Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
052599 CC Agenda
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (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 MAY 25, 1999 - 7:00 P.M. 5:30 P.M. - Closed Session of the City pursuant to Government Code Sections: Council and Redevelopment Agency Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956,9(a) with respect to two matters of existing litigation involving the: City and/or the Agency. The following cases/claims will be discussed: (a) Blind Pig Brewery and (b) Claims of Westside City I & II, LLPi (Bill Dendy). Conference with City Attorney and 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 h:as determined that a :pointihas been reached where there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City based on existing facts and circumstances and :the City will decide whether to initiate litigation. Conference with: real property negotiator pursuant to Government :Code Section 54956.8:concerning the acquisition of real property Iocatediat43455 Business Park Drive, Temecula. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and Optical Disc Media. Under negotiation:are the price and terms of payment of the real property interests proposed to be acquired. The City negotiators are Shawn Nelson an James O'Grady. 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: Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 99-11 Resolution: No. 99-38 Prelude Music: Jared Reed Invocation: Reverend Pat Campbell of Church of Religious Science of Temecula Valley Flag Salute: Mayor Pro Tem Stone R:~kgenda\052599 1 ROLL GALL: Comerchero, Lindemans, Stone, Roberrs, Ford PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Certificates of Achievement for Ea.~le Scouts Certificates of Appreciation to Temecula Valley Hi.qh School Choir National Mental Health Month Proclamation PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Council on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or ones that are not listed on the agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on an item which is listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Council Business matters on the agenda, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Council addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, then (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 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. 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 April 13, 1999; 2.2 Approve the minutes of April 20, 1999. R:~genda\052599 2 3 Resolution Approvin.q List of Demands 4 6 7 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 Award of Construction Contract for Maintenance Facility - Second Floor Remodel Project - Phase II RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Award a construction contract for the Second Floor Remodel Project - Phase II - to Rasmussen Brothers Construction in the amount of $70,700.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement; 4.2 Authorize the Acting City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of 10% of the contract amount. Street Name Chan.qe from Ynez Road to Ynez Court RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CHANGING THE STREET NAME IN PARCEL MAP 22714 YNEZ ROAD TO YNEZ COURT Agreement for Desi.qn Services - Maintenance Facility Improvements - Phase III RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve an Agreement between Davidson + Allen Architects and the City of Temecula for architectural and structural design services for Maintenance Facility Improvements - Phase Ill - in the amount of $31,875.00; 6.2 Authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City of Temecula. Purchase of two (2) Public Works' Vehicles RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve the purchase of two (2) Dodge model year 2000, full-sized vehicles from Norm Reeves Chrysler/Jeep/Dodge in the amount of $58,831.50. R:~Agenda~52599 3 8 Purchase of one (1) Fire Department Rescue Squad Vehicle 10 11 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve the purchase of one (1) 1999 Fire Rescue Squad vehicle from Raceway Ford in the amount of $49,125.00; 8.2 Approve a transfer from Development Impact Fee Fire Mitigation in the amount of $49,125.00. Release Labor and Materials Securities for Public Improvements in Tract No. 24131-2 (located southwesterly of Meadows Parkway at McCabe Drive) RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Authorize release of the Labor and Materials Securities for the public improvements in Tract No. 24131-2; 9.2 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the developer and the surety. Accept Public Improvements in Tract No. 28309 (located on the south side of Nicolas Road easterly of North General Kearny Road) RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Accept the public improvements including subdivision monumentation in Tract No. 28309; 10.2 Authorize reduction in the Faithful Performance security amount to the 10% warranty level, initiation of the one-year warranty period, and release of the subdivision monumentation security; 10.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. Acceptance of Public Streets into the City-Maintained Street System within Tract No. 28309 (located on the south side of Nicolas Road easterly of North General Kearnv Road) RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY-MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACT NO. 28309) R:~,genda\052599 4 12 13 Tract Map No. 23101-5 (located south of La Serena Way, east of Meadows Parkway, west of Butterfield Stage Road, and north of Rancho California Road in the Mar.qarita Village Specific Plan No. 199 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve Tract Map No. 23101-5 in conformance with the Conditions of Approval; 12.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement; 12.3 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Faithful Performance Bond, Labor and Material Bond and Monument Bond as security for the agreements. Tract Map No. 23100-6 (located south of La Serena Way, east of Meadows Parkway, west of Butterfield Sta.qe Road, and north of Rancho California Road in Margarita Villa.cle Specific Plan No. 199 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Approve Tract Map No. 23100-6 in conformance with the Conditions of Approval; 13.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement; 13.3 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Faithful Performance Bond, Labor and Material Bond and Monument Bond as security for the agreements. 14 Parcel Map No. 29060 (located north of Rancho California Road and west of Humber Drive) 15 RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Approve Parcel Map No. 29060 in conformance with the Conditions of Approval; 14.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement; 14.3 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Faithful Performance Bond, Labor and Material Bond and Monument Bond as security for the agreements. Professional Geotechnical Services A.qreement - Pala Road Brid.qe Improvement Project - Proiect No. PW97-15 RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Approve a Professional Geotechnical Services Agreement with Kleinfelder, Inc. for materials testing and inspection for Pala Road Bridge - Project No. PW97-15 -in the amount of $78,758.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement; 15.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $7,875.80, which is equal to 10% of the agreement amount. R:%Agenda\052599 5 16 Authorization to Solicit Public Construction Bids for Old Town First Street Brid.qe over Murrieta Creek- Project No. PW95-08 RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Authorize the Public Works Department to solicit construction bids for the Old Town First Street Bridge and related roadway improvements - Project No. PW95-08. RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY R:~,genda\052599 6 TEMECULA COMMUNiTY:SERVICES:DISTRICT MEETING .:. ,,, ** ·,,, **,*** *** ***** ** ***, ,~;***,,,,, ~,, ***,,, ,',,,,, ,~, *,,, **,,,, **, **,,,, **, ** ~*~, ~ ~, ~**, ~ ~'~,~ ~****~ **, ** Next in Order: Ordinance: No. CSD 99-01 Resolution: No. CSD 99-07 CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Ford, Lindemans, Roberrs, Stone, Comerchero PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Board of Directors on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Museum Exhibit Desi.cln Chan.qe Order RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $46,675 from TCSD fund balance to the exhibit design services contract with Think Jacobson and Roth for the design, fabrication, and installation of exhibits for the Temecula Valley Museum. 2 Completion and Acceptance of the Winchester Creek Park - Project No. PW97-10CSD RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Accept the Winchester Creek Park Project No. PW97-10CSD; 2.2 File Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one (1) year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract; R:~,genda\052599 7 2.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. 3 Acquisition of Artifacts for Temecula Valley Museum Exhibits RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve an agreement between Temecula Valley Museum, Inc. (TVM), Tony Tobin, and the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) for the acquisition of artifacts for installation in the Temecula Valley Museum; 3.2 Approve an expenditure of $22,000 from the TCSD museum operating budget (190-185) for the purchase of artifacts for the museum exhibits from Tony Tobin. DISTRICT BUSINESS 4 Museum Gift Shop and Chapel Operations RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve the License Agreement between the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) and the Temecula Valley Museum, Inc. (TVMI) for operation of the Museum gift shop and wedding chapel; 4.2 Approve the expenditure of $10,000 for the purchase of half of the gift shop start-up inventory from the TCSD operating budget (account 190-185). 5 Approval of a Miti.qated Ne.qative Declaration for the construction and operation of sports field li.qhting at James L. Day Middle School RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the construction of sports field lighting at James L. Day Middle School; 5.2 Direct staff to file the Mitigated Negative Declaration with the appropriate filing fee for the project with the County Clerk of Records Office. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: June 8, 1999, scheduled to follow the City Council Consent Calendar, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:~Agenda\052599 8 TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: No. RDA 99-01 Resolution: No. RDA 99-07 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Karel Lindemans presiding ROLL CALL AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Ford, Roberrs, Stone, Lindemans PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Redevelopment Agency on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. CONSENT CALENDAR Grantin.q of an Easement for Southern California Edison RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA GRANTING AN EASEMENT FOR ELECTRICAL SUPPLY AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS FACILITATING INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS RELATING TO THE MISSION VILLAGE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT R:~,genda\052599 9 2 Grantin.q of an Easement for Rancho California Water District RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA GRANTING AN EASEMENT FOR WATER PIPELINES AND RELATED APPURTENANCES FACILITATING INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS RELATING TO THE MISSION VILLAGE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT AGENCY BUSINESS 3 Revision of the Facade Improvement Pro.qram RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve an additional $15,000 grant option to the Fa~;ade Improvement Program available only for required seismic and foundation repairs and fire safety requirements. 3.2 Approve the recommended revised financing structure. 4 Revision of the Residential Improvement Program, the First-Time Homebuyer Program, and the Employee Relocation Pro.qram RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve the revised Program Parameters for the Residential Improvement Program; 4.2 Approve the revised Program Parameters for the First-Time Homebuyer Program; 4.3 Approve the revised Program Parameters for the Employee Relocation Program. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: June 8, 1999, scheduled to follow the Community Services District Meeting, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:~,genda\052599 10 RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any of the project(s) in court, you may be limited to raining 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. 17 AOOeal Of the Plannino Commission's Approval of Planning3 Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit} - Cox Communications Wireless Personal Communications System (PCS} with antennas mounted atop a 60-foot hiQh monopole disouised as an everareen pine tree (monopine} at the Rancho Califomia Water District water tank site at 3100 Rancho California Road RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Adopt the Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA98-0219; 17.2 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'$ PARCEL NO. 953-060- 022 COUNCIL BUSINESS 18 Old Town Local Review Board Appointment RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Appoint two members and one alternate to serve full terms on the Old Town Local Review Board. R:%Agenda%052599 11 19 City Council Chamber- Facility Use Policy RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Provide direction for the use of the City Council Chambers. 20 Sidewalk Project- Nicolas Road (Requested by Councilman Stone) RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Oralreport. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS CITY MANAGER'S REPORT CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: June 8, 1999, 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula, California. R:~Agenda~052599 12 PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS · ! cJ 0 0 0 0 0 4~ o (~ o %- o ~ o ._ I,. ,. >- ~n E U L) 0 0 (~ 0 u~ 0 0 ~) .- l~ 0 (~ 0 0 ,~ ~ 0 ~ ITEM 1 ITEM 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL APRIL 13, 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, 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 (APN922-073-017, 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 real property pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning the leasing of real property located at Temecula Mercantile Building, 42051 Main Street, Temecula. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and the Temecula Chamber of Commerce. Under negotiation are the price and terms of payment of the real property interests proposed to be conveyed and/or acquired. The City negotiators 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 discussed: Westside City, LLC. 5. Conference with City Attorney and 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 and the City will decide whether to initiate litigation. 6. Discussion of candidates for position of City Manager pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. The Open Session of the City Council meeting convened at 7:02 P.M. Minutes\041399 ROLL CALL Present: Absent: PRELUDE MUSIC Councilmembers: Comerchero, Lindemans, Roberrs, Stone, and Ford. Councilmember: None. The prelude music was provided by Matthew Sweeney. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Associate Pastor Kenny Kehay. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Councilman Roberts. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Introduction of Voorburg Police Delegation Mayor Ford introduced the visiting delegates to the public with Voorburg Police Chief Cor Visser addressing the City Council and thanking and relaying the exciting experiences the delegates had shared with their host families and the City. Certificate of Appreciation to Susie Brid.qes Although she was unable to attend, Mayor Ford read into the record the Certificate to Ms. Bridges thanking her for her services on the Old Town Redevelopment Advisory Committee. Boys and Girls Week Proclamation Mayor Ford so proclaimed April 11 - 17, 1999, as Boys and Girls Club Week. 1998 United Way Campaign Awards Ms. Karl Spencer-Hollis, Director of Southwest County Region for United Way of the Inland Valley, commended Office Specialist Cohee on her associated efforts with the City's campaign and presented to her a Certificate of Appreciation. Mr. Joe Lawler, Chairman of the Temecula/Murrieta 1998 United Way Campaign, presented to the City the Outstanding Municipal Campaign Award as well as the Silver per Capita Award. Minutes\041399 Certificates of Achievement for obtaining Ea.clle Scout Mayor Ford recognized the following individuals for attaining the Eagle Scout rank and Mayor Pro Tem Stone presented them with Certificates of Achievement: Matthew Grimes Wright Dominic Michael Carcioppolo, III Brent A. Tibbet PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Mr. Frank Digiacomo, 32039 Merlot Crest, commented on the visual blight of the northwest corner of Rancho California and Meadows Parkway as it has become a used car lot. B. Thanking the City Council for making the construction of the Library a priority in the community, Ms. Grace Mellman, 36500 DePortola, representing the Friends of Temecula Library, expressed appreciation to the City Council for its generous Library funding and as well thanked the numerous volunteers for their associated efforts. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Councilman Roberts thanked Ms. Mellman for the numerous hours she has devoted to the Library. B. Councilman Roberts advised that Councilman Comerchero, Assistant City Manager O'Grady, and Ms. Judy Staats, Southwest Riverside EDC Director, artended the California Association for Local Economic Development (CALED) Conference at which tourism was discussed. C. Having attended the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) General Assembly meeting, Councilman Roberts noted that Senator Boxer was the guest speaker and that she had relayed her support of Federal funding for the first phase of highspeed rail maglift planning in the SCAG Region. He also stated that the County Association of Governments officials will be meeting with SCAG Regional Councilmembers to discuss transportation problems. D. Councilman Roberts advised that he has been appointed to the Southern California Association of Governments Truck Lane Taskforce, noting that the Taskforce has been awarded two grants to study removing trucks from the freeway and providing alternative truck routes. E. Councilman Roberts also noted that he has been appointed to the Transit Corridor Taskforce. F. Having attended a recent Domenigoni Reservoir tour, Councilman Lindemans noted that Supervisor Venable has stated that SR79 to Hemet will be a six-lane highway prior to its completion and that the Newport Freeway (east to west) will as well be completed prior to completion of the reservoir. G. Councilman Lindemans advised that he had as well artended the mall tour. H. Having attended the CALED Conference with Councilman Roberts, Councilman Comerchero noted that topics of discussion included business incubators. In light of the ideas Minutes\041399 shared and information provided, Mr. Comerchero commented on the benefits derived by attending such conferences. I. Commenting on the City's overwhelming volunteer support, Councilman Comerchero advised that these volunteers will be honored at a Recognition Luncheon on April 22, 1999. J. Having also attended the mall tour, Mayor Pro Tem Stone commented on the construction progress, advising that Robinson/May will be opening for business in September with the mall opening October 27, 1999. Mr. Stone briefly commented on the positive impacts the mall will have on the City such as the number of jobs it will provide as well as the sales tax revenue which could be utilized for various new programs such as faster ambulance services throughout the City. K. Mayor Pro Tem Stone further commented on the City's goal to provide ambulance services independent of American Medical Response (AMR), noting that the City would on the vehicle and the personnel would be subsidized by the City. L. Thanking the various Commission representatives for attending the City Council meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Stone thanked City Manager and staff for immediately addressing his request to extend the dais for the Commission representatives. Mr. Stone also requested that each Commission representative be provided a full City Council agenda packet. M. Mayor Pro Tem Stone commended Councilman Roberts on his continued efforts associated with public transportation. N. Mayor Pro Tem Stone requested that Code Enforcement address the noted resident concern with regard to prohibiting a used car lot at Meadows Parkway and Rancho California Road. O. Mayor Pro Tem Stone commended both Ms. Grace Mellman and Ms. Rosie Vanderhaak for their associated efforts with the City Library. P. Mayor Ford commented on his continued involvement with Western Riverside County of Governments (WRCOG) as it relates to the kangaroo rat. Mr. Ford as well commented on the successes of various City programs such the Temecula Against Graffiti (TAG) program and the Crime-Free Housing Program. Q. Referencing current Mt. Jacinto College extension classes provided in the City, Mayor Ford commented on efforts that have been undertaken to provide UCR extension classes within the City in order to provide higher education without the need to travel. R. Mayor Ford as well addressed the discussion of City-subsidized ambulance service, noting that the matter has been agendized for the April 20, 1999, City Council meeting. S. Mayor Ford requested the City Council's support to oppose the potential legislation with regard to forensic services, advising that the opposition would prohibit the County from distributing forensic costs to the City. Council consensus was given and it was noted that a letter would be prepared for the Mayor's signature. T. In light of the upcoming completion of the Domenigoni Reservoir, Mayor Ford commented on the support of potential fee bond structures in order to address the traffic-related impacts to the City as a result of the Reservoir. Minutes\041399 U. Mayor Ford invited and encouraged the public to listen to K-Frog Valley Hoppinings on Sundays for a half hour, noting that this half hour could be utilized as another forum to address public concerns, comments, questions, etc. CONSENT CALENDAR 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 AI3provin.q List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99-27 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 Rel3ort as of February 28, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of February 28, 1999. 5 Contract Inspection Services for Buildincl and Safety RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 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. Minutes\041399 6 Notice of an Addendum of a Ne.qative Declaration for construction of Overland Drive between Margarita Road and Jefferson Avenue (Addendum to EA-6) RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 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. 7 Santa Gertrudis Valley, Mar.clarita Road - Date Street Storm Drain Line B - Project No. 7- 0-0179 - Tract Map No. 28778 - Cooperative A.qreement RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 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.; 7.2 Authorize the execution of such agreement in its final form by the Mayor, City Attorney, and City Clerk. 8 Tract Map No. 29033 (located south of La Serena Way, east of Temeku Drive, west of Meadows Parkway in the Mar.clarita Villa.qe 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 Material Bond and Monument Bond as security for the agreements. 9 Accept Subdivision Monumentation in Tract No. 23142 (located northeasterly of the intersection of Meadows Parkway at Rancho California Road) RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Accept the Subdivision Monumentation in Tract Map No. 23142; 9.2 Authorize the release of the Subdivision Monument Security; 9.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. Minutes\041399 10 Acceptance of Grant of Easement for Traffic Signal Equipment GMS Realty, LLC RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99-28 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 11 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Discharge Permit Implementation Agreement RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99-29 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 A.qreement for Overland Drive Overcrossin.cl - Project No. PW95-11 13 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. Professional Services A~reement for Pala Road Brid.qe Improvements - Proiect No. PW97- 15 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Caltrop Engineering Corporation in an amount of $60,544.00 for Structural Bridge Inspection for the Pala Road Minutes\041399 Bridge 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. 14 Old Town Streetscape Project- Proiect No. PW97-05- Private Property Access I m proveto ents RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 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; 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; 15 Accept Public Improvements in Parcel Map No. 28384 ('located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Mamarita Road and Highway 79 South) RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Accept the public improvements in Parcel Map No. 28384; 15.2 Authorize reduction in Faithful Performance security to the warranty amount and initiate the one-year warranty period; 15.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. 16 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 99-08 RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: 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 NO. PA99-0015) Minutes\041399 17 Second Readin.a 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 Readin.cl 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 MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-18. The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. At 8:01 P. M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 8:15 P.M., the City Council resumed with regularly scheduled City Council business. PUBLIC HEARINGS 19 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 dis.quised as an evergreen pine tree (monopine) at the Rancho California Water District 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: Minutes\041399 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 By way of overheads, Deputy City Manager Thornhill presented the staff report (as per agenda material), advising that Mr. Ron Guerriero, Chairman of the Planning Commission, will be abstaining with regard to this matter but that Planning Commissioner Naggar is in attendance to address any City Council concerns, questions, etc. For Councilman Lindemans, Mr. Thornhill reviewed the applicant's review process of other viable locations and noted that no second opinion had been provided as to the requested location. At this time, Mayor Ford opened the public hearing. By way of overheads, Mr. Greg Morrison, representing the applicant, reviewed the applicant's rationale as it relates to the proposed site; noted no objection to work with staff as it relates to proposed and additional landscaping along the south slope as well as a landscaping maintenance program. In response to Councilman Comerchero's desire to provide sufficient landscaping, Mr. Morrison voiced no objection to exploring the use of other types of fast-growing trees; noted that foliage coverage could be lowered on the pole; advised that this third pole would sufficiently service the entire City; and stated that in the event Cox Communications were to change its technology to satellite, the applicant would be willing to remove the pole at the applicant's expense. Councilman Roberts suggested that the City Council consider a zoning amendment and that until such an amendment has been considered that a moratorium be considered. Mr. Roberts as well suggested the use of Eucalyptus trees, which are fast-growing trees and drought resistant, and recommended that proper and similar screening be provided for the fence. By way of topographical maps, Mr. Shawn Bierle, 32016 Merlot Crest, referenced other possible sites which would not have neighboring residential homes; relayed his and numerous residents opposition to the proposed site; and presented a petition of opposition. Noting that the proposed pole would be placed on property owned by the Rancho California Water District, Mr. Frank Digiacomo, 32032 Merlot Crest, reiterated a previously noted concern Minutes\041399 10 as it relates to Conflict of Interest for the Board of Directors for the Water District. Considering the visual plight of the proposed site, he noted his objection to it. In light of his experience with radio frequency, Mr. Mike Burton, 30366 Santa Cecilia, noted that the amount of radio frequency exposure from the proposed pole will not create a health risk hazard and relayed his support of the site. Mr. John Camp, 32012 Merlot Crest, as well relayed his opposition to the proposed site. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Stone, Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that such antennas are not permitted in residential zones and that he would review the topographical maps presented by Mr. Bierle to determine other allowable locations. Relaying his opposition to the proposed site, Councilman Lindemans commented on the Council's ability to consider a General Plan amendment. Mr. Lindemans requested that a second opinion as to the proposed location be provided; viewed the proposed pole as aesthetically unpleasing; and voiced no concern as to health risks. Although a General Plan amendment could be considered by the City Council, Mayor Pro Tem Stone noted that this applicant has attempted to mitigate any potential impacts. With regard to the proposed landscaping, Mr. Stone noted that it will as well address the visual appearance of the existing tank and pole. For Councilman Roberts, City Attorney Thorson provided clarification of those consequences associated with denying the proposed request, noting the following: that although administrative remedies have to be exhausted, the applicant may appeal to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) of the State; that the PUC has the reserved jurisdiction over the citing of these facilities; and that the City Council may submit conditions of approval to the PUC to uphold the Council's aesthetic conditions. MOTION: Councilman Lindemans moved to uphold the appeal and deny the project. The motion was seconded by Mayor Ford. (This motion was ultimately withdrawn; see below.) Reiterating his previous comment, Mayor Pro Tem Stone noted that by way of additional landscaping, the applicant has undertaken measures to mitigate the aesthetic appearance; that health risks are not an issue of concern; that the denial of this project could compromise the City's radio frequency need during an emergency; that the City Council could review a General Plan amendment but that it should not preclude the applicant from constructing the requested pole; and that he, therefore, would oppose denial of the request. Although the applicant has undertaken measures to mitigate any potential impacts, Mayor Ford relayed his opposition to the installation of a second pole and supported the exploration of alternative sites. In light of the comments, Councilman Roberts, echoed by Councilman Comerchero, suggested to continue this matter one more time in order to ensure that alternatives sites have been properly explored and in order to obtain a second opinion. Minutes\041399 11 Concurring with Councilman Roberrs' suggestion, Councilman Lindemans, echoed by Mayor Ford, withdrew his originally made motion to uphold the appeal and deny the project. MOTION: Councilman Roberrs moved to continue this agenda item to the May 25, 1999, City Council meeting in order for staff to review the topographical maps with Mr. Bierle as well as the applicant and to receive a second opinion as to site location. The motion was seconded by Councilman Lindemans and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. At 9:12 P.M., Mayor Ford called a recess and reconvened the meeting at 9:20 P.M. 20 Temecula Library Site Selection and Conceptual Plan RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Approve the site selection on Pauba Road west of Parkview Fire Station 84 and preliminary conceptual plan for the Temecula Library; 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 facility. Deputy Director of Community Services Ruse reviewed the staff report (as per agenda material) and introduced Mr. Jim Wirick and Mr. Rich of LPA who, by way of a power point presentation, presented the conceptual site and building design. In response to Councilman Lindemans, Deputy Director Ruse noted that although staff has not been able to identify, at this point in time, grant funding for the library, staff will continue to explore all options. Councilman Roberts recommended that the City's lobbyist in Washington be directed to explore possible grant funding for the library. Ms. Grace Mellman, 36500 DePortola Road, encouraged the City Council to approve the Temecula site selection and conceptual plan. