning ordinance relating to land use restrictions on single-Eamily dwelling units: A quiet place where yards are wide, people few, and motor vehicles reslzicted are legiti- mate guidelines in a land use project addressed to fmnily needs. This goal is a per~-,~ble one within Eoman :,. Pdrk~r, m~ra. The police power is not confined to elimination of stench, and unhealthy phces; it b snple to lay out zones where family values, youth values, sad the blessings of quiet seclusion and clean air r. ol,, the are~ a ssacttmry for lzopl~. F's~sF 0f/~dk Terre :~. i~orads, 416U~. 1, 9(1~ Likewise, the courts have held that reguh- 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 (Birkenfild v. City of Berkeley, 17 Cal. 3d 129 (1976)) and regu- lations relating to condominium conversions (Griffin Development Co. v. City of O:turd, 3 9 Cal. 3d 256 (1985)) have been upheld. The California Supreme Court has held that aesthetic rexsons alone justify the exercise of the police power when it upheld, in part, the City of San Diego's total b~m of offsite advertising signs (Mevumtd/a, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 26 Cal. 3d 848 (1980)) and the Culver City's public art fee ordinance (F. hrlich ~. City of Cutvor Ci::. 12 Cal. 4th 854 (1996)). Also, the Unit~l Stares Supreme Court, in upholding a local ordinance prohibit- ing the posting 0f signs on public property, stat- ed that aesthetic interests are substantial govem- menml interests which a city can address under its police power. Membo~ of City Council v. Tax- payersfor [rut, 466 U.S. 789 (1984). Land use regulations constitute a proper exercise of the police power. Associated Home Bu/k/ers, Inc. v. City of L/vormore, 18 Cal. 3d 582 (1976). A city may exercise its police power to provide a "modern, enlightened and progressive community." Rancho Za Costa ~. County of San Diego, Ill 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 Tramp. Co. ~. City of New Fork, 438 U.S. 104, 129 (1978). In E:vmg v. City of Cartad-by-the-Sea, plain- tiff homenwners challenged the constitutionali- ty of a zoning ordinance prohibiting ~transient commercial use of residential property," for remuneration, for less than 30 consecutive days. Ew/ng, 234 C. al.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 =to enhance and maintain the residential character of the City." The court said that this is a proper purpose of zoning, stating.' h rods m reason titat the 'residential chanc- 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 wcek, or even 29 days. Whether or not u-ansient rentals have the other 'unmifigatable, 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- an~s have little interest in public agencies or m the wellIre of the citizenry. They do not par- ticipate in local government, coach little 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 sort of activities that weld and I,/at 1591. In holding that the ordinance was related to a legitimate governmental goal, the court held: Blessed with unparalleled geography, elimate, beauty, and charm, Carreel naturally attracts nume~'ous short-term visitors. 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 predude us from saying, as it must be said before the ordi- nance can be declared unconstitutional, that such provisions are dearly arbitrary and un- reasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare.' [Citation omitted.] /d. 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 tes-~d in the coum not by what the judges individually or collectively may think of the wisdom or neemity 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?' (Consolid~ltd m~ CURTIN'S CALIFORNIA LAND USE AND PLANNING LAW 4m RatPndsarC0. v. C~0f/~,4sreb, 57 CaL 2d 515, 522 (1962)). Furthermore. even/f the reasonableness of the regulation is fairly debatable, the legishtive determination will not be disturbed. [Citation omitt~L] ibmtumid ~. Cd/i~m~ Corms/Cornre's, 163 CalJkpp. 3d 623,629 (1985). The C, aljforoia Supreme Court stated the rule simp~ The land use res~ction withstands constitu- tional attack if it is fairly debatable that the restriction in fact bears a reasonable relation m the general ,4n~ted Hom~ Br~/d~r~, I~. v. Cir~ o/L~rr- more, 18 Cal. 3d 582, 601 (1976). B. $tatutop/Frametit The foUowing state laws outline the legal framework within which a city must exercise its · F-~bli~hment of planning agencies, com- missions and departments. Gov't Code §§ 65100-65106. · General plan and specific plan. Gov't Code §S 65300--65457. · Zoning reguhtions. Gov't Code ~j 65800- 65912. · Subdivision MapAct. Gov'tGode~66410- 66499.58. · California Environmental Quality Act. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000-21178.1; Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, §~ 15000-15387. · Other law~ end sutures. 54962 (also known as The Open Meet* · Propmy Development agreememo. Gov't Code §§ 65864-65869.5. · Permit Streamlining Act. Gov't Code §§ 65920-65959.3. C. The Planning Commission The planning covnm;qsion is a permanent committee of five or more citizens who have been appointed by the city council, or the mayor in some cities, m review and act on mattr_,s relat- ed to planning and development. The COmmle- Sion holds regularly scheduled public hearings to consider land use mitten, 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 coxmcil, or members can have fixed terms. A city need not create a planning enrnmis- ion. Gov'tCode § 65101. In fact, in some juris- dictions, especially smaller ones, there is no planning commission and the city coundl per- forms in that capacity. Basically, the commission advises the city council on land use matters. The council may choose to follow the recommendations of the COrnrnigSiOn, or the coonoil 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 The city community development or plan ning depa, c,,,ent 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 end recommendatious 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 attorney's office and public works deparnnenr. The city council may assign any or all of the following tasks to its planning commission (Gov't Code §§ 65103. 65400. 65401.65402): · Assist in writing the general plan and co,,,,,,unity or specific plan and hold public hearings on such pla~ · Hold hearings and act upon proposed amendments m the general plan end spe- cific plan; · Investigate and make recommendations m the city council regarding reasonabl. and practical means for implementing the general plan or elements of the gen- eval plan. so that it will serve as an effec- tive guide for orderly growth end devel- ChapurtmOvseviow opment, preservation and conservation of open-spice land and natural resources, and the efficient czpendimre of public funds relating m the subjects addressed in the general plan; · Provide an annual report m the city 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 Cwov*t Code § 65584; the local efforts to remove governmental con- straints on housing pursuant to C.~v*t Code ~ 65583(e)(3). · Hold bearings and act upon proposed changes to the zoning ordinance and zoning maps~ · Hold bearings and act on tenta~ve subdi- vision maps; · Annually review the city's capital im- provement program and the pubtic works projects of other local agencies for con- sistency with the general plan; · Promote public interest in the general plan~ · Consult with and advise public officials and a~encies, utilities, organizations and citizens regarding implementation of the general plan; · Coordinate local plans and programs with those of other pubtic agencies; · Report to the city council on the confor- mity of proposed pubtic land acquisition or disposal with the adopted general plan; and · Undertake special planning studies as needed. The planning commission holds regular meetings and special mee~ngs as needed. For the most part, state law requires pubtic hearings before planning actions are taken. At its meet= ings, the planning commission weighs planning proposals in fight of state and local regulations and potential environmental effecu and listens m testimony from interested pames. If neces- sap/, the commiedon may continue a hearing m a later time to allow more information to be gathered or m take additional testimony. The commir4ion usually considers several items at each hearing, considering each proposal sepa- ratdy and ~t-i~g action before moving on m the nat itan on the agcnda. Depending upon local ordinance provi- sions, the commission's decision on a project may be: (1) referred to the city 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 (subclivisions, variances, use permits, etc.). The council will then hold a noticed pubtic hearing on the proiects 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 commi-~-~ioners can discuss commission business in a pubtie meeting only. For more information on the Brown Act, see Chapter 19, Section A (l~lph M. Brown Act). Reading material for Planning Commis- sioners: · Govemor's O~ee of Planning and Re- se,reh, The Planning Commissioner's Book (1 ~9). · L~gue of California Cities, Planning Comm i~oner's Handbook (1995). · Gsi& to C~lij~mi~ Planning (1991) by William Fulton, Solano Press. ATIONS · Commis- Common- i56; Jones 2d 460. ,report v. , 167 La ~napolis. 143 Neb ~ Swett, 120 NIL ~b. Co. v. ~J Super xsiag ~ NE 17; · 113 NE arS 208. McGee, nderson 2 SE 25: 592, 132 -Salem, Lug this ~rper & 609, 35 t24 Tex 95 (Tex 3orp. v. Vt 341, tnd, 78 oma v. MUNICIPAL POLICE POWER AND ORDINANCES § 24.12 Wisconsin. Rust v. State Board of Dental Examiners, 216 Wis 127, 256 hrW 919; Milwaukee v. Kaun, 204 Wis 103,.235 N'W 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 mended 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. Illinois. People v. Anderson, 355 Ill 289, 189 NE 338. New York. Mnnnix 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 propertys 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.~ 41 RATIONS 2d 101 (Mo Amodio v. · West New A2d 889; :ch Com'rs, Village of y's Water .25 NYS2d ifficult to nvoked, is le resttic- necessary ~rals, and ,lie peace, ,rineburgh , 195 IVY {eights v. i 26, 484 ~man, 44 ery v. ,157 P2d ;wain v. ,mw 326, ,ris, 184 llred, 20 preserve Car]8on, afety). opment, P2d 583 011 con- tivision MUNICIPAL POLICE POWER AND ORDINANCES § 24.13 due to developer's failure to correct ongoing drainage problems). ~ Arkansas. Lonoke v. Chicago, 92 Ark 546, 123 SW 395. Illinois. Condon v. Forest Park, 278 Ill 218, 115 NE 825. West Virginia. State ex rel. State lane Sparkler of W~r, 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 V/V, 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}. 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.a 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 well.6 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.7 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. s The public welfare as a proper object of the police power embraces public convenience, g 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. ~ ['IONS exer- ion of ilities ',bject aover, · h the imum ,ensa- Dower inan- ,~hich ~tions pros- ~ublic .ity of ~te or upon ~On, .ed to Lt the ~rfer- ger. ~4 se of }fthe ring, ~ not that local eces- than ,~xer- fthe nity, thor ~'om - - MUNICIPAL 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,TM 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. ,s The relief and protection of the poor, indigent, and infirm, and the security of society against the occurrence of poverty, disease, insanity, and infLrmity 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.=o 1 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 Cal 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. Gentlet, 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 v. Harper & Turner Oil Trust, 168 Okla 609, 35 P2d 435. Oregon. Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examinere, 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. Teams. Lombardo v. Dallas, 124 Tex 1, 73 SW2d 475, sffg 47 SW2d 495 (Tex Civ App). 2 United States. See Wall Distribu- tors, Inc. v. City of Newport News, 782 F2d 1165 (CA4 1986) (coin-operated 45 ' nu, on Io rs }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 :iag yards on sole ld be offensive to ~). [~est v. Zoning xt of Pittsburgh, J 606; County of 1 Pa Cornrow 357, ~ome law). .' v. Smith, 618 atute controlling is and junkyards ~y). ~\County v. l N'W2d 591 '-._~dl~ wrecking istricts). ~well v. Ferrier, b,vYS2d 22, 225 on's Porta Signs, water, 829 F2d ity's substantial : esthetics justi- ruing portable i for Free Speech oard of Com'rs, NJ 1992) (must for there to be power). Regional Plan- 233 Cal App 3d i (1991). :onduct prohib- ~ing 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 adornlug 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, 154 A 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. Doffs 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). s 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,2 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.2 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.* This is true, for e~nmple, with respect to ordi- nances as to billboards? signs? and housing projects, slum clearance, or eradication of blighted uxban areas.t 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. a 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 Postor 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), coasid- 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 sips. 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). t New York. Murray v. LaGuardia, 180 Misc 760, 43 NYS2d 408. 54 {ATIONS : 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- -,re also pas- S3 LEd 1 Adver- 861 F2d ety and xtial gov- proper of out- 'omedia, 69 LEd es, see hack v. pp 1320 ~uardia, MUNICIPAL POLICE POWER AND ORDINANCES §24.17 Generally as m housing and housing projects as within police power, see § 24.563. s See § 24.353. s United States. Price v. City of Junction, Texas, 711 F2d 582 (CA5). § 24.17. Subjects. Tennessee. See City of Clarksville v. Moore, 688 SW2d 428 (Term) (ordi- nance prohibiting storage of abandoned vehicles on residential promises valid). l0 Louisiana. Lake Charles v. Hen- nin~ 414 So 2d 331 (La). 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.= 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) Patently, all things that are injurious to the public are proper subjects for an exercise of the police power,s and may be sup- pressed, prohibited, or at least regulated.~o 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 Other matters coming within the police power include: -- the regulation of fish and game;'3 -- the prohibition of wooden buildi~gs;- -- the regulation of railways and other means of public conveyance; ~ s -- the regulation of interments in burial grounds ; ~s -- the restriction of objectionable trades to certain localities;~7 -- the management of anticipatory wide spread damages due to natural disasters, such as ~ooding;,s -- compulsory vaccination of children; ~s -- the confinement of the insane or those afflicted with contagious diseases; 'o -- the restraint of vagrants, beggars, and intoxicated persons;2~ -- the suppression of obscene publications;" -- houses offfi-fame;n -- gambling houses;24 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;~s -- to decrease the opportunity for certain vehicles to serve as attractive nuisances to children, parking restrictions may be imposed;v -- 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;~s -- to protect the public health numerous regulations, such as those relating to quarantine and sanitation, may be promulgated and carried out;~o 56 7F~ATIONS c, depend- acted may ude: of public certain damages -'ted with toxicated 'er are to ;gitimate weapons . to serve ~trictions ng regu- imposed so as to nS, such may be MUNICIPAL POLICE POWER AND ORDINANCES § 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 trans actions; ~2 -- weights and measures;n -- charitable collections and distributions;~ -- to avoid extortion and oppression, combinations among dealers in food products and other necessities in restraint of trade may be forbidden;as and -- to protect patrons, reasonable regulations of the service and charge of public utilities are authorized.as 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,as the slaughter of diseased cattleas and the destruction of decayed or unwholesome food.