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to concur with the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 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. Mayor Pro Tem Stone noted that he would be abstaining with regard to this agenda item. City Clerk Jones presented the staff report (of record). Minutes\041399 12 MOTION: Councilman Lindemans moved to appoint Mr. Hank Testasecca to the Old Town Redevelopment Advisory Committee. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Mayor Pro Tem Stone who abstained. Mayor Ford introduced Mr. Testasecca to the attending and viewing public. 22 Consideration of Sponsorshil3 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. Councilman Comerchero noted that he would be abstaining with regard to this issue. Assistant City Manager O' Grady reviewed the staff report (as per agenda material), clarifying that the Film Festival for June 1999 would be in lieu of the normally planned Festival for September 1999. He noted that by scheduling this event for June 1999, it would bring it into the current fiscal budget and, thereby, will require additional funding since funds had not been budgeted for such an event. Mr. O'Grady further noted the following: that the previous $50,000 allocation to the Film Council did not specifically earmark a certain amount for the Fall Film Festival but that information received from the Film Festival approximately $40,000 of those $50,000 were set aside for the Film Festival; that the additional requested $30,000 would be appropriated from the General Fund Reserves; that the proposed financial benefits derived to the community as a result of this Film Festival will exceed the requested appropriation; Dr. Fred Huber, 28356 Princess Court, President of the Temecula Valley Film Council, requested that the Council approve the $30,000 appropriation for the Film Festival and reiterated that the proposed June 1999 Festival would replace the normally planned September Festival. Not supporting appropriating funds from the General Fund unless it is an emergency, Councilman Stone suggested granting the requested $30,000 appropriation by way of a loan from the General Fund. Highlighting efforts that will be undertaken to promote the June Film Festival, Ms. Jo Moulton, 31468 Corte Montiel, commented on marketing efforts, studio participation, films, stars, special events, and cable/newspaper/radio advertising. Mr. Herb Margolis, 21821 Burbank Boulevard, Woodland Hills, President of Cinema Entertainment Alliance, provided a detailed overview of the various proposed activities/events for the Festival and noted that he would envision retaining the Film Festival in the City of Temecula for next and future years. Minutes\041399 13 Ms. Pauline Reynolds, 33451 Corte Mangarino, representing the Rancho Temecula Area Women's Club, informed the Council of efforts undertaken by the Women's Club to provide volunteer support of this Festival. Although appreciating the City's scrutiny of the requested appropriation, Ms. Shari Crall, 31524 Britton Circle, spoke in support of the requested $30,000 appropriation. In the interest of time, Ms. Teresa Kolbos, 45569 Classic Way, relayed her concurrence with the previously made comments of support. Councilman Lindemans requested that each entity - the Film Council and the Film Festival - be requested to submit a financial statement. Mayor Pro Tem Stone commended Ms. Moulton on a job well done. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Stone, she informed the City Council that, at this point in time, it would be the intent to schedule the 2000 Festival in September versus June. Mayor Pro Tem Stone suggested to approve a $30,000 General Fund loan to the Film Festival to be reimbursed in next year's fiscal budget and subject to providing a financial statement to the City within 90 days after the Festival. In response to City Attorney Thorson's clarification of the motion, Mayor Pro Tem Stone offered the following motion: MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to approve the advertising agreement between the City and the Film Council and that a financial statement of the Film Festival be provided to the City 90 days after the event. The motion was seconded by Councilman Lindemans and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Councilman Comerchero who abstained. 23 Year 2000 Preparation and Contin.qency Plannin.cl _ RECOMMENDATION: 23.1 Review the City's Y2K compliance efforts; 23.2 Approve going out to bid for two new City Hall servers. At 10:33 P.M., Mayor Ford called a recess and reconvened the meeting at 10:39 P.M. Assistant City Manager O'Grady briefly introduced the agenda item with City Clerk Jones and Management Analyst Adams provided a detailed overview of the staff report (as per agenda material) and thanking the utilities and public safety representatives for attending the meeting. Advising that the major systems throughout City Hall are currently Y2K compliant, Assistant City Manager O'Grady recommended the replacement of two servers and noted that to ensure continued Y2K compliance, staff will continue to explore Y2K contingency plans as well as emergency operations. For Mayor Pro Tem Stone, Mr. Steve Vaughn, representing the California Department of Forestry, assured the Council that the 911 Emergency System has been Y2K tested; that the Minutes\041399 14 System is compliant; and that Riverside County has met the State's Y2K level 1 compliance requirements. MOTION: Councilman Lindemans approved the $92,000 expenditure for the two servers. Councilman Comerchero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 24 ChardonnaV Hills Status Report RECOMMENDATION: 24.1 Review and discuss Chardonnay Hills Final Pavement Status Report. Reviewing the staff report (of record), Public Works Director Hughes advised that a recommendation with regard to this agenda item will be forwarded to the City Council for the May 11, 1999, meeting. MOTION: Councilman Lindemans moved to receive and file the staff report. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 25 Second Readin.q 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 MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to adopt Ordinance No. 99-07. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT No comments. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT City Attorney Thorson advised that the City Council would, at this time, reconvene to Closed Session. At 10:56 P.M., the City Council reconvened to Closed Session and returned to Open Session at 11:19 P.M. Minutes\041399 15 With regard to Item Nos. I and 2 (real property), City Attorney Thorson noted that there was no reportable action; with regard to Item No. 3 (Stampede), he advised that the matter would be discussed in Open Session at the April 20, 1999, City Council meeting; with regard to Item No. 4 and 5 (existing and potential litigation), Mr. Thorson advised that the City Council provided direction but that there was no reportable action; and with regard to Item No. 6 (position of City Manager), he noted that there was no reportable action. ADJOURNMENT At 11:21 P.M., Mayor Ford formally adjourned the City Council meeting to Tuesday, April 20, 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] Minutes\041399 16 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL APRIL 20, '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: Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning the acquisition of real property located at 42146 Sixth Street (APN 922-053-024), 28516 Pujol Street (APN 922-053-007), 28496 Pujol Street (APN 922-053-005), Sixth Street/Pujol Street (APN 922-053-009), 28725 Pujol Street (APN 922-062-010), 28725 Pujol Street (APN 922-062-019), 28731 Pujol Street (APN 922-062-016), 28613 Pujol Street (APN 922-054-011) 28649 Pujol Street (APN 922-053-013), and 42291 Sixth Street (APN 922-052-011). The negotiating parties are the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and Ng, Irwin, Barker, Otto, Corbin, Ladanyi, Rutner, Henning, Ciais, Rancho Meadows. Under negotiation are the price and terms of payment of the real property interests proposed to be acquired. The Agency negotiators are Shawn Nelson and John Meyer. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning the sale of real property located at 42220 Sixth Street. The negotiating parties are the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and Habitat for Humanity, Inc. Under negotiation are the price and terms of payment of the real property interests proposed to be conveyed and/or acquired. The Agency negotiators are Shawn Nelson, James O'Grady, and John Meyer. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning the sale or lease of real property located at 28699 Front Street (APN 922-046-020). The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula/Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and Letter and Associates. Under negotiation are the price and terms of payment of the real property interests proposed to be conveyed and/or acquired. The City/Agency negotiators are Shawn Nelson, James O' Grady, and John Meyer. Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) with respect to two matters of potential litigation. With respect to these 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. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning the acquisition of real property located at 28835 Single Oak Drive, Temecula. The negotiating parties are the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and Chemicon, Inc. Under negotiation are the price and terms of payment of the real property interests proposed to be acquired. The Agency negotiators are Shawn Nelson, James O'Grady, and John Meyer. Minutes\042099 1 Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning the acquisition and/or leasing of real property located on APN 910-130-072. The negotiating parties are City of Temecula and Forest City, Inc. Under negotiation are the price and terms of payment of the real property interests proposed to be acquired and/or leased. The City negotiators are Shawn Nelson and James O'Grady. The Open Session of the City Council meeting convened at 7:08 P.M. 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 Mayor Ford. In response to Councilman Comerchero, there was a silent prayer in memory of the Columbine High School victims and their families. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Councilman Comerchero. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Certificates of Achievement for obtainin.cl Ea.qle Scout Mayor Ford recognized the following individuals for attaining the Eagle Scout rank and Mayor Pro Tem Stone presented them with Certificates of Achievement: Brent A. Tibbet Dominic Michael Carcioppolo, III Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Quarterly Council Presentation The Chamber of Commerce representative reviewed the Chamber's major accomplishments during the third quarter; provided a progress report of activities and services performed on behalf of the City; and thanked the City and its staff for the continued support and partnership. Veteran ADDreciation Month Proclamation Mayor Ford proclaimed the month of May as Veteran Appreciation Month. The proclamation was accepted by Mr. Leon Medrano, Veterans Employment Program Representative. Minutes\042099 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Mr. Roland Esquivel, 39761 Barberry Court, apprised the City Council of an incident he had encountered with the Temecula Police Department, advising that, in his opinion, the Police Department displayed an abuse of power and excessive force; noted that he has filed a complaint at the Riverside Sheriff's Office and that the matter is being investigates; and suggested the formation of a citizens group to investigate Police Department complaints. In response to Mr. Esquivel, Mayor Ford noted that since a complaint has been filed, the City Council may not discuss the matter but that he would be contacting Mr. Esquivel. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Councilman Roberts advised that the California High Speed Rail Authority will be meeting in San Diego and that he and Mr. Clifford will be in attendance to present the Inland Empire High Speed Rail Taskforce's request for a rail station in Temecula. B. Councilman Roberts noted that on April 30, 1999, Southern California Association of Governments and SANDAG will be meeting at the Temecula Creek Inn, noting that topics of discussion will include regional airport, high speed rail and associated funding, intercity rail, and I-15 corridor. C. Councilman Roberts advised that he has received a number of complaints with regard to the service provided by TCI. D. Councilman Roberts commented on the number of Closed Session Items the Council has been discussing and suggested that more of these Items be agendized for Open Session. E. Councilman Lindemans, Chairman of RTA, advised that the Jefferson Shuttle will be available on an as-needed basis from 10:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. F. Mayor Ford informed the City Councilmembers that RCCA will be phased out and will be encapsulated with Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). G. Having participated in K-Frog's first Valley Hoppinings, Mayor Ford encouraged the public to participate in this type of open discussion session. CONSENT CALENDAR 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\042099 3 2 Resolution Approvin.q List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 3 Award of Construction Contract for Maintenance Facility - Second Floor Remodel Project - Phase II RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Receive an oral report on the bids received April 16, 1999; 3.2 Award a construction contract for the Second Floor Remodel - Phase II - and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract; 3.3 Authorize the Acting City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of 10% the contract amount. (All bids were rejected and the item will be readvertised for the May 25, 1999, City Council meeting.) 4 Solicitation of Construction Bids and Approval of the Plans and Specifications for the FY 1998-99 Street Sealing Project - Project No. PW99-04 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for Project No. PW99-04 - FY 98-99 Street Sealing Project. 5 Approval of Cooperative A.qreement with the Temecula Redevelopment Aclency for the Purchase of a Parkin.q Lot in Old Town RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve an agreement entitled Cooperative Agreement between the City of Temecula and the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) of the City of Temecula to fund the purchase of a parking lot northwesterly of First and Front Streets in Old Town Temecula; 5.2 Authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Agency in substantially the form attached to the Agenda Report; Minutes\042099 4 5.3 Appropriate $900,000 to the Capital Improvement Projects Fund. (Mayor Pro Tem Stone abstained with regard to this item.) 6 Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course - Appeal of the Temecula Parks/Street Lightin.q RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve staff's recommendation in defining taxable golf course area within the Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course property and approve the appropriate refund of the Parks/Street Lighting Tax for Fiscal year 1997-98 and 1998-99. 7 Purchase A¢lreement for the Temecula Stampede Parkinq Lot RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS AND THE PARKING EASEMENTS INCLUDED THEREIN FOR THE PARKING LOT NORTHWESTERLY OF FIRST AND FRONT STREETS IN OLD TOWN 7.2 Approve an expenditure in the amount of $610,000 for the purchase of a parking lot northwesterly of First and Front Streets in accordance with the agreement entitled Purchase and Sale Agreement and Escrow Instructions. (Mayor Pro Tem Stone abstained with regard to this item.) MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2 and 4-7 (Item No. 3 - Award of Construction Contract for Maintenance Facility - was rejected). The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Mayor Pro Tem Stone who abstained with regard to Item Nos. 5 and 7. At 7:38 P. M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 7:56 P.M., the City Council resumed with regularly scheduled City Council business. Minutes\042099 5 COUNCIL BUSINESS 8 Presentation of the Final Report for the Hotel Conference Center Feasibility Analysis prepared by Kevser Marston Associates and Scott Hospitalitv RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Provide direction to staff concerning the Council's interest in the City's possible participation in a convention/conference facility; 8.2 If the Council were interested in proceeding with this project, direct staff to work with the Economic Development Subcommittee (or an ad hoc Council subcommittee) to consider the options and issues and to develop a process for the Council to consider the facts and make a final decision. Introducing Ms. Kate Funk of Keyser Marston and Mr. Jay Scott of Scott Hospitality, Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that Ms. Funk and Mr. Scott will be summarizing the findings of the report (as per agenda material), referencing the following: local economic overview demand for conference center hotel feasibility various sites financial feasibility economic benefits/impacts Summarizing the report, Mr. Scott noted the following: that a free-standing conference center would not be feasible and that hotel rooms were necessary; that a 18,000 to 20,000 square foot conference center with an adjacent hotel (150 to 200 room) would make this a viable project; that the conference center should provide a 7,500 to 8,000 square foot ballroom with prefunction space; a 2,500 to 3,000 square foot junior ballroom; and break-out rooms; that a Convention and Visitors' Bureau should be formed; that a hotel without a conference center would be feasible but that the financial feasibility would be lessened; that construction for a first-class hotel could begin in 2001; that six sites were explored and that each were explored with three important criteria - conference center should be within close proximity to lodging ( 5 to 10 Minutes\042099 6 minutes); need for attractive and inviting surrounding land uses; and accessibility from and to the freeway; that the two most viable sites were located near the Embassy Suites - on the bluff behind the Suites and across the street adjacent to the Duck Pond. Ms. Funk further commented on the financial feasibility/impacts and reviewed the analysis of the development process, noting the following: that a 400 - 500 room, first-class hotel would be necessary to maximize the utilization of a conference center; - that the City has a strong room structure for an ex-urban area; - that the hotel portion would not require any subsidy and could stand on its own; - that the private sector would not build a conference center of the desired magnitude; that the estimated cost for the conference center would be $4 to $5 million ($200 per square foot with equipment, etc.); that the proposed project should be a joint public/private project. In closing, Ms. Funk reviewed various funding mechanisms and referenced economic impact/ economic development, commenting on transient occupancy tax, sales tax, and property tax. In response to Councilman Lindemans, discussion ensued and additional clarification was provided with regard to Certificate of Participation, bonding against the transient occupancy tax, and lease revenue from the hotel. Mayor Pro Tem Stone suggested that other alternative sites be explored. In response to Councilman Comerchero, Mr. Scott noted that increasing the transient occupancy tax from 8% to 10% would not have a negative impact on occupancy rates and that locating a hotel next to the freeway would as well have no negative impact. Ms. Funk noted that, as per the report, most of the conference center usage would not be as a result of local use. Councilman Lindemans, echoed by Councilman Roberts, relayed his support of the project and suggested the formation of a subcommittee to further explore other feasible sites. Considering a builder has expressed an interest, Councilman Comerchero spoke in support of the project and recommended that the interested builder be contacted. MOTION: Councilman Roberts moved to form an Ad Hoc Council Committee comprised of Mayor Pro Tem Stone and Councilman Lindemans. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Minutes\042099 9 Recommendations for Implementing Economic Development Strategy Report by Dr. John Husin~ RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Authorize implementation of the Economic Development Strategy Report as outlined in the staff report. Assistant City Manager O'Grady presented the staff report (as per agenda material), commenting on staff's focus to refine the vision for economic development as suggested by Dr. Husing and to improve the City's data base particularly in the area of labor formation. Mr. O'Grady noted that additional discussions are necessary in order to address and formulate creative measures to finance water-related connection fees (infrastructure, sewer and water hook-ups). It was suggested by Mayor Pro Tem Stone that a letter, from the Mayor, be forward to the local Water Boards, requesting that the issue of connection fees and creative financing of them be agendized. Mr. Bob Lemons, representing Rancho Water District, clarified that the connection fees are set to recover the cost of the capital improvements necessary to provide the service and relayed his willingness to schedule a joint City Council/Rancho Water District Board Meeting in order to further discuss this matter. Additional information was provided, with regard to the Brine Line, by Mr. Lemons and Mr. Harring of Eastern Municipal Waster District, noting that Federal funding for the construction of a Brine Line would be available and it was noted that this matter should be discussed in more detail at the Joint Meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Stone recommended that the City's lobbyist in Washington be requested to further explore grant funding. Councilman Comerchero suggested that a graduated financing program for the water connection fees be considered -- one which would have less initial financial impact and a greater impact toward the end at which time the businesses would be more established. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to continue this Agenda Item for 30 days. The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval 10 Options for Enhancing the Citv's Emergency Medical RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Receive and file report that describes options for enhancing the City's emergency medical services. Introducing the agenda item, Assistant to the City Manager Yates briefly commented on the City's goal to upgrade the paramedic/emergency medical services and introduced Fire Chief Wright. Minutes\042099 8 Addressing the City's goal to enhance public safety as it relates to emergency medical services for the City, Fire Chief Wright further elaborated and proceeded with a detailed overview (as per agenda material) of the various options available and the associated pros and cons. Mayor Pro Tem Stone clarified that the proposed service would function in conjunction with American Medical Response (AMR), noting that AMR currently provides one paramedic and one EMT. Mr. Stone relayed his desire to provide this new service as of July 1, 1999, to which Fire Chief Wright noted that because of vehicle, equipment, and personnel needs, the service could be available no later than October 1999. Mr. Stone requested that the purchasing of a squad vehicle, if approved, be immediately agendized. In response to Councilman Lindemans, Fire Chief Wright noted that he would research other cities' per capita cost for emergency services. Mr. VanWicklen, 38210 Calle Arrebol, apprised the City Council of his invention which by a way of a blinking porch light would apprise the emergency medical team as to the exact location of the emergency. Mr. David Raya, 31824 Dane Court, a Los Angeles City Firefighter/Paramedic, discussed in detail the need to achieve a 4- to 6-minute response time; relayed his support of Option No. 1 or No. 5; and commended the City Council for taking such a proactive step to public safety. Mr. Wayne Hall, 42131 Agena, advised that 60% of Fire Department's calls are medical related versus fire; commended and encouraged the City Council to upgrade the medical response time; and spoke in support of two paramedic units. Suggesting that the Council take action on this matter this evening, Councilman Comerchero relayed his support of Option No. 5 along with Mayor Pro Tem Stone's recommendation of one paramedic and one EMT to further reduce the cost. Relaying his support of Option Nos. 3 and 5, Councilman Roberts requested that the squad unit be primarily restricted for City use. To ensure the decrease in medical response time, Mayor Pro Tem Stone reiterated his support of Option No. 5 along with one paramedic and one EMT. He recommended that the vehicle and special equipment be ordered and that community fundraising efforts proceed in order to recover the cost of the squad. Supporting Councilman Roberts' suggestion to restrict the unit to the City, Mayor Ford relayed his support of Option No. 5; recommended continued coordination with AMR ambulances; and requested that the increasing number of false alarms be addressed. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to appropriate $110,000 from the undesignated General Fund Reserves for the purchase of a squad vehicle and that staff continue to explore the various options. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Minutes\042099 9 11 Consideration of Ways and Means Committee to Examine Issues Associated with Construction of a Sports Complex (Placed on the agenda at the request of Councilman Lindemans) RECOMMENDATION: ~ 11.1 Consider formation of a Ways and Means Committee to examine issues associated with possible construction of a sports complex. In response to Councilman Lindemans' request to grant permission Mr. Tom Langley to create head a Ways and Means Citizens Committee which would proceed with fundraising efforts for the sports complex, concurrence was granted by the City Councilmembers. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS No additional comments. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT No comments. Mayor Pro Tem Stone wished Mayor Ford, Councilman Comerchero, and Councilman Lindemans a successful trip to Sister City Voorburg. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT At 10:17 P.M., City Attorney Thorson advised that the City Council would return to Closed Session. At 10:55 P.M., the City Council returned to Open Session. With regard to Item No. 1 (real property), City Attorney Thorson noted that there was no reportable action; with regard to Item No. 2 (real property), he stated that the matter was approved in Open Session; with regard to Item No. 3 (real property) he advised that the City Council gave direction to staff; with regard to Item No. 4 (potential litigation), Mr. Thorson advised that the City Council provided direction to the City Attorney's office; and with respect to Item Nos. 5 and 6 (real property), it was noted that all final decisions will be forwarded and considered in Open Session. Minutes\042099 10 ADJOURNMENT At 10:57 P.M., Mayor Ford formally adjourned the City Council meeting to Tuesday, May 11, 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] Minutes\042099 11 ITEM 3 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 05/06/99 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 05/13/99 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 05/25/99 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 05/13/99 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 05126199 COUNCIL MEETING: DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 165 190 191 192 193 194 210 261 280 300 320 330 340 GENERAL FUND RDA DEV-LOW/MOD SET ASIDE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ. FUND CFD 88-12 ADMIN EXPENSE FUND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY-CIP INSURANCE FUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT SERVICES FACILITIES $ 1,597,388.35 16,296.36 99,230.44 6,723.91 137.46 27,042.61 882.33 1,402,365.11 550.55 314,317.32 4,928.59 14,526.81 25,074.92 11,754.83 281,129.14 980,235.15 2,259,855.30 185,241.91 3,706,461.50 3,521,219.59 100 GENERAL 165 RDA-LOW/MOD 190 TCS D 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 280 RDA-CIP 300 INSURANCE 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 34r~ FACILITIES TOTAL BY FUND: IPREPARED BY RE~T~ST~CC~G SPECIALIST I ~~INANCE SHAWN NELSON, ACTING CITY MANAGER 137,691.15 3,852.42 30.202.84 67.18 169.78 2,353.36 959.30 1,882.88 670.88 2,746.66 1,475.63 3,169.83 185,241.91 3,706,461.50 , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. VOUCHRE2 05/06/99 10:22 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 11 FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 165 RDA DEV- LOW/MOD SET ASIDE 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP 300 INSURANCE FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES AMOUNT 126,639.84 11,038.11 26,844.38 4,583.47 70.44 2,532.54 432.71 87,943.54 2,594.55 722.91 2,342.03 6,338.73 9,045.89 TOTAL 281,129.14 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 05/06/99 10:22 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 51432 05/05/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 001-2070 51432 05/05/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 165-2070 51432 05/05/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 190-2070 51432 05/05/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 191-2070 51432 05/05/99 000283 ]NSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 192-2070 51432 05/05/99 000283 ]NSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 193-2070 51432 05/05/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 194-2070 51432 05/05/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 280-2070 51432 05/05/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 300-2070 51432 05/05/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 320-2070 51432 05/05/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 330-2070 51432 05/05/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 340-2070 51432 05/05/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 001-2070 51432 05/05/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 165-2070 51432 05/05/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 190-2070 51432 05/05/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 191-2070 51432 05/05/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 192-2070 51432 05/05/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 193-2070 51432 05/05/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 194-2070 51432 05/05/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 280-2070 51432 05/05/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 300-2070 51432 05/05/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 320-2070 51432 05/05/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 330-2070 51432 05/05/99 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 340-2070 51734 05/05/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 001-2070 51734 05/05/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 165-2070 51734 05/05/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 190-2070 51734 05/05/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 280-2070 51734 05/05/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 320-2070 51734 05/05/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 330-2070 51734 05/05/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 340-2070 51734 05/05/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 001-2070 51734 05/05/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 165-2070 51734 05/05/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 190-2070 51734 05/05/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 191-2070 51734 05/05/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 192-2070 51734 05/05/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 193-2070 51734 05/05/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 194-2070 51734 05/05/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 280-2070 51734 05/05/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 300-2070 51734 05/05/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 320-2070 51734 05/05/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 330-2070 51734 05/05/99 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 340-2070 55469 05/06/99 A S C E, ORANGE COUNTY STORM DRAIN SEM:5/14:BOSTRE-LE 001-163-999-5261 55470 05/06/99 000745 A T & T WIRELESS SERVIC APR CELLULAR SVCS-POLICE DEPT 001-170-999-5208 20,050.93 393.21 3,423.44 8.27 21.42 312.14 127.43 135.77 46.04 825.97 135.98 534.81 4,613.62 129.28 977.38 2.34 6.00 76.48 33.80 54.02 22.18 149.50 52.64 145.46 72.28 2.32 53.39 .51 3.63 4.49 7.20 5,312.04 120.36 717.22 1.36 3.33 59.76 21.52 45.87 13.71 197.66 23.38 110.93 50.00 179.05 32,278.11 6,770.96 50.00 179.05 55471 05/06/99 002410 A WOMAN'S TOUCH BUILDIN APR JANITORIAL SVCS:W[NCH CRK 190-180-999-5250 211.00 55471 05/06/99 002410 A WOMAN'S TOUCH BUILDIN APR JANITORIAL SVCS:CITY PRKS 190-180-999-5250 1,722.00 VOUCHRE2 05/06/99 10:22 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 55491 55491 55491 55491 55491 55491 55491 55492 55494 55495 55495 55495 55495 55495 55495 55496 55496 55496 55496 55496 55497 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 001380 001380 001380 001380 001380 001380 001380 002939 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 002797 002797 002797 002797 002797 E S E S ES E S E S E S E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC EMPLOYMENT SERVIC EMPLOYMENT SERVIC EMPLOYMENT SERVIC EMPLOYMENT SERVIC EMPLOYMENT SERVIC EMPLOYMENT SERVIC ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS R ESTATE PLANNING & INVES EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXPERTEES EXPERTEES EXPERTEES EXPERTEES EXPERTEES FAITH BAPTIST CHURCH TEMP HELP W/E 4/23 MILES TEMP HELP W/E 4/23 MILES TEMP HELP W/E 4/23 MILES TEMP HELP W/E 4/23 THORNSLEY TEMP HELP W/E 4/23 SERVEN TEMP HELP W/E 4/23 SERVEN TEMP HELP W/E 4/23 SERVEN GIS SOFTWARE SUPPORT & ACCESS REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT LDSCP REPAIRS: SOLANA WY LDSCP REPAIRS:MARGARITA/RUSTIC LDSCP REPAIRS:WINCHESTER CK LDSCP REPAIRS: PALOMA DEL SOL R.C. MEDIANS:REPLACE FLOWERS CITY HALL LDSCP:REPLACE FLOWER (190)POLO SHIRTS:VOORBURG LOGO (24) POLO SHIRTS:VOORBURG LOGO SET-UP: COMPUTER TAPE FREIGHT SALES TAX REFUND: GYM RENTAL 001-163-999-5118 001-165-999-5118 001-164-604-5118 001-161-999-5118 001-164-603-5118 190-180-999-5118 193-180-999-5118 001-161-610-5606 190-2900 193-180-999-5212 193-180-999-5212 193-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 191-180-999-5415 340-199-702-5415 001-101-999-5280 001-101-999-5280 001-101-999-5280 001-101-999-5280 001-101-999-5280 190-183-4990 279.91 279.91 279.91 2,098.40 368.79 368.79 728.80 2,251.99 100.00 47.15 52.81 156.47 111.93 684.00 630.00 3,708.80 516.48 174.16 96.31 340.96 100.00 4,404.51 2,251.99 100.00 1,682.36 4,836.71 100.00 55498 55498 55498 55498 55499 55499 55499 55499 5550O 55500 55500 55500 55501 55501 55501 55501 55502 55503 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 000478 000478 000478 000478 000165 000165 000165 000165 000170 000170 000170 000170 000184 000184 000184 000184 003336 000173 FAST SIGNS FAST SIGNS FAST SIGNS FAST SIGNS FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM GARAGE DOOR SERVICE COM GENERAL BINDING CORPORA DECALS FOR NEW CITY TRUCK SALES TAX DESILTING POND ALUMINUM SIGNS SALES TAX EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES DAY PLANNER BINDERS & REFILLS FRANKLIN PLANNER & ACCESSORIES FRANKLIN PLANNER & ACCESSORIES CREDIT:RETURNED ITEM: #3852928 909 506-2626 GENERAL USAGE 909 506-6506 JEFF STONE 909 694-8927 MIDDLE SCHOOL 909 695-1178 MARGARITA COMM PK RESIDENTIAL IMPROV:PAINE,JEFF MISC. BINDING SUPPLIES 001-162-999-5214 001-162-999-5214 190-180-999-5244 190-180-999-5244 001-111-999-5230 001-165-999-5230 001-150-999-5230 001-162-999-5230 001-161-999-5220 165-199-999-5220 280-199-999-5220 001-162-999-5220 001-170-999-5229 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 165-199-813-5804 330-199-999-5220 103.04 2.56 216.00 16.74 14.00 35.75 12.75 29.25 98.43 205.43 68.47 38.22- 359.58 31.56 31.92 56.85 500.00 172.43 338.34 91.75 334.11 479.91 500.00 172.43 VOUCHRE2 05/06/99 10:22 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 55471 05/06/99 55472 05/06/99 55473 05/06/99 VENDOR NUMBER 002410 003304 55474 05/06/99 001323 55474 05/06/99 001323 55474 05/06/99 001323 55475 05/06/99 002648 55475 05/06/99 002648 55475 05/06/99 002648 55475 05/06/99 002648 55475 05/06/99 002648 55475 05/06/99 002648 55475 05/06/99 002648 55475 05/06/99 002648 55475 05/06/99 002648 55475 05/06/99 002648 55476 05/06/99 003221 55477 05/06/99 55477 05/06/99 55478 05/06/99 003595 55479 05/06/99 55480 05/06/99 000128 55481 05/06/99 55482 05/06/99 55483 05/06/99 55484 05/06/99 55485 05/06/99 001275 55486 05/06/99 003580 55486 05/06/99 003580 55488 05/06/99 001233 55489 05/06/99 001673 55490 05/06/99 002466 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VENDOR ITEM NAME DESCRIPTION A WOMAN'S TOUCH BUILDIN APR JANITORIAL SVCS:CITY PRKS ADAMS ADVERTISING, INC, MAY BILLBOARD:OLD TWN PROMOTIO AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT ARROWHEAD WATER, INC. ARROWHEAD WATER, INC. ARROWHEAD WATER, INC. APR DRINKING WTR FOR MTNC FAC APR: DRINKING WATER FOR CRC APR DRINKING WTR FOR CITY HALL AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C ANNUAL AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C ANNUAL AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C ANNUAL AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C ANNUAL AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C ANNUAL AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C ANNUAL AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C ANNUAL AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C ANNUAL AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C ANNUAL AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP:ADKISSON-FLO MEMBERSHIP: AMAVISCA,L. MEMBERSHIP: BROWNELL,R. MEMBERSHIP:K.HARRINGTON MEMBERSHIP:J.KANIGOWSKI MEMBERSHIP: H.PARKER MEMBERSHIP: PELLETIER,J MEMBERSHIP: RODRIGUEZ,J MEMBERSHIP: ROGERS, I. MEMBERSHIP: VEDIA,DONNA BEAL, KELLI REIMB:SIERRA CF:04/19-23/99 BOYD, CHARLEEN BOYD, CHARLEEN REFUND: COOKING-WITH TIA REFUND: COOKING-WITH TIA BRIDLEVALE HOA MAY HOA:45012 CORTE CHRISTINA BURGESS COMPANY, THE REFUND: TEMP92-036 TR 22761 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, POLICY CHANGE:(2) DODGE PU'S CALIFORNIA FAMILY LIFE REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT CALIFORNIA GARDEN CENTE REFD:LD93-146CO X-MAS TREE LOT CHEVRON U.S.A.,INC REFUND: LD93-127GR DEPOSIT CHEVRON USA, INC. REFUND: LD98-O72GR DEPOSIT COMPUSERVE, INC. APR:SUBSCRIPTION-COMPUTER SVC CORONA WHOLESALE LANDSC LDSCP SVCS: SPORTS PARK CORONA WHOLESALE LANDSC SALES TAX DAN'S FEED & SEED, INC. PROPANE GAS FOR FIELD TANKS DIVERSIFIED TEMPORARY S TEMP HELP W/E 4/25 LECHIEN DOVER ELEVATOR COMPANY MAY CITY HALL ELEVATOR SVC/MTN ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-164-603-5250 280-199-999-5362 190-2900 340-199-701-5250 190-182-999-5250 340-199-701-5250 190-180-999-5214 190-180-999-5214 001-162-999-5214 190-180-999-5214 190-180-999-5214 190-180-999-5214 190-180-999-5214 001-162-999-5214 190-180-999-5214 190-180-999-5214 001-161-999-5261 190-183-4982 190-183-4982 165-199-812-5804 001-2670 300-199-999-5200 190-2900 001-2670 001-2670 001-2670 320-199-999-5221 191-180-999-5212 191-180-999-5212 001-164-601-5218 001-150-999-5118 340-199-701-5212 ITEM AMOUNT 211.00 1,700.00 100.00 99.77 47.79 272.41 43.00 43.00 43.00 43.00 43.00 43.00 43.00 43.00 43.00 43.00 282.40 15.00 15.00 32.00 1,000.00 510.00 100.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 995.00 9.95 3,360.00 260.40 9.62 71.83 202.00 PAGE 2 CHECK AMOUNT 2,144.00 1,700.00 100.00 419.97 430.00 282.40 30.00 32.00 1,000.00 510.00 100.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 995.00 9.95 3,620.40 9.62 71.83 202.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 05/06/99 10:22 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 55504 05/06/99 000351 GILLISS, MAX C.M. APR SVCS: INTERAGENCY LIAISON 001-110-999-5248 55504 05/06/99 000351 GILLISS, MAX C.M. APR SVCS: INTERAGENCY LIAISON 001-164-604-5248 55504 05/06/99 000351 GILLISS, MAX C.M. APR SVCS:LIAISON FOR PALA RD 210-165-631-5801 500.00 500.00 5,000.00 6,000.00 55505 05/06/99 003446 GIS WORLD 1YR SUBSCRIPTION: GEOWORLD 001-161-999-5228 72.00 72.00 55506 05/06/99 003676 GRANITE CONSTRUCTION-ES REL RETENTION TO ESCROW PALA 210-1035 28,403.00 28,403.00 55507 05/06/99 GRAY, BERNICE REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900 100.00 100.00 55508 05/06/99 GUERRIERO, RON REIMB:PLANNER'S INSTITUTE:3/23 001-161-999-5272 6.83 6.83 55509 05/06/99 001697 HALL, NANCY LEE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 230.40 230.40 55510 05/06/99 000186 HANKS HARDWARE, INC. MAINT SUPPLIES: STATION 84 001-171-999-5212 55510 05/06/99 000186 HANKS HARDWARE, INC. MAINT SUPPLIES: PW CREW 001-164-601-5218 55510 05/06/99 000186 HANKS HARDWARE, INC. MAINT SUPPLIES - CITY HALL 340-199-701-5212 55510 05/06/99 000186 HANKS HARDWARE, INC. MAINT SUPPLIES: CRC 190-182-999-5212 55510 05/06/99 000186 HANKS HARDWARE, INC. MAINT SUPPLIES: CRC 190-182-999-5212 55510 05/06/99 000186 HANKS HARDWARE, INC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES - CRC 190-182-999-5212 55510 05/06/99 000186 HANKS HARDWARE, INC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES - PARKS 190-180-999-5212 55510 05/06/99 000186 HANKS HARDWARE, INC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES - PARKS 190-180-999-5212 55510 05/06/99 000186 HANKS HARDWARE, INC. MAINT SUPPLIES: SR. CENTER 190-181-999-5212 55510 05/06/99 000186 HANKS HARDWARE, INC. MAINT SUPPLIES - TCC 190-184-999-5212 55510 05/06/99 000186 HANKS HARDWARE, INC. CREDIT: CHARGED SALE TAX TWICE 190-182-999-5212 25.39 15.42 17.39 96.32 1,007.83 374.92 604.95 383.63 36.67 43.32 6.76- 2,599.08 55511 05/06/99 000388 I C B O, INC. UNIFORM BUILDING CODE BOOKS 001-162-999-5228 684.17 684.17 55512 05/06/99 002787 IDENTICATOR CORPORATION INK REPLACEMENT PADS 001-170-999-5229 55512 05/06/99 002787 IDENTICATOR CORPORATION FREIGHT 001-170-999-5229 55512 05/06/99 002787 IDENTICATOR CORPORATION SALES TAX 001-170-999-5229 328.00 7.15 25.42 360.57 55513 05/06/99 003670 INLAND OVERHEAD DOOR CO SERVICE CHARGE FOR DOOR REPAIR 001-171-999-5212 55513 05/06/99 003670 INLAND OVERHEAD DOOR CO ADDTL LABOR CHARGE FOR REPAIR 001-171-999-5212 55513 05/06/99 003670 INLAND OVERHEAD DOOR CO SUPPLIES TO SERVICE, LUBE 001-171-999-5212 115.00 27.50 10.00 152.50 55514 05/06/99 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL CRC POOL SANITIZING CHEMICALS 190-182-999-5212 337.80 337.80 55515 05/06/99 001186 IRWIN, JOHN TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 384.00 384.00 55516 05/06/99 002695 J A S PACIFIC CONSULTIN TEMP HELP MARCH INSPECTORS B&S 001-162-999-5118 55517 05/06/99 003666 JOHNS MOTORCYCLES REPAIR & MAINT ON POLICE ATV 001-170-999-5214 55517 05/06/99 003666 JOHNS MOTORCYCLES REPAIR & MAINT ON POLICE ATV 001-170-999-5214 10,454.50 77.19 77.19 10,454.50 154.38 55518 05/06/99 003181 JON EDWARDS & ASSOCIATE PHOTOGRAPHY-TRADESHOW BOOTH 001-111-999-5270 703.08 703.08 55519 05/06/99 000820 K R W & ASSOCIATES CONSULTANT SVCS FOR PLAN CKS 001-163-999-5248 55519 05/06/99 000820 K R W & ASSOCIATES WORKERS' COMP INSURANCE PMT 001-1182 55520 05/06/99 002424 KELLEY DISPLAY, INC BANNER STORAGE & REPAIRS 001-111-999-5250 927.50 3.~- 160.55 923.76 160.55 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 05/06/99 10:22 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 55521 05/06/99 KINDER CARE REFUND: LD93-128GR DEPOSIT 001-2670 5,254.00 5,254.00 55522 05/06/99 002779 KUHNS, ALLIE REIMB:LIBRARY WKSHP/LOBBY:4/26 001-110-999-5258 691.95 691.95 55523 05/06/99 000209 L & M FERTILIZER, INC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES FOR P.W. 001-164-601-5218 55523 05/06/99 000209 L & M FERTILIZER, INC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES FOR P.W. 001-164-601-5218 96.95 96.95 193.90 55524 05/06/99 001982 L WILLIAMS LANDSCAPE, I CITYWIDE TREE TRIMMING SERVICE 001-164-601-5402 55524 05/06/99 001982 L WILLIAMS LANDSCAPE, I CITYWIDE TREE TRIMMING SERVICE 001-164-601-5402 55524 05/06/99 001982 L WILLIAMS LANDSCAPE, I CITYWIDE TREE TRIMMING SERVICE 001-164-601-5402 55524 05/06/99 001982 L WILLIAMS LANDSCAPE, I CITYWIDE TREE TRIMMING SERVICE 001-164-601-5402 3,645.00 410.00 990.00 805.00 5,850.00 55525 05/06/99 LATIN AMERICAN ASSOCIAT REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900 111.00 111.00 55526 05/06/99 002863 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC HARDWARE SUPPLIES:PW MAINT CRg 001-164-601-5218 921.32 921.32 55527 05/06/99 LIUZZI DEVELOPMENT REFUND: LD98-O54GR DEPOSIT 001-2670 995.00 995.00 55528 05/06/99 M.Y.B.L.-ALL NET REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900 100.00 100.00 55529 05/06/99 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV TEMP HELP W/E 4/04 COFFMAN 001-140-999-5118 55529 05/06/99 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV TEMP HELP W/E 4/04 COOK 001-164-604-5118 55529 05/06/99 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV TEMP HELP W/E 4/04 HILL 001-161-999-5118 55529 05/06/99 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV TEMP HELP W/E 4/04 LUQUE 190-182-999-5118 55529 05/06/99 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV TEMP HELP W/E 4/04 MULLINS 001-150-999-5118 55529 05/06/99 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV TEMP HELP W/E 4/04 COFFMAN 001-150-999-5118 55529 05/06/99 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV TEMP HELP W/E 4/18 LUQUE 190-182-999-5118 55529 05/06/99 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV TEMP HELP (2)W/E 4/11BELIAN 001-171-999-5118 55529 05/06/99 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV TEMP HELP (2)W/E 4/11BELIAN 001-162-999-5118 55529 05/06/99 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV CREDIT:INCORRECT BILLING RATE 001-140-999-5118 73.70 289.44 182.24 422.80 285.60 62.80 422.80 557.28 371.52 14.74- 2,653.44 55530 05/06/99 002666 MASON & MASON REAL ESTA CONSULTING SVCS:PALA RD BRIDGE 210-165-631-5700 675.00 675.00 55531 05/06/99 002693 MATROS, ANDREA TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 352.80 352.80 55532 05/06/99 000944 MCCAIN TRAFFIC SUPPLY, EQUIPMENT:R.C./I-15 LOOP RAMP 210-165-605-5804 249.98 249.98 55533 05/06/99 MEADOWS, HELEN REFUND: EXCURSION TO ~ELKS 190-183-4980 33.00 33.00 55534 05/06/99 001905 MEYERS, DAVID WILLIAM TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 55534 05/06/99 001905 MEYERS, DAVID WILLIAM TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 352.00 192.00 544.00 55535 05/06/99 003241 55535 05/06/99 003241 55535 05/06/99 003241 55535 05/06/99 003241 55535 05/06/99 003241 55535 05/06/99 003241 MILLAR HEATING & AIR, MILLAR HEATING & AIR, MILLAR HEATING & AIR, MILLAR HEATING & AIR, MILLAR HEATING & AIR, MILLAR HEATING & AIR, MAINT/REPAIR EQUIP:CRC NOV PREVENT.MAINT.SVC:CITY HAL NOV PREVENT.MAINT.SVC:CRC NOV PREVENT.MAINT.:MAINT. FAC. NOV PREVENT.MAINT.SVC:TCC NOV PREVENT.MAINT.SVC:SR CTR 190-182-999-5250 340-199-701-5250 190-182-999-5250 340-199-702-5250 190-184-999-5250 190-181-999-5250 196.00 1,300.00 500.00 100.00 150.00 150.00 2,396.00 55536 05/06/99 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS BUSINESS CARDS:P.D.CHAPLAIN 001-170-999-5222 102.50 55536 05/06/99 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS SALES TAX 001-170-999-5222 7.94 VOUCHRE2 05/06/99 10:22 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 55536 55536 55537 55538 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 001384 001384 000883 002139 MINUTEMAN PRESS MINUTEMAN PRESS MONTELEONE EXCAVATING NORTH COUNTY TIMES - AT BUSINESS CARDS:TEMECULA P.D. SALES TAX STREET CLEANING:OLD TOWN RECRUITMENT AD: MAINT. WORKER 001-170-999-5222 001-170-999-5222 001-164-601-5402 001-150-999-5254 1,046.25 81.08 1,030.00 68.99 1,237.77 1,030.00 68.99 55539 55539 55539 55539 55540 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 002105 002105 002105 002105 001561 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE PAGENET CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT REPLACEMENT COSTS OF PAGER 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 MLT PERS 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS-PRE 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS-PRE 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS-PRE 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS-PRE 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS-PRE 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 55541 05/06/99 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 000247 002498 05/06/99 05/06/99 PESTMASTER PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC 55543 55544 PEST CONTROL SVC:FLOOD CHANNEL FEB PROF.SVCS:RANCHO CAL/I-15 001-163-999-5214 340-199-701-5214 001-164-601-5214 001-164-601-5214 001-100-999-5238 001-2130 001-2390 165-2390 190-2390 191-2390 192-2390 193-2390 194-2390 280-2390 300-2390 320-2390 330-2390 340-2390 001-2130 191-2130 192-2130 193-2130 194-2130 001-2390 165-2390 190-2390 191-2390 192-2390 193-2390 194-2390 280-2390 300-2390 320-2390 330-2390 340-2390 001-164-601-5401 210-165-601-5801 420.15 530.29 47.50 254.07 35.00 322.43 24,229.67 693.64 3,868.51 13.28 33.93 400.94 196.69 301.77 130.52 756.21 150.42 491.04 263.61 2.81 5.62 39.33 8.43 74.87 1.87 14.82 .05 .14 1.50 .84 .92 .46 1.86 .93 2.18 1,975.00 1,782.50 1,252.01 35.00 32,009.29 1,975.00 1,782.50 55545 05/06/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-120-999-5222 19.40 55545 05/06/99 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-171-999-5222 15.84 VOUCHRE2 05/06/99 10:22 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 55545 05/06/99 000249 PETTY CASH 55545 05/06/99 000249 PETTY CASH 55545 05/06/99 000249 PETTY CASH 55545 05/06/99 000249 PETTY CASH 55545 05/06/99 000249 PETTY CASH 55545 05/06/99 000249 PETTY CASH 55545 05/06/99 000249 PETTY CASH 55545 05/06/99 000249 PETTY CASH 55545 05/06/99 000249 PETTY CASH 55545 05/06/99 000249 PETTY CASH 55545 05/06/99 000249 PETTY CASH 55545 05/06/99 000249 PETTY CASH 55545 05/06/99 000249 PETTY CASH 55545 05/06/99 000249 PETTY CASH 55545 05/06/99 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 001-150-999-5265 190-180-999-5263 001-140-999-5262 001-140-999-5262 001-164-604-5260 190-2920 001-111-999-5260 001-171-999-5296 001-110-999-5262 001-140-999-5260 001-100-999-5260 001-162-999-5261 001-110-999-5261 001-150-999-5265 001-150-999-5265 26.79 4.00 11.20 17.36 30.00 13.99 25.00 40.47 49.60 27.57 32.50 50.00 13.38 3.21 24.94 405.25 55546 05/06/99 000580 PHOTO WORKS 55546 05/06/99 000580 PHOTO WORKS 55547 05/06/99 000253 POSTMASTER 55547 05/06/99 000253 POSTMASTER 55547 05/06/99 000253 POSTMASTER FILM & PHOTO DEVELOPING FILM & PHOTO DEVELOPING EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS EXPRESS HAIL & POSTAL SERVS 190-180-999-5301 190-180-999-5301 001-161-999-5230 001-120-999-5230 190-180-999-5230 72.59 103.53 61.75 62.40 39.25 176.12 163.40 55548 05/06/99 POWAY, CITY OF 55549 05/06/99 PRESLEY COS. 55550 05/06/99 000254 PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN 55551 05/06/99 000255 PRO LOCK & KEY 55551 05/06/99 000255 PRO LOCK & KEY RGT-OF-WY MGT WKSHP:4/12:CRISP REFUND:ENG. DEPOSIT:LD93-105C0 PUBLIC NOTICE:DLT 15/COM LOCKSMITH SERVICES:RDA LOCKSMITH SVCS:O.T.FLAG POLES 001-164-604-5261 001-2670 001-120-999-5256 280-199-813-5804 280-199-999-5362 155.80 1,000.00 20.5O 45.78 18.07 155.80 1,000.00 20.50 63.85 55552 05/06/99 003493 PRO-CRAFT OVERHEAD DOOR RES.IMPROVE.PRGM:CLARK 165-199-813-5804 450.00 450.00 55553 05/06/99 000981 R H F INC. 55553 05/06/99 000981 R H F INC. 55553 05/06/99 000981 R H F INC. 55554 05/06/99 002612 RADIO SHACK, INC. 55554 05/06/99 002612 RADIO SHACK, INC. 55555 05/06/99 000260 55555 05/06/99 000260 55555 05/06/99 000260 55555 05/06/99 000260 55555 05/06/99 000260 55555 05/06/99 000260 55555 05/06/99 000260 55555 05/06/99 000260 55555 05/06/99 000260 55555 05/06/99 000260 RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP MF RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP MF RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP MF RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP MF RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP MF RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP MF RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP MF RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP MF RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP MF RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP MF RADAR EQUIP REPAIR & MAINT. RADAR EQUIP REPAIR & MAINT. RADAR EQUIP REPAIR & MAINT. MISC. COMPUTER SUPPLIES MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES PRINTING SERVICES:LAND DEV. PRINTING SVCS:PW INSPECTORS PRINTING SERVICES:PW CIP PRINTING SVCS:PW OFFICE LETTERING FOR H WINDSOR CUBICLE LETTERING FOR R SERVEN CUBICLE LETTERING - JAMES/CHU CUBICLE LETTERING-BUTLER/HUDSO OFFICE LETTERING - G.THORNHILL CUBICLE LETTERING-CRISP/POWERS 001-170-999-5215 001-170-999-5215 001-170-999-5215 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 001-163-999-5222 001-165-999-5222 001-164-604-5222 001-164-602-5222 001-171-999-5222 190-180-999-5222 001-163-999-5222 001-165-999-5222 001-161-999-5222 280-199-999-5222 35.00 59.00 59.00 69.69 17.63 17.61 3.61 55.87 3.61 31.52 8.08 12.94 16.16 24.24 16.97 153.00 87.32 190.61 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 05/06/99 10:22 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 55556 05/06/99 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C BLUEPRINTS:OVERLAND OVERCROSS 210-165-604-5804 252.78 252.78 55557 05/06/99 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER APR:O1-99-O2003-O:FLOATING MTR 001-164-601-5250 55557 05/06/99 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER APR:O2-79-10100-1:NW SPORTS PK 190-1270 321.04 291.07 612.11 55558 05/06/99 000266 RIGHTWAY MAY EQUIP.RENTAL:RIVERTON PARK 190-180-999-5238 55558 05/06/99 000266 RIGHTWAY EQUIP.RENTAL:STN #84:4/22-26 190-180-999-5238 55558 05/06/99 000266 RIGHTWAY TRIP CHARGE 190-180-999-5238 55558 05/06/99 000266 RIGHTWAY DELIVERY CHARGE 190-180-999-5238 62.89 62.33 42.50 20.00 187.72 55559 05/06/99 000418 RIVERSIDE CO. CLERK & R MAR APERTURE CARD DUPLICATES 001-163-999-5250 5.00 5.00 55560 05/06/99 001365 RIVERSIDE CO. ENVIRONME PERMIT RENEWAL:TES POOL 190-180-999-5250 210.00 210.00 55561 05/06/99 003001 ROSS FENCE COMPANY RES.IMPROVEMENT PRGM:CLARK 165-199-813-5804 55561 05/06/99 003001 ROSS FENCE COMPANY RES.IMPROVEMENT PRGM:PAINE 165-199-813-5804 2,594.00 4,500.00 7,094.00 55562 05/06/99 002226 RUSSO, MARY ANNE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 868.00 868.00 55563 05/06/99 002743 SAFE & SECURE LOCKSMITH DUPLICATE KEYS TO CABOOSE -PD 001-170-999-5214 55563 05/06/99 002743 SAFE & SECURE LOCKSMITH SALES TAX 001-170-999-5214 55.60 4.31 59.91 55564 05/06/99 SHIPLEY, PAMELA REFUND:ENG. DEPOSIT:LD98-O94GR 001-2670 995.00 995.00 55565 05/06/99 SJURSEN, CONNIE REFUND: COOKING W/TIA 190-183-4982 15.00 15.00 55566 05/06/99 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON APR:2-11-007-0455:6TH ST 001-164-603-5240 55566 05/06/99 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON APR:2-10-747-1393:MONROE PED 190-199-999-5240 55566 05/06/99 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON APR:2-19-184-1824:R.C. TC1 191-180-999-5319 55566 05/06/99 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON APR:2-10-331-2153:TCC 190-184-999-5240 55566 05/06/99 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON APR:2-18-937-3152:MORENO RD 190-185-999-5240 55566 05/06/99 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON APR:2-19-111-4834:BEDFORD TC1 191-180-999-5319 55566 05/06/99 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON APR:2-OO-397-5042:CITY HALL 340-199-701-5240 55566 05/06/99 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON APR:2-OO-397-5067:VARIOUS MTRS 193-180-999-5240 55566 05/06/99 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON APR:2-OO-397-5067:VARIOUS MTRS 191-180-999-5240 55566 05/06/99 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON APR:2-18-O49-6416:FRONT ST PED 001-164-603-5319 55566 05/06/99 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON APR:2-18-555-7006:MORENO RD TC 001-164-603-5319 55566 05/06/99 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON APR:2-18-799-7911:MORENO RD TC 001-164-603-5319 55566 05/06/99 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON APR:2-19-171-8568:WEDD.CHAPEL 190-185-999-5240 55566 05/06/99 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON APR:67-77-863-1535-91:MCCABE 190-180-999-5240 55566 05/06/99 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON CREDIT:INCORRECT BILLING 193-180-999-5240 55567 05/06/99 003247 55568 05/06/99 001972 SPANOS CORPORATION, THE STANLEY R. HOFFMAN ASSO 55569 05/06/99 000752 STONE, JEFFREY E. RETENTION:MARGARITA ROAD CONSULTING SVCS:FISCAL MODEL RB:NAT'L CITIES CF:3/5-10/99 210-2035 001-110-999-5248 001-100-999-5258 249.26 35.85 152.33 570.11 87.99 85.24 4,252.10 12,402.92 13.39 994.21 97.67 54.92 337.68 2,384.72 11,745.76- 50,478.28 2,780.00 120.64 9,972.63 50,478.28 2,780.00 120.64 55570 05/06/99 STOUT, BRIAN REFUND:ENG. DEPOSIT:LD98-OO5GR 001-2670 995.00 995.00 55571 05/06/99 000574 SUPERTONER PRINTER SUPPLIES 320-199-999-5221 189.60 189.60 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 05/06/99 10:22 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 55572 05/06/99 003449 T H E SOILS COMPANY MAR PROF. SVCS:DUCK POND IMPRV 210-190-143-5804 55573 05/06/99 000305 TARGET STORE MISC. REC. SUPPLIES:TCC 190-184-999-5301 55573 05/06/99 000305 TARGET STORE CAMERA & MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 001-163-999-5220 55573 05/06/99 000305 TARGET STORE CAMERA & MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 001-164-604-5220 55573 05/06/99 000305 TARGET STORE CAMERA & MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 001-164-604-5220 55573 05/06/99 000305 TARGET STORE CAMERA & MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 001-165-999-5220 1,102.00 8.92 63.57 190.71 9.39 9.39 1,102.00 281.98 55574 05/06/99 000515 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER MISC.SUPPLIES:O.T. PROMO 11/21 280-199-999-5362 206.40 206.40 55575 05/06/99 TEMECULA VALLEY NEIGHBO REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900 100.00 100.00 55576 05/06/99 000919 55576 05/06/99 000919 55576 05/06/99 000919 55576 05/06/99 000919 55576 05/06/99 000919 55576 05/06/99 000919 55576 05/06/99 000919 55576 05/06/99 000919 55577 05/06/99 55578 05/06/99 002111 55578 05/06/99 002111 55579 05/06/99 000978 55580 05/06/99 000459 55580 05/06/99 000459 55580 05/06/99 000459 55580 05/06/99 000459 55580 05/06/99 000459 55581 05/06/99 002065 55581 05/06/99 002065 55581 05/06/99 002065 55582 05/06/99 55583 05/06/99 001342 55583 05/06/99 001342 55583 05/06/99 001342 55583 05/06/99 001342 55583 05/06/99 001342 55583 05/06/99 001342 55583 05/06/99 001342 55583 05/06/99 001342 55583 05/06/99 001342 55583 05/06/99 001342 55583 05/06/99 001342 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED TINSELTOWN VIDEO, INC TOGO'S TOGO'S TRAUMA INTERVENTION PRO TUMBLE JUNGLE FITNESS/G TUMBLE JUNGLE FITNESS/G TUMBLE JUNGLE FITNESS/G TUMBLE JUNGLE FITNESS/G TUMBLE JUNGLE FITNESS/G UNISOURCE UNISOURCE UNISOURCE VASQUEZ-HANCOCK, TAMMY WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY WAX]E SANITARY SUPPLY WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY MAINT.REPAIRS:PW PATCH TRUCK APR VEHICLE FUEL USAGE APR VEHICLE FUEL USAGE APR VEHICLE FUEL USAGE APR VEHICLE FUEL USAGE APR VEHICLE FUEL USAGE APR VEHICLE FUEL USAGE ADD'L FEES:FAC.RENTAL:10/24/99 REFUND:ENG.DEPOSIT:LD97-095GR REFRESHMENTS:COUNCIL MTG:4/13 REFRESHMENTS:FILM FEST.MTG-4/5 JAN-MAR EMERG. RESPONSE PRGM TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS COPY PAPER & MISC. PAPER STOCK CREDIT: PRICE ADJ/INV#41206710 MISC. PAPER SUPPLIES REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT VACUUM:CRC PAPER FILTER BAGS MAGNET BAR SALES TAX VACUUM:MAINTENANCE FACILITY PAPER FILTER BAGS MAGNET BAR SALES TAX VACUUM:T.V.MUSEUM PAPER FILTER BAGS MAGNET BAR 001-164-601-5214 001-163-999-5263 001-164-601-5263 001-164-604-5263 001-165-999-5263 001-162-999-5263 190-180-999-5263 194-180-999-5254 001-2670 001-100-999-5260 001-110-999-5260 001-171-999-5274 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 330-199-999-5220 330-199-999-5220 330-199-999-5220 190-2900 190-182-999-5242 190-182-999-5242 190-182-999-5242 190-182-999-5242 340-199-702-5242 340-199-702-5242 340-199-702-5242 340-199-702-5242 190-185-999-5242 190-185-999-5242 190-185-999-5242 414.45 227.04 536.45 98.45 121.79 111.60 491.57 44.00 995.00 78.75 30.90 1,312.50 320.00 294.40 220.80 160.00 120.00 5,182.56 262.16- 185.87 100.00 307.58 4.00 13.53 25.20 307.58 4.00 13.53 25.20 307.58 4.00 13.53 2,045.35 995.00 109.65 1,312.50 1,115.20 5,106.27 100.00 VOUCHRE2 05/06/99 10:22 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER 55583 05/06/99 001342 55584 05/06/99 002778 55585 05/06/99 003667 55586 05/06/99 002109 55586 05/06/99 002109 55587 05/06/99 002092 55587 05/06/99 002092 55588 05/06/99 000345 55588 05/06/99 000345 55588 05/06/99 000345 55487 05/06/99 001264 55493 05/06/99 002939 VENDOR NAME WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY, WEBSTER, ANDY WESTERN EXTERMINATOR CO WHITE CAP WHITE CAP WINTER GRAPHICS SOUTH WINTER GRAPHICS SOUTH XEROX CORPORATION BILLI XEROX CORPORATION BILLI XEROX CORPORATION BILLI COSTCO WHOLESALE ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS R CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION SALES TAX REIMB:PLANNER'S CF:3/23-26/99 RES.IMPROVEMENT PRGM:COBB MISC. MAINT. SUPPLIES:PW MISC. MAINT. SUPPLIES:LAND DEV PRINTING SERVICES:MARKETING SALES TAX MAR BASE CHRG:F2OOMAJ COPIER JAN-MAR BASE CHRG:2510 COPIER APR LEASE/SUPPLIES:5765 COPIER COMPUTER LOAN PRGM:PREISENDANZ ESRI USER CF:7/26-30: K.BEAL ACCOUNT NUMBER 190-185-999-5242 001-161-999-5272 165-199-813-5804 001-164-601-5218 001-163-999-5218 001-111-999-5270 001-111-999-5270 330-199-999-5239 330-199-999-5239 330-199-999-5239 001-1175 001-161-610-5258 ITEM AMOUNT 25.20 157.76 1,416.00 85.87 9.44 4,065.00 315.11 110.00 117.00 465.19 2,000.00 795.00 PAGE 10 CHECK AMOUNT 1,050.93 157.76 1,416.00 95.31 4,380.11 692,19 2,000.00 795.00 TOTAL CHECKS 281,129.14 VOUCHRE2 05/13/99 11:50 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 14 FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 165 RDA DEV- LOW/HOD SET ASIDE 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP 300 INSURANCE FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES AMOUNT 232,401.66 4,258.15 39,682.68 890.44 67.02 2,322.07 449.62 625,599.95 38,989.17 2,485.48 12,184.78 18,736.19 2~167.94 TOTAL 980,235.15 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 05/13/99 11:50 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 55589 05/10/99 002998 BRUNSWICK CAL OAKS BOWL DEPOSIT:EMPYEE TEAM PACE BOWL 001-150-999-5265 50.00 50.00 55590 05/10/99 BALLANCE, JULIA M. REIMBURSE:DIGITAL CAMERA:HR 001-150-999-5242 398.22 398.22 55591 05/11/99 001159 CALIFORNIA DEPT OF JUST NEW HIRE FINGERPRINT SUBMITTAL 001-150-999-5250 168.00 168.00 55592 05/11/99 000958 ROBERT CARAN PRODUCTION DEPOSIT: 4TH OF JULY FIREWORKS 190-183-999-5370 10,000.00 10,000.00 122016 05/10/99 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO PURCHASE PROPERTY:STAMPEDE PRK 210-165-828-5700 603,985.95 603,985.95 55595 05/13/99 000116 A V P VISION PLANS 000116 AVP 001-2310 55595 05/13/99 000116 A V P VISION PLANS 000116 AVP 190-2310 55595 05/13/99 000116 A V P VISION PLANS 000116 AVP 340-2310 55595 05/13/99 000116 A V P VISION PLANS COBRA/GREEK/VISION/MAY 99 001-1180 602.19 29.75 18.58 18.58 669.10 55596 05/13/99 001700 A+ TEACHING MATERIALS TCC SUPPLIES-CHILDREN'S PRGMS 190-184-999-5301 109.19 109.19 55597 05/13/99 ABC PRESCHOOL REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT: LD95-113GR 001-2670 995.00 995.00 55598 05/13/99 003304 ADAMS ADVERTISING, INC. APR BILLBOARD AD:OLD TWN PROM 280-199-999-5362 450.00 450.00 55599 05/13/99 003552 AFLAC 003552 CANCER 001-2330 55599 05/13/99 003552 AFLAC 003552 EXP PROT 001-2330 55599 05/13/99 003552 AFLAC 003552 EXP PROT 190-2330 55599 05/13/99 003552 AFLAC 003552 EXP PROT 300-2330 55599 05/13/99 003552 AFLAC 003552 HOSP IC 001-2330 55599 05/13/99 003552 AFLAC 003552 STD 001-2330 55599 05/13/99 003552 AFLAC 003552 STD 190-2330 55599 05/13/99 003552 AFLAC 003552 STD 300-2330 234.50 202.13 55.80 5.47 17.50 