~o 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 regulateY 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 intendmerit will be indulged to sustain the regulation, and all 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 favored4~ and presumed.4s 1 United States. Eubsni~ 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 pane 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 :'1 Attachment D 47 USCS 8 332'(1998) ..... (II) shall not prokib4t o2: have the effect, of p:ohibjj~J. ug the pzov~s~ o~ pe:sonal ~:eless seduces. (~i) A State o= local gove~t or ~nst~ta~ty the=eo~ sha~l act u ~y re~es~ ~or autho=~zat~on to place, co~tnc~, or ~f~ personal ,'~:eless seduce facilities w~h~ a :eason~e per~ o~ t~ aZte: the fewest ~s d~ Zi~ed v~th su~ gove~nt o~ ~t~ntaZ~t~, tak~g ~to accost ~e nature ~d scope oZ su~ ze~est. (~) ~ decision by a State thereo~ t~ den~ a re~est to pZace, c~t~, oz ~ ~:s~ v~:eZess seduce facilities sh~Z be ~ ~it~g ~d su~o~ed by s~st~t~a~ e~d~ce contained ~n a vr~tten record. (~) No State oz ~ocal g~e~-t re,ate the p~acemnt, contacted, ~d ~ication of pers~aZ ~reZess seduce facilities on the basis o~ the ~:o~nta~ e~ects o~ :a~o ~re~enc~ e~ss~ons to the extent that su~ ~ac~ties cq~ ~th ~e C~ss~on's re~at~ons conceding such ~ss~o~. (Y) ~ pe:son adve:seZ~ a~ected b~ ~ ~aZ a~ o: fa~e to act b~ a State or ~oca~ gove~nt or ~ ~t~ntaZ~t~ thezeof that ~ncons~stent v~th ~h~s s~aragzaph my, v~t~n 30 days a~te: su~ action or fa~re to act, co~nce ~ action ~ ~ co~t of c~etent ~s~ct~. ~e co~:t sha~ hear ~d dec~de such action on & expected bas~s. ~ person adve=se~ a~ected b~ & act or ~a~e to act Ch. 4 ,tilities in pecial permit nditioned for st determine ,neran,ations ~te regulato- nption in the :tance to find regulates.i4 A 'ould destroy is tendency,xs · preemption ~e general or extent that a question is c service re- government illin~ness to fie statutory }ublic service ratious that · -qtiouale, a xunicipal ., may be ~f a preemp- ,,d for uniform ty v. Potomac · 511, 525, 573 iing that with the need for a ppacent in the ~tute). nsylvama star- tion, re~ hitions of this ,Co. v. Rosen- (.S.2d 895, 898, ); New Brims- · v. Old Bridge ~uper. 122, 636 onwealth, Pub- rCH Communi- 351 A.2d 325 v. Department · 667, 680, 322 ;-'.~ Attachment E § 4-~5 GOVERNMENTAL AND COMMUNITY USES 129 tion determination.as 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 .=x 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 Teleeommunications 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,z4 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 Msss. 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 Ton of Cortiandt, 110 Misc.2d 534, 442 N.Y.S.2d 689 (1981). 21. Cellular Telephone Ca. v. Ros~n- berg, 82 N.Y.2d 364, 604 N.Y.S.2d 895, 624 N.E.2d 990 (1993) (applying "moce 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, 764 A.2d 1271 (1998) (declining to fred toorio- pole inherently beneficial). 22. Finding cellular use to be a public utility, see Hawk v. Zoni,~ Hearing Bd. of Buffer Twp., 152 Pa. Omwlth. 48, 618 A.2d 1087, 1090 (1992); Payne v. Taylor, 178 A.D.2d 979, 578 N.Y.S.2d a27 (1991); McCaw Communications v. Marion County, 96 0rApp. 552, 77a P.2d 779 (1989) (cellu- hir use found to be a public utility, but not a necessary one as reqttired by the orcti- rasnce). To the contrary, see Bell Aftantic Mobile Systems, Inc. v. ZonLng 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). 28. As to satellite dish antennas, 47 C.F.I~ § 25.104 preempte zoning that mate- rially limits transmission or incp. ases 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 Legishi- tire 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, my have ira- plied preemption authority. See, e.g., City of New York v. Federal CommUlIiCAtiODS Celn- mission, 486 U.S. 57, 108 S.Ct. 1637, 100 L.Ed.2d 48 (1968). The wave promises to be of tidal dimensions, as many existing broad- casting towers ere loaded to capacity. PA. 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 Ck- 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,~s 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.z7 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.= 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.''l Sever- al courts also have found cellular towers to qualify as public utilities under local law.= D. Undergrounding Utility Lines Another issue of controversy is whether local govermn. ent 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- ha, 924 F.Supp. 1036 (W.D.Wa. 1996). 27. See cases cited supra notes 21-22. 28. Oldham County Planning & Zen- ing Comm'n v. Courier Communications Corp., 722 S.W.2d 904 (Kya~.pp.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 gevern- merit over cellular services); Pa. Cons. Stat. § 102(2)(iv). 30, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 26:2D 1 to 88, dia-ussed in New Brunswick Cellular Tele- phone Co. v. Old Bridge Twp. Planning Bd., 270 N,LSuper. 122, 636 A.2d 588, 596 (1993). 31, Cellular Telephone Co. v. Rosen- berg, 82 I~LY.2d 364, 604 N.Y.S.2d 895, 624 N,E,2d 990 (1993) (applying "moce lenient" public utility variance stendard to cellular tower). But se~ Smart SMR of New York, Inc. v. Borough of Fair Lawn Bd. of Adj., 152 N./. 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 DISTRICT TO LARRY LEDOUX DATED DECEMBER 21, 1998 R:~ST,~"FR]'T~I~8 PC STAFF REPORT 2.tk~ 13 Ran o Water 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 Districrs (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 TemecGla 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 Ilanchn L'.diftmrnia Wa~er District RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW NUMBER ONE CNIC CENTER CIRCLE BREA, CALIFORNIA POST OFFICE BOX 1059 BFIF_A, CALIFORNIA (7't4) 9eo-oeol FACSIMILE ("/14) February 4, 1999 (llt.I;-tEel) LO~ AMI~EL.E~ OFFICE 'THIR'TY-BKII-rTH FLO42q M,1BOIJ'THHOPEB'TREET L.OSANGIELE8. C, NJFORMA ed34)71-1~ 8AN FRikNCllt.,O OFFICE $&JfTEIeO W~M K ~R ] zo8~o~x City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Tcmecula, Ca. 92590 Re: 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 ~c applicability of federal law to state and local regulations and ordinances and in particular the application of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 to the application of Cox Communication's application for a conditional use permit for a PCS facility. In 1996 the United States Congress enacted the "Telecommunications Act of 1996," Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Star. 56, codi~ed 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 m 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 Cowmission's regulations concerning such emissions." m~g u~ r~x:f~q-~UoZOu red q '~ ~:0~ M. UO RIOHARDB, WATSON & GERBHON Febmary 3, 1999 Page 2 Under decisions of the United States Supreme Court dating back the earliest days of the Constitution and continuing to the presem, 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 providesi "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 L. Ed. 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 reaulation which conflicts with or is contrary to federal law must also yield to the federal law. Preemption may he inferred when Congress iegislate.q 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 WhOtier, 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 CFCC") 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 ordinance did not contain specific screening or placement. requirements for satellite television receiving antennas, and thus, conflicted with the federal order. RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON February 3, 1999 Page 3 As discussed above, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 104, 110 Star. 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 telecommunication services. Accordingly, state and local governments may not regulate the placement of wireless service facilities based on the environmental effects of the radio frequency emissions produced by such facilities if these missions comply with .the federal standards. Any state or local regulations imposing different or greater restrictions from the federal standards regarding the environmerxtal effects of radio frequency missions 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. If you have any further questions or comment.~, please do not hesitate to call CC. Shawn Nelson Jim O'Grady Oary Thornhill Dcbbie Ubnoske Peter M. Thorson, Esq. Very truly yours, ITEM 2O CITY APPRO~ ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINA 4 E ~ CITY MANAGER ~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Manager/City Council 1erman Parker, Director of Community Services April 13, 1999 SUBJECT: Temecula Library Site Selection and Conceptual Plan PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: ~f~"/Phyllis L. Ruse, Deputy Director of Community Services That the City Council: Approve the site selection on Pauba Road west of Parkview Fire Station 84 and preliminary Conceptual Plan for the Temecula Library. Direct staff to negotiate with LPA for a scope of services and compensation for the completion of schematic design, design development, and construction drawings for the library facility. DISCUSSION: On May 12, 1998, the City Council awarded a design contract to LPA for the programming, preliminary conceptual planning, and site selection services for the proposed Temecula Library. The programming phase was designed to define departmental and common area space requirements, functional adjacencies and circulation needs, and operational and technological requirements. The conceptual planning phase consisted of consideration of building massing, open space requirements, pedestrian/vehicular circulation, parking and potential building expansion. The consultant was also responsible for the investigation of several potential sites for the location of the facility. These objectives were addressed through a series of project committee meetings, a telephone survey, and a public workshop. The project committee was comprised of two City Council Members (Ron Roberts and Jeff Stone) and one Community Services Commissioner (Jeff Nimeshein), representatives from the County Library Commissioner, Fdends of the Library, County library staff, City staff and the consultants. Based upon the information received, the consultant has prepared a Conceptual Plan for the Temecula Library. The plan calls for a building of approximately 33,000 square feet with parking to accommodate 146 vehicles. The building is expandable to approximately 41,000 square feet. A potential site for the new library has been identified on Pauba Road just west of Parkview Fire Station 84. This site was reviewed and approved by the Project Committee as the best alternative for the new library facility. The property is located near two high schools (Temecula Valley High R:~RUSEP~AGENDAS~Iibrary conceptual plan-const docs.cc.doc School and Lin~eld School), as well as other public facilities, and is already owned by the City. A public workshop was held on February 11, 1999, with an estimated 25-30 people in attendance. Information gathered from the project committee meetings, public workshop and phone survey was taken into consideration throughout the design phase of the project. Sizes of study areas, reading areas, meeting room accommodations, outdoor spaces, and other amenities were determined from the programming requirements based on community input. The final project committee meeting was held on February 23, 1999, at which time the Conceptual Plan was reviewed. The project committee unanimously approved the Conceptual Plan and site selection and recommended that it be presented to the Community Services Commission for its review and approval. The Community Services Commission reviewed the plan at their March 8, 1999 meeting, approved the plan and recommended that it be presented to the City Council for its consideration and approval. If the City Council does approve the plan, the next step would be to begin the schematic design, design development, and construction document phases of the project. Upon completion of these phases, the project would be ready to bid. No funding source has been identified for construction of this project at this time. However, by having a shelf-ready set of plans, the City would be well able to take advantage of any grant funding or other funding sources that might become available in the future for the completion of this project. The Council direction to staff to begin more intense review of the Pauba Road site is exempt from the provisions of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines. Detailed environmental review of the site will be part of the design development. The site was originally reviewed and acquired for public facilities. FISCAL IMPACT: This project is currently included in the 1998/99 Capital Improvement Plan. The design portion of the project is funded in the current year in account 210-199-129-5802. To date, funds in the amount of $58,000 have been expended for the conceptual plan, leaving sufficient funds available for the remaining design phase. Construction funding for this project is, as yet, unspecified. Attachments: Phone Survey Report Conceptual Plan R:~RUSEP~AGENDAS~Iibrary conceptual plan-const docs.cc.doc 1998 Temecula Community Attitude Survey: Public Library Services Prepared for: City of Temecula By: Public Management Associates Janua~ 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ...............................................................................................................I LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................................II LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................III I. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1 II. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................2 A. ,SAMPLE ....................................................................................................................................................................2 B. DATA COLLECTION ...................................................................................................................................................2 C. REPORT FORMAT ......................................................................................................................................................2 Ill. SAMPLE GHARAGTERISTIGS ..............................................................................................2 A. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE ...........................................................................................................................................2 B, LIBRARY USE ............................................................................................................................................................4 C. COMPUTER ACCESS AT HOME ..................................................................................................................................8 IV. LIBRARY USERS ..................................................................................................................9 A. LIBRARY USE PATTERNS ..........................................................................................................................................9 B. FACTORS INFLUENCING LIBRARY USE ....................................................................................................................13 V. LIBRARY NON-USERS ........................................................................................................17 A. REASONS FOR NON-USE .........................................................................................................................................17 B. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS .....................................................................................................................................18 VI. SUPPORT FOR A NEW LIBRARY ......................................................................................19 VII. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................23 Public Management Associates I LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 :Member of Household Has Current Library Card ..............................................4 Figure 2: Last Telephoned or Visited Temecula Public Library .......................................6 Figure 3: Plan to Buy Computer With Modem Within Next Year? ...................................8 Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Reasons for Visiting Library ............................................................................9 How Do You Get Information about the Library ............................................12 Support for Building a New Library ...............................................................19 Support for Issuing Bonds to Pay for Construction of a New Library .............20 Willingness to pay $25.00 More Each Year in Taxes ....................................21 Public Management Associates I I LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6A: Table 6B: by Table 6C: by Table 6D: Table 12: Table 13: Table 14: Demographics ...............................................................................................2 Percentage of Households with Occupants of Various Age Groups .............. 3 Library Card in Household by Selected Demographics .................................5 Library Use in Household by Selected Demographics ...................................7 Computer Access at Home ...........................................................................8 Use Library for Pleasure Reading by Selected Demographics .....................10 Use Library to Meet Education/Training Needs Selected Demographics ..............................................................................10 Use Library for Getting Community Information Selected Demographics ..............................................................................11 Use Library for Meeting with Others by Selected Demographics ................. 11 Reasons Respondents Do Not Use Library .................................................17 Impact of Improvements on~ Likelihood of Library Use .................................18 Amount Willing to Pay Per Year ...................................................................22 Public Management Associates I II I. INTRODUCTION During the months of November and December 1998, a library survey was designed and administered to residents of the City of Temecula, California by Public Management Associates. The survey measured library user and non-user perceptions on several characteristics, including: · Library use patterns; · Factors influencing decisions to use a new library; · Importance of materials, equipment, services, and facilities; · Patterns of non-use; · Changes in library that might increase use; and · Support for a new library. The survey also collected information on length of respondent residence in Temecula, age of household members, total number of household occupants, and respondent gender. Public Management Associates 1 II. METHODOLOGY A. Sample The conceptual population for the survey was all residents of the City of Temecula who were 18 years of age or older and who reside in households with telephones. Random digit dialing (RDD) was used as the method of sample generation because it offers the best coverage of active telephone numbers, and it reduces sample bias. The RDD method ensures that: · the conceptual frame and sampling frame match; · unlisted telephone numbers will be included, and; · the sampling frame will be as current as possible, thus maximizing the probability that new residents will be included. - To ensure that only residents of Temecula were interviewed, outlying areas where telephone prefixes may cross city boundaries were identified. A screening question was also included in the survey instrument to exclude anyone outside of Temecula. A total of 385 completed interviews were needed to obtain a representative sample of adult residents for a margin of error of +/- 5 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. A total of 401 usable interviews were conducted and analyzed yielding a margin of error of +/- 4.9 percent. This means, for example, that if 40 percent of the respondents answer "yes" to a question, we can be 95 percent confident that the actual proportion of residents in the population who would answer "yes" to the same question is 4.9 percentage points higher or lower than 40 percent (35.1 percent to 44.9 percent). B. Data Collection Trained telephone interviewers who had previous experience in telephone surveys were used for the library survey. Each interviewer completed an intensive general training session. The purposes of general training were to ensure that interviewers understood and practiced all of the basic skills needed to conduct interviews and that they were knowledgeable about standard interviewing conventions. The interviewers also attended a specific training session for the library project. The project training session provided information on the background and goals of the study. Interviewers practiced administering the questionnaire to become familiar with the questions. All interviewing was conducted from a centralized telephone bank in Denton, Texas. An experienced telephone supervisor was on duty at all times to supervise the administration of the sample, monitor for quality control, and handle any other problems. Data for the survey were collected over a seven day period from December 7-14, 1998. C. Report Format The remainder of the report is arranged in five sections: Sample Characteristics, Library Users, Library Non-Users, Support of New Library, and Conclusions. The data in the report are presented in graphic or tabular format to display observed frequencies or Public Management Associates 2 percentages for each question. Generally, tables and figures present the percentage of respondents who answer each response category of a question. For example, a table might list the percentage of respondents who rated library hours as excellent, good, fair or poor. Questions were cross-tabulated with the following demographic categories: · User and non-user · Possession of library card · Age of household residents · Number in household · Length of residence When differences between subgroups in the population are statistical significant they are reported. For example, a table might show the different rates of library use among people with children under five years of age, children 5-12, and children 13-18. Public Management Associates 3 III. SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS A. Demographic Profile Table i Demographics Demographic Characteristic Households with following age groups Under 5 5to 12 13 to 18 19 to 35 36 to 64 65 or older Number in houshold 1 2 3-4 5-6 7 or more Length of residence Less than, 2 years 2 to 4 years 5 to 10 years 11 to 19 years 20 years or more Gender Female Male Percent 28.9 39.0 28.7 49.2 70.5 19.2 9.5 24.4 44.4 19.6 2.1 20.0 24.2 39.7 12.7 3.5 62.8 37.2 Public Management Associates 2 Table 2 Percentage of Households with Occupants of Various Age Groups Age Group Percentage of Households With the Following Occupant Counts 0 I 2 3+ Under 5 71.1 19.1 8.4 1.4 5 to 12 61.0 22.0 14.2 2.8 13 to 18 71.3 18.4 8.7 1.6 19 to 35 50.8 24.1 22.7 2.4 36 to 64 29.5 26.1 44.2 0.3 65 or older 80.8 11.3 7.1 0.8 Twenty-nine percent of the respondent households have children under five, 39.0 percent have children age 5-12, and 28.7 percent have children age 13-18. Public Management Associates 3 B. Library Use Figure 1 Member of Household Has Current Library Card (n=399) Yes 68.4% · Sixty-eight percent of the respondents reported that they had a library card. Pubtic Management Associates 4 Table 3 Library Card in Household by Selected Demographics Demographic Percent With Card Ages 5-12 in household Yes 81.9 No 60.8 Ages 13-18 in household Yes 86.8 No 61.6 Ages 36-64 in household Yes 73.1 No 60.7 Length of residence Less than 2 years 41.3 2 to 4 years 67.0 5 to 10 years 79.0 11 to 19 years 80.4 20 years or more 71.4 Have personal computer Yes 72.3 No 55.7 User status User 90.0 Non-user 22.8 · Households with children from 5 to 12 and from 13-18 were more likely to have a library card than those without children in these two age groups. · Respondents who had lived in Temecuia for more than 2 years were more likely o have a card than those living in the city for less than 2 years. · Seventy-two percent of the respondents with a computer had a library card, compared to 65.5 percent of those without a computer. · As would be expected, possession of library card was more likely among library users (90.0 percent) than among non-users (22.8 percent). Public Management Associates 5 Figure 2 Last Telephoned or Visited Temecula Public Library (n=399) 100%/ 90% - 80%- 70% - 60%- 55.6% 50% - 40%; 30% - 20% - 12.3% 10%- 0%_4 I I 5 months or less 6 to 12 months 14.5% 17.5% Over I year Never Used Fifty-six percent of the respondents had used the library within the past 5 months, and 12.3 percent had used it in the previous 6 to 12 months. Fourteen percent of the respondents had not used the library in more than one year. An additional 17.5 percent had never used the library. These two groups were considered non-users and they were asked a different set of questions from the users and am referred to as "non-users" throughout the remainder of the report. Public Management Associates 6 Table 4 Library Use in Household by Selected Demographics Demographic Ages 5-12 in household Yes No Ages 13-18 in household Yes No Have computer at home Yes No Have library card Yes No · When was library last used? 5 Months or 6-12 Over I Year Never Used Less Months 64.8 13.1 10.3 11.7 50.0 11.5 17.3 21.2 70.8 12.3 10.4 6.6 50.0 12.2 15.6 22.1 61.1 11.3 11.6 16.1 36.8 14.9 25.3 23.0 75.4 14.0 9.9 0.7 12.8 8.8 24.8 53.6 Library use was generally higher among those respondents with children 5 to 12 and 13 to 18 in the household. Usage also was greater among those who had a computer at home and those with a library card. Public Management Associates 7 C. Computer Access at Home Table 5 Computer Access at Home Computer at home Percent Have a computer 78.0 Have computer and modem 85.5 A majority of the respondents have both a computer (78.0 percent) and a modem (85.5 percent). Figure 3 Plan to Buy Computer With Modem Within Next Year? 100% / 90% - 80%- 70%- 60% - 50% - 40% - 30%- 20%- 10%- 41.4% 14.9% 43.7% I I I Yes Maybe No Those respondents who did not have a computer were asked if they had any plan to buy one in the next 12 months and a majority (56.3 percent) said yes (41.4 percent) or maybe (14.9 percent). A larger percentage of respondents with children under five years of age (65.2 percent) than those without children under five planned on buying a computer with a modem during the next year. Public Management Associates 8 IV. LIBRARY USERS A. Library Use Patterns Figure 4 Reasons for Visiting Library (n=328) Meet education/training needs Meet personal information needs Pleasure reading ; ~5i.7% 56.4% Meet work related needs Get community information Meet with others Other 30.5% 22.9% /12,2~ 17.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Library users were given a list of purposes for visiting the Temecula Library and were asked to note all that applied to them. The most common reason was educational and training needs (75.9 percent), followed by meeting personal information needs (56.7 percent), pleasure reading (56.4 percent), meeting work related needs (30.5 percent), getting community information (22.9 percent), and meeting with others (12.2 percent). Public Management Associates 9 Some differences were observed among demographic groups for the following library use purposes: pleasure reading, meeting educational and training needs, getting community information, and to meet with others (see Tables 6A through 6D). Table 6A Use Library for Pleasure Reading by Selected Demographics Demographic Percent Responding Ages under 5 in household Yes 68.3 No 58.2 Ages 5-12 in household Yes 67.2 No 50.8 Ages 13-18 and over in household Yes 44.4 No 62.1 Gender Female 60.9 Male 48.8 Table 6B Use Library to Meet Education/Training Needs by Selected Demographics Demographic Percent Responding Have computer at home Yes 78.8 No 65.7 Ages 5-12 in household Yes 88.3 No 68.9 Ages 13-18 and over in household Yes 92.9 No 68.0 Gender Female 80.7 Male 67.8 Public Management Associates 10 Table 6C Use Library for Getting Community Information by Selected Demographics Demographic Percent Responding Ages under 5 in household Yes 13.4 No 27.1 Table 6D Use Library for Meeting with Others by Selected Demographics Demographic Percent Responding Gender Female 15.0 Male 7.4 Public Management Associates 11 Figure 5 How Do You Get Information about the Library (n=328) Visit library Local newspapepr Library newsletter Local cable Other !79.3% 14.3,% 15.7% 20% 0% 40% 60% 80% 100% Use of the local newspaper as a source of library information was more likely among those without children under five years of age than those with children under five (45.2 percent compared to 28,9 percent) and among those without children age 5-12 (50,8 percent) and age 13-18 (45.8 percent) than among those with children age 5-12 (30.5 percent) and age 13-18 (33.3 percent). Public Management Associates 12 B. Factors Influencing Library Use Table 7 Reasons for Use of a New Library Reason Selection of materials Hours of service Staff service Parking Convenient location Access to computers Lighted parking lot Space for doing research Special children's programs Space for reading Internet access Special adult programs Public meeting space Percent Percent Percent Very Important Somewhat Not Important Important 86.2 11.6 2.1 66.7 28.7 4.6 63.6 31.2 5.2 62.5 33.2 4.3 60.8 33.4 5.8 58.8 27.1 14.0 57.0 31.1 11.9 55.2 36.6 8.2 51.8 25.9 22.3 43.0 43.9 13.1 38.8 33.8 27.4 30.2 47.7 22.2 15.3 48.8 35.9 · A larger percentage of females (63.6 percent) than males (45.9 percent) indicated that lighted parking was "very important." · Respondents with children under five years of age were more likely to say that special children's programs were "very important" than were those without children under that age (69,9 percent compared to 46.3 percent). · Respondents with children 13-18 years of age were more likely to say that space for doing research was "very important" than were those without children in that age group (66.7 percent compared to 49.5 percent). Public Management Associates 13 Table 8 Importance of Library Materials Material Book selection Reference materials Selection of magazines, newspapers, or other periodicals Selection of audio cassettes, videos, books-on-tape Spanish language materials Other non-English materials Percent Percent Percent Very Important Somewhat Not Important Impodant 84.1 14.6 1.2 77.2 20.4 2.4 39.1 46.8 14.1 33.8 45.1 21.0 16.8 29.9 53.4 13.4 29.8 56.8 Book selection (84.1 percent "very