612.80 112.00 8.00 1,248.20 55600 05/13/99 001281 ALHAMBRA GROUP 55600 05/13/99 001281 ALHAMBRA GROUP APR DESIGN SVCS:DUCK POND PRK 210-190-143-5802 APR DESIGN SVCS:DUCK POND PRK 210-190-143-5802 250.00 350.00 600.00 55601 05/13/99 002877 ALTA LOMA CHARTER LINES SHUTTLE BUS:VOORBURG DELEGATIO 001-101-999-5280 55601 05/13/99 002877 ALTA LOMA CHARTER LINES SHUTTLE BUS:VOORBURG DELEGATIO 001-101-999-5280 301.50 301.50 603.00 55602 05/13/99 000936 AMERICAN RED CROSS PROCESS FEES 190-183-999-5320 55602 05/13/99 000936 AMERICAN RED CROSS LIFEGUARD TODAY TEXTBOOKS/EMSA 190-183-999-5320 55602 05/13/99 000936 AMERICAN RED CROSS ARC PROCESSING FEE 190-183-999-5320 30.00 200.00 100.00 330.00 55603 05/13/99 AMERICAN STORES PROPERT REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT:LD97-O28GR 001-2670 995.00 995.00 55604 05/13/99 001947 AMERIGAS PROPANE FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-162-999-5263 67.48 67.48 55605 05/13/99 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV APR RENTAL:PW MAINT UNIFORMS 001-164-601-5243 55605 05/13/99 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV APR RENTAL MATS/TOWELS: UNIFOR 190-180-999-5243 55605 05/13/99 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV APR RENTAL MATS/TOWELS:SR CTR 190-181-999-5250 55605 05/13/99 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV APR RENTAL MATS/TOWELS: CRC 190-182-999-5250 55605 05/13/99 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV APR RENTAL MATS/TOWELS: TCC 190-184-999-5250 55605 05/13/99 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV APR RENTAL MATS/TOWELS:C.HALL 340-199-701-5250 55605 05/13/99 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV APR RENTAL MATS/TOWELS:MTNC FA 340-199-702-5250 83.70 174.50 46.20 96.78 64.70 105.55 42.75 614.18 VOUCHRE2 05/13/99 11:50 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE VENDOR NUMBER VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 55606 05/13/99 55607 05/13/99 55607 05/13/99 55607 05/13/99 55607 05/13/99 55607 05/13/99 55607 05/13/99 55607 05/13/99 55607 05/13/99 55607 05/13/99 55608 05/13/99 003266 55608 05/13/99 003266 55608 05/13/99 003266 55608 05/13/99 003266 55608 05/13/99 003266 55608 05/13/99 003266 55609 05/13/99 002648 55609 05/13/99 002648 55609 05/13/99 002648 55610 05/13/99 003017 55611 05/13/99 003126 55612 05/13/99 55613 05/13/99 003222 55614 05/13/99 002878 55615 05/13/99 002099 ARCO ARCO PRODUCTS ARCO PRODUCTS ARCO PRODUCTS ARCO PRODUCTS ARCO PRODUCTS ARCO PRODUCTS ARCO PRODUCTS ARCO PRODUCTS ARCO PRODUCTS ARCUS DATA SECURITY ARCUS DATA SECURITY ARCUS DATA SECURITY ARCUS DATA SECURITY ARCUS DATA SECURITY ARCUS DATA SECURITY AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C BALDERSON, SCOTT BOOMGAARDEN, DENNIS BRIGHT BEGINNINGS PRESC BROCKMEIER, CAROL BUSINESS INFORMATION SY BUTTERFIELD ENTERPRISES REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT: LD93-125GR REFD:WITHDRAWN APPL PA97-0217 REFD:WITHDRAWN APPL PA97-0217 REFD:WITHDRAWN APPL PA97-0217 REFD:WITHDRAWN APPL PA97-0217 REFD:WITHDRAWN APPL PA97-0217 REFD:WITHDRAWN APPL PA97-0217 REFD:WITHDRAWN APPL PA97-0217 REFD:WITHDRAWN APPL PA97-0217 REFD:WITHDRAWN APPL PA97-0217 DATA STORAGE CART CTR T20 ARCH DATA STORAGE MICROBOX ARCHIVAL APERTURE CARD BOX ARCHIVE LEASED CTR CONTAINER T20 LEASED CTR MICROBOX #648 LEASED CTR APER.CARD BOX #686 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP: MARK BERG MEMBERSHIP: J.HODSON - M.WOLFF MEMBERSHIP: J.HODSON - M.WOLFF TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT: LD96-O19GR REIMB:SIERRA CF:4/19-23:RENO ON-SITE COMPUTER TRAINING MAY RESTROOM/FACILITY RENTAL 001-2670 001-170-4125 001-161-4116 001-161-4129 001-163-4116 001-163-4129 001-162-4216 001-161-4370 001-163-4388 001-171-4036 001-120-999-5277 001-120-999-5277 001-120-999-5277 001-120-999-5277 001-120-999-5277 001-120-999-5277 001-162-999-5214 001-163-999-5226 001-165-999-5226 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 001-2670 001-162-999-5258 320-199-999-5261 280-199-999-5234 2,500.00 115.00 3,777.00 575.40 1,048.00 45.00 30.00 200.00 266.00 554.00 510.30 16.24 40.60 56.00 8.00 20.00 43.00 43.00 43.00 480.00 326.40 995.00 149.08 2,070.00 826.00 2,500.00 6,610.40 651.14 129.00 480.00 326.40 995.00 149.08 2,070.00 826.00 55616 05/13/99 003138 CAL MAT PW PATCH TRUCK MATERIALS 001-164-601-5218 266.95 266.95 55617 05/13/99 003214 CAL MAT 55618 05/13/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE 55618 05/13/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE 55618 05/13/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE 55618 05/13/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE 55618 05/13/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE 55618 05/13/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE 55618 05/13/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE 55618 05/13/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE 55618 05/13/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE 55618 05/13/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE 55618 05/13/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE 55618 05/13/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES ASSOCIATES ASSOCIATES ASSOCIATES ASSOCIATES ASSOCIATES ASSOCIATES ASSOCIATES ASSOCIATES ASSOCIATES ASSOCIATES ASSOCIATES CONCRETE ASPHALT - PATCH TRUCK APRIL 99 WORKERS' COMP APRIL 99 WORKERS' COMP APRIL 99 WORKERS' COMP APRIL 99 WORKERS' COMP APRIL 99 WORKERS' COMP APRIL 99 WORKERS' COMP APRIL 99 WORKERS' COMP APRIL 99 WORKERS' COMP APRIL 99 WORKERS' COMP APRIL 99 WORKERS' COMP APRIL 99 WORKERS' COMP APRIL 99 WORKERS' COMP 001-164-601-5218 001-2370 165-2370 190-2370 191-2370 192-2370 193-2370 194-2370 280-2370 300-2370 320-2370 330-2370 340-2370 1,062.71 4,603,84 129.69 1,330.30 1.02 1.71 39.47 17.13 33.86 6.40 50.96 12,08 258.56 1,062.71 VOUCHRE2 05/13/99 11:50 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 55618 05/13/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES 55618 05/13/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES 55618 05/13/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES 55618 05/13/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES 55618 05/13/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES 55618 05/13/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES 55618 05/13/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES 55618 05/13/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES 55618 05/13/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES 55618 05/13/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES 55618 05/13/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES 55618 05/13/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES 55618 05/13/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES 55618 05/13/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES 55618 05/13/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES 55618 05/13/99 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES 55620 05/13/99 001054 55621 05/13/99 000647 55622 05/13/99 001655 CALIFORNIA BUILDING OFF CALIFORNIA DEPT OF CONS CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY APRIL 99 WORKERS' COMP APRIL 99 WORKERS' COMP APRIL 99 WORKERS' COMP APRIL 99 WORKERS~ COMP APRIL 99 WORKERS~ COMP OVRPMT: W/C ASSESSMENT FEE CREDIT:REVISED PREMIUM AUDIT CREDIT:REVISED PREMIUM AUDIT CREDIT:REVISED PREMIUM AUDIT CREDIT:REVISED PREMIUM AUDIT CREDIT:REVISED PREMIUM AUDIT CREDIT:REVISED PREMIUM AUDIT CREDIT:REVISED PREMIUM AUDIT CREDIT:REVISED PREMIUM AUDIT CREDIT:REVISED PREMIUM AUDIT CREDIT:REVISED PREMIUM AUDIT COUNTER TECH WKSHP:SR/RP:5/27 MEMBERSHIP: CLEMENT JIMENE2 WELDING SERVS & SUPPLIES 55623 05/13/99 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 55623 05/13/99 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 55623 05/13/99 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 55623 05/13/99 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 55623 05/13/99 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 55623 05/13/99 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 55623 05/13/99 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 55623 05/13/99 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 55623 05/13/99 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 55623 05/13/99 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 55623 05/13/99 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 55623 05/13/99 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 001-1182 330-199-999-5112 280-199-999-5112 190-181-999-5112 001-120-999-5112 001-164-604-5112 001-199-4062 165-199-4062 190-180-4062 193-180-4062 194-180-4062 280-199-4062 320-199-4062 330-199-4062 340-199-4062 340-199-4062 001-161-999-5261 001-163-999-5226 190-184-999-5301 001-2360 165-2360 190-2360 191-2360 192-2360 193-2360 194-2360 280-2360 300-2360 320-2360 330-2360 340-2360 3.74 .44 1.00 3.78 .04 28. O0- 998.18 - 28.84 - 336.58 - 21.24- 2.50- 1.15- 14.27- 4.79- 82.44- .01 - 130.00 160.00 11.90 555.76 13.01 103.59 .33 .98 10.50 5.84 6.49 3.24 13.00 6.50 15.26 4,976.02 130.00 160.00 11.90 734.50 55624 05/13/99 CAR WASH VENTURES 55625 05/13/99 000131 CARL WARREN & CO. 55625 05/13/99 000131 CARL WARREN & CO. 55625 05/13/99 000131 CARL WARREN & CO. 55625 05/13/99 000131 CARL WARREN & CO. 55625 05/13/99 000131 CARL WARREN & CO. 55625 05/13/99 000131 CARL WARREN & CO. 55625 05/13/99 000131 CARL WARREN & CO. 55625 05/13/99 000131 CARL WARREN & CO. REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT: LD93-121GR INC, CLAIM ADJUSTER SERVICES INC. CLAIM ADJUSTER SERVICES INC. CLAIM ADJUSTER SERVICES INC. CLAIM ADJUSTER SERVICES INC. CLAIM ADJUSTER SERVICES INC, CLAIM ADJUSTER SERVICES INC. CLAIM ADJUSTER SERVICES INC. CLAIM ADJUSTER SERVICES 001-2670 300-199-999-5205 300-199-999-5205 300-199-999-5205 300-199-999-5205 300-199-999-5205 300-199-999-5205 300-199-999-5205 300-199-999-5205 55626 05/13/99 000135 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER STREET SIGNS & MISC HARDWARE 001-164-601-5244 1,000.00 874.89 98.15 149.81 25.83 408.30 118.49 266.31 160.24 77.58 1,000.00 2,102.02 77.58 55627 05/13/99 001195 CENTRAL SECURITY SERVIC ALARM MONITORING - CRC 190-182-999-5250 50.00 55627 05/13/99 001195 CENTRAL SECURITY SERVIC ALARM MONITORING-SENIOR CENTER 190-181-999-5250 45.00 95.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 05/13/99 11:50 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER 55628 05/13/99 001249 CENTRE FOR ORG. EFFECTI MGT SPRING RETREAT: 4/15-16 001-150-999-5248 55629 05/13/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 LTD 001-2380 55629 05/13/99 003553 C[GNA 003553 LTD 165-2380 55629 05/13/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 LTD 190-2380 55629 05/13/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 LTD 191-2380 55629 05/13/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 LTD 192-2380 55629 05/13/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 LTD 193-2380 55629 05/13/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 LTD 194-2380 55629 05/13/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 LTD 280-2380 55629 05/13/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 LTD 300-2380 55629 05/13/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 LTD 320-2380 55629 05/13/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 LTD 330-2380 55629 05/13/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 LTD 340-2380 55629 05/13/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 STD 001-2500 55629 05/13/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 STD 165-2500 55629 05/13/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 STD 190-2500 55629 05/13/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 STD 191-2500 55629 05/13/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 STD 192-2500 55629 05/13/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 STD 193-2500 55629 05/13/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 STD 194-2500 55629 05/13/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 STD 280-2500 55629 05/13/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 STD 300-2500 55629 05/13/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 STD 320-2500 55629 05/13/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 STD 330-2500 55629 05/13/99 003553 CIGNA 003553 STD 340-2500 55631 05/13/99 003252 CONTRACT SERVICES CORP. JANITORIAL SUPPLIES-6TH STREET 001-164-603-5218 55631 05/13/99 003252 CONTRACT SERVICES CORP. JANITORIAL SUPPLIES:CITY HALL 340-199-701-5212 55631 05/13/99 003252 CONTRACT SERVICES CORP. JANITORIAL PRODUCTS- CRC 190-182-999-5212 55631 05/13/99 003252 CONTRACT SERVICES CORP. JANITORIAL PRODUCTS- MTNC FAC 340-199-702-5212 55631 05/13/99 003252 CONTRACT SERVICES CORP. JANITORIAL SUPPLIES: SR CENTER 190-181-999-5212 55631 05/13/99 003252 CONTRACT SERVICES CORP. JANITORIAL PRODUCTS - TCC 190-184-999-5212 ITEM AMOUNT 2,080.00 1,289.44 37.20 217.22 .75 1.93 22.82 10.86 16.41 7.12 37.36 8.08 27.53 1,799.84 51.94 303.19 1.05 2.69 31.84 15.15 22.90 9.94 52.14 11.28 38.45 72.95 154.10 106.30 38.80 59.75 132.16 CHECK AMOUNT 2,080.00 4,017.13 564.06 55632 05/13/99 003662 CORT FURNITURE RENTAL FURNITURE RENTAL FOR PUB WORKS 001-163-999-5238 372.00 372.00 55633 05/13/99 002631 COUNTS UNLIMITED, INC. TRAFFIC COUNT VARIOUS LOCATION 001-164-602-5406 55633 05/13/99 002631 COUNTS UNLIMITED, INC. TRAFFIC COUNT VARIOUS LOCATION 001-164-602-5406 55634 05/13/99 003272 DAISY WHEEL RIBBON COMP PAPER FOR GIS PLOTTER 001-161-610-5220 55635 05/13/99 002990 DAVID TURCH & ASSOCIATE RETAIN FIRM TO PURSUE FED FUND 001-110-999-5248 55636 05/13/99 003681 DAVIDSON & ALLEN, ARCHI ARCHITECTURAL SVC FOR MNTC FAC 210-190-158-5802 55637 05/13/99 002701 DIVERSIFIED RISK APR 99 SPECIAL EVENT INSURANCE 300-2180 55638 05/13/99 001673 DIVERSIFIED TEMPORARY S TEMP HELP W/E 5/2 WIGHTMAN 001-150-999-5118 55639 05/13/99 003638 DURA ART STONE, INC. RECEPTACLE LIDS COLOR CHARCOAL 190-180-999-5212 55639 05/13/99 003638 DURA ART STONE, INC. FREIGHT 190-180-999-5212 4,280.00 196.00 145.52 2,000.00 4,200.00 174.36 176.80 270.00 5.87 4,476.00 145.52 2,000.00 4,200.00 174.36 176.80 VOUCHRE2 05/13/99 11:50 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 55639 05/13/99 003638 DURA ART STONE, INC. 55640 05/13/99 001380 E S 55640 05/13/99 001380 E S 55640 05/13/99 001380 E S 55640 05/13/99 001380 E S 55640 05/13/99 001380 E S 55640 05/13/99 001380 E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC EMPLOYMENT SERVIC EMPLOYMENT SERVIC EMPLOYMENT SERVIC EMPLOYMENT SERVIC EMPLOYMENT SERVIC 55641 05/13/99 EMBASSY SUITES SALES TAX TEMP HELP W/E 4/23 WILLIAMS TEMP HELP W/E 4/23 WILLIAMS TEMP HELP W/E 4/23 GORMAN TEMP HELP W/E 4/23 DE GANGE TEMP HELP W/E 4/9 HILLBERG TEMP HELP W/E 4/23 HILLBERG REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT: LD97-O59GR 190-180-999-5212 001-161-999-5118 001-162-999-5118 001-162-999-5118 001-161-999-5118 165-199-999-5118 165-199-999-5118 001-2670 20.93 392.04 392.04 1,575.28 2,858.40 1,281.60 1,401.75 995.00 296.80 7,901.11 995.00 55642 05/13/99 EUSEY, HARRIET 55643 05/13/99 003623 EXCEL HARDWARE REFUND: EX SR-CARLSBAD FLOWER 190-183-4980 MAINT SUPPLIES - PW CREWS 001-164-601-5218 8.00 23.98 8.00 23.98 55644 05/13/99 000165 55644 05/13/99 000165 55645 05/13/99 000166 FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES LOT BOOK REPORT: CREATIVE DR. 001-162-999-5230 001-110-999-5230 165-199-813-5804 76.25 15.00 150.00 91.25 150.00 55646 05/13/99 003347 55646 05/13/99 003347 55646 05/13/99 003347 55646 05/13/99 003347 55646 05/13/99 003347 55646 05/13/99 003347 55646 05/13/99 003347 55646 05/13/99 003347 55646 05/13/99 003347 55646 05/13/99 003347 55647 05/13/99 000184 55647 05/13/99 000184 55647 05/13/99 000184 55647 05/13/99 000184 55647 05/13/99 000184 55648 05/13/99 001355 55648 05/13/99 001355 55649 05/13/99 000177 55649 05/13/99 000177 55649 05/13/99 00017'/ 55649 05/13/99 000177 55649 05/13/99 000177 55649 05/13/99 000177 55649 05/13/99 000177 55649 05/13/99 000177 55649 05/13/99 000177 55649 05/13/99 000177 55649 05/13/99 000177 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER FIRST BANKCARD CENTER FIRST BANKCARD CENTER FIRST BANKCARD CENTER FIRST BANKCARD CENTER FIRST BANKCARD CENTER FIRST BANKCARD CENTER FIRST BANKCARD CENTER FIRST BANKCARD CENTER FIRST BANKCARD CENTER G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA, INC. G T E CALIFORNIA, INC. GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT XXXX-7824 COMERCHERO:MONTEREY XXXX-7824 COMERCHERO:WES FLWR XXXX-9277 R.ROBERTS:MONTEREY XXXX-6165 G.YATES:VOORBURG DEL XXXX-6165 G.YATES:PANEL LUNCH XXXX-6165 G.YATES: PROF MTGS XXXX-1405 D.UBNOSKE:MONTEREY XXXX-1405 D.UBNOSKE: PROF MTG XXXX-1405 D.UBNOSKE: CREDIT XXXX-0515 G.THORNHILL:PROF MTG 909 308-1079 GENERAL USAGE 909 695-1409 GENERAL USAGE 909 695-3539 COPT CITY OFFICE 909 699-0590 ALARM LINES PTA 909 699-1370 SVC FOR COP MAY ACCESS-RVSD CO OPEN LINE MAY ACCESS-CRC OPEN PHONE LINE OPERATIONS BINDERS-DEPT MGRS SALES TAX OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY MANAGERS OFFICE SUPPLIES-COPY CENTER OFFICE SUPPLIES: CITY CLERK OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES- BLDG & SAFETY OFFICE SUPPLIES-BLDG & SAFETY OFFICE SUPPLIES- TCSD OFFICE SUPPLIES: LO~/MOD - RDA OFFICE SUPPLIES: LOW/MOD - RDA 001-100-999-5258 001-1170 001-100-999-5258 001-101-999-5280 001-150-999-5260 001-110-999-5260 001-161-999-5258 001-161-999-5260 001-161-999-5260 001-161-999-5258 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 001-110-999-5278 001-110-999-5278 001-110-999-5220 330-199-999-5220 001-120-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-162-999-5220 001-162-999-5220 190-180-999-5220 165-199-999-5220 280-199-999-5220 461.54 37.71 829.18 1,199.35 39.39 66.81 517.04 26.68 27.09- 89.00 61.15 87.59 36.67 56.85 105.87 320.00 320.00 242.00 18.76 150.23 128.09 435.83 171.33 76.68 74.98 415.46 7.59 7.59 3,239.61 348.13 640.00 VOUCHRE2 05/13/99 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 55649 55650 55650 55650 55650 55650 55650 55651 55652 55653 55653 55653 55653 55653 55653 55653 55653 55653 55653 55653 55653 55653 55653 55654 55655 55656 55657 55658 55658 55658 55658 55659 55659 55659 55660 55661 11:50 CHECK DATE 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 VENDOR NUMBER 000177 000192 000192 000192 000192 000192 000192 003462 002372 002107 002107 002107 002107 002107 002107 002107 002107 002107 002107 002107 002107 002107 002107 000194 000194 000194 000194 001429 001429 001429 000199 003194 VENDOR NAME GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE GOLD "N" BAKED HONEY HA HARMON, JUDY HIGHMARK INC. HIGHMARK INC. HIGHMARK INC. HIGHMARK INC. HIGHMARK INC. HIGHMARK INC. HIGHMARK INC. HIGHMARK INC. HIGHMARK INC. HIGHMARK INC. HIGHMARK, INC. HIGHMARK, INC. HIGHMARK, INC. HIGHMARK, INC. HILLCREST CARDEN SCHOOL HOFFEE, JOHN II HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS, IN I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS INACOM INFORMATION SYST INACOM INFORMATION SYST INACOM INFORMATION SYST INTERNAL REVENUE SERVIC JIM FORGERSON PAINTING CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION OFFICE SUPPLIES: INFO SYSTEM (12) PATCH CABLE 14' (12) PATCH CABLE 7' (16) CARTRIDGE (4) SONY DISKETTES IOOPK FREIGHT SALES TAX TRANSPORTATION MTG:5/13:REFRSH TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 002107 VL REVER 002107 VOL LIFE 002107 VOL LIFE 002107 VOL LIFE 002107 VOL LIFE 002107 VOL LIFE 002107 VOL LIFE 002107 VL ADVAN 002107 VOL LIFE 002107 VOL LIFE 002107 VOL LIFE 002107 VOL LIFE 002107 VOL LIFE 002107 VOL LIFE REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT: LD96-124GR REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT: LD95-O65GR REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT: LD95-O26GR REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT: LD97-OOTGR 000194 DEF COMP 000194 DEF COMP 000194 DEF COMP 000194 DEF COMP SONY DIGITAL CAMERA MVC-FD91 FREIGHT SALES TAX 000199 IRS GARN PAINT LIGHT POSTS-SR CENTER ACCOUNT NUMBER 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 001-150-999-5260 190-183-999-5330 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 001-2670 001-2670 001-2670 001-2670 001-2080 165-2080 190-2080 280-2080 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 001-2140 190-181-999-5212 ITEM AMOUNT 6.57 95.88 76.68 1,055.84 75.96 33.68 102.86 129.38 466.00 209.20- 191.40 7.68 .34 1.70 3.40 4.68 204.95 187.15 7.68 .34 1.70 3.40 4.68 315.00 5,500.00 1,000.00 995.01 1,960.16 18.75 184.00 31.45 912.76 3.48 71.01 275.27 1,681.95 PAGE 6 CHECK AMOUNT 1,735.11 1,440.90 129.38 466.00 409.90 315.00 5,500.00 1,000.00 995.01 2,194.36 987.25 275.27 1,681.95 55662 05/13/99 KADLAC, MELODY REFUND:SECURITY DEPOSIT/RENTAL 190-2900 100.00 55662 05/13/99 KADLAC, MELODY REFUND:SECURITY DEPOSIT/RENTAL 190-183-4990 25.00 125.00 VOUCHRE2 05/13/99 11:50 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER 55663 05/13/99 003631 55663 05/13/99 003631 55664 05/13/99 001982 55665 05/13/99 55666 05/13/99 003286 55667 05/13/99 000217 55668 05/13/99 000843 55669 05/13/99 003076 55669 05/13/99 003076 55669 05/13/99 003076 55669 05/13/99 003076 55669 05/13/99 003076 55669 05/13/99 003076 55669 05/13/99 003076 55669 05/13/99 003076 55670 05/13/99 001526 55671 05/13/99 001384 55671 05/13/99 001384 55671 05/13/99 001384 55671 05/13/99 001384 55671 05/13/99 001384 VENDOR NAME KLEINFELDER, INC. KLEINFELDER, INC. L WILLIAMS LANDSCAPE, I LA MASTERS OF FINE JEWE LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI MARGARITA OFFICIALS ASS MCDANIEL ENG. MET LIFE INSURANCE COMP MET LIFE INSURANCE COMP MET LIFE INSURANCE COMP MET LIFE INSURANCE COMP MET LIFE INSURANCE COMP MET LIFE INSURANCE COMP MET LIFE INSURANCE COMP MET LIFE INSURANCE COMP MICHAELS STORES, INC. MINUTEMAN PRESS MINUTEMAN PRESS MINUTEMAN PRESS MINUTEMAN PRESS MINUTEMAN PRESS ITEM DESCRIPTION MAR GEOTECHNICAL SVCS:OVRLD DR MAR GEOTECHNICAL SVC:PALA RD DUCK POND LDSCP MAINTENANCE REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT: LD98-O23GR APR SVCS-LIBRARY SYSTEM AGRMT APR ADULT SOFTBALL OFFICIALS APR PROF.SVCS:R.C./I-15 BRIDGE 003076 DENTALML 003076 DENTALML 003076 DENTALML 003076 DENTALML 003076 DENTALML 003076 DENTALML 003076 DENTALML COBRA/GREEK/DENTAL/MAY 99 SUPPLIES FOR SPECIAL EVENTS CITY LETTERHEAD & ENVELOPES SALES TAX BUS.CARDS:BUTLER/ATTAR/ONTIVER BUS.CARDS:HUDSON/JAMES BUS.CARDS:CHU ACCOUNT NUMBER 210-165-604-5801 210-165-631-5801 190-180-999-5415 001-2670 001-101-999-5285 190-183-999-5380 210-165-601-5801 001-2340 165-2340 190-2340 193-2340 280-2340 300-2340 340-2340 001-1180 001-120-999-5220 001-111-999-5222 001-111-999-5222 001-164-604-5222 001-163-999-5222 001-164-602-5222 ITEM AMOUNT 4,261.00 4,840.00 540.00 995.00 1,098.20 3,124.00 1,680.00 2,958.17 103.83 288.11 21.09 62.29 20.76 83.06 83.06 204.73 178.49 13.83 123.66 82.42 41.21 CHECK AMOUNT 9,101.00 540.00 995.00 1,098.20 3,124.00 1,680.00 3,620.37 204.73 439.61 55672 05/13/99 55673 05/13/99 000883 55673 05/13/99 000883 55674 05/13/99 002995 55674 05/13/99 002995 55674 05/13/99 002995 55675 05/13/99 003078 55676 05/13/99 002139 55676 05/13/99 002139 55677 05/13/99 002105 55677 05/13/99 002105 55677 05/13/99 002105 MOLDING INTERNATIONAL MONTELEONE EXCAVATING MONTELEONE EXCAVATING MYRON MANUFACTURING COR MYRON MANUFACTURING COR MYRON MANUFACTURING COR NARDONE, JOSEPH NORTH COUNTY TIMES - AT NORTH COUNTY TIMES - AT OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE REFUND:ENG.DEPOSIT:LD93-124GR REMOVE DESILTING PONDS:SANTIAG ROW EMERG.REPAIR:VAR.LOCATIONS GIFT PENS FOR SISTER CITIES GIFT PEN BOXES SALES TAX REIMBURSE:SUMMER GAMES:6/20-26 RECRUITMENT ADVERTISING:HR RECRUITMENT ADVERTISING:HR CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT 001-2670 001-164-601-5401 001-164-601-5402 001-101-999-5280 001-101-999-5280 001-101-999-5280 001-170-999-5261 001-150-999-5254 001-150-999-5254 190-180-999-5214 001-162-999-5214 001-164-601-5214 1,000.00 5,000.00 4,500.00 1,094.50 82.50 41.89 577.00 60.48 58.24 186.22 39.95 20.00 1,000.00 9,500.00 1,218.89 577.0O 118.72 246.17 55678 05/13/99 PEP BOYS REFUND:ENG.DEPOSIT:LD93-O53GR 001-2670 55679 05/13/99 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 AETNA SO 001-2090 1,000.00 43.82 1,000.00 VOUCHRE2 05/13/99 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55679 55680 55681 55681 55682 55682 55682 11:50 CHECK DATE 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 VENDOR NUMBER 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 001958 000580 000580 000254 000254 000254 VENDOR NAME 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 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 LONG TERM CARE PRO PHOTO WORKS PHOTO WORKS CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION 000245 AETNA SO 000245 AETNA SO 000245 BLSHIELD 000245 BLSHIELD 000245 CIGNA 000245 HELTHNET 000245 HELTHNET 000245 HELTHNET 000245 KAISER 000245 PACIFICR 000245 PACIFICR 000245 PACIFICR 000245 PERS CHO 000245 PERS REV 000245 AETNA SO 000245 AETNA SO 000245 AETNA SO 000245 AETNA SO 000245 AETNA SO 000245 BLSHIELD 000245 BLSHIELD 000245 BLSHIELD 000245 CIGNA 000245 CIGNA 000245 HELTHNET 000245 HELTHNET 000245 HELTHNET 000245 HELTHNET 000245 HELTHNET 000245 HELTHNET 000245 HELTHNET 000245 HELTHNET 000245 HELTHNET 000245 KAISER 000245 KAISER 000245 PACIFICR 000245 PACIFICR 000245 PACIFICR 000245 PC 000245 PERS CHO 000245 PERS DED 000245 PERS-ADM 001958 PERS L-T FILM & PHOTO DEVELOPING FILM & PHOTO DEVELOPING PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN PUBLIC PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN PUBLIC PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN PUBLIC NOTICE: CITY HALL NOTICES: N/A CASE NOTICE: PA97-0444 ACCOUNT NUMBER 165-2090 280-2090 001-2090 190-2090 001-2090 001-2090 190-2090 340-2090 001-2090 001-2090 190-2090 193-2090 001-2090 001-2090 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 193-2090 001-2090 001-2090 001-2090 001-2090 001-2122 001-164-601-5250 190-180-999-5301 001-120-999-5256 001-161-999-5256 001-161-999-5256 ITEM AMOUNT 111.43 37.14 18.92 83.52 2.14 333.41 57.86 27.42 8.48 197.83 31.81 1.67 168.84 1,124.29- 459.37 215.66 251.60 83.86 71.88 1,190.40 370.65 3.57 871.91 40.84 6,292.28 825.53 16.44 54.25 429.88 263.07 3.83 164.41 870.29 2,233.26 164.83 5,188.75 802.90 19.72 289.00 2,535.16 1,203.66 136.92 73.84 32.30 11.57 38.75 16.00 18.25 PAGE 8 CHECK AMOUNT 25,053.92 73.84 43.87 73.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 05/13/99 11:50 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 55683 05/13/99 002110 PRIME EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT RENTAL-VARIOUS PARKS 190-180-999-5238 144.94 144.94 55684 05/13/99 003621 QWEST/LCI INT'L TELECOM APR LONG DISTANCE SVCS:CITY HL 320-199-999-5208 271.83 271.83 55685 05/13/99 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER MAY:Ol-O8-00046-2:MARGARITA RD 191-180-999-5240 55685 05/13/99 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER APR:Ol-O8-O5837-6:C.CHRISTINA 165-199-999-5449 55685 05/13/99 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER APR:O1-O6-26305-O:OT FRONT ST 001-164-603-5240 55685 05/13/99 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER APR:Ol-O6-30205-O:6TH ST LSCP 001-164-603-5240 55685 05/13/99 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER APR:Ol-O6-30206-O:6TH ST LSCP 001-164-603-5240 55685 05/13/99 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER APR:O1-O6-55015-O:OT FRONT ST 001-164-603-5240 55685 05/13/99 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER APR:OI-O6-6OOOS-O:OT FOUNTAIN 001-164-603-5240 55685 05/13/99 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER APR:O1-O6-84860-5:PUJOL STREET 280-199-807-5801 55685 05/13/99 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER APR:Ol-O2-98000-O:STN #84 001-171-999-5240 55685 05/13/99 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER APR:Ol-O2-98010-O:STN #84 001-171-999-5240 55685 05/13/99 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER APR:VARIOUS WATER METERS 190-180-999-5240 55685 05/13/99 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER APR:VARIOUS WATER METERS 190-181-999-5240 55685 05/13/99 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER APR:VARIOUS WATER METERS 190-182-999-5240 55685 05/13/99 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER APR:VARIOUS WATER METERS 190-184-999-5240 55685 05/13/99 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER APR:VARIOUS WATER METERS 191-180-999-5240 55685 05/13/99 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER APR:VARIOUS WATER METERS 193-180-999-5240 55685 05/13/99 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER APR:VARIOUS WATER METERS 340-199-701-5240 55685 05/13/99 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER APR:VARIOUS WATER METERS 190-185-999-5240 30.78 33.45 82.23 32.00 33.23 36.30 9.62 40.58 9.96 160.21 3,912.61 87.39 586.74 138.17 123.64 1,711.76 339.31 55.42 7,423.40 55686 05/13/99 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH CITY VEHICLE DETAILING 001-162-999-5214 55686 05/13/99 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH CITY VEHICLE DETAILING 001-165-999-5214 55686 05/13/99 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH CITY VEHICLE DETAILING & GAS 001-110-999-5214 55686 05/13/99 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH CITY VEHICLE DETAILING & GAS 001-110-999-5263 55686 05/13/99 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH CITY VEHICLE DETAILING 001-163-999-5214 55686 05/13/99 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH CITY VEHICLE DETAILING 001-161-999-5214 42.00 20.00 18.00 61.52 51.95 15.95 209.42 55687 05/13/99 REGISTER, DAVID REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900 100.00 100.00 55688 05/13/99 000268 RIVERSIDE CO. HABITAT K-RAT PAYMENT FOR APRIL 1999 001-2300 55689 05/13/99 002181 RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION RETENTION:WINCH.RD/I-15 BRIDGE 280-2035 37,470.00 36,767.15 37,470.00 36,767.15 55690 05/13/99 000271 ROBERT BEIN, WM FROST & MAR ENG.SVCS:S.GERTRUDIS TRAIL 210-190-147-5802 55691 05/13/99 000873 ROBERTS, RONALD H. REIMB:CALED CF:3/30-4/02/99 001-100-999-5258 1,000.00 22.26 1,000.00 22.26 55692 05/13/99 003566 ROGER PITKIN LANDSCAPE GARDENING SERVICE - LOPEZ PROP 165-199-812-5804 50.00 50.00 55693 05/13/99 RORIPAUGH FAMILY TRUST REFUND:ENG.DEPOSIT:LD97-013GR 001-2670 995.00 995.00 55694 05/13/99 002937 SACKETT CONSTRUCTION STREET MAINT:RIDER/ENTERPRISE 001-164-601-5402 55695 05/13/99 SACKETT, BRETT REFUND:ENG.DEPOSlT:LD98-O49GR 001-2670 55696 05/13/99 002743 SAFE & SECURE LOCKSMITH LOCKSMITH SVCS:VARIOUS PARKS 190-180-999-5212 4,999.00 3,995.00 56.42 4,999.00 3,995.00 56.42 55697 05/13/99 002384 SECURE BUSINESS COMMUNI AUDIO/VIDEO MAINTENANCE 320-199-999-5250 600.00 600.00 VOUCHRE2 05/13/99 11:50 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 10 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 55698 55699 55700 55701 55701 55701 55701 55702 55702 55702 55702 55702 55702 55702 55703 55704 55705 55705 55705 55706 55706 55706 55706 55707 55708 55708 55708 55708 55708 55709 55710 55710 55710 55710 55710 55710 55710 55710 CHECK DATE 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 VENDOR NUMBER 003484 000645 003619 003619 003619 003619 000537 000537 000537 000537 000537 000537 000537 003495 003672 003672 003672 003576 003576 003576 003576 003599 000305 000305 000305 000305 000305 003375 001547 001547 001547 001547 001547 001547 001547 001547 VENDOR NAME SIERRA DIGITAL, INC SMART & FINAL, INC. SOCAL CINEMAS SOUTH COAST FIRE EQUIPM SOUTH COAST FIRE EQUIPM SOUTH COAST FIRE EQUIPM SOUTH COAST FIRE EQUIPM SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDI SPANOS CORPORATION SPECTRATURF, INC. SPECTRATURF, INC. SPECTRATURF, INC. SYS TECHNOLOGY, INC. SYS TECHNOLOGY, INC. SYS TECHNOLOGY, INC. SYS TECHNOLOGY, INC. T Y INTERNATIONAL TARGET STORE TARGET STORE TARGET STORE TARGET STORE TARGET STORE TAYLOR, BEA TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 ITEM DESCRIPTION ON-SITE SUPPORT SERVICES RECREATION SUPPLIES:TCC GROUP TICKETS:EE RECOGNITION FIRE HYDRANT FLOW KIT HYDRANT CAP W/GAUGE FREIGHT SALES TAX MAY:2-10-331-1353:STN #84 MAY:2-17-991-4981:C.CHRISTINA MAY:2-O2-351-5281:CRC MAY:2-10-901-7962:YUKON TC1 MAY:VARIOUS ELECTRIC METERS MAY:VARIOUS ELECTRIC METERS MAY:53-77-850-O104-O1:DUCK PND ELECTRICAL SVCS:R.C./I-15 REFUND:ENG.DEPOSIT:LD97-094GR PATCH KITS FOR REPAIRS:VAR,PRK FREIGHT SALES TAX 2 LASERJET PRINTERS 2 OFFICEJET PRINTERS SALES TAX SALES TAX APR CONSTR.SUPPORT:OVERLAND RECREATION SUPPLIES:TCC CAMERA & OFFICE SUPPLIES:PW CAMERA & OFFICE SUPPLIES:PW MISC SUPPLIES:TCSD RECREATION SUPPLIES:TCC APRIL PROF.SVCS:OLD TOWN 001547 UN DUES 001547 UN DUES 001547 UN DUES 001547 UN DUES 001547 UN DUES 001547 UN DUES 001547 UN DUES 001547 UN DUES ACCOUNT NUMBER 320-1980 190-184-999-5301 001-150-999-5265 001-171-999-5242 001-171-999-5242 001-171-999-5242 001-171-999-5242 001-171-999-5240 165-199-999-5449 190-182-999-5240 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 191-180-999-5319 190-180-999-5240 210-165-601-5804 001-2670 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 320-1970 320-199-999-5242 320-1970 320-199-999-5242 210-165-604-5804 190-184-999-5301 001-164-604-5220 001-165-999-5220 190-183-999-5370 190-184-999-5301 280-199-999-5250 001-2125 190-2125 191-2125 192-2125 193-2125 194-2125 320-2125 330-2125 ITEM AMOUNT 600.00 149.36 225.00 565.00 185.00 11.36 58.13 712.49 4.77 3,835.81 137.75 465.90 111.67 31.77 1,057. O0 3,131.00 334.75 43.00 25.94 2,672.00 1,070.00 207.08 82.93 3,976.00 11.07 192.51 192.50 93.85 41.88 50.00 471.50 82.00 1.03 2.05 14.35 3.07 20.50 20.50 CHECK AMOUNT 600.00 149.36 225.00 819.49 5,300.16 1,057.00 3,131.00 403.69 4,032.01 3,976.00 531.81 50.00 615.00 VOUCHRE2 05/13/99 11:50 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 11 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 55711 55712 55713 55713 55713 55713 55713 55713 55713 55713 55713 55713 55714 55714 55714 55715 55715 55715 55715 55715 55715 55715 55715 55715 55715 55715 55715 CHECK DATE 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 VENDOR NUMBER 000168 000307 000642 000642 000642 000642 000642 000642 000642 000642 000642 000642 000319 000319 000319 003560 003560 003560 003560 003560 003560 003560 003560 003560 003560 003560 003560 VENDOR NAME TEMECULA FLOWER CORRAL TEMECULA TROPHY COMPANY TEMECULA TEMECULA TEMECULA TEMECULA TEMECULA TEMECULA TEMECULA TEMECULA TEMECULA TEMECULA CITY OF - FLE CITY OF - FLE CITY OF - FLE CITY OF - FLE CITY OF - FLE CITY OF - FLE CITY OF - FLE CITY OF - FLE CITY OF - FLE CITY OF - FLE TOMARK SPORTS, INC. TOMARK SPORTS, INC. TOMARK SPORTS, INC. TRANSAMERICA TRANSAMERICA TRANSAMERICA TRANSAMERICA TRANSAMERICA TRANSAMERICA TRANSAMERICA TRANSAMERICA TRANSAMERICA TRANSAMERICA TRANSAMERICA TRANSAMERICA ITEM DESCRIPTION SUNSHINE FUND TROPHIES FOR SPORTS ACTIVITIES EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX REPAIR/MAINT.FAC.:SPORTS PARK FREIGHT SALES TAX 003560 AD&D 003560 AD&D 003560 AD&D 003560 AD&D 003560 AD&D 003560 AD&D 003560 AD&D 003560 AD&D 003560 AD&D 003560 AD&D 003560 AD&D 003560 AD&D ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-2170 190-183-999-5380 001-1020 165-1020 190-1020 330-1020 194-1020 193-1020 280-1020 300-1020 320-1020 340-1020 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 001-2360 165-2360 190-2360 191-2360 192-2360 193-2360 194-2360 280-2360 300-2360 320-2360 330-2360 340-2360 ITEM AMOUNT 50.59 1,328.56 2,863.68 290.00 589.65 80.00 20.OO 1.00 190.00 10.00 350.00 5.00 820.80 65.66 63.61 128.26 3.01 23.91 .08 .23 2.43 1.34 1.49 .74 3.00 1.50 3.51 CHECK AMOUNT 50.59 1,328.56 4,399.33 950.07 169.50 55716 55716 55716 55716 55716 55716 55716 55716 55716 55716 55717 55717 55717 55717 55717 55717 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 05/13/99 001065 001065 001065 001065 001065 001065 001065 001065 001065 001065 000389 000389 000389 000389 000389 000389 U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF C 001065 DEF COMP C 001065 DEF COMP C 001065 DEF COMP C 001065 DEF COMP C 001065 DEF COMP C 001065 DEF COMP C 001065 DEF COMP C 001065 DEF COMP C 001065 DEF COMP C 001065 DEF COMP 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 H/PEBSCO (OBRA) U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 000389 PT RETIR 000389 PT RETIR 000389 PT RETIR 000389 PT RETIR 000389 PT RETIR 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 330-2160 340-2160 7,338.48 210.23 1,619.77 2.50 33.38 25.OO 85.23 96.34 666.66 158.34 1,990.86 169.33 794.28 52.71 55.18 52.52 10,235.93 3,114.88 55718 05/13/99 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE:CMRS POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 001-100-999-5230 51.14 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 05/13/99 11:50 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 12 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER 55718 05/13/99 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE:CMRS POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 001-110-999-5230 55718 05/13/99 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE:CMRS POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 001-120-999-5230 55718 05/13/99 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE:CMRS POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 001-162-999-5230 55718 05/13/99 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE:CMRS POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 190-180-999-5230 55718 05/13/99 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE:CMRS POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 001-170-999-5230 55718 05/13/99 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE:CMRS POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 280-199-999-5230 55718 05/13/99 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE:CMRS POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 001-140-999-5230 55718 05/13/99 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE:CMRS POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 001-150-999-5230 55718 05/13/99 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE:CMRS POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 001-161-999-5230 55718 05/13/99 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE:CMRS POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 320-199-999-5230 55718 05/13/99 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE:CMRS POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 001-171-999-5230 55718 05/13/99 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE:CMRS POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 001-111-999-5230 55718 05/13/99 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE:CMRS POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 001-1990 55719 05/13/99 UNION OIL CO. REFUND:ENG.DEPOSIT:LD93-145CO 001-2670 55720 05/13/99 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 001-2120 55720 05/13/99 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 165-2120 55720 05/13/99 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 190-2120 55720 05/13/99 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 280-2120 55720 05/13/99 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 300-2120 55720 05/13/99 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 320-2120 55720 05/13/99 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 330-2120 55720 05/13/99 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 340-2120 ITEM AMOUNT 108.92 325.96 140.12 556.30 4.29 227.20 867.78 346.96 880.04 4.74 1.32 62.94 701.87 3,000.00 228.45 3.75 20.00 1.55 .25 4.00 5.00 2.00 CHECK AMOUNT 4,279.58 3,000.00 265.00 55721 05/13/99 002850 UNIVERSITY OF CALIF:L.A CEQA 99 WKSHP:C.DONAHOE:4/15 001-161-999-5261 55722 05/13/99 W.H.B.P. PARTNERS L.P. REFUND:ENG.DEPOSIT:LD97-O38GR 001-2670 250.00 995.00 250.00 995.00 55723 05/13/99 WALKER, CINDY REFUND: GYMNASTICS 55724 05/13/99 WALT DISNEY'S MAGIC KIN 55725 05/13/99 003620 WARNER SPRINGS RANCH 55726 05/13/99 001601 55726 05/13/99 001601 55726 05/13/99 001601 55727 05/13/99 55728 05/13/99 000345 55728 05/13/99 000345 55728 05/13/99 000345 55728 05/13/99 000345 55728 05/13/99 000345 55728 05/13/99 000345 55728 05/13/99 000345 55728 05/13/99 000345 55728 05/13/99 000345 55728 05/13/99 000345 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES WRIGHT, CHARLES & ELIZA XEROX CORPORATION BILLI XEROX CORPORATION BILLI XEROX CORPORATION BILLI XEROX CORPORATION BILLI XEROX CORPORATION BILLI XEROX CORPORATION BILLI XEROX CORPORATION BILLI XEROX CORPORATION BILLI XEROX CORPORATION BILLI XEROX CORPORATION BILLI ACTIVITY DISCOUNT CARDS: HR BALANCE:99 MGT RETREAT 4/15-16 AUG PRGSS:GEN PLAN CIRCULATION OCT PRGSS:GEN PLAN CIRCULATION NOV PRGSS:GEN PLAN CIRCULATION REFUND:ENG.DEPOSIT:LD95-121GR MAR LEASE OF 5100A COPIER MAR INTEREST ON LEASE OF 5100A MAY LEASE FOR 5021COPIER:TCC APR LEASE OF 5100A COPIER APR INTEREST ON LEASE OF 5100A BASE CHRG/POOLED MAINT:5365 BASE CHRG/POOLED MAINT:5365 BASE CHRG/POOLED MAINT:5365 BASE CHRG/POOLED MAINT:5365 BASE CHRG/POOLED MAINT:5365 190-183-4982 001-150-999-5265 001-150-999-5260 001-161-999-5248 001-161-999-5248 001-161-999-5248 001-2670 330-2800 330-199-999-5391 190-184-999-5239 330-2800 330-199-999-5391 190-184-999-5239 330-2800 330-199-999-5391 330-199-999-5217 330-2800 96.00 135.00 1,032.71 27,000.00 26,000.00 7,000.00 1,000.00 1,746.37 373.66 67.08 1,757.69 362.34 122.84 1,541.63 689.01 4,773.29 1,552.55 96.00 135.00 1,032.71 60,000.00 1,000.00 VOUCHRE2 05/13/99 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 55728 55728 11:50 CHECK DATE 05/13/99 05/13/99 VENDOR NUMBER 000345 000345 VENDOR NAME XEROX CORPORATION BILLI XEROX CORPORATION BILLI CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION BASE CHRG/POOLED MAINT:5365 BASE CHRG/POOLED MAINT:5365 ACCOUNT NUMBER 330-199-999-5391 330-199-999-5217 ITEM AMOUNT 678.09 4,773.29 PAGE 13 CHECK AMOUNT 18,437,84 TOTAL CHECKS 980,235.15 VOUCHRE2 05/13/99 13:39 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 165 RDA DEV- LOW/MOO SET ASIDE 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 261 CFD 88-12 ADMIN EXPENSE FUND 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP 300 INSURANCE FUND 340 FACILITIES AMOUNT 1,238,346.85 1,000.10 32,703.38 1,250.00 22,188.00 688,821.62 550.55 272,733.60 1,720.20 541.00 TOTAL 2,259,855.30 VOUCHRE2 05/13/99 13:39 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 55732 55733 55733 55734 55734 55735 55736 55736 55736 55736 55737 55738 55738 55739 55739 55739 55739 55739 55739 55739 55739 55739 55739 55739 55739 55739 55739 55740 55741 55742 55743 55743 55743 55743 55744 55745 55745 55745 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 001916 003664 003664 003567 003567 003059 001009 001009 001009 001009 002939 000164 000164 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 001056 002695 003223 003286 002993 002993 002993 002993 002822 002412 002412 002412 ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOC[AT BREEZER EQUIPMENT & SUP BREEZER EQUIPMENT & SUP C C MYERS, INC. C C MYERS, INC. COSTCO COMPANIES, INC D B X, INC. D B X, INC. D B X, INC. D B X, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS R ESGIL CORPORATION ESGIL CORPORATION 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 J A S PACIFIC CONSULTIN K E A ENVIRONMENTAL, IN LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI PARSONS, BRINCKERHOFF, PARSONS, BRINCKERHOFF, PARSONS, BRINCKERHOFF, PARSONS, BRINCKERHOFF, PROFESSIONAL HOSPITAL S RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS MAR SVCS RC/I-15 BRIDGE PRJT 2 SOLAR/BATTERY ARROW BOARDS SALES TAX APR PRGSS:OVRLD/I-15 OVRCRSS APR PRGSS RETENTION:0VRLD/I-15 YEAR 6 PAYMENT PER OPA APR:TRAFFIC SIGNAL RC/VIA LAS RETENTION:TRAFFIC SIGNAL RC/VI A.C. RANCHO CA/VIA LAS COLINAS RETENTION:A.C.R.CAL/VIA LAS GIS SOFTWARE PER AGREEMENT MAR 99 PLAN CHECK SVCS MAR 99 PLAN CHECK REVIEW APR LDSCP SVCS: STREETSCAPE APR LDSCP SVCS:NEIGHBORHOOD PK APR LDSCP SVCS: WINCHESTER CRK APR LDSCP SVCS: NORTH SLOPES APR LDSCP SVCS:SOUTH SLOPES APR LDSCP SVCS: MEDIAN APR LDSCP SVCS:MARG MEDIAN APR LDSCP SVCS: PARKS APR LDSCP SVCS: SR CENTER APR LDSCP SVCS: CRC APR LDSCP SVCS: TCC APR LDSCP SVCS: CITY HALL APR LDSCP SVCS:OLD TWN PRK-LOT APR LDSCP SVCS: STATION 84 APR BLDG/SAFETY INSPECTORS SVC MAR BIOLOGICAL SVCS-PALA RD BR APR SVCS-LIBRARY SYSTEM AGRMT APR DESIGN SVCS:SB RAMP-RC/I15 APR DESIGN SVCS:SB RAMP-RC/I15 APR DESIGN SVCS:SB RAMP-WINCH. CREDIT:OVER BILLED:ENG.VENTURE RDA AGREEMENT DATED 12/19/95 MAR 99 LEGAL SERVICES MAR 99 LEGAL SERVICES MAR 99 LEGAL SERVICES 210-165-601-5801 001-164-601-5610 001-164-601-5610 210-165-604-5804 210-2035 280-199-999-5276 210-165-671-5804 210-2035 001-164-601-5402 001-2035 001-161-610-5606 001-162-999-5248 001-162-999-5248 190-199-999-5415 190-180-999-5415 190-180-999-5415 193-180-999-5415 193-180-999-5415 191-180-999-5415 191-180-999-5415 190-180-999-5415 190-181-999-5415 190-182-999-5415 190-184-999-5415 340-199-701-5415 001-164-603-5415 001-171-999-5212 001-162-999-5118 210-165-631-5801 001-101-999-5285 210-165-605-5802 001-165-999-5248 210-165-697-5802 001-165-999-5248 280-199-999-5276 001-130-999-5246 001-130-999-5246 001-130-999-5246 7,277.15 10,210.00 791.28 470,367.80 47,036.78- 235,570.00 67,742.10 6,774.21- 10,260.00 1,026.00- 7,682.44 7,465.44 632.97 106.00 7,806.00 1,568.00 8,813.00 13,375.00 1,150.00 100.00 18,578.00 361.00 1,444.00 193.00 541.00 250.00 400,00 9,512.00 6,547.30 9,968.48 94,368.00 19,123.45 7,701.01 5,858.47- 33,333.34 8,788.33 1,556.08 351.00 7,277.15 11,001.28 423,331.02 235,570.00 70,201.89 7,682.44 8,098,41 54,685.00 9,512.00 6,547.30 9,968.48 115,333.99 33,333.34 VOUCHRE2 05/13/99 13:39 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 55745 55745 55745 55745 55745 55745 55745 55745 55745 55745 55745 55745 55745 55745 55745 55745 55745 55745 55745 55746 55746 55746 55746 55746 55746 55746 55746 55746 55746 55746 55746 55746 55746 55746 55746 55746 55746 55746 55746 55746 55746 55746 55746 55746 55746 55746 55746 55746 55746 55746 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 05/25/99 002412 002412 002412 002412 002412 002412 002412 002412 002412 002412 002412 002412 002412 002412 002412 002412 002412 002412 002412 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 000406 RICHARDS RICHARDS RICHARDS RICHARDS RICHARDS RICHARDS RICHARDS RICHARDS RICHARDS RICHARDS RICHARDS RICHARDS RICHARDS RICHARDS RICHARDS RICHARDS RICHARDS RICHARDS RICHARDS RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE WATSON & GERS WATSON & GERS WATSON & GERS WATSON & GERS WATSON & GERS WATSON & GERS WATSON & GERS WATSON & GERS WATSON & GERS WATSON & GERS WATSON & GERS WATSON & GERS WATSON & GERS WATSON & GERS WATSON & GERS WATSON & GERS WATSON & GERS WATSON & GERS WATSON & GERS CO. SHERIFF'S CO. SHERIFF'S CO. SHERIFF'S CO. SHERIFF~S CO. SHERIFF'S CO. SHERIFF'S CO. SHERIFF'S CO. SHERIFF'S CO. SHERIFF'S CO. SHERIFF'S CO. SHERIFF'S CO. SHERIFF'S CO. SHERIFF'S CO. SHERIFF~S CO. SHERIFF'S CO. SHERIFF~S CO. SHERIFF~S CO. SHERIFF~S CO. SHERIFF'S CO. SHERIFF~S CO. SHERIFF'S CO. SHERIFF'S CO. SHERIFF~S CO. SHERIFF~S CO. SHERIFF'S CO. SHERIFF~S CO. SHERIFF~S CO. SHERIFF~S CO. SHERIFF'S CO. SHERIFF'S CO. SHERIFF~S MAR 99 LEGAL SERVICES MAR 99 LEGAL SERVICES MAR 99 LEGAL SERVICES MAR 99 LEGAL SERVICES MAR 99 LEGAL SERVICES MAR 99 LEGAL SERVICES MAR 99 LEGAL SERVICES MAR 99 LEGAL SERVICES MAR 99 LEGAL SERVICES MAR 99 LEGAL SERVICES MAR 99 LEGAL SERVICES MAR 99 LEGAL SERVICES MAR 99 LEGAL SERVICES MAR 99 LEGAL SERVICES MAR 99 LEGAL SERVICES MAR 99 LEGAL SERVICES MAR 99 LEGAL SERVICES MAR 99 LEGAL SERVICES MAR 99 LEGAL SERVICES 12/17-1/13/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 12/17-1/13/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 12/17-1/13/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 12/17'1/13/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 12/17-1/13/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 12/17-1/13/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 12/17-1/13/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 12/17-1/13/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 12/17-1/13/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 12/17-1/13/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 12/17-1/13/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 1/14-2/10/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 1/14-2/10/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 1/14-2/10/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 1/14-2/10/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 1/14-2/10/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 1/14-2/10/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 1/14-2/10/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 1/14-2/10/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 1/14-2/10/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 1/14-2/10/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 1/14-2/10/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT MAR 99 BOOKING FEES 2/11-3/10/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 2/11-3/10/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 2/11-3/10/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 2/11-3/10/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 2/11-3/10/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 2/11-3/10/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 2/11-3/10/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 2/11-3/10/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 001-130-999-5246 190-180-999-5246 001-130-999-5246 001-130-999-5246 210-165-631-5801 001-130-999-5246 300-199-999-5246 300-199-999-5246 261-199-999-5246 300-199-999-5246 210-165-604-5801 210-165-604-5801 210-165-604-5801 210-165-631-5801 300-199-999-5246 280-199-999-5246 165-199-999-5246 280-199-999-5246 165-199-999-5246 001-170-999-5288 001-170-999-5299 001-170-999-5298 001-170-999-5294 001-170-999-5289 001-170-999-5291 001-1230 001-170-999-5281 001-170-999-5262 001-170-999-5279 001-170-999-5297 001-170-999-5288 001-170-999-5299 001-170-999-5298 001-170-999-5294 001-170-999-5289 001-170-999-5291 001-1230 001-170-999-5281 001-170-999-5262 001-170-999-5279 001-170-999-5297 001-170-999-5273 001-170'999-5288 001-170-999-5299 001-170-999-5298 001-170-999-5294 001-170-999-5289 001-170-999-5291 001-1230 001-170-999-5281 6,418.80 2,647.38 104.00 564.45 362.00 1,735.99 164.85 629.15 550.55 55.30 1,500,00 390.25 519.00 100.00 870.90 3,214.46 182.00 615.80 818.10 186,172.56 37 593.20 38 502.40 9 724.00 9 625.60 4 239.04 4 239.04 23 894.71 18 127.71 4 033.16 14 787.20 209 563.20 38 808.40 38 502.40 9,721.60 9,625.60 8,804.16 8,804.16 27,495.49 21,253.59 7,615.78 14,787.20 7,728.00 196,439.04 38,838.10 38,502.40 9,716.80 9,625.60 8,315.04 8,315.04 29,220.10 32,138.39 VOUCHRE2 05/13/99 13:39 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER 55746 05/25/99 000406 55746 05/25/99 000406 55746 05/25/99 000406 55747 05/25/99 003545 55748 05/25/99 000332 VENDOR NAME RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF~S RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S THINK JACOBSON & ROTH VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATE CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION 2/11-3/10/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 2/11-3/10/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT 2/11-3/10/99 LAW ENFORCEMENT APR CONSULTING SVCS:TEM.MUSEUM MAR PLAN CHECK SERVICES ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-170-999-5262 001-170-999-5279 001-170-999-5297 210-190-808-5804 001-162-999-5248 ITEM AMOUNT 19,121.22 8,410.23 14,787.20 85,758.00 14,477.64 PAGE 3 CHECK AMOUNT 1,134,938.97 85,758.00 14,477.64 TOTAL CHECKS 2,259,855.30 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 am hereby allowed in the amount of $3,706,461.50. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 25th day of May, 1999. ATTEST: Steven J. Ford, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R__~oe__ STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 99- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Coundl of the City of Temecula on the 25th day of May, 1999 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk ITEM 4 APPROVAL ~ CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAN 2 ACTING CITY MANAG ., TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Acting City Manager/City Council Anthony J. Elmo, Chief Building Official May 25, 1999 Award of Construction Contract for Maintenance Facility, Second Floor Remodel Project, Phase II RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Award a construction Contract for the Second Floor Remodel Project, Phase II to Rasmussen Brothers Construction in the amount of $70,700.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement. 3. Authorize the Acting City Manager to approve Change Orders not to exceed the contingency amount of 10% of the contract amount· DISCUSSION: Staff has developed a three (3) phase program to maximize the use of available space for staffing of city operations. This phasing plan will ultimately see the full improvement of the second floor of the maintenance facility, along with the addition of an elevator and a single story addition of approximately 1,100 square feet. Phase I was the remodel of the first floor crew room into office space for the Building Inspectors and Code Enforcement staff. Phase II, which is before you tonight, involves the build-out of approximately 1600 square feet of existing second floor area of the Maintenance Facility. This area will house the Public Works Inspectors and 8-10 additional Engineering staff. Phase III will be the ultimate build-out that will be brought forward to you in the coming months. This project went out to bid on April 21, 1999. Five (5) bids were publicly opened on May 17, 1999, and the results for the bid are as follows: 1. Rasmussen Brothers 2. Schechtman Construction, Inc. 3. Straight Line General Contractors, Inc. 4. Westar Builders 5. DWS Construction $70,700.00 $93,000.00 $96,149·12 $99,673.00 $109,525.00 Staff has reviewed the bid proposals and found Rasmussen Brothers to be the lowest responsible bidder for this project. Rasmussen Brothers has satisfactorily completed other projects for other public agencies in the past. The specifications allow Thirty (30) working days for the completion of this project. \ \ TEMEC_FS201 \DATA \DEPTS\BLDGSAFE\BROCKMEI\AGENDA \RASSMUSSEN BROS. DOC 5/18/99 A copy of the bid summary is available for review in the City Engineer's office FISCAL IMPACT: The Maintenance Facility Modification project is funded by Development Impact Fees and Capital Project Reserves. Adequate funds have been appropriated in Account Number 210-199-808-5804 to cover the cost of this contract. ATTACHMENT: Agreement 2 \ \ TEMEC_FS201 \DATA \DEPTS\BLDGSAFE\BROCKMEI\AGE1VDA \RASSMUSSEN BROS.DOC 5/18/99 CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACT FOR TEMECULA CITY HALL MAINTENANCE FACILITY TENANT IMPROVEMENTS THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 25th day of May, 1999, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and Rasmusssen Brothers, hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR." WITNESSETH: That CITY and CONTRACTOR, for the consideration hereinafter named, mutually agree as follows: 1.8. 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 TEMECULA CITY HALL, MAINTENANCE FACILITY TENANT 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 TEMECULA CITY HALL, MAINTENANCE FACILITY TENANT 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 TEMECULA CITY HALL, MAINTENANCE FACILITY TENANT 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:~BID-DOCS\MASTERSVnaint. fac, 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: TEMECULA CITY HALL, MAINTENANCE FACILITY TENANT 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, the sum of: Seventy Thousand Seven Hundred DOLLARS and no CENTS ($70,700.00), the total amount of the base bid. 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. Construction shall not commence until bonds and insurance are approved by CITY. CHANGE ORDERS. All change orders shall be approved by the City Council, except that the City Manager is hereby authorized by the City Council to make, by written order, changes or additions to the work in an amount not to exceed the contingency as established by the City Council. PAYMENTS LUMP SUM BID SCEHDULE: Before submittal of the first payment request, the CONTRACTOR shall submit to the Chief Building Official 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 Chief Building Official may require. This schedule, as approved by the Chief Building Official, 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 thirty (30) days after submission of a payment request to the CITY, the CONTRACTOR shall be paid a sum equal to ninety percent (90%) of the value of the work completed according to the bid schedule. Payment request forms shall be submitted on or about the thirtieth (30th) day of each successive month as the work progresses. The final payment, if unencumbered, or any part thereof unencumbered, shall be CONTRACT CA-2 R:~BID-DOCS~VlASTERS~naint. fac. contract made sixty (60) days after acceptance of final payment and the CONTRACTOR filing a one-year Warranty and an Affidavit of Final Release with the CITY on forms provided by the CITY. Payments shall be made on demands drawn in the manner required by law, accompanied by a certificate signed by the City Manager, stating that the work for which payment is demanded has been performed in accordance with the terms of the Contract, and that the amount stated in the certificate is due under the terms of the Contract. 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. In accordance with Section 9-3.2 of the Siandard 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 CITY shall retain a portion of the Contract award price, to assure warranty performance and correction of construction deficiencies according to the following schedule: CONTRACT AMOUNT $25,000 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$500,000 One Year $10,750 + 1% of amount in excess of $500,000 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES - EXTENSION OF TIME. In accordance with Government Code Section 53069.85, CONTRACTOR agrees to forfeit and pay to CITY the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per day for each calendar day completion is delayed beyond the time allowed pursuant to Paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR will be granted an extension of time and will not be assessed liquidated damages for unforeseeable delays beyond the control of, and without the fault or negligence of, the CONTRACTOR including delays caused by CITY. CONTRACTOR is required to promptly notify CITY of any such delay. WAIVER OF CLAIMS. On or before making each request for payment under Paragraph 6 above, CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY, in writing, all claims for compensation as to work related to the payment. Unless the CONTRACTOR has disputed the amount of the CONTRACT CA-3 R:%BID-DOCS~ASTERS%maint. fac. contract 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 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. 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 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 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 CONTRACT CA-4 R:\BID-DOCS\MASTERS~naint. fac. contract 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 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 by CITY and its authorized representatives during 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 shall be performed in such manner as to not unduly delay the work. The work shall be subject to final inspection and acceptance notwithstanding any payments or other prior inspections. Such final inspection shall be made within a reasonable time after completion of the work. DISCRIMINATION. CONTRACTOR represents that it has not, and agrees that it will not, discriminate in its employment practices on the basis of race, creed, religion, national origin, color, sex age, or handicap. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Contract and also govern the interpretation of this Contract. Any litigation concerning this Contract shall take place in the municipal, 'superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event of litigation between the parties conceming this Contract, the prevailing party as determined by the Court, shall be entitled to actual and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs incurred in the litigation. ADA REQUIREMENTS. By signing this contract, Contractor certifies that the Contractor is in total compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101- 336, as amended. 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: Anthony J. Elmo, CBO, Chief Building Official City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecuta, CA 92589-9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 CONTRACT CA-5 R:\BID-DOCS~ASTERS%rnaint. fac. contract IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed date first above written. DATED: CONTRACTOR Rasmussen Brothers 40441 Gavilan Mountain Road Fallbrook, CA 92028 (760) 731-5243 By: Print or type NAME DATED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Print or type TITLE CITY OF TEMECULA By: Steven J. Ford, Mayor Peter M. Thorson, City Attomey ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk on the CONTRACT CA-6 R:%BID-DOCS\MASTERS%maint. fac. contract ITEM 5 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: ACTING CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Acting City Manager/City Council Anthony J. Elmo, Chief Building Official May 25, 1999 Street Name Change from Ynez Rd. to Ynez Ct. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution entitled: That the City Council: RESOLUTION NO. 99- "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CHANGING THE STREET NAME IN PARCEL MAP 22714 FROM YNEZ RD. TO YNEZ CT." DISCUSSION: It has come to staff's attention that there exists an address number sequence discrepancy along Ynez Rd., extending from Solana Way to Rancho California Rd. This became evident as addresses were being assigned to the new automobile dealerships location at Solana Way and Ynez Rd. It was revealed that buildings in the shopping center at the corner of Rancho California Rd. and Ynez Rd., contain addresses that are out of sequence and contain addresses that were appropriately assigned to Parcel Map No. 27714. This street name change will allow the duplicate addresses to remain, thus reducing the impact to existing businesses. The modification to the suffix is all that needs to be changed to correct this error. All affected property owners have been notified and staff has not received any objections to this change. FISCAL IMPACT: None R: \BROCKMEI \AGENDA \ YNEZ CT. DOC | 5/13/99 RESOLUTION NO. 99-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CHANGING THE STREET NAME IN PARCEL MAP NO. 27714 FROM YNEZ RD. TO YNEZ CT. The City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and order as follows: WHEREAS, Section 3409.1 and 3408.1 and 34092 of the Government Code provides for changing the name of a public street, and: WHEREAS, there exists a discrepancy in the address numbering sequence along Ynez Rd. which affects the assigned addresses of Parcel Map No. 27714, WHEREAS, the street name change from Ynez Rd. to Ynez Ct. is necessary to prevent emergency response times to be affected. WHEREAS, all affected property owners have been notified and no objections have been filed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Temecula determines and orders that the name of the street fronting Parcel No.'s 1 - 12, of Parcel Map No. 27714 be changed from Ynez Rd. to Ynez Ct. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of May, 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. 99-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on th 25th Day of May, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk IN THE CITT OF TEHECULA, ~,OUNTT OF RIVERSIDE, STATE CAL]*FORNZA, PARCEL MAP NO, 27714 BEIiG A SUBINV'alS, iC~ OF PARCi9. 2 AND LOT '8" AS ~IOWN ON PARCEL MAP NO. 23426 FILED IN 800K 162, PAGES 99 THROUGH 101 OF PARCEL HAPS IN THE OFFICE OF 'THE COUNTT RECORDER OF SAID RIVERS|DE COUNT~, BEING LOCATED VITHZN THE RANCliO TF. HECULA. OCTOBER, 1993* , " ROBERT BEXN, ~'XLL|API FROST & ASSOCZATES m o~ TRACT NO, 23J80 Mo.8, 2J4 / 9J-,q3 LOT J ~ ~ 4 5 6 80UND~R~ 8 SHEET INDEX MAP INDI~5 SHEET ~i~RS ITEM 6 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Acting City Manager/City Council Anthony J. Elmo, Chief Building OfficiaI,A'~ May 25, 1999 Agreement for Design Services -Maintenance Facility Improvements Phase III RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1) Approve an Agreement between Davidson + Allen Architects and the City of Temecula for architectural and structural design services for Maintenance Facility Improvements, Phase Ill, in the amount of $31,875. 2) Authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City of Temecula. BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula is currently in the process of an expansion to the Maintenance Facility. We are entering into Phase III of the project. Phase III will involve the extension of the second floor to it s fullest extent providing an additional 3200 square feet of general office space, a handicapped accessible elevator and an addition to the southwest corner of the building providing approximately 1100 additional square feet of general office area. Davidson + Allen Architects is the original design firm for this facility. Davidson + Allen have proposed to furnish architectural and structural engineering services in the amount of $31,875. Estimated construction cost for this project is approximately $400,000. FISCAL IMPACT: There are currently funds available in Account No. 210-190-158-5802 ATTACHMENT: Agreement R:\BROCKMEI\AGENDA\DAVIDSON.DOC ] 5/12/99 CITY OF TEMECULA AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES MAINTENANCE FACILITY PHASE III THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of May 25, 1999, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Davidson + Allen Architects, ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on May 25, 1999, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 1999, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the 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 Thirty One Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Five Dollars and no Cents ($31,875.00) for the total term of The Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager. Consultant shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and Consultant at the time City's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. The City Manager may approve additional work not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the amount of the Agreement, but in no event shall such sum exceed twenty -five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). Any additional work in excess of this amount shall be approved by the City Council. c. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted 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. P',Agreements\Consultant 99 1 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 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 identi- fied 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 P~,greements\Consultant 99 2 software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the 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 arising 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 arising out of the negligence of the City. 9. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: (1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability 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) 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. (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 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: $500,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. P~Agreements\Consultant 99 3 (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. (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 policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (2) (3) (4) (5) 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. 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. 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. 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. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. P~,greements\Consultant 99 4 f. Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications. 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, 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 prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. P~Agreements\Consultant 99 5 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 Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: City Manager Davidson + Allen Architects 28441 Rancho California Rd. Ste A Temecula, CA 92590 Attn: Dean Davidson 14. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Because of the personal nature of the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement, only Davidson + AIIlen shall perform the services described in this Agreement. Davidson + Allen 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 Assistant 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 PV~,greements\Consultant 99 6 or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 18. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA Steven J. Ford, Mayor Attest: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk P~,greements\Consultant 99 7 Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Davidson + Allen By: Name: Dean Davidson Title: P~J~,greements\Consultant 99 8 EXHIBIT A TASKS TO BE PERFORMED P~greements\Consultant 99 9 DAVIDSON +ALLEN, architects ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING EXHIBIT "A" 28441 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD., SUITE "A", TEMECULA, CA 92590 ........... (909) 693-0301-FAX (909) 6934080 May 7, 1999 Mr. Anthony Elmo Chief Building Official City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Subject: Proposal to fumish architectural and engineering services for Phase HI modifications to existing Temecula Maintenance Facility Building. SCOPE OF WORK Provide architectural, structural, electrical and mechanical drawings and specifications to accomplish the following items of work: * Prepare master plan for future development alternatives to maximize ultimate use of the facility for office and administration purposes. · Investigate enlargement of first floor area adjacent to existing entry for immediate expansion of Building Department space. Investigate location of elevator in this location. Investigate addition of second floor above this area. · Prepare working drawings and specifications for addition of second floor over existing warehouse area for use as office space (approximately 3,000 sq. ft.). * Prepare working drawings and specifications for additional office space at first floor external to existing building (approximately 1,000 sq. ft.). · Install new handicapped compliant elevator to second floor. · Remove existing material lift. · Work of this phase shall be for the structural shell only but shall include required structural calculations and details. Modifications required to facilitate future expansion of mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems as determined by the design for ultimate build-out shall be included in this phase. · Office layout and interior improvements shall be included in a subsequent phase of construction. A separate proposal shall be furnished for this portion of the work. Page 1 of 3 WORK INCLUDED * Prepare preliminary designs to show alternate concepts for future development. , Prepare drawings as required to show the scope of the work to be accomplished under this contract including existing conditions, floor plans, elevations, sections, details, notes and specifications suitable for obtaining required permits and contractor's bids. · Prepare structural, mechanical and electrical plans and calculations notes, schedules and specifications. · Check shop drawings and material submittals during construction. · Weekly site visits or job meetings by the Architect during construction. · A maximum of 2 site visits each by structural, mechanical and electrical consultants during construction. WORK EXCLUDED · Fire sprinkler design modifications (This is normally provided by system contractor as a part of their work). · Bidding (available for consultation during bidding as required) · Contract negotiation with successful bidder. · Job administration except as noted above. COSTS EXCLUDED · Printing, plotting and reproduction costs (available @ cost + 15%) · Consultants other than indicated above. · Application and permit fees · All construction costs · Any special inspections FEE The fee for the above services shall be Thirty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Five Dollars ($3'1,875.00) For work done in addition to the basic contract the following fee schedule shall apply: Architect ........................$95/hr Structural Engineer ............ $95/hr. Electrical/Mechanical Engineer $95/hr. Computer drafting ............. $50/hr Clerical ..........................$40/hr. Page 2 of 3 PAYMENT Payment shall be in accordance with agreement prepared by of City of Temecula. TIME OF COMPLETION The work shall be completed and ready for submittal for plan check on or before June 22, 1999. I hope this proposal is acceptable, as we would like very much to have the opportunity of working with you on this project. If you have any questions regarding any part of this proposal or any related items please feel free to contact me. Dean Davidson Davidson + Allen Architects Accepted: Title: Date: Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT B PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE FEE The fee for the above service shall be Thirty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Five Dollars ($31,875.00) For work done in addition to the basic contract the following fee schedule shall apply: Architect Structural Engineer Electrical/Mechanical Engineer Computer drafting Clerical $95/hr $95/hr $95/hr $50/hr $40/hr P~Agreements\Consultant 99 10 ITEM 7 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER nITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Manager/City Council Genie Roberts, Director of Finance May 25, 1999 Purchase of Two (2) Public Works' Vehicles Prepared by: Gus Papagolos, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: Approve the purchase of two (2) Dodge model year 2000 full size vehicles from Norm Reeves Chrysler/Jeep/Dodge in the amount of $58,831.50. DISCUSSION: The adoption of the 1998/99 Mid-Year Operating Budget approved the funding for the purchase of two (2) Public Works department trucks. These vehicles are additions to the current fleet and will be used by the inspector staff. On April 26, 1999, the City mailed 19 Requests for Proposal (RFPs) to local and surrounding area vendors for the purchase of the two (2) trucks (see attached vendor list). Of the 19 RFPs that staff sent, three (3) proposals were received as listed below. These bids were higher than anticipated and it may be attributed to truck availability, as the 1999 models are in short supply and in most cases not available at the factory. Therefore; two of the bids received were for model year 2000 trucks. Because of limited 1999 models and the transition to year 2000 models, the delivery of this purchase is estimated for the middle of September, and is approximately 30 days longer than the typical 60 to 90 day delivery time frame. Dealer Vehicle/Model Price Norm Reeves Dodge Full size, extended cab $29,415.75 4WD pick-up (2000) Extended Price $58,831.50 Villa Ford Full size, extended cab $29,501.52 4WD pick-up (1999) $59,003.04 Paradise Chevrolet Full size, extended cab 4WD pick-up (2000) $31,467.52 $62,935.04 FISCAL IMPACT: purchase. Adequate funds are available in the Vehicle Internal Service Fund for this Attachment: Vehicle Vendor List Vehicle Vendor List Quality Chevrolet 1550 Auto Park Way Escondido, CA 92591 Paradise Chevrolet 26845 Ynez Road Temecula, CA 92591 Folsom Lake Ford 9479 Madison Avenue Folsom, CA 95630 Rancho Ford 26895 Ynez Rd Temecula, CA 92591 Fuller Fleet Center 560 Auto Park Drive Chula Vista, CA 91911 Temecula Valley Toyota 26631 Ynez Road Temecula, CA 92591 Norm Reeves Super Group 26755 Ynez Road Temecula, CA 92591 Plaza Motors 290 N Indian Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 92262 Ted Jones Ford 6211 Beach Boulevard Buena Park, CA 90621 Carriage Motor Company 41872 Motor Car Park Way Temecula, CA 92591 Inland Chevrolet-Geo 2505 West Florida Avenue Hemet, CA 92545 Riverside Chrysler Plymouth 7979 Auto Drive Riverside, CA 92504 Gosch Ford-Lincoln 150 Carriage Circle Hemet, CA 92545 Villa Ford 2550 North Tustin Avenue Orange, CA 92865 Fritz Ford 8000 Auto Drive Riverside, CA 92504-4118 Gunderson Chevrolet 3333 Santa Anita Avenue El Monte, CA 91731 Advantage Ford 1031 Central Avenue Duarte, CA 91010 Heller Ford 1717 Auto Park Way Escondido, CA 90229 Escondido Jeep Eagle 1501 Auto Park Way South Escondido, CA 92029 ITEM 8 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Manager/City Council Genie Roberts, Director of Finance May 25, 1999 Purchase of one (1) Fire Department Rescue Squad Vehicle Prepared by: Gus Papagolos, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council Approve the emergency purchase of one (1) 1999 Fire Rescue Squad vehicle from Raceway Ford in the amount of $49,125. Approve a transfer from Development Impact Fee Fire Mitigation in the amount of $49,125. DISCUSSION: On April 20, 1999 Council approved an appropriation of $110,000 for the purchase of an emergency squad vehicle in order to enhance the City's emergency medical services. Staff's investigation into the availability and source of this highly specialized vehicle configuration determined a sole source vendor with the expertise and familiarity with the county standards and specifications. Also, complicating the purchasing process is the availability of this special order vehicle from Ford Motor Company, because 1999 trucks are being phased out. Due to the exceptional circumstances, an emergency purchase order was executed by the City Manager. The dealer was able to place a special order on the 1999 model, which will be available at the end of July. If the City had waited, the delivery of the truck would have taken over five (5) months based on 2000 model shipping schedules. Also, the City would not have been able to take full opportunity of what is referred to in the industry as "Piggy-Back Pricing" from the County RFP extended to the City by the dealer. If time permitted, this item would have gone before Council for approval prior to the initiation of the purchase order. In short, the expedient handling of this purchase has saved the City both time and money. Dealer Vehicle/Model Price Raceway Ford F-450 Extended Cab and $45,625 Chassis (1999) Fire Rescue Body and Electrical Light Bar Kit $ 3,500 Total $ 49, 125 FISCAL IMPACT: Staff has determined that DIF Fire Mitigation funds are an appropriate use for this equipment purchase and request a transfer to cover this purchase. Adequate funds are available in the Vehicle Internal Service Fund for vehicle depreciation expense for this fiscal year. ITEM 9 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY A'I'FORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANC CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council /j,~J'~William G. Hughes, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer May 25, 1999 Release Labor and Materials securities for Public Improvements in Tract No. 24131-2 (Southwesterly of Meadows Parkway at McCabe Drive) PREPARED BY: Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. AUTHORIZE release of the Labor and Materials Securities for the Tract No. 24131-2 2. Public Improvements in DIRECT the City Clerk to so notify the developer and the surety. BACKGROUND: The City Coundl approved Tract Map No. 24131-2 on May 24, 1994, and entered into Subdivision Improvement Agreements with: KRDC, Inc., a California Corporation. Bonds were posted by The Aetna Casualty & Surety Company as follows: Bond No. 08510086990-94-17 in the amount of $1,082,500 ($691,500, $207,500, and $183,500 for street and drainage, and water and sewer systems, respectively) for Faithful Performance. Bond No. 08510086990-94-18 in the amount of $542,000 ($346,000, $104,000, and $92,000 for street and drainage, and water and sewer systems, respectively) for Labor and Materials. 3. Bond No. 08510086990-94.16 in the amount of $22,000 for subdivision monumentation. On November 10, 1998, the City Council accepted the public improvements, initiated the one-year warranty period, and authorized reduction in the Faithful Performance security to the following ten- percent (10%) warranty amount: Bond No. 08510086990-94-17 in the amount of $108,250 ($69,150, $20,750, and $18,350 for street and drainage, and water and sewer systems, respectively) for Faithful Performance warranty purposes. R:~AGDRP'R99\0525\TR2413121&m The developer posts security for Labor and Materials for the public improvements to assure that suppliers of labor and materials. This security is maintained for the contractual six-month lien period which follows City Council acceptance of the In-Tract improvements. There have been no claims filed for either labor or materials, therefore Staff recommends release of the following labor and materials security: Bond No. 08510086990-94-18 in the amount of $542,000 ($346,000, $104,000, and $92,000, for street and drainage, and water and sewer systems, respectively) for Labor and Materials. The subdivision monumentation will be reviewed and approved by Public Works Staff and recommended for release of security when appropriate. The affected public streets within this development were accepted into the City Maintained- Street System by Resolution No. 98-107 on November 10, 1998. The streets accepted are Via Mejia, Camino Caruna, Via Arnedo, Code Davila, Via Sajo, and podions of Camino Herenda, Code Argento, and Via Cesario, Podions of Montelegro Way and McCabe Drive will be accepted into the City-Maintained Street System when the infrastructure improvements are completed and acceptable to Staff and the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENT: Location Map 2 R:%AGDRP'I'~99\0525\TR241312.I&rn VICINITY MAP FIt R K WiI )' ~' £ MOA/'~-TE'L--,z66RO if4y MAPS NOT TO ITEM 10 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 May 25, 1999 Accept Public Improvements in Tract No. 28309 (South side of Nicolas Road Easterly of North General Keamy Road) PREPARED BY:/~onald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works /'~Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: ACCEPT the public improvements including subdivision monumentation in Tract No. 28309. AUTHORIZE reduction in the Faithful Performance security amount to the ten-percent warranty level, initiation of the one-year warranty period, and release of the Subdivision Monumentation security. 3. DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. BACKGROUND: On June 24, 1997, the City Council approved Tract No 28309, and entered into Subdivision Improvement Agreements with: S.R. Group, LLC, a Califomia Limited Liability Company. 4539 Sharon Drive La Palma, CA 90623 for the improvement of streets, installation of water and sewer systems, and subdivision monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision improvement agreements were the following Securities as posted by American Motorists Insurance Company: 1. Bond No. 3SM 908 847 00 in the total amount of $482,000 ( $309,000, $90,500, and $82,000, respectively) for Faithful Performance for streets, water, and sewer improvements. 2. Bond No. 3SM 908 847 00 in the total amount of $241,500 ($154,500, $45,500, and $41,000, respectively) for Labor and Materials for street, water, and sewer improvements. R:\agdrpt\99~0525~tr28309.acc/ajp 1 3. Bond No. 3SM 908 846 00 in the amount of $9,000 for subdivision monumentation. Public Works Staff has inspected and reviewed the public improvements in the field. Eastern Municipal and Rancho California Water Districts have accepted their respective improvements. Therefore, Staff recommends acceptance of the public improvements, initiation of the one-year warranty period, and reduction in the Faithful Performance security to the following ten-percent (10%) warranty amount: Bond No. 3SM 908 847 00 in the amount of $48,200 ($30,950, $9,050, and $8,200, respectively) for Faithful Performance Warranty for street, water, and sewer improvements. 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 inspected in the field and found satisfactory. Staff therefore recommends release of the following security: Bond No. 3SM 908 846 00 in the amount of $9,000 for subdivision monumentation. The affected streets will be accepted into the City-Maintained Street System by Resolution No. 99- at this time. The streets to be accepted are Alexandria Drive, Roshani Drive, Rami Court, and a portion of Milano Road. FISCAL IMPACT: ATTACHMENT: None Location Map. R:~agdrpt\99~0525~tr28309.acc/ajp 2 :Project ' A ;z- r T'A Site VICINITY MAP Tract No. 28309 Locat';on Ma ~ NOTE: MAPS NOT TO SCALE ITEM 11 DIRECTOR OF FINANCIL~ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Manager/City Council · qV, J~William G. Hughes, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer May 25, 1999 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Public Streets into the City-Maintained Street System within Tract No. 28309. (South side of Nicolas Road Easterly of North General Kearny Road) PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer That City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY-MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACT NO. 28309) BACKGROUND: The City Council approved Tract No. 28309 on June 24, 1997, and entered into Subdivision Agreements for construction of street, and water and sewer system improvements, and subdivision monumentation with S.R. Group, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company. On May 25, 1999, the City Council accepted the public improvements for this tract. The public streets now being accepted by this action are Ram Court, Roshani Drive, Alexandria Ddve, and a portion of Milano Road. FISCAL IMPACT: ATTACHMENT: Periodic surface and/or structural maintenance will be required every 5 to 8 years. Resolution No. 99- with Exhibits "A-B", inclusive. r:'agdrpfi99\0525\tr28309.sts RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY-MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACT NO. 28309) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Temecula accepted an offer of dedication of certain lot for street and public utility purposes made by S.R. Group, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, with the recordation of Tract Map No. 28309: and, WHEREAS, The City of Temecula accepted the improvements within Tract No 28309 on May 25, 1999. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby accepts into the City-Maintained-Street System those streets and portion of street offered to and accepted by the City of Temecula described in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of May, 1999. Steven J. Ford, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk r:~agdrpt~9\0525\tr28309.sts STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 99- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 25th day of May, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAI N: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk r:~agdrpt~99\0525\tr28309.sts EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION NO. 99- Accepting the public streets offered to and accepted by the City of Temecula as indicated on Tract Map No. 28309, and accepting subject public streets into the City-Maintained Street System as described below: Those lots described as Lot "A" through "D", Incl., as shown on Tract Map No. 28309, filed 30 June 1997, in Book 263 of Maps, Pgs 55-59 Incl., further described as follows: Lot "A" Lot "B" Lot "C" Lot "D" Portion of Milano Road Ram Court Roshani Drive Alexandria Drive r: ~agd rpt~99\O525\tr28309. sts EXHIBIT "B" TO RESOLUTION NO. 99- SUBJECT ACCEPTANCE- PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY MAINTAINED-STREET SYSTEM AS INDICATED BELOW: L,/ ~-~~ , iect Site , ~ l/F01 A//,q · /vTA~G~g~TA VICINITY MAP TRACT NO. 20848 MB 172 / 87 - 72 ' ~ LEGEND NOTE: MAPS NOT TO SCALE STREETS OR PORTIONS OF STREETS TO BE ACCEPTED INTO CITY MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM ITEM 12 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council //A/~Nilliam G, Hughes, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer May25,1999 Tract Map No. 23101-5, Located South of La Serena Way, East of Meadows Parkway, West of Butterfield Stage Road, and North of Rancho California Road in the Margarita Village Specific Plan No. 199 PREPARED BY: ~onald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works lement M. Jimenez, Assistant Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve 1) Tract Map No. 23101-5 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 security for the agreements. BACKGROUND: Tract Map No. 23101-5 is located within Village B of the Margarita Village Specific Plan No. 199. As part of Specific Plan No. 199, Tract Map No. 23101-5 is subject to all Specific Plan Amendments and Agreements. Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 4 was approved on January 27, 1998. On October 28, 1997 the City Council approved Development Agreement No. 5. Furthermore, this tract is subject to conditions of approval. On November 8, 1988, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved Standard Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract No. 23101. On September 19, 1994, the City's Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA94-0079, a minor change to the Conditions of Approval pertaining to timing for the installation of park facilities. The Developer has met all of the Conditions of Approval for recordation of the final map. Final Tract Map No. 23101-5 is a twenty-seven (27) lot single family residential subdivision with no open space lots, located south of La Serena Way, East of Meadows Parkway, West of Butterfield Stage Road and within Village [] of the Margadta Village Specific Plan. The site is currently vacant. The following fees have been deferred for Tract Map No. 23101-5: 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. 23101-5 r:~agdrpt~99\0525~tr23101-5,map CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO. TM 23101-5 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 r:'agdrpt~99\O525~tr23101-5,map CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT TRACT MAP NO. 23101-5 IMPROVEMENTS Street and Drainage Water Sewer Monument TOTAL FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE SECURITY $ 92,000 $ 184,000 $ 24,500 $ 4,200 $ 304,700 DATE: May 25, 1999 MATERIAL SECURITY $ $ $ $ & LABOR 46,000 92,000 12,250 150,250 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 Paid 96,930.00 128.00 8.00 1,290.00 250.00 1,676.00 0.00 r:~agdrpfi99\0525~tr23101-5.map SANTII DE STATE ROt PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP NO SCALE. TRACT NO. 23101-5 MAY GROUP JUNE, 1998 NOTARY AClCNOI, E]X384E~T ON Febu.~ 9-, IqqI , BEFORE ME A NOTARY ~.IC IN AND F~ SAID STAir... PERSONALLY APPE,TJ~ MY COMMISSiON EXPIRES: SHEET 1 OF 5 SHEETS RECORDER'S STA~53/B~T DA1ED: , 19__. ~'S STATE]I~T I HEREBY STAll 1HAT I AM A UCENSED LAND ,SURVEYOR OF 1HE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THAT 11-95 MAP CONSIS11NO OF R'v~: (5) SHEETS CORRECTLY RE~RESENTS A SURVEY M/d)E UNDER MY SUPERVISION DURING MARCH AND ~ 1997; 'R-IAT ALL MONUMENTS SHOVk4 HEREON ACllJALLY BaST ANO 11'tLrtR POSilIONS ARE CORRECTLY 5~HO~tN. OR MRLL BE IN SOILS REPORT aTY CI..DtK'S STATD4ENT DA1T_D: , 19__. NO11C~ OF ELEC11~N BY LANO DIVIDER TO DETER PAYME]fT OF DRAJNAGE ~ ~ '~ a~ ~ 'm~c~ SHEET COUNI~( OF RIVERSIDE, STAI[ OF CAUFORNIA TRACT NO. 23101-5 BEING A SUBDI)4SiON OF A PORllON OF PARCEl. 1 OF PARCEl. MAP NO. 22554 AS SHOV4~ ON RLE IN 147 OF PARCIE]_ MAPS, AT PAGES 94 'tHROUGH 98 THE~OF, RECORDS OF RIVEI~ COUNTY, CAUFO RNIA LOCA1ED IN RANCHO IEMECULA MAY GROUP JUNE, 1998 2 OF 5 SHEETS ~F=ASEMENT NOTES INDICATES FOUND MONUMENT AS INDICATED HEREON INDICATES FOUND NAIL AND DISC STAMPED 'RCE 273Po6' IN TOP OF CURB PER TRACT NO. 23101-2, M.B. 226/15-21 INDICATES FOUND I' IRON PIPE V41H PLASTIC PLUG STAMPED 'RCE 27366' PER TRACT ND. 23101-2, M.B. 228/15-21 INDICATES 1' IRON PIPE WITH PLASTIC PLUG STAMPED 'RCE 27366' NOT FOUND RESET 1' IRON PIPE WIIH PLASTIC PLUG, FLUSH VRIH PLASTIC PLUG STAMPED 'LS 4-768' INDICATES MEASURED AND RECORD DATA PER TRACT NO. 23101-2 M.B. 2.2.8/15-21 UNLESS OIHERWISE INDICATED INDICATES MEASURED AND RECORD DATA PER TRACT NO. 23101-1 M.B. 218/31-,54 UNLESS 01HERWISE INDICAIED 4.7 TRACT 23101-3 MB 3 / 4, ~ ao X 78 TRACT 23101-2 TRACT NO. 23101-5 MAY GROUP JUNE, 1998 PROCEDURE OF SURVEY SHEET 3 OF 5 SHEETS NOT A PART PORTION OF PARCEL PARCEL MAP PMB 147/g4-g8 Z SCALE: 1" = 100' ~ L20 ~/ ~ PORTIOH OF PARCEL PER ~ACT NO. 25101-1, TRACT 23101-1 MS 22e/1~21 L6 N20~9'30'E 21.27' L7 N7745'25'E 55.72' L9 NTO~6'24*E 92.00' / CI TIO. O0'06'32'40'<06'32'53">87.95'<88.00"> C3 25.00' 9215'23" 40.25' C4 660,00' 09~7~5,5' 105,19' C5 435.00' 14~3'43" 109,29' TRACT NO. 23101-5 MaY GROUP JUNE, 1998 SHEET 4 OF 5 SHEETS \TRACT 23101-2 \ 18 19 2O 21 23 15 12 10 NOTE: THAT PG~70N SHOWN AS "NOT A PART* NOT A PART PORTJON OF PARCEL 1 PARCEL MAP 22554 P,M, 147/94-98 24 t 25 >19.43' 4 NOT A PART PORTION OF PARCEL 1 PARCEL MAP 22854 P,M, 147/e4-e8 UNE DATA CURE DATA NO. RADIUS DELTA ARC TAN C"1 470.00' 03'06'H' 25.53' 12.77' C2 470.00' 05'11 '16® 42.56' 21.29' C3 365.00' 031)6'44' 19.83' 9.92' C4 365.00' 0511'16° 33.05' 16.54' C,,5 330.00' 04'1g'20' 24.89' 12.4.5' C6 270. G0' 05'10'32' 24.59' 12.20' Z SCALE: 1' = 50' FOR SLeVEfi:~R'S NOTES, BASIS OF BEARINGS at EASEMENT NOTES SEE SHEET NO, 2 ,% TRACT NO. 23101-5 MAY GROUP JUNE, 1998 SHEET 5 OF 5 SHEETS TRACT 2310%3 --\/ , NOTE: NOT A PART PARCEL MAP 22~554 P,M. 147/94~g8 16 SCALE: I' = ,50' 15 14 Z 18 / TRACT 23101"2 I L=SZ46' D=04'57"05~ <0=04'54'40" L=57,00'> NOT A PART PORTION OF PAROgL 1 PARCEL MAP 22554 P.M, 147/94-98 13 21 23 20 12 10 8 L3 N2110'11'W(R) CURVE DATA NO. RADIUS DELTA ARC TAN C3 570.00' 02"49"40' 28.13' 14.07 C4 435.00' 05'01'11" 38,11' 19.07' C6 570,00' 01'16'28" 12.68' 6,34' C7 465.00' 01'16'28" 1G34' 5,17' C8 555.00' 05'05'21' 49.29' 24.66' C9 555.00' 06'17'57' 61.02' 30.54' C10 555.00' 05'48'12' 56.21 ' 28, 13' C/I 525.00' 05'48'12' 53.18' 26,61' C12 495.00' 05'4a'12" 50,14' 25.09' C13 525,00 ' 11 '10'43' 102. 43' 24 25 27 26 ITEM 13 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Manage~City Council -4J-,)/~William G. Hughes, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer May 25,1999 SUBJECT: Tract Map No. 23100-6, Located South of La Serena Way, East of Meadows Parkway, West of Butterfield Stage Road, and North of Rancho California Road in the Margarita Village Specific Plan No. 199 PREPARED BY: ~~/Ronald J. Parks Deputy Director of Public Works Clement M. Jim~nez, Assistant Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve 1) Tract Map No. 23100-6 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 security for the agreements. BACKGROUND: Tract Map No. 23100-6 is located within Village B of the Margarita Village Specific Plan No. 199. As part of Specific Plan No. 199, Tract Map No. 23100-6 is subject to all Specific Plan Amendments and Agreements. The Margarita Village Specific Plan was originally adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on August 26, 1986 through Resolution No. 86-355. Specific Plan Amendment No. 1 was approved by the Board of Supervisors on September 6, 1988 via Resolution No. 88-471. Amendment No. I affected Village B by slightly increasing the densities within certain planning areas within this village. Margarita Village Specific Plan became part of the City upon incorporation of the City of Temecula in 1989. City Council approved Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 on March 26, 1996, Specific Plan Amendment No. 3 on October 7, 1997, and Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 on January 27, 1998. The latter three amendments to the specific plan had little effect to Village B. November 8, 1988, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved Standard Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract No. 23100. March 15, 1989, the Riverside County Planning Commission filed Minor Change No. I to the Conditions of Approval. May 2, 1990, the Riverside County Planning Commission filed Minor Change No. 2 to the Conditions of Approval. May 27, 1997 City Council approved Planning Application PA97-0030 which was an amendment and restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 for portions of Tract 23100. Final Tract Map No. 23100-6 is a thirty-one (31) lot single family residential subdivision with one open space lot. The tract is located south of La Serena Way, East of Meadows Parkway, West of Butterfield Stage Road and within Planning Area 8 of Village B of the Margarita Village Specific Plan. The site is currently vacant. r:~agdrpt~99\O525~tr23100-6.map The following fees have been deferred for Tract Map No. 23100-6: Development Impact Fee due prior to issuance of a building permit. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACH M E N TS: 2, 3. 4. Development Fee Checklist Fees & Securities Report Project Vicinity Map Tract Map No. 23100-6 r:~agdrpt~99~)525~tr23100-6.map CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO. TM 23100-6 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 r:'agdrpt~9\0525~tr23100-6.map CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT TRACT MAP NO. 23100-6 IMPROVEMENTS Street and Drainage Water Sewer Monument TOTAL FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE SECURITY $ 318,000 $ 131,000 $ 52,000 $ 6,800 $ 507,800 DATE: May 25, 1999 MATERIAL SECURITY $ $ $ $ & LABOR 159,000 65,500 26,000 250,500 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 $ Paid $111,290.00 $ 132.00 $ 8.00 $ 1,370.00 $ 340.00 $ 1,850.00 $ 0.00 r:~agdrpfi99~O525~tr23100-6.map 5ANI'II DE S~A~ PROJECT ,SITE 9,O 19 VICINITY NO SCALE MAP IN THE CITY OF 'PEMECULA COUNTY OF RIV[RS30(, STAI~ OF CALIFGqNIA TRACT NO. 23100-6 MAY GROUP JULY, 1998 SHEET 1 OF E SHEET5 , PAUL MCOONNELL C(3JNTY TAX COLLECT(31:~ BY: O[PUTY B~AMAL[A CALIFrJRNIA. LLC. A CALIFORNIA UUI1~'D UABIUTY COMPANY BY: LEklNIAR H(3MES OF CAUFORNIA. INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 11'5 MANACER NAM( ~ I~'RSON(S) CR 114E ENllrf UPON B[HALF OF VIHICH 1HE P[RS(3N(S) ACI[D. EX[CU'I~O 'Ml14[SS MY HAND All3 0FFIC3AL SEAL. NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND rOl~ SAIl) STAI~ CITY Ct. ERt('S STAI~ME~IT N+O_lICE:_OF~C~I?ON .By LANO ~ TO Or~..F'ER PAYMENT CI: NOllCE IS ~R~'BY CIVt:N /HAT /HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATE'D IN ~ MURRIE:TA ~ 1T_'MECULA VALL[Y AREA DRAINAGE PLAN WHICH WAS AD(IPTED BY ~ BOARD OF SUPER'VqSORS OF 11-1E COUNTY OR Rt'y'~]I~3I()~ PURSUANT TO SEClIQN 10.25 OF ORO~NANC[ 480 ~ SECTION 6648~, SCHEDULE A: S~C. 29, T.7S., R.2W. TRACT NO. 23100-6 MAY GROUP JULY. 1998 SHEET 2 OF 6 SHEETS (()} ---- INO4CATES MEASUI~ZD AND ~COR"D DATA PER 11~A(::T NO. 231~4. ~T LEAD & TAG 'L5 4768' _Me 218/31-8~ I TRACT NO. 23100-6 MAY CROUP JULY, 1998 '~' ~' ' I SCALE: 1' - 200' PROCEDURE OF SURVEY SHEET 3 OF 'FEN FA FIVE Fr.