important") and reference materials (77.2 percent "very important) clearly topped the list of important materials. A larger percentage of those with computers at home (80.8 percent) than those without computers (64.2 percent) indicated that reference materials were "very important." Respondents with children 13-18 years of age were more likely to say that reference materials were "very important" than were those without children in that age group (86.9 percent compared to 74.0 percent). A larger percentage of females (83.1 percent) than males (67.2 percent) indicted that reference materials were "very important." Public Management Associates 14 Table 9 Importance of Library Equipment Equipment Photocopy machine Computer resources such as databases, indexes, CD ROMs Internet access Personal computers for word- processin9 or spreadsheet use Typewriters Percent Percent Percent Very Important Somewhat Not Important Important 58.1 33.7 8.2 42.0 42.0 16.0 35.9 35.6 28.5 29.8 37.4 32,8 15.5 33.1 51.4 VVhile the importance of various types equipment was not a clear cut as for materials, photocopy machines did rank first, Those with computers at home were more likely to indicate that computer resources (43.5 percent) and internet access (38.8 percent) were very important than were those without computers (36.9 percent and 24.6 percent respectively). Public Management Associates 15 Table 10 Importance of Library Programs Program Reading programs for children Adult literacy programs Young adult programs Art, musical, and other cultural exhibits Adult programs Genealogy programs Percent Percent Percent Very Important Somewhat Not Important Important 59.9 21,6 18.5 49.5 22,9 27.5 47.1 31.9 21.0 40.4 43.8 15.8 32.9 43.3 23.8 24.4 47.6 28.0 · Respondents with children under five years of age were more likely to indicate that reading programs for children (78.3 percent) and young adult programs (57.8 percent) were "very important" than were those without children under five years of age (54.6 percent and 43.1 percent respectively). · Females (53.4 percent) were more likely than males (43.0 percent) to respond that adult literacy programs were "very important." Table 11 Importance of Library Facilities Facility Percent Percent Percent Very Important Somewhat Not Important Important Study rooms 37.2 40.9 22.0 Meeting rooms 16.8 44.0 39.1 · Females (42.7 percent) were more likely than males (27.9 percent) to respond that study rooms were "very important." Public Management Associates 16 V. LIBRARY NON-USERS A. Reasons For Non-Use Table 12 Reasons Respondents Do Not Use Library (n=70) ReasoR Generally do not use libraries Unaware of library's location Access to alternative sources of information Inconvenient service hours Inconvenient locations Library lacks current or interesting materials Insufficient parking Percent Mentioned 30.0 20.0 20.0 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 Previous poor service by library staff 0.0 Inadequate collection of non-English language or multicultural materials 0.0 Non-users were asked why they do not use the library. Thirty percent of the respondents reported that they generally do not use the library and 20 percent mentioned that they were unaware of the library's location or that they had access to alternative sources of information. Pubtic Management Associates 17 B. Proposed Improvements Table 13 Impact of Improvements on Likelihood of Library Use Improvement More programs for children/youth (n=55) Better access to computer technology (n=60) Dial-in computer access to library's catalog/databases (n=61) More parking near the building (n=55) 32.7 A new, full service facility more centrally located 30.2 (n=63) More art, music, literature or other cultural 31.0 exhibits/programs (n=58) Improved patron work areas for study, reading, 29.1 and/or computers (n=55) Materials on a wider range of subjects (n=58) 27.6 Personalized reference services for businesses 24.6 or individuals unable to visit library (n=57) More/wider variety of up-to-date materials 22.8 (n=57) More/wider vadety of books-on-tape (n=61) 21.3 More daily service hours at existing facilities 21.0 (n=62) More staff to answer questions (n=56) 19.6 More copies of materials (n=56) 17.9 More Spanish or other non-English language/ 11.5 multicultural materials (n=61) Increase Likelihood to Use Much more Somewhat No more 47.3 10.9 41.8 43.3 18.3 38.3 39.3 26.2 34.4 25.5 41.8 20.6 49.2 27.6 41.4 27.3 43.6 24.1 48.3 26.3 49.1 31.6 45.6 23.0 55.7 29.0 50.0 32.1 48.2 25.0 57.1 9.8 78.7 Respondents were asked if several improvements in services would increase their likelihood of using the library much more, somewhat more or no more. VVhile some differences were observed among respondent subgroups, the number responding was too small to permit meaningful interpretation. Public Management Associates 18 VI. SUPPORT FOR A NEW LIBRARY Figure 6 Support for Building a New Library (n=386) Very supportiveJ 50.3% Supportive .9% 8.8% Fifty-eight percent of library users were very supportive of building a new library compared to 31.9 percent of the non-users; however, 58.0 percent of the non-users were supportive. Sixty percent of those respondents with children under five years of age and 58.5 percent of those with children age 5-12 were very supportive of a new library compared to 46.0 percent of those who had no children under five and 45.0 percent of those with no children age 5-12. Public Management Associates 19 Figure 7 Support for Issuing Bonds to Pay for Construction of a New Library (n=331) Supportive 53.5% supportive 20.2% Very supportive 26.3% Of library users, 84.6 percent were either very supportive (28.6 percent) or supportive (56.0 percent) of issuing bonds to help pay for library construction compared to 68.0 percent of non-users who were very supportive (20.6 percent) or supportive (47.4 percent). Public Management Associates 2 0 Figure 8 Willingness to pay $25.00 More Each Year in Taxes (n=260) Yes 83.8%'~ A majority of the respondents (83.8 percent) were willing to pay $25.00 more per year in taxes to build a new library. Public Management Associates 2 1 Table 14 Amount Willing to Pay Per Year (n=29) Amount Percent 0.00 41.4 $1.00 3.4 $10.00 41.4 $15.00 6.9 $20.00 3.4 $99.00 3.4 Those respondents who were not willing to pay $25.00 in additional taxes were asked how much they would be willing to pay and 41.4 percent said they did not want to pay any additional taxes and 41.4 percent said they would pay $10.00. Public Management Associates 2 2 VII. CONCLUSIONS The 1998 Temecula Library survey reveals that a majority of users use the library to meet educational and training needs (75.9 percent), followed by meeting personal information needs (56.7 percent), and pleasure reading (56.4 percent). Seventy-nine percent of library users got their information about the library from library visits. Selection of materials was mentioned by 86.2 percent of the users as a factor that would influence their decision to use a new library. Most non-users did not use the library because they did not generally use libraries (30 percent), they had other sources of information (20 percent), or they were unaware of the library's location (20 percent). A majority of all the respondents (991.2 percent) were either very supportive (50.3 percent) or supportive (40.9 percent) of building a new library. In addition, 83.8 percent of all respondents were willing to pay an additional $25.00 per year in taxes to build a library. Finally, 79.8 percent) percent were very supportive (26.3 percent0 or supportive (53.5 percent) of issuing bonds to pay for library construction. Public Management Associates 2 3 j ITEM 21 APPROVA~ !TY ATTORNEY TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Susan W. Jones City Clerk/Director of Support Services April 13, 1999 Old Town Redevelopment Advisory Committee Appointment RECOMMENDATION: Appoint a member to serve an unexpired term on the Old Town Redevelopment Advisory Committee. BACKGROUND: Due to the resignation of Susie Bridges, there is an unexpired term, which will expire on September 26, 1999. The unexpired term was advertised and posted in accordance with the City Council's adopted policy and procedure for making appointments and reappointments. One application was received and forwarded to the Council Sub-committee consisting of Mayor Ford and Councilmember Lindemans. After review of the application, Mayor Ford and Councilman Lindemans recommend the appointment of Hank Testasecca. Attached is a copy of the application that was received by the filing deadline of March 24, 1999. ATTACHMENT: Copy of Application for Appointment Agenda ReportsV~ppointment Old Town Advisory Check one: CI~ OF TEMECU~ APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSI~24-9 ~A11: 39 RCV D · Qualification Requirement: __ Planning Commission Resident of the City of Ternecula. " ,__~Community Services Commission __ PubliclTraffic Safety Commission NAME: ,'~/~) ADDRESS: HOME PHONE: 7'E,~"/'/,~r_~'<:: WIIIE-PHONE: OCCUPATION: du~/~ EMPLOYER NAME: EMPLOYER ADDRESS: EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES: ~ST ~Y R~RSIDE COUN~ OR OTHER CI~ BOARD, COMMI~EE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR(S) OF SERVICE: OLD r ~,<:, 7e'z, yace,,/---/j.- ORGANIZATI~)NS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (ProfessiOnal, technical, community, service): BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND WHY YOU BEUEVE YOU ARE 'QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Use additional paper if necessary): I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for public 'nfor ation pu ses. SIGNATURE: ~ - ~' ~>,~ DATE: --~ Return to: City Cle ,43200 Business Park Drive (909) 694-6444 OR Mail to: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, Ca. 92589-9033 Commissions%Application for various Commissions ITEM 22 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Manager/City Council Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manag r~ April 13, 1999 ~ Consideration of Sponsorship Request Prepared by: Gloria Wolnick, Marketing Coordinator RECOMMENDATION: 1) 2) That the City Council consider the sponsorship request for the Temecula Valley Film Festival. If the City Council approves this request, the City Council should also approve an appropriation of $30,000 from the City's unallocated reserves of the General Fund to account #001-111-999-5264. DISCUSSION: Staff has received the sponsorship request in the amount of $30,000 for the 5th Annual Temecula Valley Film Festival, which is attached for your review. The Film Council is requesting that the City advance the organization $30,000 from their FY1999-2000 funding request to operate and promote its re-scheduled Film Festival. The Film Festival has been moved from its regularly scheduled time in September to June 17 through 24, 1999. The event is being re-scheduled to accommodate the availability of films and celebrities that were lined up for the San Diego Film Festival, which was planned in April. The San Diego Film Festival has been postponed indefinitely due to scheduling and Iogistical problems. The City of Temecula, therefore has the opportunity to benefit and take advantage of an expanded up-scale Film Festival that is packaged and ready to go. In future years the event would return to the September date. The Temecula Valley Film Festival will reach new heights this year, as it will provide 20 to 50 additional films as well as presenting several additional lifetime achievement recipients in various categories. A sampling of the schedule of events planned over the eight day period include: Opening Night Premiere & Reception Screenings Workshops Black Tie Awards Gala Filmmakers' Hot Air Balloon Race Post Screening Parties Closing Night Premiere/Wrap Party The event will take place at the Temeku Theater at Palm Plaza shopping center located at Ynez and Winchester roads. R:\WOLNICKG\Agendareports\Filrn Festival '99.doc The Film Festival will be organized and presented by Cinema Entertainment Alliance in cooperation with the Temecula Valley Film Council. The Film Council is fully supportive of this arrangement. Cinema Entertainment Alliance, principals Jo Moulton and Herb Margolis, is a non-profit cultural and educational organization established in 1997. The Festival's core management team's qualifications are attached for your review. The event attracted approximately 6,000 in attendance in 1998 with the attendance expected to increase to 10,000 this year. The Film Festival's primary intended market, the filmmakers, composed the majority of last year's audience. Plans for the 1999 event include an information campaign to the community about what a film festival is all about. With the proper marketing of the Festival locally and the information campaign the attendance from the community is expected to increase. The '98 Festival publicity consisting of newspaper, magazine, radio and trade publications coverage combined with their respective circulation numbers, received approximately 3 million impressions. The Festival was also included in several international listings of upcoming film festivals, and covered by the Hollywood Reporter and Variety publications and websites. The total cost of the '98 Film Festival came to $72,506.81. See attachment G for a breakdown of expenses. Publicity for the '99 event will include a direct mail campaign to film industry professionals, a public relations campaign to major industry trade publications, internet, prime national and local television news/entertainment programs. The local newspapers will be the Festival's primary advertising vehicles consisting of a media mix of broadcast, print and outdoor advertising that will be scheduled two months before the Festival. Due to the fact that the Festival promotes tourism and economic development in Temecula, funding would come from the General Fund. Council will only be considering the advance of the Film Festival and not the total Film Council's annual request at this time. As part of the FY1999- 2000 General Fund Budget, the Council will be considering an additional request by the Film Council for other Film Council activities. There will be no commissions paid to any party of the City of Temecula's sponsorship. FISCAL IMPACT: An additional appropriation from the Unreserved General Fund balance to account #001-111-999-5264 of $30,000 would be necessary if the Council desires to sponsor the Film Festival. ATTACH M E NTS: Attachment A - Attachment B - Attachment C- Attachment D - Attachment E - Attachment F - Attachment G - Advedising Agreement, Page 3 Sponsorship Package, Page 4 Business/Media Plan and Budget, Page 5 Recap of 1998 Temecula Valley Film Festival, Page 6 Cinema Entertainment Alliance Qualifications, Page 7 Sponsor Agreement Between Temecula Valley Film Council and Cinema Entertainment Alliance, Page 8 Temecula Valley Film Council Statement of Operation, Page 9 \\TEMEC_FS2OI\DATA\DEPTS\REDEV~WOLNICKG\AgendarepOrts~Film Festival '99,doc 2 ATTACHMENT A - ADVERTISING AGREEMENT R:\WOLNICKG\Agendareports\Film Festival '99.doc 3 ADVERTISING AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND TEMECULA VALLEY FILM COUNCIL This Agreement, made this 13th day of April, 1999, by and between the CITY OF TEMECULA, (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and TEMECULA VALLEY FILM COUNCIL, a Califomia nonprofit corporation (hereinafter referred to as ("TVFC"). A. TVFC will operate the "Temecula Valley Film Festival" on June 17 - 24, 1999. The Temecula Valley Film Festival is a special event located at the Temeku Theater in Temecula and locations of the Festival's subsequent events to be determined. Attendance in previous years has been between 5,000 - 7,000+ people for the 3-day event. The anticipated attendance for the 1999 Festival is estimated at 10,000 due to increasing the event to 8 days as well as presenting 20 - 50 additional films and several lifetime achievement recipients. B. The City of Temecula desires to be an Advertising Sponsor of the 1999 Temecula Valley Film Festival. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows: A. In exchange for the payment of $30,000, the City of Temecula shall be designated as an "Advertising Sponsor" of the 1999 Temecula Valley Film Festival. In exchange for being an Advertising Sponsor, the City of Temecula will receive the benefits as listed in Attachment B. B. Following the Film Festival, TVFC shall prepare and submit to the City Manager a written report evaluating the Film Festival event, its attendance, and describing the materials in which the City was listed as an Advertising Sponsor. C. TVFC agrees that it will defend, indemnify and hold the City and its elected officials, officer, agents, and employees free and harmless from all claims for darnage to persons or by reason of TVFC's acts or omissions or those of TVFC's employees, officers, agents, or invites in connection with the Temecula Valley Film Festival to the maximum extent allowed by law. D. TVFC shall secure from a good and responsible company or companies doing insurance business in the State of California, pay for and maintain in full force and effect for the duration of this Agreement a policy of comprehensive general liability and liquor liability in which the City is named insured or is named as an additional insured with TVFC and shall furnish a Certificate of Liability by the City. Notwithstanding any inconsistent statement in the policy or any subsequent endorsement attached hereto, the protection offered by the policy shall; 1. Include the City as the insured or named as an additional insured covering all claims arising out of, or in connection with, the Temecula Valley Film Festival. R:\WOLNieKG\Agenaareports\Film Festival '99.doc 3 Include the City, its officers, employees and agents while acting within the scope of their duties under this Agreement against all claims arising out of, or in connection with Temecula Valley Film Festival. 3. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: (A) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage provided on ISO-CGL Form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. (B) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Consultant owns no automobiles, a non-owned endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. (c) Worker's Compensation Insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no employees while performing under this Agreement, Worker's Compensation Insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. (D) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form providing professional liability for the Consultants profession. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (A) General Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (B) Automobile Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (c) Worker' s Compensation/Employer' s Liability: Worker' s Compensation as required by the State; and Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. (D) Professional Liability Coverage: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per claim and in the aggregate. (E) Liquor Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. R:~WOLNICKG\Agendareports\Film Festival '99.doc 4 The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its officer, officials, employees and volunteers for losses arising from the Temecula Valley Film Festival. Bear an endorsement or shall have attached a rider whereby it is provided that, in the event of expiration or proposed cancellation of such policy for any reason whatsoever, the City shall be notified by registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, not less than thirty (30) days beforehand. Any deductible or self-insured retention must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductible or self-insured retention as respects the City, its officers, officials and employees or TVFC shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. E. Should any litigation be commenced between the parties, hereto, concerning the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party concerning the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled. F. TVFC shall promptly furnish the City, upon the completion of TVFC operating year, certified copies of annual operating statement. R:\WOLNICKG\Agendareports\Filrn Festival '99.doc 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused its corporate name and seal to be hereunto subscribed and affixed by Chairperson and attest to by the City Clerk, both thereunto duly authorized, and the Temecula Valley Film Council, has hereunto subscribed this Contract day, month, and year hereinabove written. DATED: TEMECULA VALLEY FILM COUNCIL CITY OF TEMECULA BY: Frederic Huber President, Temecula Valley Film Council Steven J. Ford, Mayor City of Temecula ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter Thorson, City Attorney R:\WOLNICKG\Agendareports\Filrn Festival '99.doc (~ ATTACHMENT B - SPONSORSHIP PACKAGE 4 The 5th Annual Temecula Valley Int'l Film Festival Sponsorship Package Elements The festival sponsorship package is tailored to meet the individual sponsor needs. The following are a variety of programs included m the sponsor benefits package based on sponsor level of participation: Advertising: Advertisement in the 1999 Official Program. Sponsor recognition in the TVIFF event advertising in print/broadcast media, whenever applicable. Crime and space allotment will dictate sponsor recognition availability) Publicity: Extensive distribution of press release announcement of sponsorship. On site interviews of sponsors in print/broadcast media may be arranged, whenever possible. Corporate Logo: Placement in corporate sponsor page of event official Program. Placement in event program with the sponsored film screening(s) or event. Placement/mention on print/broadcast media advertisements, whenever applicable. Placement on the TVIFF web site. Corporate Banner: Placement of sponsor banner at any or all festival theater and special event venues for the full run of the festival, whenever possible. (Subject to venue approval) Corporate Signage: For sponsors of specific film screening (s) or special festival events, a sponsor sign display board will be created m announce sponsorship of the screening (s) or event. Corporate Literature: Sponsor literature, brochures or promotional items may be displayed, distributed at various festival venues throughout the full run of the festival. Information and corporate tables will be set up in the lobbies of the festival theater venues, the festival box office, media center and the Hospitality Suite. Web Site: WWW.TVIFF.COM is the official year-round site of the TVIFF. Sponsorship is acknowledged with sponsor logos and brief sponsor bio. Hyperlinks to sponsor websites can be established. Specific Corporate Identification: Depending on sponsor level of participation, a sponsor name may be attached to a specific portion of the film festival, as the "Official" supplier of product or service. Hospitality Suite: Sponsors will have access to the Hospitality Suite. This suite is reserved for special festival guests, filmmakers and sponsors. Ticketing and Special Passes: All sponsors will receive complimentary tickets and passes to all performances, workshops and special festival parties. Ticket and Pass allotment will depend on level of sponsorship. City ef Temeclla as Majer Slenser [$38,818] Benefits Inclllde: · Recognition of City of Temecula's sponsorship in all festival printed collateral materials. · Recognition of City of Temecula's sponsorship in all applicable Broadcast and Print Media advertising, signage and press releases. · Acknowledgment of City of Temecula's sponsorship prior to and after every f~m screening and filmmaking workshops. · Full page, black & white Inside Cover Page, City of Temecula ad in the program. · 10 complimentary tickets to the Opening Night Premiere and Post Premiere Reception. · 10 complimentary tickets to the Black Tie Awards Gala. · 10 complimentary tickets to the Closing Night Wrap. · 10 complimentary tickets to all Festival workshops/panel discussions/seminars. · 10 complimentary tickets to all Nightly Post Screening Networking Opportunity Parties. · 10 complimentary tickets to any pre-festival fundraising events. · 100 regular screening tickets for giveaway to city employees · Festival Souvenirs (festival shirts, mugs & hats) · Access to the VIP Hospitality Suite. · Acknowledgment of City of Temecula representatives to the Opening Night Premieres & Post Premiere Reception, Black Tie Awards Gala, Closing Night Wrap Party. · Oppoitunity to incorporate Festival Logo in any City of Temecula Marketing efforts, insertion of City of Temecula Logo in the festival website and in the program sponsors' logo page. · Opportunity for City of Temecula to enhance community relations by involving City officials and employees in different aspects of the festival (from festival presenters to hosts/hostesses in all prime festival special events). · As host city, the City will always be acknowledged as a cooperative entity in the event titling regardless of who the eventual Presenting or Title sponsor will be (The ~ta Annual Temecula Valley International Film Festival is a presentation of Cinema Entertainment Alliance in cooperation with City of Temecula and Temecula Valley Film Council). ATTACHMENT C - BUSINESS/MEDIA PLAN AND BUDGET Business Plan for the The 5th Annual Temecula Valley International Film Festival celebration of the imagination through film Submitted by: Cinema Entertainment Alliance 31468 Corte Montlel, Temecula, CA 92592 (909) 699-8681/FAX (909) 506-4193 Email: jmmoulton@earthlinl<.net February 23, 1998 SUMMARY Since the inception of "moving pictures" barely a hundred years ago, from humble beginnings as a novelty in the fairgrounds, film has become the most spectacular and influential contemporary art form- an industry of business and entertainment. The medium has constantly reinvented itself, from sight to sound, embracing every facet of modern technology in its pursuit of excellence. With visual and visceral power, it mesmerizes audiences in diverse cultures and all sections of society as a force of universal communication. Cinema Entertainment Alliance is a non-profit mutual benefit California corporation established to promote, enhance and showcase the art, science, creativity, diversity and significance of filmmaking in America and around the world. Cinema Entertainment Alliance has watched the Temecula Valley International Film Festival grow from a fledgling endeavor to an impressive Film event that is now considered a viable part of the national film festival circuit. It is in recognition of this achievement that Cinema Entertainment Alliance is prepared to produce, expand and continue to lay the groundwork for a higher profile, world-class presentation of the 5th Annual Temecula Valley International Film Festival A celebration of the imagination through film OBJECTIVE The Alliance' s objective is to propel the 5th Annual Temecula Valley Int 'l Film Festival into a prominent position in the world film festival circuit. Key elements contribute to the realistic achievement of this objective. These are: CLOSE PROXIMITY TO LOS ANGELES Temecula is only a drive away from Los Angeles - where the bulk of the world's creative community, the industry decision-makers and more importantly, the most sought at'cer film festival attendees, live. STARS & LEGENDS Most film festivals are geared to honoring emerging and independent Filmmakers. The 5th Annual Temecula Valley Int 'l Film Festival, while showcasing world wide independent and student films, will give tributes to stars of tomorrow and legends of the past. In addition, key awards of excellence in various categories will be given to deserving industry professionals. THE FUN ELEMENT Sundance, Cannes and Toronto Film Festivals are considered the world's top three festivals. Yet for all their hype, fame, success and lory, the pureness of what these festivals started out are gone. The 5ffAnnual Temecula Valley Int 'l Film Festival is deliberately designed to position itself as Southern California' s answer to the frenzied madness and mobs of Sundance, pricey Cannes and the all-business frenzy of Toronto. The schedule of activities reflect the underlying marketing thrust of the festival as a fun yet inspiring, entertaining yet educational, relaxing yet truly exciting and affordable, people friendly film festival The 5th Annual Temecula Valley Inrl Film Festival FACT SHEET Date: Wednesday, June 17-June 24, 1999 Venue: Temeku Theaters at Palm Plaza Temecula, California Number of Films Over 80 films. Screenings start at 1 l:00am to 1 l:00pm. Number of Admissions: Expected over-all attendance is 10,000 Market Area: Primarily Southern California, with extensive prim and electronic media coverage. Scope: Screenings of the best emerging, up and coming as well as established filmmakers, workshops presented by industry professionals, special awards & tributes. Advertising & Marketing: Industry publications (Hollywood Reporter, Daily Variety) Inland Empire, Orange and San Diego county area publications, radio & cable Direct Mail, Internet via festival Website, (www. wiff. com) Cross promotions with festival retail/corporate sponsors Festival ticket outlets, event flyors, General Information Brochures, Posters, Billboards ticket Pdces/Speclal Festival Packages: General Admission, $6, One- Day Screening Pass, $25, Opening Night & Party, $25 Black Tie Awards Gala, $75, Closing Night Wrap/Viewer's Choice Awards, $10 Workshops, $12, Festival Pass, $250, ~*4hy PCll'[lc|pCfi'e.? Participation in the 5~t' Annual Temecula Valley International Film Festival provides: · An excellent marketing opportunity to be part of one of the most lucrative, enduring and most significant cultural art form - the art and business of motion pictures. · Association with a high quality international event · High visibility before thousands of prospects · A great opportunity to show support for the arts Who aftends? Stars, producers, directors, writers, talents agents, film distributors, critics, TV and film industry craftsmen, film students and film lovers. Film festivals generally attract educated, creative professionals with high incomes. What's in store for the festival attendee? · World and US Premieres of contemporary American Features, Shorts, Documentaries and Live Action/Animation. · Young Filmmakers' Showcase. Screenings of films written, produced and directed by children and young adults. Screenings of films for/about children and family issues. · Foreign Films Showcase · Spectacular Opening, Closing and Awards Gala · Post Screening Parties, great networking opportunities · Special Awards, Retrospectives and Tributes to significant filmmakers · Educational and entertaining film industry workshops · Filmmakers' Q&A sessions · Competitive Sporting Event: Filmmakers' Hot Air Balloon Race (Subject to wind conditions) · Daily film screenings from 11:00am to 11:00pm at 7 (THX Surround Sound- equipped) theater screens in one convenient location. MARKETING PLAN The $a~ Annum Temecula Valley Int'l Film Festival's marketing strategy will consist of the following: DIRECT MAIL Aggressive and comprehensive direct mail campaign to filmmakers, film distributors, production companies, talent agents, publicists, and film schools. The Festival information brochure will be the main collateral material targeted for direct mail distribution. PUBLICITY & MEDIA RELATIONS Extensive public relations campaign before, during and ai~er the festival. Major industry trade publications (Hollywood Reporter, Daily Variety, Screen Int'l) and area newspapers (Arts and Entertainment, Guide. Calendar Sections) will be aggressively pursued for story editorials about the Festival. Prime national and local television news/entertainment programs such as Entertainment Tonight, Access Holb~wood will be tapped for strategic story placements. Festival fact sheets will be distributed to travel publications, local event calendar guides, chambers of commerce, area schools, area organizations. Information speaking engagements with local service organizations, Community Theater, school and civic groups will be scheduled. ADVERTISING Although local newspapers will be the festival's primary advertising vehicles, a media mix of broadcast, print and outdoor advertising will be scheduled two months before the festival. Cross promotions with festival sponsors and advertisers will be aggressively encouraged. Display billboards in malls, on screen advertising in theaters, posters, free standing inserts or brochures and ticket giveaways are just a few of the high impact promotional ideas planned to advertise the festival. INTERNET MARKETING In the past five years, a real revolution has taken place, one that offers events such as the 5~ Annual Temecula Falley Int'l Film Festival, greater reach and greater impact than any other marketing innovation of the past century- the Internet, more specifically, the World Wide Web. With our own web site, www.tviff. com, the festival is guaranteed 24- hour worldwide exposure 1999 5m Annual Temecula Valley International Film Festival Budget Expenses Collateral Pdnfing $5,000 Graphics Design $3,000 Publicfly/Media Relallons Media Director/LA & Temecula $15,000 Clipping Service $200 $15,200 Advertising $20,000 Special Guests/Filmmaker/Workshop Presenter Expenses 531,500 Transportation $2,000 Accommodations $2,000 Trophies/Plaques/Certificates $1,000 Cash Prizes $3,000 Security (3 days) $1,000 16MM-2000 Projector Rental $3,500 Party Expenses Opening Night $2,000 Closing Night/Awards Gala $10,000 Post Screening Parties (3) $1,000 Party supplies/D&:or $1,000 Party rentals $5,000 Festival Management Expenses SL~ff/CEA $50,000 Sponsor Development $5,000 Event Coordinator $2,500 Technical Director $2,500 Commissions $12,000 Miscellaneous Theater Remnl (7/5 days) $5,000 Festival Operations on site Office$1,000 Postage/Freight $500 Merchandise (shins/hats/mugs) $2,000 Telephone/Fax $1,000 Insurance $3,000 Signage Installation/Banners $4,000 Permits/Fees $500 $17,000 Contingency $10,000 TOTAL FESTIVAL BUDGET $173,700 1999 5"' Annual Temecula Valley International Film Festival Projected Income Sponsorships $80,000 Ticket/Merchandise~vent Sales $105,950 General Admission Tickets ~ $5 Five (5)screenings in seven (7) theaters for seven (7) days ~ $5 per film with an average viewer attendance of no less than 50 per screening $61,250 Post Screening Parties ~ $5 $5/5 nights x 300 paid attendees, $7,500 Opening Night Premiere & Reception ~ $25 $25 x 300 paid attendees, $7,500 Black Tie Awards Gala ~ $75 $75 x 300 paid attendees, $22, 500 Closing Night Premiere ~ $10 $10 x 300 paid attendees, $3,000 One Day Pass ~ $20 $20 x 100 paid attendees, $2,000 Workshops, (~ $12 $12 x 100 paid attendees, $1,200 Merchandise T shim ~ $10 x 50, $500 Hats @ $10 x 20, $200 Mugs @ $5 x 20, $100 Souvenir Programs @ $ lx 200, $200 Total Projected Income:$185,950 Tee Iltlmate Rim Festival eemes te Temecwla lee 17-24, 1999 Eight spectacular days and nights of the ultimate film festival experience comes to Temecula this June. Watch, listen and expose yourself to innovative creations of technological artistry. Celebrate with us the excitement of world premieres, galas, special tributes, classic retrospectives, studio films, independent films, foreign films, student films, films about, for and by children and yes, workshops too. Relax, watch a film. Unwind, watch another film. Party and mingle with the world' s best creative minds and legendary stars of the past and present. Watch yet another film. Since its inception barely a hundred years ago as a novelty at county fairs, motion pictures have become the most spectacular and influential art form, mesmerizing audiences around the globe. So, for those who care deeply about film as we do, listen to the "buzz", feel the beat and follow the vision. ¢eldlllll tie Wedll el I!ll Attlle 1999 5TM ANNUAL TEMECULA VALLEY INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL HONORARY ADVISORY BOARD (In Alphabetical Order) Debbie Allen, Choreographer/Director/Producer/Actress Jacqueline Bissett, Actress Ray Bradbury, Science Fiction Writer Cha~es Champlin, Film and Art Critic Lindsay Doran, President & CEO of United Artists Film Corp. Richard Dreyfuss, Actor Atom Egoyan, Writer/Director Kirk Ellis, Writer Vondie Curtis Hall, Actor Terry Gilmore, VP, Paradise Chevrolet, Cadillac, Oldsmobile Alice La Dearie, Pres., LA Film Teacher's Assoc. Karl Lemmons, Writer/Producer/Director. Michael Rechtschaffen, Film Critic, Hollywood Reporter Pad Rubenstein, Professor, Writer Rod Steiger, Actor Saul Zaentz, Producer LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD HONOREES Howard W. Koch, Producer (1995) Robert Wise, Director (1996) Cad Reiner, Writer/Director/Comedian (1997) Karl Malden, Actor (1998) 1999 5th Annual Temecula Valley Inrl Film Festival June 17-June 24,1999, Temeku Theaters at Palm Plaza (Ynez Rd at Winchester) SCHEDULE OF EVENTS Opening Night Premlere & Reception Thursday, June 17, Cocktails at 5pm. Film screening at 6PM, Post Screening Schmooze at 8PM. Tickets: $25per person / ifpremiere screening only, $7.00 General Screenings Friday, June 18 - Thursday, June 24 From 11:00am to l l :00pm, Temeku Theaters. General Admission, $5 Young Filmmaker's Showcase Friday, June 18 - Thursday, June 24, Temeku Theaters, from 11:00am to 6:00pm, $3.00 Screenings of films written, produced and directed by children and young adults. MGM Film RebospeclNes Friday, June 18 - Thursday, hne 24, from 11:00am-11: 00pm, Temeku Theaters Screenings of classic and critically acclaimed films by a major studio (MGM) Filmmakers Workshop Sedes Saturday, June 19 through Sunday, June 20 ~rom 10:00am-5: 00pro, Temeku Theaters. Industry experts lead dialogues, workshops and pane] discussions on various film- industry related topics. Ticke{s, $12 per person. Post Screening Networldng Opportunity Parties Saturday, June 19 - Wednesday, June 23 at the VIP Hospitality Suite Enjoy 5 nights of live entertainment, samples of various ethnic cuisines. Party and mingle with filmmakers. $5 cover charge. Black Tie Awards Gala Friday, June 18, 6PM, cocktails. 7PM dinner, Lifetime Achievement Awards presentation and dance. Tickets $75 per person, Venue -TBD. Filmmakers' Hot Air Balloon Race Saturday, June 19, 6AM, Launch site, TBA (Subject to wind conditions) Closing NIght Premlere/Wrap Party Thursday, June 24, 6pm at Temeku Theaters. WrapNolunteers Appreciation Party at 8PM w/announcement of winners for Best Feature Film, Best Foreign Film, Best Short Film, Best Student Film, Best Documentary, Best Animation. Ticket, $10/person. 1999 5th Annual Temecula Valley Int'L Film Festival Individual Ticket Prices & SDeclal Ticket Packages QTY TOTAL General Admission Ticket, $5 Your ticket to an individual screening One Day Pass, $25 Your ticket to one day of screenings Four Day Pass, $75 Your ticket to four days of screenings Individual Workshop Ticket, $12 Your ticket to one worl~hop Workshop Pass, $60 Your ticket to all workshops Opening Night Premiere & Reception ~ $25 Your ticket to Opening Night festivities Black Tie Awards Gala ~ $75 Your ticket to the festival's most glamorous event Closing Night Wrap ~ $10 Your ticket to Closing Night festivities Festival Pass, $250 Your ticket to all screenings, workshops and special events Super Pass, $150 Your ticket to all screenings and work, vhops Post Screening Schmooze, $5 Your ticket to Thursday or Saturday Night post screening networking Opportunity party Festival Merchandise Shirt, $10 Hat, $10 Mug, $5 Souvenir Program, $1 TOTAL ORDER How to Purchase Tickets General Admission tickets and special festival ticket packages may be purchased through the TVIFF at the Hospitality Suite or at the Festival Box Office starting June 26, 1999. To purchase ticket by phone or mail, please make checks or money order payable to TVIFF and mail to: TVIFF, 27740 Jefferson Ave. Suite 100, Temecula, Ca 92590. If paying by credit card, please fill out the following, sign and return this portion to above- mentioned address. VISA , MC , AMEX , Discover Credit Card Acct # Exp. Date: Print Name: Signature: Address: Telephone (HOME) OFFICE: All pass and ticket orders by phone will be held at WILL CALL at the Festival Box Office. Pick Up at WILL CALL starts June 14, 1999. All ticket sales are final. No refunds or exchanges. For more information, call TVIFF at (909) 699-6267 Or write us c/o TVIFF, 27740 Jefferson Ave. Suite 100, Temecula, Ca 92590. A Word about Screeninn. Workshorts and Soeciai Events Due to circumstances beyond our control, some or all schedules of screenings, workshops and special events may be subject to change with little or no advance notice. Daily updates will be posted at the theater venue, the Festival Box Office and the Festival Hospitality Suite. No refunds or exchanges, except in case of a program or special event cancellation. Seating is available at all screenings on a first come-first served basis. We recommend that you come 15 minutes before your scheduled screening time. Festival films are not rated. Parental discretion advised on some films. Films not in English will be presented with English subtitles. Directions to Temecula from: Los Angeles Take 5 South, 60 east, 10 East or 91 East to the 15 South. Exit at Winchester Rd. Go east on Winchester. Theaters are at Palm Plaza on Ynez Road at Winchester San Bernardino and Riverside Counties Take 215 east to the 15 South. Same exit as above. Orange County Take 55 East or 91 East to the 15 South. Same exit as above. San Diego County Take 163 East or 52 East or 78 East or 76 East to the 15 north. Same exit as above. Tillage Jue IP tkNIk tim 24' ilttmPlaaldTmemagalleW MlmltJelalRImFellkfaL PRINT ADVERTISING COPY # 1 Fer 8 sllectlcllar days II lime See more than 80 critically acclaimed films, award winning films, new films by emerging filmmakers, new films by established filmmakers, films of depth, originality and vision. Learn the fascinating and technologically challenging aspects of motion picture production from industry professionals as they share with you an in-depth behind the scenes look at how movies are made. Mingle with the best and top filmmakers and stars at the glittering, star studded Opening Night, Post Screening Parties, Closing Night and Black Tie Awards Gala Tie Temenla Nay Imerlatlelal Rim Fesgud. Take A ;eldnlllel ef tim :;~:;.~;~ Oweagll flit Aemlilal~efagfeatfemmtradnleL For ticket and event information, call (909) 699-6267/699-8681 or visit the event web site at www. tviff. com Print Advertisim, Copy#2 The ultimate film festival comes to Temecula June 17 - June 24, 1999 Celebrate 8 exciting days! · Watch a world premiere · Enjey the best of mainstream, independent, fordim and student films · Party and mingle at star studded galas, post screening bashes and entertainment packed events · Join a Filmmaker's Q&A · Attend Worbhops by industry professionals · Experience the 14614 7P Anniversary Retreepedive The Temecula Valley International Film Festival, Take 5 A celebration of the imagination through film, A continuation of a great festival tradition. For ticket and event information, (gO9) 6gg-GZ67/699-8681 or www.tviff.com 1999 5TM Aaged Temecgla Valley laternamed Rim Festival Committed Spemrt as of 3/25/99 hadIn Cloyfeint Black Tie Awards Gala Sponsor- cash SI!verdslem Emrtalmmmat kemp Website Design & Maintenance- in kind service Preens Press Festival Official Printing Company - in kind service Adl Iraodors Contributing Sponsor: Black Tie Awards Gala - in kind service Leeldal bed loamy billy Contributing Sponsor, Black Tie Awards Gala- in kind service Graphics Design- in kind service lleclanterlfldee Festival Information Outlet-in kind service Falllreek National lank JeeEdwanlsPietelraplqf Festival Stills Photographer- in kind service Balcel lied Estate- ladle grip & Ulitlel- Illll Zlll- i. ki-d service TIll lllTIU illlilY- i. ki.d service ATTACHMENT D - RECAP OF 1998 TEMECULA VALLEY FILM FESTIVAL 6 The 1998 4m AiIinlai Temecllla Valley Iiitenlatlellal film Festival Media Impresslens In spite of the fact that there wasn't adequate funds to launch the kind of aggressive marketing campaign the Temecula Valley Film Council wanted, the 4th Annual Temecula Valley International Film Festival managed to have an extensive coverage in print, on radio, television and the Interact. Attendance was a modest count of approximately 6,000 people. Fortunately for the Film Festival, its primary intended market- the filmmakers- composed the majority of its audience. Plans for the 1999 event include a more aggressive and saturated information campaign to the community about what a film festival is all about. The perception that the event is primarily for people in the film industry or that a person needs an invitation to be able to participate in the festivities are perceptions the festival organizers are looking to change. As a result of regular distribution of news releases and telephone calls to the media, the festival was featured, listed or mentioned in the news and entertainment sections of newspapers as well as in travel magazines and travel sections of newspapers, from outside the area. In addition, TVIFF was also included in several international listings of upcoming film festivals and in numerous event calendars in several types of publications. Both local newspapers - the Press Enterprise and the Californian - started running stories more than five weeks before the event and continued fight through the announcement of the winners and wrap-up stories. The Press Enterprise (circulation, 120,000) wrote several features before the festival, during the festival and wrap up stories after the festival. The Californian (circulation, 22,000) was just as supportive of the event including a particularly detailed feature in its weekend supplement. The San Diego Union Tribune (circulation, 400,000) gave coverage in both its metro editions and in the local south Riverside County press run. The multi-page coverage in its weekend supplement was particularly comprehensive. Other newspapers which covered the event included the San Bernardino Sun, the North County Times, Fallbrook Village News, Valley Business Joumal, Neighbors, Inland Empire Entertainment Round-Up, and the Community Publications Group which ran an interview with Lifetime Achievement Award winner, Karl Malden in all its editions. The festival was also covered by the syndicated Pacific News Group which placed stories in its client's publications nationwide. The festival was also featured in the two entertainment trade publications: The Hollywood Reporter and Variety. Hollywood Reporter mentioned the festival several times before the event and covered the winners. Although the reporter has a circulation of 35,000, it is one of the most influential showbiz publications in the world. The other entertainment bible Variety (circ~ 40,000) also covered the event. The mention of the Malden evening in the Army Archerd column (the man who introduces the stars on the red carpet at the Oscars) was widely quoted by other sources including radio and tv outlets worldwide. Both the Reporter and Variety have Internet editions, which are read by millions. Other web pages which mentioned the festival included Film Threat, Indiewire, and Reuters. The festival' s own web page, provided by the Press Enterprise on its P-E Net, also had heavy traffic. KATY, KFROG and KOLA radio did various mentions and ticket giveaways. Riverside's RCC Student News Group covered the festival for their student produced Inland Valley News Show. Several participating filmmakers also advertised the festival and their respective screening schedules in the industry trade publications. Festival ads were placed in the Press Enterprise, the Californian, Community Publications Group, Daily Variety and Reporter. All in all, newspaper, radio, trade publications, and magazine coverage combined with their respective circulation numbers, the festival received approximately 3million impressions. ATTACHMENT E - CINEMA ENTERTAINMENT ALLIANCE QUALIFICATIONS 7 MANAGEMENT TEAM The ~ Annual Temecula Valley Int'l Film Festival is organized and presented by Cinema Entertainment Alliance. Cinema Entertainment Alliance is a not for profit cultural and educational organization established in 1997 to seek and discover talented individuals and significant pieces of work representing the highest level of artistic excellence; to utilize cinema and relevant art forms as a tool for education and discourse; and to promote international communication and celebrate cultural diversity through film, music, visual, performing or digital arts. The 5th Annual Temecula Valley Int '1 Film Festival core management team is composed of Jo Moulton as Festival Director, Herb Margolis as Artistic Program Director and Pamayla Ziolkowski as Exec. In Charge of Talent and Dialogue Series. Together, they make a formidable team of highly talented, highly successful group of creative individuals with combined experiences exceeding 50 years in motion picture, television, public relations and event management. Jo Moulton has over 17 years of entertainment industry experience. Straight from college, she started as Production Assistant then on to head of the Entertainment Division for KBS-TV, Channel 9 in Manila, Philippines. While at KBS-TV, she produced and directed live variety shows, game shows, rock concerts, and political and sporting events. She also coordinated for KBS-TV, international events like the Miss Universe Beauty Pageants, the Los Angeles Olympic Games, the Asian circuit of concerts by the Commodores, Michael Jackson, Dionne Warwick and the Bee Gees. She moved on to American mainstream television as Production Coordinator for the 5,6 and 11:00pm Eyewitness News at KABC-TV in Los Angeles for 8 years. In 1989, she relocated to Temecula, California. In 1992, she established the Temecula Valley Film Council, which successfully established Temecula as a viable location filming destination. She later on founded in 1995, the Temecula Valley International Film Festival. For a relatively small event, the Temecula Valley Int'l Film Festival, now entering its filth year, has managed to attract the likes of legendary filmmakers Howard W. Koch, Robert Wise and Carl Reiner and Karl Malden as Lifetime Achievement Award honorees. In 1997, she, with her Cinema Entertainment Alliance partners (Herbert Margolis and Pamayla Ziolkowski) established the 1998 Inaugural San Diego World Film Festival, and helped in the creation of the 1998 Marco Island Film Festival. Ms. Moulton brings back to the 5thAnnual Temecula Valley Int '1 Film Festival her unique combination of television and film industry production, event management, sales, marketing and creative expertise. Herbert Margolis has worked as a writer/producer through the years at Columbia, Disney, MGM, Paramount, Warner Brothers and Universal. He also developed and published many books, including the national best seller "Nice Girls Do," which he co- authored. He honed his cralt as a filmmaker working closely with Walt Disney, Alfred Hitchcock and George Stevens, doing re-writes on several acclaimed films. Mr. Margolis began his career as a film critic for the New York Times. He founded with Roger Manyell the distinguished Penguin Film review, which, in its time, was the most popular motion picture magazine in the wo~d. Margolis has lectured at film festivals in Cannes, Venice, Montreal, New York and Chicago. Mr. Margolis hosted the popular sneak preview film course at UCLA for years. Recently, he moderated Movie Madness Sneak Preview series at Learning Tree as well as the Cinema Series II at KCET. A member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the Writer's Guild and the Alliance of Motion Picture Producers, Mr. Margolis has coordinated movie premieres for charity benefits through his company, Marpam Productions, Inc. Currently, he works as "Script Doctor" for major film studios. He is also writing a new book, Film- the Art of Visceral Power. Pamayla Ziolkowski has worked as an experienced executive for various production companies, most current of which is as Senior Executive Director of Creative Affairs for Marpare Productions, Inc. Ms. Ziolkowski has organized special events and performances, coordinated script development, post production work, dubbed the English language on foreign films and television shows scheduled for release in England and the U.S. She also coordinated all the publicity and guest appearances of celebrities and industry professionals for KCET Cinema Series, Sneak Preview Series at UCLA, Pierce College and Learning Tree. Ms. Ziolkowski speaks fluent German, French and Italian. Kevin Haasarud, is the festival 's Independent Features/& Short Films Program Advisor. Mr. Haasarud has worked as film programmer for the US Comedy Arts Festival in Aspen for HBO and the San Diego World Film Festival. His filmmaking credits include the documentary series Science of the Souk a Jungian Perspective for HBO, and the award winning short, Angel, Arizona (Sundance Channel). He got his start with Roger Corman at his Concorde/New Horizon Studio, later spending five years with HBO Original Programming, developing shows that included the Larry Sanders Show, Tracey Takes On, Kathy & Mo Show, the Ben Stiller Show and Dennis Miller Live. Mike Kerrigan of Calpix International has also signed on as the Festival' s Media Director. Mr. Kerrigan is a veteran entertainment writer and film critic for various international/national newspapers and trade publications (London Mirror, Box Office Magazine). He is also the founder of the Hermosa Beach Film Festival. Charlie Barrett of the Barrett Company is the Festival' s media marketing agency. A veteran public relations specialist, Mr. Barrett's most current work includes media marketing for the San Diego Word Film Festival as well as media marketing for such major theatrical films of Gramercy Pictures' "Elizabeth,", Warnet' s "City of Angels," with Meg Ryan and MGM's "Tomorrow Never Dies" with Pierce Brosnan as well as "Bean" and "Wedding Singer". He also directed media relations for NBC's "The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson (he was Johnny Carson's personal publicist fi'om 1986-1990), NBC' s "Today" and "NBC News with Tom Brokaw". CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY To quote former California Governor Pete Wilson, "As an art form and as a commercial interest, movies have thrived in California. Providing entertainment to millions of viewers, employment to thousands of people, and attracting large amounts of mvenue for our fine state, the movie business is an integral part of the California economy, and the greater American experience... a film festival is an appropriate celebration of the industry." The plan and outline represents a small portion of the enormous potential of this event. The appearance of a city or region on semen is a highly coveted form of free advertising. Filmed entertainment acts as a billboard to attract visitors from around the world. Without a doubt, there is no more cost- effective a showcase for the promotion of an area's attractions than a world class international film festival. Cinema Entertainment Alliance and its supporting team of talented industry professionals are prepared to develop, produce, market and manage the 5th Annual Temecula Valley International Film Festival. Cinema Entertainment Alliance' s experience, cmativity, entertainment industry background and connections guarantee Temecula an unprecedented wo~d class cultural event with immeasurable exposure and economic impact. ATTACHMENT F - SPONSOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN TEMECULA VALLEY FILM COUNCIL AND CINEMA ENTERTAINMENT ALLIANCE 8 iTuesday April 6, 1999 11:15am -- From '909 695 5126' -- Page 1~ 'A--{~G--19<:J9 10:;29AH F'RC~ TE]vECLLA VAIl icy EDC 9GE9 ~ B1L::>G I:>.1 SPONSO_R AGREEMENT BETWEEN TEMECULA VALLEY FILM COUNCIL A, ND CINEMA ENTERTAINMENf_.ALUANCE. FILM COUNCIL (hemin,~r t~fttred to as "I'VF~, and CINEMA ]~;NTERT~ At -Y -tANCE, a ~ non-profit corporation (hn'~ina~e~ ~erred io as (CEA). A. CEA will ereart, produ~ mazaSe and operate the 1999 5t Annual Tcmccah'Vallv-y. International Film Festival. E,,nmt date is schednled fo~ June 17-24, 1999. 'I'V'FC dmircs to be acoqx:ntWe entity ofth~ 1999 5"'Arereal Temec~h Vatley lntemsional Film Festival. AGREEMENT NOW, TItERI~ORE, it is agreed by mad l~'ween tbc paxtics as 6'allows: A. C. CFA will co/~,a with diffctesz vendors necessary for ~c qzntioas ~ the event. CFA will have sole rcsponsibilipy for p~ymc~ of all fcstival-rclatcd expenses. CFA will lmvc sole ri~Jat to all f~stival-rdat~l nct proceeds. As cooperativ~ cntity of said event and as a fixnctionlng film commission, TVFC will act as a facilitatm' to a~suce CEA's prtxiuction and management heels w~ regards to event venues aud permits being ha_ndl, cd in a spcc,dy and srnoOffi process. '!Tuesday ~April 6, 1999 11:15am -- From '909 695 5126m -- Page zl d--EM~- 1 ~ 10: ~M ~ 'T'E]vE~CI_I_A VAII ~ EI3C P. 2 CEA agrees fixat it wal d~fead, ind,,mnlfy and bold 1'VFC, the CRy afTemocula and its elected offi~jMe, agrees aud employees free and harmkss from nil claims for damage to pemscas or proln~ by reason o~ C~A ' s am Or omi~ieus or fiese d CEA ' s employees, ,,,'r-,ce~ a$~ts or invites in ~m with th~ 1999 5*' 'Annual Tonecula Valley htmmtional Film Festival to the maximum extent allowed by law. CEA shall ,_o~,_~_r~ from a good and respoum'ble company or companies doing inauan~ L'at~in~-~ in thO Sta~ of Califomia, pay for and o~int~in in full force and effect for the duration of this Agreeme~ a policy of comprehensive general liability and liquor liabilily in ~ TVFC and City ofTeaneo~ar~namcd inmueds orare namod as additional insureds with CFA CEA shall furnish a Cu~cate .of Liability by thc CRy. Notwitl~t~nding any inconsistent s~atemene in the policy or any subsequent eadot~mg~ auachui hereto, the prcection offered by il~ policy sixall; e A. Cscawal Liability: $1,000,000 combined singJe limit pe~ occuncaee for bod y inj .y, V ona iajtuy aat prop ty Liquor Liability:. $1,000,000 combine singi~ limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury aal propaty damage. agr~ that this instrument constitutes the ca~-~; agreement and complc~ Ull~inE lhat all prior or coaempomneous promises, unde,~z~nding$ and agn~mcats, oral and written, arg merged into and included in this writtea insUuracm, All parties agree t/mat they at= under no obli~_tion to make use of any right or privilege xhat ea~:h has exteaded tothe other. '.k Tuesday Aprit 6, 1999 11:15am -- Froel '909 695 5126' -- Page 3) 4-.GG-lggg 10:31AH FRGH TE!,.ECUI_A VA~F'Y EDC gi~g ~ 5126 F'.3 'Spemor Agreement, l~c 3 this Contract day, menth ~ year hcrcimlx>vc written, CINEMA F. JNTi~RTAINMKNT Al..11,,o, ulCg,· TEMECUI~ VALLEY FILM COUNCIL By: ' BY: C'm~a ~Marg°'~nt T~sh Vall~ Film Council ATTACHMENT G -TEMECULA VALLEY FILM COUNCIL STATEMENT OF OPERATION 9 4-07-1999 2:20PM FROM TEMECULA VALLEY EDC 909 696 6126 P. 2 Temecula Valley. Film Council Statement of Operation Period Ending December 31, 1998. Pledge Collection Special Collections Film .Festival Donations City of Temecula $ .00 $ 2,504.00 $34,105.86 $ 50,000.00 Total Income $86,609.86 Expenses -iContract Labor Commissions Bldg. Ground Lease/Rent :~MaChinery & Equip Rental Trade Show Booth Rental ,fTheater Rental Insurance Permits Taxes ~Travel fConsulting Fees ~iTelephone tPostage ,A'Advertising General Supplies ~PrintinglGraphic Design Credit Card Processing Fees Dues/Subscriptions ,1~Promo Items .1~Entertainment Pdzes Bank Charges Total Expenses 13,125.00 .00 .00 5,279.00 2,350.00 10,000.00 . 206.70 100.00 249.50 .2,707.21 9,257.00 1.375.00 847.94 3,677.00 452.21 13,938.16 610.62 699.00 3,929.38 10,315.07 $'. 6,075.43 2_6_'.55 Film Festival Expenses. $ 8,125,00 5,279.00 10,000.00 2,500.00 9,257.00 300.00 747.94 3,677.00 352.2I 13,938.~6 3,929.38 ~0,3~5-07 3,675.43 $72,506.81 $85,220.77 Total Expenses Film Festival Net Income $ 1.389.09 ITEM 23 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER ~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council James B. O'Grady, Assistant City Man~~ April 13, 1999 Year 2000 Preparation and Contingency Planning PREPARED BY: Susan W. Jones, Director of Support Services Aaron Adams, Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: (1) review the City's Y2K compliance efforts and (2) approve going out to bid for two new City Hall servers BACKGROUND: The Y2K concerns center around the fact that programmers long ago adopted a 2-digit convention to represent the year. The turning of the millennium for City systems creates potentially two issues that need to be explored including (1) two-digit year coding and (2) the calculation of the leap year. Year 2000 compliant issues have been discussed in the City's Management Information Systems (MIS) committee for the last year yet preparation for Y2K has been on-going for several years. From the MIS committee, suggestions and recommendations have been made to the City Clerk/Support Services Department for further consideration and implementation. In addition, a MIS consultant from UC Riverside was brought in to review and validate compliance efforts and recommend areas for additional attention. Staff has been working diligently to ensure that the City is Y2K compliant. Over the past couple of years, staff has performed several tests, upgraded vadous software/hardware, researched local agencies/utilities and as reassurance, has implemented contingency planning. A comprehensive plan which documents these City systems, and other agencies Y2K compliance efforts is available for review in the City Clerk~s Office. The goal of this staff report is to explain what systems we currently utilize, describe what staff has done in the way of compliance efforts, and what remains to be done as we approach the new millennium. Attachment A outlines the individual contingency plans surrounding "mission-critical" operating systems. Current City Computer Systems Desktop Personal Computers The City currently has 178 desktop computers networked together utilizing Compaq Servers which run Novell, Microsoft and a Local Area Network throughout City Hall and off-site City facilities. The City has replaced its systems with Intel Pentium processors. Ninety-three (93) of these stations, or approximately one-half of all City computers are running at unacceptable speeds and are currently not Y2K compliant. These systems are scheduled for replacement or refurbishment with funds budgeted in the upcoming fiscal year 99/00 budget. City Servers Currently the City utilizes three (3) major servers. One server is located at the Community Recreation Center for recreation software, the second server is located within City Hall and is the primary production server and the third, also located within City Hall is used for daily production back-up/laser~sche. The server located at the CRC does not handle the volume that the other two servers are required to handle. Testing and certification from Novell and Compaq have proven the CRC server is Y2K compliant. Like the computer workstations, both servers located within City Hall have also been identified in the 3-year cost cycle for replacement and would be scheduled for replacement in FY 99/00. Staff is requesting authorization to go out to bid to replace these servers before the beginning of the new fiscal year. These new servers will support the upgraded software/hardware and allow City staff to perform additional Y2K testing for citywide operations and maintenance. By expediting the purchase of these servers, staff will be allowed additional time for continued testing and re-testing of City systems. These exercises will help assure and prepare our systems for the Year 2000. As a newer City we are fortunate to not have to experience the many upgrades necessary to existing software that other agencies are currently facing. Currently the City's compliant software includes: Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Engineering software (Auto-Cad), Planning software (ARC/INFO), Building Permit software, Novelll's Group wise, Recreation software, Microsoff Business software and Eden Finandal. All city software is Y2K compliant, and ready for the 21't Century. Other Systems Phones The City's telephone system has been upgraded and is currently Y2K compliant. Traffic Signals Model 170 Controller Firmware has been installed in the majodty of city-wide controllers which will recognize the year 2000 as a leap year. However, 2 older controllers do not contain this software and will need to be specifically addressed. Those controllers left to be addressed are located at Rancho Vista and Mira Loma and Rancho Vista and Margarita. The anticipated date that these intersections will be inspected and replaced with compliant controllers is September 1999. Fuel Fuel for City vehicles/machinery will continue to be obtained from the Temecula Valley Unified School District Maintenance Operations and Transportation (MOT) Facility on Roripaugh Road. School District Officials have announced all pumps will be Y2K compliant by June 1999. Timers The Community Services Department utilizes a variety of timer systems to operate parks, facilities and equipment. Staff has made contact with manufacturers of all of the timer systems that could be impacted by Y2K. These systems include fire systems, security systems, access control systems, elevator, irrigation control systems, traffic signal software, time clocks and thermostats. The information received from each of these manufacturers indicates that all City timer systems are Y2K compliant. Police Department Computer hardware and software upgrades have been completed to the Records Management Systems (RMS) and the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) systems. The local area network server and over 85% of the personal computers in the Police Department are year 2000 compliant, as is Riverside County's LAWNET infrastructure, which transports law enforcement data across the county. All priority one systems are compliant and the Police Department has stated all remaining systems will be compliant by June 30, 1999. Fire Department The CDF/Riverside County Fire Department has been working diligently on year 2000 issues, Fire Department The CDF/Riverside County Fire Department has been working diligently on year 2000 issues, unforeseen and/or predictable. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection has prepared a thorough incident action plan which addresses all mission critical operations as well as contingency planning. Finance Department Each of the major banking services utilized by the City have been identified and in all cases, remediation and validation testing has been completed, and each application has been deemed Year 2000 ready. In addition, the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund ("LAIF") is now Year 2000 compliant. Community Development Staff has confirmed that all outside consultants and agencies affiliated with Building and Safety and Planning are or will be in compliance. Agencies confirmed include: Esgil Corporation (Plan Check), VanDorpe Chou Associates (Plan Check), Bid-America (Plan Duplication), Sierra Permit Systems (Building Permit Software). Utilities Staff has asked representatives from the various utility companies to attend the City Council meeting and they are prepared to answer questions related to their Y2K compliance efforts. In staffs research of these agencies, Southern California Edison has completed 75% of their mission critical systems back in December 1998, and expects to complete 100% of these systems by July, 1999. Southern California Gas Company has more than 50 full-time employees working on Y2K issues and expects to spend between $27 and $30 million dollars on these efforts. They anticipate completing their work by June, 1999. Rancho California Water District has inventorled, prioritized and classified mission critical systems within their agency. In the spring of 1999, all non-ready systems will be tested and viable fixes will be in place. In the summer of 1999, all systems will be tested, authenticated, and re-tested. In addition, final contingency planning will be implemented at this time. Metropolitan Water District, has recently upgraded their financial systems, billing systems, and automated computer system for Y2K compliance. They are now focusing efforts on water treatment systems and the programs that allow them to monitor and analyze water quality. Metropolitan's goal is to inventory and analyze up to 35,000 devices, ranging from elevators to security systems and chemical monitors, by June 30, 1999. Emergency Operations In an effort to prepare for the unexpected, city staff will be conducting an unannounced simulated "Y-2K" disaster for emergency operations training. Staff will be coordinating resources with Public Works, Police, Fire, Utilities, Banking and other special operations. This exercise will take place later this summer. In addition and as an added precaution, staff will open the City's primary Emergency Operations Center (EOC) at the Community Recreation Center on December 31, 1999 to be prepared for any events that may result from Y2K problems. Finally, during the upcoming budget process the City Council may be asked to review staffs request to upgrade some or all of the City's older desktop computers. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. However, staff is requesting that the City Council give permission to begin the bid process for the replacement and purchase of two servers for City Hall. Approximately $92,000 will be needed to purchase both servers which includes installation. Once bids have been received, City Council will be asked to authorize this purchase. Attachment A A :!ummary of the City's Y2K ContinoencV Plan Includes: Phones Contingency Plan if electricity goes down: City has in its possession, hand-held radios and cellular phones for communications. Traffic Signals Contingency Plan if electricity goes down: City will replace signals or stop intersections with temporary R-1 battery -powered flashing red beacon signs. signs at major Fuel Contingency Plan if computerized pumps am inoperable: School District officials have made hand pump fueling stations available at the Transportation fadlity located on Rodpaugh Road or staff can utilize Fire Department pumps located at Fire Station 84, and Station 12. Timers Contingency Plan: The majodty of the timer programs utilized in City facilities do not track the year and as a result will not be affected by the "date roll-over yet manual operation may also be used as another contingency plan. Community Development Contingency Plan if system goes down: Manual permits will be issued with a manual cash receipt. Applicants will pay fees for permits and services at the Cashier window on the first floor of City Hall. Finance Department Contingency Plan if system goes down: Manual checks and receipts will be issued as well as staff keeping accurate written records of accounts payable and accounts receivable. Fire Department The CDF routinely organizes and manages emergency incidents by implementing the Incident Command System (ICS). The CDF shall use this ICS approach to handle problems caused by the year 2000 problems. In the event that Y2K has an immense impact on the operations of the mission critical services of the Department and based on the gravity of the situation, Executive Management may allocate the appropriate personnel to meet the needs of the Department. This could include the activation of the Incident Command Teams (ICT), Area commands, mobilization centers and/or special or select-call staffing patterns. These post contingencies shall be included in the Region and Sacramento Headquarters Business Continuation Plans. Police Department The 911 system is the responsibility of the State and is handled through the telephone companies. GTE has already made their PSAP compliant and Pacific Bell has guaranteed compliance by June 30, 1999. The 800mhz MDT and radios that are handled by the Information Technology Department have announced the infrastructure to be Y2K compliant. Some handheld radios may have to be exchanged as they continue to develop a plan in conjunction with the Sheriffs Department. The Sheriffs Department is also partidpating with the County Emergency Task Force, which is headed by the County's Chief Information Officer. This relationship is developing to ensure that the operation of critical areas will function in the event of a loss of power or other situation. Emergency Operations/Utilities Contingency Plan: With regards to electricity, staff is investigating methods to provide temporary power at City Hall. Should there be an interruption of power, City Hall would go into emergency operations mode. There is a generator located at the Community Recreation Center, which is the City's Emergency Operations Center. KRTM Radio Repeater Contingency Plan if back-up generator malfunctions or for some mason is inoperable: If necessary, City staff can utilize a back-up repeater for radio contact located at Fire Station 84. ITEM 24 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANC CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council /~William G. Hughes, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer April 13, 1999 Chardonnay Hills Status Report PREPARED BY: Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works Ibert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council review and discuss Chardonnay Hills Final Pavement Status Report. BACKGROUND: The Chardonnay Hills development initiated construction of public improvements in 1990, initially under the control of Riverside County. Three tracts were recorded under County administration on behalf of the City of Temecula in February and May of 1990, and two under City administration later in 1990. The initial grading was under County inspection as were many of the public improvements prior to City assuming inspection upon transfers from the County. These first five tracts began construction during the difficult national, southern California, and general housing recessions of the early 1990's. Marlborough Development Corporation (BDC) was the hardest hit and ultimately closed their operations down and was rumored to be in bankruptcy. Bramalea California, Inc. (BMI) apparently succeeded Marlborough (MDC) and then recorded three additional tracts. Lennar has purchased several lots for their own develoment. Staff has field reviewed the pavement status and found that several of the subdivisions have completed their pavement. One has not completed the majority of the final pavement placement. Staff recommends that we further research the several agreement and securities with particular emphasis on the latter project and confer with the City Attorney in this matter. We anticipate that some progress should be made so that a more specific report and recommendation can be made by the meeting of May 11, 1999. FISCAL IMPACT: ATTACHMENT: Not determined at this time. Exhibit of Pavement Status for Chardonnay Hills Project. R:\agdrpt\99~0413~chardonnaystatus/ajp 1 CHARD.ON;~',!,:':' H iLLS T E b'l E C ~J L ,'~,. ':2.: ,:: L_ ::" ':D P ml!A EXHIBIT - STREETS REQUIRING CAP COAT Streets requiring cap coat .m -·\ 231004 23100-3 23103-1 ITEM ORDINANCE NO. 99-07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA KNOWN AS ASSE$SOR'S PARCEL NO$. 909- 120-036, 909-120-046, 909-281-016, 910-310-007, 957-291-001 THROUGH 030, 957-292-001 THROUGH 004, 911-170-078, 911- 170-085, AND 911-170-090 (PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA99-0022 AND PA98-0511) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning law of the State of California, and the City Code of the City of Temecula. The changes to the land use district described herein are hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official Land Use map for the City of Temecula as adopted by the City and as many be amended hereafter from time to time by the City Council of the City of Temecula. The City of Temecula Official Zoning Map is amended by placing in affect the zones as described in Planning Applications PA99-0022 and PA98-0511 and listed below: A. For the parcel identified as APN 909-120-036: change the Zoning Designation from Business Park (BP) to Public Institutional (PI); B. For the westerly portion of the parcel identified as APN 909-120-046: change the Zoning Designation from Business Park (BP) to Open Space-Conservation (OS-C); C. For the easterly part of westerly portion the parcel identified as APN 909-120-046: change the easterly 200 feet of the area with a Zoning Designation of Business Park (BP) to Service Commercial (SC); D. For the parcel identified as APN 909-281-016: change the Zoning Designation from Business Park (BP) to Open Space Conservation (OS-C); E. For the parcels identified as APN 957-291-001 through 030, and 957-292-001 through 004: change the Zoning Designation from Very Low Density Residential (VL) to Low Medium Density Residential (LM); and, F. For the parcel identified as APN 910-310-007, change the Zoning Designation from Community Commercial (CC) to Highway/Tourist Commercial (HTC); and, G. For the parcels identified as APN 911-170-078, 911-170-085, and 911-170-090, change the Zoning Designation from Business Park (BP) to Professional Office (PO). Section 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be posted in at least three public places in the City. Section 3. Taking Effect. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption. R:Ords 99-07 I Section 4. Environmental Compliance. Initial Environmental Studies were prepared for these projects to determine if the proposed changes would result in any environmental impacts beyond those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan. The Initial Studies indicated that overall, the proposed General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes would have not result in impacts beyond those originally anticipated for the City General Plan. Possible exceptions for PA99-0022 are that small reductions to the previously identified impacts have been identified for circulation, air quality, and biologic resource impacts. For PA98-0511, no unmitigatable significant effects were identified, and because the site is previously gradeded, it contains no biologic resources and a Mitigated Negative Declaration with a DeMinimus impact finding is hereby adopted. Section 5. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk. Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 13rd day of April, 1999. ATTEST: Steven J. Ford, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:Ords 99-07 2 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 the foregoing Ordinance No. 99-07 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 23,d day of March, 1999, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of th Temecula on the 13 day of April, 1999 by the following roll cell vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:Ords 99-07 3