~ACI' 23101.6 FEN'FA rIVE 'fitACT 23101,6 28 MU 6 SHEETS 23100~5 MB 286/66.60 13 NOTE: THAT PORnON SHOWN AS "NOT A PART' IS CONnGUOUS OWNERSHIP AT THE nile OF RECORDING OF THIS MAP. L32 "NOT A PART" \ 23100~8 [ MB 222/44'40 \ TRACT MB 214/6H1 27 \ \ SCALE: 1"-200' F'OR SURI/E'YO~'S NOTES St[ 5/.,IE~r N0.2 <30.5O'> TRACT NO. 231OO-6 MAY GROUP JULY, 1998 SHEET 4 OF 6 SHEETS 2I 2O LOT 'D' g 18 11 NSg 'i r43'W(R) 127.63' 17 12 ~5 15 14 PON I'ION oF PARCEL t PARCEL MAP 225.54 P,M, 147/g4,gFJ L8 NO219'28'WfR) C12 NJlIB'47'*E 26.29' 58.99' 78.60' 78. ,U, O0' DETAIL "A " TRACT NO. 23100-6 MAY GROUP JULY, 1998 SCALE: r - SHEET 5 OF 6 SHEETS \\ /,:~ LOT 15 S~ o(r~u. '8' I, / / / / / / / / / / 27 t3 LOT / / 10 18 17 CJ tOO. IX)' f6'fS'37" 2&JB' C4 fO0. O 0' f6'fS'37' 2&JB' CI3 360.00' 0914'55' LOT ,~AFIr;~.L MAP 22554 P.M. SCALE: f'- 50' TRACT NO. 23100-6 MAY GROUP JULY, 1998 SCALE: 1' - 100' SHEET 6 OF 6 SHEETS 4 I'P, Ac I' 23101.3 \. M.R. 240/61462 t ;/ "'-,,,,,,,,/, TRACT 23101~4 "c" N SCALE: I"- 100' FOR SIJ~,J'Y[~'S N~11~ ~5 ~123'5g'52'[ 79.51' 4 22 23100-4 M,t3. POFII'ION OF PAHC, ELI PAP, GEl.. MAP 22~d4 Pjvl. 147/94.98 ~ .~ q~. ,,?~ ~,~ DEMIL "C" ITEM 14 DIRECTOR OF FINANCE ~/2---' CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City ManagedCity Council William G. Hughes, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer May 25,1999 Parcel Map No. 29060, Located North of Rancho California Road and West of Humber Drive PREPARED BY: <~onald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works lement M. Jimenez, Assistant Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve 1) Parcel Map No. 29060 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 security for the agreements. BACKGROUND: Parcel Map No. 29060, a resubdivision of Tract Map No. 23304, consists of two parcels that are separated by Long Valley Wash Channel, a Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District owned and maintained facility. Two public access easements are dedicated to provide public access to Parcel 1 from Rancho California Road. Agreements and Bonds are for a raised median along Rancho California Road and monuments to be set. On February 4, 1999, the City's Planning Director approved Planning Application PA98-0455, a two- lot subdivision, Parcel Map No. 29060. Tract Map No. 23304 is being subdivided into two parcels, for economic reasons by Parcel Map No. 29060. The Developer has met all of the Conditions of Approval for recordation of the final map. The following fees have been deferred for Parcel Map No. 29060: Development Impact Fee due prior to issuance of a building permit. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. Development Fee Checklist Fees & Securities Repod Project Vicinity Map Parcel Map No. 29060 r:'agdrpt~99~525~om29060.map CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO. PM 29060 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 r:~agdrpt\99\0525',pm29060.map CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT PARCEL MAP NO. 29060 IMPROVEMENTS Street and Drainage Water Sewer Monument TOTAL FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE SECURITY $ 38,500 $ 0 $ 0 $ 4,262 $ 42,762 DATE: May 25, 1999 MATERIAL & LABOR SECURITY $ 19,500 $ 0 $ 0 0 $ 19,500 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 $ Paid $ TBD* $ 56.00 $ 4.00 $ 790.00 $ 271.00 $ 1,121.00 $ 0.00 *To Be Determined. r:~agdrpt~99\O525~pm29060,map R VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE ~RICK ~~,~I~~IN~G COMPANY ~ ~ C~ I forn l ~ 92507 ~909) 782-0707 SCALE:N/A VICINITY MAP J DATE: MAY 10, 1999 PLOT DATE: lO-MAY-1999 JN 1:]122 : V .~6 98 ' J6 I~1 ':, ~ / 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 May 25, 1999 Professional Geotechnical Services Agreement Pala Road Bridge Improvement Project, Project No. PW97-15 PREPARED BY: (,.~reg Butler, Senior Engineer - Capital Projects Brian Gulllot, Assistant Engineer- Capital Projects RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Approve a Professional Geotechnical Services Agreement with Kleinfelder Inc. for materials testing and inspection for Pala Road Bddge, Project No. PW97-15 in the amount of $78,758.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders, not to exceed the contingency amount of $7,875.80, which is equal to 10% of the agreement amount. BACKGROUND: The City Council awarded the construction contract for Pala Road Bddge, Project No. PW97-15, to Granite Construction on February 9, 1999. The general items of work consist of the realignment of Pala Road to accommodate the construction of the new bridge structure over Temecula Creek, relocating the traffic signal at Rainbow Canyon Road, and the relocation and construction of various utilities. Four different geotechnical firms submitted proposals to the Public Works Department for the subject project, and Kleinfelder Inc. was selected based upon the firm's experience and qualifications with similar projects. Kleinfelder Inc. will perform field observation and testing; laboratory testing of soil, aggregate base, asphalt concrete and portland cement concrete; and provide technical management and support to City Staff as well as provide a supplemental report as described in the Scope of Work shown in Exhibit "A" of the attached agreement. In order to proceed with the work that is already in progress, an interim agreement with Kleinfelder Inc. dated March 11, 1999, was executed by the City Manager in the amount of $20,627.00. The amount listed in the interim agreement plus the amount listed in the subject agreement represents the complete geotechnical services required for the project. Kleinfelder Inc. will work under the direction of City Staff who acts as the Resident Engineer for this project. R:\agdrpt\99\OE25\pw97-15 Kleinfelder FISCAL IMPACT: This Project is financed with Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funds, Capital Project Reserves, and Development Impact Fees. Adequate funds for this agreement are available in Account No. 210-165-631-5801, in the amount of $78,758.00 and the contingency amount of $7,875.80 for a total cost of $86,633.80. ATTACHMENT: Professional Geotechnical Services Agreement R:\agdrpt\99\O525\pw97-15 Kleinfelder CITY OF TEMECULA AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES PALA ROAD BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. PW97-15 THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of May 25, 1999, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Kleinfelder, Inc., ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on May 25, 1999, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 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 Seventy Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Eight Dollars and No Cents ($78,758.00) 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 wntten 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 mnr. th. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of r~c=ipt cf e,~ch :nvoic~ 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~projects~pw97~97-15~kleinfeldertestagrmt/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 wdtten 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 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 w:.,, k, s~, veys, notes, anc~ otbe,- documents prepared in ths 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~orojects~pw97L97-15~kleinfeldertestagrmtJajp c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not be liable for any injunes or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant. 8. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, 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 arising 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 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 covering Automobile Liability, code 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 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: 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~pw97~97-15~kleinfeldertestagrm*Jajp (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 policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. (3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (4) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. (5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VI I, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Covera.qe. Consultant shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsemenf~ ale *,', be signed by r, 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. 4 r:~cip~projects~pw97L97-15~kleinfeldertestagrmt/ajp 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 prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, 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 right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 13. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (I) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery serwc~, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides ~ 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. 5 r:~cip~orojects~pw97',97-15\kleinfeldertestagrmtJajp To City: To Consultant: City of Temecula Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: City Manager Kleinfelder, Inc. 43210 Business Park Drive, Suite E4 Temecula, California 92590 Attention: Gary R. Goldman, PE 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 Ga~ R. Goldman shall perform the services described in this Agreement. Gary R. Goldman, P.E. 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 Gary R. Goldman 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 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 pe,'sons 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. r:\cip~projects~pw97',97-15~kleinfeldertestagrmt/ajp IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA Steven J. Ford, Mayor Attest: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Kleinfelder, Inc. 43218 Business Park Drive, Suite E4 Temecula, CA 92590 (909) 506-1488 Michael P. Kesler, Area Manager By: Name: Title: (Signatures of two (2) corporate officers required for Corporations) r:~cip~projects~pw97L97-15~kleinfeldertestagrmtJajp EXHIBIT A TASKS TO BE PERFORMED r:\cip~projects~pw97L97-15~kleinfeldertestagrmtJajp j~m~jKLEINFELDER May 4, 1999 Project No. 51-5166-01 Mr. Greg Butler City of Temecula, Department of Public Works 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92589-9033 S u bj ect: Revised Estimated Budget to Provide Geotechnical and Materials Testing Services Pala Road Bridge Project (Project No. PW97-17) Temecula, California Dear Greg: Attached is our revised estimated budget to provide geotechnical and materials testing services to the City of Temecula at the subject project. Our revised budget was based on review of the construction schedule, which was recently provided to us by The City following our original proposal submittal. You will note that we have included Pile Driving Observations as an additional item from our original proposal. This service was an optional item from the Request For Proposal· If you have any questions regarding the attached budget, please feel flee to contact our office at your earliest convenience. We appreciate the opportunity to have been of service. Respectfully submitted, KLEINFELDER, INC. oldman, PE U:\Ogol&'nanXLE 1'1 P:RS'J 151661ell.Doe Copyright 1999 Klcint~lder, Inc. kLEIN FF I DE R 4~21~ Business P,~rk [)ri,,~.. <L~ite E4. FL'nlecuhl. ('A ~)253c)O ,,)limb 5c)h-l:~ .'~091 50h-14,1 fax EXHIBIT B PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE r:\cip~projects~pw97L97-15~kleinfeldertestagrmt/ajp ~ KLEINFELDER TESTING & INSPECTIONS ESTIMATED BUDGET Pala Road Bridge at Temecula Creek (Project No. PW97-17) Temecula, California Proposal No. 51-YP9353 May 4, 1999 GEOTECHNICAL FIELD SERVICES Soils Technician 350 hours @ $50/hour PILE DRIVLNG OBSERVATIONS Staff Engineer 160 hours@$72/hour CONCRETE FIELD SERVICES Inspector/Technician 250 hours@$50/hour BATCH PLANT INSPECTIONS Inspector/Technician 250 hours@$50/hour LABORATORY SERVICES Maximum Density (CAL 216) Sieve Analysis (C.~L 202) Sand Equivalent (CAL 217) Durability (CAL 229) R-Value (CAL 301) Cleanness (CAL 227) Soundness (CAL 214) Specific Gravity (CAL 206 & 207) Stabilometer (CAL 306) Asphalt Content (CAL 382) Compression Strength of Concrete Cylinders 7 each @ $147 each 40 each @ $116 each 40 each @ $89 each 3 each @ $105 each 4 each @ $220 each 8 each @ $13 1 each 5 each @ $89 each 5 each @ $74 each 5 each @ $195 each 18 each @ $132 each 220 each @ $16 each Laboratory Testing Subtotal: $ 17,500 $11,520 $12,500 $12,500 1,029 4,640 3,560 315 880 1,048 445 370 975 2,376 3,520 19,158 PROJECT SUPERVISION & COORDINATION Supervisory Technician Project Engineer 30 hours @ $80/hour 30 hours @ $106/hour Subtot,l: $ 2,400 3,180 $ 5.580 TOTAL: $78,758 U:\GgoldmanXPROPOSALX5 131~9353 rev2 .Doc 2 ITEM 16 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANC CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: City Manager/City Council D~Awilliam G. Hughes, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: May 25, 1999 SUBJECT: Authorization to Solicit Public Construction Bids for Old Town First Street Bridge Over Murrieta Creek, Project Number PW 95-08 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Senior Engineer - Capital Projects RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council Authorize the Public Works Department to solicit construction bids for the Old Town First Street Bridge and Related Roadway Improvements, Project Number PW95-08 BACKGROUND: This project will construct a new four-lane bridge over Murrieta Creek at Front Street. The general items of work to be completed consist of the following: Realignment of First Street to the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Santiago Road, installation of a traffic signal at this intersection, the construction of a fully improved four-lane roadway from Old Town Front Street to Pujol Street, and the construction of a bridge over Murrieta Creek. The design for this project started in 1995. The plans were substantially complete when the project was put on hold due to postponing the construction of the Western Bypass Corridor. The Circulation Element of the General Plan specifies extending Santiago Road/First Street from its intersection at Old Town Front Street to the Western Bypass Corridor. This project will only construct First Street to Pujol Street. The Public Works Department is working with the design consultant to modify the plans as follows: · Remove the portion of the plans from Pujol Street to the Western Bypass Corridor from the proposed project · Add the Old Town streetscape style improvements to the bridge construction, including stamped concrete boardwalk (wood pattern) and decorative lighting. Upon the authorization of the City Council to bid this project and the completion of these minor modifications to the plans, the project will be advertised for bids. The plans, specifications and contract documents will be available for review in the City Engineer's office. R :\agdrpt\99\0525\pw95-08bid/ajp 1 The estimated construction cost for this project is $4,500,000.00 FISCAL IMPACT: This project will be included in the proposed Capital Improvement Program budget for Fiscal Year 1999-2000. The project will be funded through Redevelopment Agency Funds and Capital Project Reserves. R :\agdrpt\99\0525\pw95-08bid/ajp 2 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ITEM I CITY MANAGER TO: FRO M: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Board of Directors -~.l-lerman D. Parker, Director of Community Services May 25,1999 Museum Exhibit Design Change Order PREPARED BY: ~Phyllis L. Ruse, Deputy Director of Community Services RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors approve Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $46,675 from TCSD fund balance to the exhibit design services contract with Think Jacobson and Roth for the design, fabrication and installation of exhibits for the Temecula Valley Museum. BACKGROUND: On November 17, 1998, the Board of Directors approved a design contract with Think Jacobson and Roth for the design, fabrication and installation of exhibits for the Temecula Valley Museum. The consultants have been working with the design project committee to develop the story lines, design the exhibits, and lay out the floor plans. The consultants have also been working closely with the artifacts to determine their ultimate display within the museum and are nearing the point when fabrication of the exhibits will begin. Dudng the course of design development, the design committee has determined that an important aspect of the history of the Temecula is the recollections of long time residents of the Valley and descendants of Valley settlers. In an effort to collect and preserve this rich historical source, the committee requested that the consultant provide a proposal for the audio-visual archival of the reminiscences of several persons who possession personal oral narratives of historical significance to the Temecula Valley. The cost to produce the film archive, which will include a three to five minute edited video for inclusion as part of the museum exhibits, is $31,425. Through the examination of the artifacts available for inclusion in the final exhibits, it has been determined that the addition of certain items will greatly strengthen the presentation and educational experience of some of the exhibits. The proposal includes additional building facades in the "Touch History" interactive exhibits, a three dimensional portion of a pit house, and the acquisition of supplies or artifacts that will supplement the current museum collection and overall exhibit design. The cost associated with the exhibit enhancements is $15,250. The contingency for the exhibit design contract is $28,586. Change Order No. 1 consists of $9,500 expended for artifact cleaning and preparation, $5,000 to develop a Mission San Luis Rey three R:~RUSEP~AGENDAS~nuseum exhibit change order.csd.doc dimensional exhibit in the classroom portion of the museum, and $1,750 for an exhibit lighting layout. This leaves a balance of $12,336 in the existing contingency. The artifact cleaning was a change in scope which was not anticipated as no one knew the condition of the artifacts at the time the contract was negotiated. The archival filming was an idea that was the result of discussions with the design committee dudng their meetings. As a result, adequate funding in the contingency is not available for these upgrades and the audio- visual archive. In addition, these specific additions to the scope of design were requested by the design committee. The proposed change order will provide for the collection and video recordation of oral histories from an estimated 15 persons. It will also provide for the enhancement of six exhibits in the museum in an effort to heighten the overall affect and enjoyment of visitors to the facility. FISCAL IMPACT: The total cost for the proposed change order is $46,675. Sufficient funds exist in the TCSD fund balance to cover this expenditure. R:~USEP~AGENDASVnuseum exhibit change order.csd.doc CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO DESIGN CONTRACT WITH THINK JACOBSON AND ROTH Temecula Valley Museum Exhibit Design Project May 25, 1999 The Agreement dated November 17. 1998, between the Temecula Community Services District and Think Jacobson and Roth (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement") is hereby amended as follows: RE: Additional Services Section 1 Scope of Work is hereby amended to include additional services as described in Exhibit "A"(attached). Compensation for these additional services is a not to exceed $31.425 to be paid in one (1) lump sum following completion of said service. Section 2 Scope of Work is hereby amended to include additional services as described in Exhibit "B" (attached). Compensation for these additional services is a not to exceed $15,250 to be paid in one (1) lump sum following completion of said service. Section 3 All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain the same. The parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the date and year above written. CONSULTANT CITY OF TEMECULA By: By: Lori Jacobson Principal Jeff Comerchero Principal APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter Thorson, City Attorney ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" page 1 of 2 AcUvity Proposed Scope of Work Temecula Valley Museum AUDIO-VISUAL ARCHIVE Develop hst of interviews to be conducted (estimate 15 interviews). Set up and schedule all interviews and logistics. Prepare interview format and interviewer prep notes. Schedule and capture interviews. Assume all interviewees are taped at one location*. Estimate 15 interviews, approximately 60 - 90 minutes each, unedited. Six (6) days shootmg. Includes 1 flex day. Archival Reference Quality Hi8 or DV Camera: Capture interviews with equipment purchased for use by museum as part of permanent portable A-V oral history archive program (see Item #4 for estimated cost of equip. purchase). No special additional audio production. Assumes shoot location is provided by City of Temecula. Includes production planrang time, tape stock, travel and accommodation expenses. Catalogue all masters and view copies; set up storage area. Document cataloguing system as a database and provide both hard copy and diskette copy. Develop list of recommended equipment for portable A-V archive program mcludmg capture, playback and storage equipment. Cost 3,600 14,500 1,500 Notes.' · · Digital "prosumer", or, Hi8 video camera · monitor · industrial VHS VCR · nUsc. supplies · audio cassette recorder · equipment cart · shelf storage equipment costs am esUrnates only to be confirmed at tLrne of purchase museum to consider ret~gerated master tape storage m addiDbn to shelf storage. ,000 800 600 500 300 300 300 page 2 of 2 , Develop "Capturing A udio-Visual Oral Histories'' training manual for program volunteers and research / recommend reference materials (for ongoing self-perpetuating program) Develop job description / application for selection of community / program volunteers Prepare and conduct one traimng session for volunteers Solicit, where appropriate, and catalogue still photographs from interviewees (in support of interview content). Approx. 150 photographs. t000 400 1,600 t000 Subtotal $ 31,400 Estimated Tax on Tape Duplication (@8.25%) 25 Grand Total $ 31,425 EXHIBIT "B" Temecula Valley Museum Proposed Scope of Work Optional Additions to Exhibit Design and Budget Activity/Ztem Cost of Uoarade Add additional molding and other detailing to General Store, Dress Shop, and Kitchen/parlor facades Build 3-D suggestion of pit house as backdrop for "Land Owners" section; current approach includes large photo mural of pit house Purchase c. 1840 Springfield rifle and reproduction bow and arrow for "Land Owners" story of Temecula Massacre; add base and plex cover for rifle Upgrade mechanicals for branding interactive area; current approach includes simple flip-up doors to locate multiple choice answers; upgrade would include axle and multi-sided spinning elements $3,700 1,200 1,850 5,200 Add velvet drapery and pull as additional backdrop option in photo area (add over fixed photo mural planned) Add full-size fiberglass horse and stairs to tack and "fide a horse" interactive (NOTE: would require waiver of liability for exhibit developers); current approach includes saddle form low to floor, doesn't require stairs to mount Total Proposed Additions to Design and Budget 800 2,500 $15,250 ITEM 2 APPROVAL CITY A'R'ORNEY TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT General ManagedBoard of Directors .Herman Parker, Director of Community Services May 25, 1999 Completion and Acceptance of the Winchester Winchester Creek Park, Project No. PW97-10CSD PREPARED BY: 4J~William G. Hughes, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer Michael D. Wolff, Senior Inspector - Capital Projects RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Accept the Winchester Creek Park Project No. PW97-10CSD; and 2. File Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one (1) year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract, and: Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. BACKGROUND: On February 1 O, 1998, the City Council awarded a contract for the Winchester Creek Park Project, Project PW97-10 to Terra-Cal Construction, Inc. in the amount of $601,066.53. The project included a parking lot, group and individual picnic facilities, a restroom, security lighting, full and half basketball courts, a sand volleyball court, play structures, shade device, three-rail fencing, landscaping and irrigation. The Contractor has completed the work in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and within the allotted contract time to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The construction retention for this project will be released on or about 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded. FISCAL IMPACT: The total amount for this project was $634,790.77. Contract Change Orders No. 1,2 and 3 were approved by the City Manager in the amount of $36,724.24 This project was funded by Developer Impact Fees for Public Facilities and Developer Impact Fees for Parks and Recreation. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Notice of Completion 2. Maintenance Bond 3. Contractor's Affidavit r:',agdrpt~99\0525~w97-10.acc 1 CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE PROJECT NO. PW97- IOCSD WINCHESTER CREEK PARK This is to certify that TERRA-CAL CONSTRUCTION, INC. (hereinafter the "CONTRACTOR") declares to the City of Temecula, under oath, that he/she/it has paid in full for all materials, supplies, labor, services, tools, equipment, and all other bills contracted for by the CONTRACTOR or by any of the CONTRACTOR's agents, employees or subcontractors used or in contribution to the execution of it's contract with the. City of Temecula, with regard to the building, erection, construction, or repair of that certain work of improvement known as PROJECT NO. PW97-10CSD, WINCHESTER CREEK PARK, situated in the City of Temecula, State of California, more particularly described as follows: WINCHESTER CREEK PARK The CONTRACTOR declares that it knows of no unpaid debts or claims arising out of said Contract which would constitute grounds for any third party to claim a Stop Notice against of any unpaid sums owing to the CONTRACTOR. Further, in connection with the final payment of the Contract, the CONTRACTOR hereby disputes the following amounts: Description None Dollar Amount to Dispute Pursuant to Public Contracts Code §7200, the CONTRACTOR does hereby fully release and acquit the City of Temecula and all agents and employees of the City, and each of them, from any and all claims, debts, demands, or cause of action which exist or might exist in favor of the CONTRACTOR by reason of payment by the City of Temecula of any contact amount which the CONTRACTOR has not disputed above. Dated: Apx il 2, 1999 By: CONTRA~ ~ ~ SiAgmnad~or%e Leon, Jr., Secretary/Treasurer Print Name and Title R ELE A S E R- 1 R:\CIP~PROJECTS\PW9~PW97-10\SI~C.BK) Y. 'Z EXECUTED IN DUPLICATE BOND NO.: MNT8086261 CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MAINTENANCE BOND PROJECT NO. PW97- IOCSD WINCHESTER CREEK PARK KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS THAT: Terra-Cal Construction, Inc., 14530 Joanbridge St., Baldwin Park, CA 91706 NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR a Corporation [fill in whether a Col'potation, Partnership or individuaH · hereinafter called PrinCipal, and _FidelitV and Deposit C_o_mpa_n~_y .of Maryland, 225 S. Lake Ave., Ste 700, NAME AND ADDRESS OF SURELY Pasadena, CA 91101 heroinafter called SURETY', are held and firmly bound unto CiTY OF TEMECULA, heroinafter called OWNER, in the penal sum of s.IxTY THo~SAND ONE HUNDRED STX************ DOLLARS and 65/loo*************CENTS ($ 60,106.65'***********} in lawful money of the United States, said sum being not less than ten percent (10%) of the Contract value payable by the said City of Temecula under the terms of the Contract. for the payment of which, we bind ourselves, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that whereas, the Principal entered into a certain Contract with the OWNER, dated the 10th day Of February , 19 98, a copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof for the construction of PROJECT NO. PW97-10CSD, WINCHESTER CREEK PARK. WHEREAS, said Contract provides that the Principal will furnish a bond condltioned to guarantee for the period of one (1) year after approval of the final estimate on said job, by the OWNER, against all defects in workmanship and materials which may become apparent during said period; and WHEREAS, the said Contract has been completed, and was approved on FebruarV 1 , 19 99 - NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH. that if within one year from the date of approval of the said Contract, the work done under the terms of said Contract shall disclose poor workmanship in the execution of said work, and the carrying out of the terms of said Contract, or it shall appear that defective materials were furnished thereunder, then this obligation shall remain in full force and virtue, otherwise this instrument shall be void. Signed and sealed this 30th (Seal) __day of March ,19 99. SURETY Fideli~c Deposit Company of Maryland · JO INGER Attorney-In-Fact (Titis) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney PRINCIPAL Terra- al ons uction, Inc William L. Tyler (NalTle) President / Amado de Leon, Jr. Secretary/Treasurer (Title) CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of Los Angeles On April 2, 1999 before me, lenaida Calderon, Notary Public Dale Name an¢l Tree of Officer (e.g., 'J~ne Doe, Notary Pubhc") personally appeared William L. Tyler and Amado de Leon, Jr. Namet$1 ~ COI~I 11126 /~'personally known to me - OR -: proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) +~'are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that-hG,'c, hc,'they executed the same in h:,c,/hcr/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by hSs,'hcr,~heir signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument, i nature ota Puic Sg o~N ry OPTIONAL Though the informat/on Oelow is not required by law, it may prove valuaDle to persons relying on the c~ocument and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another ctocument. 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 Title(s): Title(s): [] Partner -- F-_ Limited ' General [] Partner -- [] Limited []General [] Attorney-in-Fact [] Attorney-in-Fact ~ Trustee [] Trustee ~ Guardian or Conservator [] Guardian or Conservator [] Other: Top of murnh here _F'] Other: Top Of murnO here Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: 1994 Nateonal Notary Assoc~t~on · 8236 Rammet Ave.. P.O. Box 7184 · Canoga Park, CA 91309-7184 Prod. No. 5907 eeon3er: Call Toll-Free 1.~X)-876-6827 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of Cal iforni a Coun~ of Los Anqeles On March 30, 1999 before me, Pilar M. Landeta, Notary Public Date Name and Title of OffK:er (e.g., 'Jane Doe, 1Notary Public') personally appeared John D. Hunsinger , Name(s) of Signeds) [] personally known to me - OR -: proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person~ E COMM. #1159393 whose name(s:) is/acre<subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/slxer/;it~executed the same in his/jo~/tl~edx authorized capacity(tssX and that by his~Ksignature(¢t/on the instrument the person~, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(S) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. SKinature of Nota~ Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons 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: Q Individual [] Corporate Officer Title(s): ~ Partner--,~ Limited 2 General [] Attomey-in-Fact [] Trustee rm Guardian or Conservator - · - e, -- - - ,, [] Other: Top of thumb here [] Individual ['n Corporate Officer Title(s): 5 Partner -- ' Limited ,~ General [] Attorney-in-Fact [] Trustee ,: Guardian or Conservator r-; Other: Top of thumb here Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: 1994 Nahonal Notary Associatson · 8236 Remmel Ave., P-O. Box 7184 · Canoga Park, CA 91309-7184 Prod. NO. 5907 Reorder, Call Toil-Free 1-800-876-6827 Power of Attorney FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND HOME OFFICE, BALTIMORE, MD KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, a corporation of the State of Maryland, by C. M. PECOT, JR., Vice-President. and C. W. ROBBINS, Assistant Secretary, in pursuance of authority granted by Article VI. Section 2, of the By-IAws of said Company. which are set forth on the reverse side hereof and are hereby certified to be in full force and effect on the date hereof, does hereby nominate, constitute and appoint John D. Hunsinger of South Pasadena, Ca1. j. £orn~.a ................................ ~,% ........ ~ .............................. amply, to all intents and purposes, as if they hac~ been ecuted ~d~owledged by the regularly elected officers of the Company IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the said ViceSand ~is~t Secretary have hereunto subscribed their names and affixed the ATTEST: O ss STATE OF IV[ARYLAND ~ A$S/$ rotaryB COUNTY OF BALTIMORE On this.__8_.t__h_. ...... day of.__._.A._u_.g._u..s..t. .......... A.D. 19__9___5_, before the subscriber. a Notary Public of the State of Maryland, duly commissioned and qualified, came C. M. PECOT, JR., Vice-President and C. W. ROBBINS, Assistant Secretary of the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, to me personally known to be the individuals and officers described in and who executed the preceding instrument. and they each acknowledged the execution of the same, and being by me duly sworn, severally and each for himself deposeth and salth, that they arc the said officers of the Company aforesaid, and that the seal affixed to the preceding instrument is the Corporate Seal of said Company. and that the said Corporate Seal and their signatures as such officers were duly affixed and subscribed to the said instrument by the authority and direction of the said Corporation. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Official Seal the day and year first above written. My Commission Expires ................. _A._u_g_u_s_t_L.J.l_9?_6. .......... CERTIFICATE I, the undersigned. Assistant Secretary of the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND. do hereby certify that the original Power of Attorney of which the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy, is in full force and effect on the date of this certificate; and I do further certify that the Vice-President who executed the said Power of Attorucy was one of the additional Vice-Presidents specially authorized by the Board of Directors to appoint any Attorney-in-Fact as provided in Article VI. Section 2, of the By-Laws of the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND. This Certificate may bc signed by facsimile under and by authority of the following resolution of the Board of Directors of the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND at a meeting duly called and held on the 16th day of July, 1969. RESOLVED: "That the facsimile or mechamcally reproduced signature of any Assistant Secretary of the Company, whether made heretofore or hereafter. wherever appearing upon a certified copy of any power of attorney issued by the Company, shall be valid and binding upon the Company with the same force and effect as though manually affixed." 1;', TESTIMONY WHFnEOF. I have hercur'~' -uh, cribcd my name and affixed the 7,,.'-porate seal of the said Ccrnnany, inis _.3_~_!_~32._ day of_ .............. ~_a___r__c__h__ ................... 19____9__9,. ........................... ........... ..... LI42s~ -01.2-8S70 P. 2 CITY OF TEMECULA. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT EXECUTED IN DUPLTCATE BOND NO.: MNTS086261 MAINTENANCE BOND /,ROJECT NO. PW97-10CSD WINCHEST.~R CREEK/'ARK KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS THAT: Terra-Cal Construction, Inc., 14530 Joanbridge St., Baldwin Park, CA 91706 NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR Corporation [fi/I in whether a Corporation, Partnersh/l~ or individua/) · heroinafter called PrinCipal, and FidelitV and DeDosit C~o__mpan__y of Maryland, 225 S. Lake Ave., Ste 700· Pasadena, CA 91101 NAME AND ADDRESS OF SURED' heroinafter called SURETY. are held and firmly bound unto CITY OF TEMECULA, heroinafter called OWNER, in the penal sum of SIXTY THorTSAND ONE HUNDRED SIX************ DOLLARS and 65/loo************.*CENTS ($ 6_0,106.65************ ] in lawful money of the United States, said sum being not less than ten percent (10%) of the Contract value payable by the said City of Temecula under the terms of the Contract, for the payment of which, we bind ourselves, successors and assigns. jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that whereas, the Principal entered into a certain Contract with the OWNER, dated the 10th day of February , 19 9.__~_8, a copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof for the construction of PROJECT NO. PW97-10CSD. WINCHESTER CREEK PARK. WHEREAS, said Contract provides that the Principal will furnish a bond condkioned to guarantee for the period of one (1) year after approval of the final estimate on said job, by the OWNER, against all defects in workmanship and materials which may become apparent during said period; and WHEREAS, the said Contract has been completed, and was approved on February 1 , 19 99 . NOW. THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THiS OBLIGATION IS SUCH. that if within one year from the date of approval of the said Contract, the work done under the terms of said Contract shall disclose poor workmanship in the execution of said work, and the carrying out of the terms of said Contract. or it shall appear that defective materials were furnished thereunder. then this obligation shah remain in full force and virtue, otherwise this instrument shall be void. Si9ned and sealed this 30th (Seal) __day of March ,19 99. SURET~~ Fidelity~ a~d Deposit Company of Maryland By: JO . NSINGER (Name) ~ J Attorney- In-Fact (Tit~e) APPROVED AS TO FORM: ]~eter M, Thorson, City Attorney PRINCIPAL William L. Tyler (Name) President Amado de Leon, Jr. iName) Secretary/Treasurer ~Title) L 7" t- f- CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of Los Angeles On April 2, 1999 before me, Zenaida Calderon, Notary Public Date Name an~ T~le of Officer (e.g., *Jane Doe, Notary Pul3~c") personally appeared William L. Tyler and Areado de Leon, Jr. Name(s) of S~gneqs) (ZENAIDACNJ:]ERC}N i ~# 1112619 LasAngem~ My C,~ntt~ /~personally known to me - OR - 7': proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) ~'are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that-hc/:.hc/they executed the same in h:s,.":.cr/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by h!:'hcr/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNE2S-ffiy h nd a d offici seat. ~ lure of Notary Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reaffachment 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: '1 Individual r-1 Individual [] Corporate Officer [] Corporate Officer Title(s): ~tle(s): [] Partner -- [] Limited ,_' General [] Partner -- ,~ Limited []General [] Attorney-in-Fact [] Attorney-in-Fact [] Trustee [] Trustee [] Guardian or Conservator [] Guardian or Conservator [] Other: Top of thumD here [] Other: Top of thumD here Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: ~ ' ' 1994 NatK)nal Notary AssoQatH3n * 8236 Rammet Ave.. P.O. Box 7184 · Canog8 Penk, CA 91309-7184 Prod. No. 5907 ReotOer, Call Toll-Free 1-8004766827 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California CounW of Los Anqeles On March 30, 1999 before me, Pilar M. Landeta, Notary Public , Date Name and Title of Officer {e.g., "Jane Doe, 'Notary Public") personally appeared John D, Hunsinqer , Name{s) of Signer{s) ,~ personally known to me - OR - _' proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person~:~ whose name(sO is/xoe<subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/slx~executed the same in his/j0er~l~ejx authorized capacity(le, f4(, and that by his/l~ltleiKsignature(t~ on the instrument the person~(~, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(l) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons 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 Z Individual Corporate Officer ." Corporate Officer Title(s): Title(s): Partner- ~ Limited "General _' Partner--" Limited 5 General Attorney-in-Fact ,~ Attorney-in-Fact Trustee "Trustee Guardian or Conservator ~_ Guardian or Conservator Other: Top of thumb here 2 Other: Top of thumb here Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: 1994 NaboPal Notary Association · 8236 Remmet Ave., P.O. Box 7184 · Cartoga Park, CA 91309-7184 Prod. No. 5907 Reorder. Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827 Power of Attorney FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND HOME OFFICE. BALTIMORE. MD KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, a corporation of the State of Maryland, by C. M. PECOT, JR., Vice-President, and C. W. ROBBINS, Assistant Secretary, in pursuance of authority granted by Article VI, Section 2, of the By-Laws of said Company, which are set forth on the reverse side hereof and are hereby certified to be in full force and effect on the date hereof, does hereby nominate, constitute and appoint ~Iohn D. Hunsinger o£ South Pasadena, Cali£ornj-a. .............. . ......................... ~ .............................. amply, to all intents and purposes, as if they had been ecuted ~owledged by the regularly elected officers of the Company ST^T~ OF M~u~ru,~'D ~ Ass' rotaryB COI. TN'FY OF BAI.TIMORE t : On this. 81:h day of Au~;usC , A.D. 19_9__5.., before the subscriber, a Notary Public of the State of Maryland, duly con'Lrn~ssioned and qualified, came C. M. PECOT, JR., Vice-President and C. W. ROBBINS, Assistant Secretary of the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYI.AND, to me personaDy known to be the individuals and officers described in and who executed the preceding instrument, and they each acknowledged the execution of the same, and being by me duly sworn, severally and each for him~tf deposeth and saith, that they are the said officers of the Company aforesaid, and that the seal affixed to the preceding instrument is the Corporate Seal of said Company, and that the said Corporate Seal and their signatures as such officers were duly affixed and subscribed to the said insLrument by the authority and direction of the said Corporation. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Official Seal the day and year first above written. ......... Notary~PublTc My Corm'nission Expires ....... _A.u.g_u. st 1, 1996 ....... CERTIFICATE I, the undersigned, Assismt Secretary of the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, do hereby certify that the original Power of Attorney of which the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy, is in full force and effect on the date of this certificate; and I do further certify that the Vice-President who executed the said Power of Attorney was one of the additional Vice-Presidents specially authorized by the Board of Directors to appoint any Attorney-in-Fact as provided in Article VI, Section 2, of the By-Laws of the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND. This Certificate may be signed by facsimile under and by authority of the following resolution of the Board of Directors of the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND at a meeting duly called and held on the 16th day of July, 1969. RESOLVED: "That the facsimile or mechamcally reproduced sig-aature of any Assistant Secretary of the Company, whether made heretofore or hereafter, wherever appearing upon a certified copy of any power of attorney issued by the Company, shall be valid and binding upon the Company with the same force and effect as though manually affixed." IN TESTIMONY WHER.COF, I have hereunto subscrib:d m~' name. ~nd ~.'7.,,:ed ~:,c corporate seal of d.~ o'.~ 3.ompany, this _3_9~:.h_._ day of_ .............~_a___F__c__h__ ..................19___9..9. ........................... .......... ITEM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNE'7 DIRECTOR OF FI CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Board of Directors ,(~erman Parker, Director of Community Services May 25, 1999 Acquisition of Artifacts for Temecula Valley Museum Exhibits PREPARED BY: Phyllis L. Ruse, Deputy Director of Community Services RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: Approve an agreement between Temecula Valley Museum, Inc. (TVM), Tony Tobin and the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) for the acquisition of artifacts for installation in the Temecula Valley Museum. o Approve an expenditure of $22,000 from the TCSD museum operating budget, 190-185 for the purchase of artifacts for the museum exhibits from Tony Tobin. DISCUSSION: On August 11, 1998, the City Council and TVM terminated the lease agreement for the construction and operations of the Temecula Valley Museum, located in Sam Hicks Monument Park. The City took over responsibility for the facility and subsequently entered into a construction contract for the completion of the building. On November 17, 1998, the Board of Directors appreved an agreement with Think Jacobson and Roth for the design, fabrication and installation of exhibits in the museum. The TCSD and TVM entered into an agreement for the temporary use and storage of many of their artifacts for the purpose of assessing their potential use in exhibits for the museum. Tony Tobin has also allowed the TCSD temporary access to many of his personal artifacts for this purpose. The consultants have been working with the design committee on the story lines and proposed exhibits. We are nearing the point when the consultants will actually begin the fabrication of the exhibits. In order to proceed, the TCSD needs to have permanent possession of those artifacts that will be used or may be used in future exhibits. Staff has negotiated with TVM and Tony Tobin for the donation and/or sale of those artifacts deemed necessary for inclusion in the museum collection. This will provide for permanent exhibits as well as potential future exhibits and for the preservation of valuable historical artifacts for the benefit of the residents of Temecula in perpetuity. FISCAL IMPACT: The artifacts owned by TVM are being donated to the TCSD as many of them have restrictions from the original owners against sale of the items. The cost to purchase the artifacts owned by Tony Tobin is $22,000. A transfer of $22,0000 from the TCSD operating budget to the Museum Capital Project budget will fund this purchase. R:\RUSEP~GENDASVnuseum artifacts agrmt.cc.doc AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, TEMECULA VALLEY MUSEUM, INC. AND TONY TOBIN FOR THE TRANSFER OF HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ARTIFACTS TO THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of May 25, 1999, by and between the Temecula Community Services District CTCSD"), Temecula Valley Museum Inc., a California non-profit corporation CTVM"), and Tony Tobin, an individual CTobin"). TVM and Tobin may be referred to collectively as "Patrons." In consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and undertakings set forth herein, the sufficiency of which is hereby agreed to and acknowledged by each of the parties, the parties agree as follows: 1. Recitals. This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and purposes which each of the parties acknowledge and agree are true and correct: a. The City of Temecula has constructed a 7,200 square foot Museum to display historical and cultural artifacts from the Temecula area, display exhibits concerning the historic and cultural heritage of the Temecula area, and to conduct educational and cultural programs. b. Tobin and TVM each own certain historical and cultural artifacts from the Temecula area. A complete and correct inventory of the artifacts which are owned by Tobin and the artifacts owned by TVM is set forth on Exhibit A to this Agreement, which exhibit is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full CArtifacts"). The portions of the Artifacts owned by Tobin shall be known as "Tobin's Artifacts" and the portions of the Artifacts owned by TVM shall be known as "TVM's Artifacts." The Artifacts are currently on loan to the TCSD pursuant to an agreement dated January 19, 1999. c. Tobin and TVM each warrant and represent to the TCSD that each owns their respective portions of the Artifacts in full, free and clear of any restrictions on or conditions to transfer or assignment, and TCSD will acquire absolute title to all of the Artifacts free and clear of mortgages, liens, pledges, charges, encumbrances, equities, claims, covenants, conditions and restrictions. Tobin and TVM each further warrant and represent to TCSD to their actual and current knowledge, that no persons have communicated to either party respectively a claim to the full or partial ownership of the Artifacts, or any of them, and neither has been served with or made aware of any liens fried against the Artifacts. d. TVM and Tobin each desire to transfer title to the Artifacts to the TCSD and TCSD desires to accept the Artifacts. e. As used in this Agreement, "Director" shall mean the Director of Community Services of the City of Temecula. R:\RUSEP~,IUSEUM~artifact acquisition agreement.doc 2. Transfer of Artifacts to the TCSD. a. Tobin agrees to convey and deliver to the TCSD all of his right, title and interest in the Anffacts and TCSD agrees to purchase and accept Tobin's right, title and interest in the Artffacts, upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. The purchase price for Tobin's interests in the Artffacts shall be Twenty-Two Thousand and no/100 dollars ($22,000.00). Such title to the Artffacts shall pass to the TCSD upon the payment of the purchase price to Tobin by City check and receipt by the City of a Bill of Sale duly executed by Tobin in substantially the form set forth in Exhibit B, attached to this Agreement and made a part hereof. b. TVM agrees to donate and deliver to the TCSD all of its right, title and interest in the Artifacts and TCSD agrees to accept TVM's interest in the Anifacts, upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Such title to the Artifacts shall pass to the TCSD upon the receipt by the TCSD of a Bill of Sale duly executed by TVM in substantially the form set forth in Exhibit C, attached to this Agreement and made a part hereof. c. In the event title does not pass to the TCSD on or before June 30, 1999, TCSD may terminate this Agreement upon ten (10) days written notice to Tobin and TVM. 3. Exhibition, Care, and Preservation of Artifacts. a. TCSD will use the Artifacts for the purposes of exhibition, education, or research as determined solely by the Director. TCSD may temporarily loan the artifacts to educational institutions, museums or other exhibition facilities. b. TCSD shall care for and preserve the Artifacts in the manner which is reasonable and customary for public museums in Southern California displaying similar historical and cultural artifacts as determined solely by the Director. c. In the event that a certain Artifact cannot be used for exhibition, education, or research based upon reasonable and customary criteria used by public museums in Southern California displaying similar historical and cultural artifacts, as determined in the sole discretion of the Director, the TCSD may either dispose of the Artifact or donate the Artifact to a museum or to a non-profit organization, subject to the rights of Tobin and TVM as set forth in this Section. Following the determination to dispose of such an Artifact, the Director shall notify Tobin and TVM at the addresses set forth in Section 6.of his determination. Tobin and TVM shall have ten (10) days following the date of the notice to notify the Director that Tobin or TVM elects to receive the Artifact designated for disposal and shall take possession of the designated Artifact within five (5) days of said notice to the Director. If the Director receives no response from Tobin or TVM within said ten (10) day period, or if Tobin or TVM does not take possession of the designed Artifact within the five (5) day period, the Director may proceed with the disposal of the Artifact. -2- 3/8/99 1480911.1 d. TCSD agrees that credit shall be given to Patrons' generosity in transferring the Artifacts. Such credit shall be provided in the display of the Artifacts at the Museum in a manner determined solely by the Director. 4. City Manager's Authority. The City Manager (or his designee), is hereby authorized, on behalf of the Agency, to take all actions necessary and appropriate to carry out and implement the Agreement and to administer the City 's obligations, respon- sibilities and duties to be performed under the Agreement and related documents. The Director of Community Services is authorized to acknowledge receipt of the Artifacts from the Patrons in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 5. Use of Artifacts and Photographic Materials by TVM. TVM retains the right to photograph and reproduce photographs of the interiors of both the Museum and the Chapel for promotional and fund raising purposes for the Museum. TVM further reserves the right to publish or reproduce any of the Artifacts for promotional and fund raising purposes for the Museum. 6. Notice. Any notices which the parties may desire to give to the parties 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 C~i) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the addresses of the parties as set forth below or at any other address as a 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: Temecula Community Services District 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: City Manager To Tobin: Tony Tobin P.O. Box 153 Temecula, California 92593 To TVM: Temecula Valley Museum 28481 Rancho California Road, Suite 204 Temecula, California 92590 Attention: President 7. Survival of Representations and Warranties. All representations, warranties, covenants and agreements of the parties contained in this Agreement shall survive the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement. 3 3/8/99 1480911.1 8. Entire Agreement; Merger of Previous Agreements. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties hereto as to the subject matter hereof, and all prior agreements, understandings or representations, oral or written, are hereby merged into this Agreement except for (1) that certain letter agreement concerning the temporary loan of the Artffacts to the TCSD and (2) that certain Loan Agreement between the TCSD and the TVM dated as of July 2, 1991. All parties agree that no estoppcl argument can be raised during legal proceedings in order to avoid the provisions of this section. No modification of this Agreement shall be of any force or effect until duly approved and signed by the party to be charged. 9. Attorneys' Fees. In the event either party shall commence any action against the other party relating to this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and court costs. 10. Governing Law. law of the State of California. This Agreement shall be governed by the domestic 11. Authority to Execute Agreement. Each person signing this Agreement on behalf of TVM represents and warrants to the TCSD that TVM has duly approved this Agreement in accordance with state law and its articles of incorporation, corporate bylaws, and resolutions adopted pursuant thereto and that he or she has full power and authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of TVM. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ATTEST: Jeff Comerchero President Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM Peter M. Thorson City Attorney 4 3/8/99 1480911.1 TEMECULA VALLEY MUSEUM, INC., a California non-profit corporation: By: Name: Title: By: Name: Title: TONY TOBIN, an individual Tony Tobin -5- 3/8/99 1480911.1 EXHIBIT A LIST OF ARTIFACTS 3/8/99 1480911.1 A-1 UJ ' u "~", o~if~ifiSi5 o m = ~._= >.,,.., ~>--~'= E ~ ¢ ~ ""' = ~C/)Zm:ZOO~COID~n., .t_ r,./) "r LL r. o 0 0 0 C~)C~)CD ~c0 0 0 o c~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 m. f,- l_ ._ ~') c~ c~ ¢~ ~ ~ :.E-5;~'~ a o o , ~ ~n O~ ~- 0 cO ¢~ cO -- --nc~o'r~omrn-oooo--o~:~ E E ~' "' - - E .-- 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ o '-0 :>,E ~ u~~ Ec ~ n- ~z· ,,., 'g co- -B otu eF. ,, ~o,,.::~ ~u cO e co'~ u ~ c~ o~0 ~ 'I3 ~ ~ ~3 (0 u B"r°~n'~ cuO~:e~n E'~'uS° ~ =e~o ~= .= ,_=e- E ~0 E >0 !- ~~ .~ 'v'v~ 'C'C'C'~ 0 J '~ =: ~e~ o~ ~>> ra n ~, ~ ~ ~ = E~mm~ ,- o ., o~ -~ ~ ~ == ~"8o ° ~ ~ E >"',g~ o a'~ ,-- ",- o> ,- m---,~5~a~oO~< ':" - ~Z X ~ ~,.- X ~'~ ""'~ c ~q~ o 'T"F> ~ c ~ e- 0.~O') c:~ o-~ ~'nnnnn'm'O ~' ~ ~D ~D c .,c .-- ._m '-'co c oE>° N · r- 0 0 ~'.<mF '--~m"r'r,'--0> wom ma_m E -,: O~OQ. 0 ~ 0 0 O E 8 E ,-- ,-- r- --- ~ 8"0 n,.o_ " ~E .~-~ .,::,c,'~ ,,, -, o,~ ,,, ~ ~'~'i o= "~"= E ..._, ),,, ~ 1~ "'~ ¢..1, .c: r. I'.,..- (D .~- 8 .... r.. r- ~ ...C) (v.)),~ 'E " --°n' 0 o -- ~.o.--- ..~ .~ ,._x~E '~ '~ o ~ c,,- E ~ "-' · ~ o~D~c o~ · = ~-,.., ,C) n ~,. ~_--~" '~ a-o o ~ .=c~ ~o~,--=~ Ec~o,_Ec~ _ _ -- o oo< ~r- r- z:= ,,,,,, ,,,., ,-, =c,,~ a ,-= ":'~:"'~'~"'i' ~ o ~c~ EEl ~'~ '~c~c~-- '- ,_1 d z 0 '~_ ¢.) c~ EXHIBIT B BILL OF SALE FOR TOBIN'S ARTIFACTS BILL OF SALE FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Tony Tobin CTobin"), does hereby give, grant, bargain, sell, transfer and deliver unto the Temecula Community Services District CTCSD"), all of his right, title and interest in that certain personal property consisting of historical and cultural aftacts listed on the attached Exhibit "1." EXECUTED on , 1999. Tony Tobin Tony Tobin RECEIFr FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY The Temecula Community Services District hereby acknowledges receipt and acceptance of the personal property described in the above Bill of Sale. EXECUTED on ,1999. City of Temecula By: Herman Parker Director of Community Services [Attach Exhibit 1., Personal Property Description] 3/8/99 ~4s09n.~ A-2 Z ILl ~ ,~ x n, --- o,~,,-, ,-,,, ~ IZ:,-~ rrn,',- x --- x x < x x x_'-"'x""'~"-"x x-""~"-""'-"x x =_ ----.' ..~ xxxxxx~xxxx~>c°xx~x~>x~xxx co,,¢~o~o oc~oo~ X Xoo ~l- X~ X~.,~.,~,. ~,,~.,m_~ o LU m cJ 0 s_ · -- ~ 0 "' 5 ,"-~:~ ~,,=,, C/)r./)ZrnZO~>mlD>n~ E '~ o .,.- o') c~ ~D (D LL C:: 0 ~> ~ o ~ -~ ~ × r. ,_ ~ ,,~ '~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~,}1~"'~ o ,:8 ~x~°°°°°°~'=~' u~ o (/) ~: ...... >'oa~ ncOO'r~OmmjO000.~.~O~'~ ~z_~ E ). 0 E u~ x c~ o 0,- m ,_ ,_>, r'- · ~-o.a~c o~c m nnmSuo ~ o " "' e Q- "~m c a.~~ ~ '~ ..~ .c c~ ~ cn ~cO u c~ o~ -"'*" m "'i~[-.c u c,:Q.'o"'~ Q-~"r c~ o~ o o cm .ac c~..~o,, rY rr-~ 5.'~>,~ u~ p ~'o E · ~ o c~ _ o" eft' if e -- o c uE>o N <<ml- vcrJcO'rn_cO WOo') I~n~ cO_,o<_,oc/> ~O rn EXHIBIT C BILL OF SALE FOR TVM'S ARTIFACTS BILL OF SALE FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Temecula Valley Museum, Inc., a California non-profit corporation CTVM"), does hereby give, grant, donate, transfer and deliver unto the Temecula Community Services District CTCSD"), all of its right, title and interest in that certain personal property consisting of historical and cultural artifacts listed on the attached Exhibit "1 ." EXECUTED on ,1999. TEMECULA VALLEY MUSEUM, INC., a California non-profit corporation: By: Name: Title: By: Name: Title: RECEH'T FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY The Temecula Community Services District hereby acknowledges receipt and acceptance of the personal property described in the above Bill of Sale. EXECUTED on , 1999. City of Temeeula By: [Attach Exhibit 1., Personal Property Description] Hennan Parker Director of Community Services 3/8/99 1480911.1 A-3 Z , o ,( o · ~ ~ ,...,.-J ,,, ry .c o xx",'E oE o ,'~o ~ 'r_ -,-' X z mm ~ a~ o 0 ~ ~ 0 (D r'- "- "-- o I- E '~ E~ ~ ~' ._ ¢u ¢ua.~''u~ .cue cu ,coxE EE :8 n.' 'F='F:= a, ~ ,, ~ 0, m E ,,..' ® ~..E E ~"o"oa., "o a.,o ~={,,'u ~ ~ =~ oo~..=o ---'-'~ '~® ~'- ~o~ ~ ,"",o¢u ccn~ c~ .ao'uE~E "o:'Box ,.C 0(.O ~:J (D ~ 0"~ a. oo o <o~w"i~con'~n' ~Y: i~a.v ,'rBo,--'---,,m N N C),C),,. 0 0 ._1 ._1 0 0 (- ~ v, q,) ~) (1) 0 'o~.~c~o'~ EEE~ ,._v ._ oo '~ E o c'~ E E E > = o,.--~ ~ o'~'~) '~ E rneE~.~~,o .~ o x E~_m '~ o~, '~o .c.c --, "rOnnla-~aQQQ"r"~"rO~"r~r~rna,,n 0 0 '5 E " C,) c~ ~ ® o '~ < Fm ~ E ~E o == "~ ~ -~ ..~ D,._~'~ a~c,--a~ oo o ~ n'e-. m'~i o'5.c:i cDrn c~'~'~ c c e .~ '~ °rnCD o ~Z o n r0 o E _ -- .,.., c~1' (.)~_ (/~--- ~rn.c~c ~ '-~ o o.c o~ - T o o ~.a'~ ,=.-~ ®u ~. > a F c: ~E o ~ '~ '~ "~u '~.~eEc.~ .~ .~ ,...~ E '~,..c~ '~eEo~o~9 o (1.F cLc). (,,) oe ._.Ca.C) = n ..SE o ..= o "~ "'~¢ ""'.~ · o ~ °=8xo<'iE ~ ~Dfn', c cu 'Fnn _ Qox'~,.,"'~n" ==O..~..= _ °~ ,=,~u... ,.nm,_~..~=~° o~ o -*-' C) U)_mO>U_Z,f.dlZ'r'rrnrnc~co SS o-r_ X~X>'~ rn nnn,' ITEM APPROVAl. CITY ATTORNEY~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Board of Directors ,~_erman Parker, Director of Community Services May 25, 1999 Museum Gift Shop and Chapel Operations RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: Approve the License Agreement between the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) and the Temecula Valley Museum, Inc. (TVMI), for operation of the museum gift shop and wedding chapel. 2. Approve the expenditure of $10,000 for the purchase of half of the gift shop start up inventory from the TCSD operating budget; account 190-185. DISCUSSION: Construction of the Temecula Valley Museum building and design and development of interior exhibits continues to progress well. It is anticipated that the facility will be completed and operational in the fall of this year. With the opening of the facility this fall, operation of the 511 square foot gift shop in the museum facility, needs to be addressed. The TVMI a local non-profit organization, has requested to operate and manage the gift shop and chapel, and contribute a portion of their revenues to off-set the cost of operating and maintaining the museum. TVMI would also provide scheduled volunteer support for staffing assistance and docent services. TVMI will also lead fund raising activities and events and commit those revenues to museum operations. The attached document is a lease agreement between the TCSD and TVMI for operation of the museum, gift shop and chapel. The agreement term is for a period of two (2) years with an option to renew the agreement for two additional one- (1) year terms. TVMI will provide 30% of their gross revenues from the operations of the gift shop and $30 per wedding, for each wedding held at the chapel. These payments will be made at the end of each quarter. It is estimated that this could generate a total of $16,560 in revenue to the TCSD on an annual basis to offset museum operation cost. $15,000 in gift shop revenue and $1,560 in chapel revenue. Inventory will need to be purchased to begin gift shop operations. The TCSD and TVMI will contribute $10,000 each towards the purchase of start-up inventory for a total of $20,000. TVMI will maintain a minimum gift shop inventory of $10,000. This will ensure the gift shop is attractive and well stocked. Should this agreement be terminated, the TCSD will purchase $10,000 worth of remaining inventory from TVMI at a wholesale price. R:~ZIGLERG~REPORT~License Agreement TVMI Gift Shop.doc The gift shop is equipped with slat board, fixtures, cabinetry, shelving, counter tops, glass display case and storage. TVMI will provide the cash register for the gift shop operations, appropriate merchandise is identified in the attachment, and three volunteer sales staff, including one experienced in retail sales, every day of operation. Gift shop hours of operation will coincide with the hours of operation for the museum. As demonstrated in the attached merchandising plan, TVMI will be providing a wide selection of appropriate merchandise. TVMI has been hosting weddings at St. Cathedne's Chapel for the past one and one-half years. They have provided good care of the chapel and patio area dudng this time. The agreement restricts the use of the chapel to a maximum of 20 hours per week because of the historical significance of the facility. Currently TVMI estimates their wedding activity averages one wedding every two weeks. TVMI anticipates that through increased marketing of the facility, they will average one wedding per week, generating approximately $1,560 annually in revenues to the TCSD. FISCAL IMPACT: TVMI will provide 30% of their gross revenue from gift shop operations and $30.00 per wedding for each wedding at the chapel. It is estimated that the museum gift shop and chapel will generate $16,560 in revenue to the TCSD to off-set museum operations. These revenue estimates could increase as gift shop sales increase. Sufficient funds are available in the current year TCSD operating budget to cover the $10,000 for the purchase of start up gift shop inventory. Attachments: Agreement Proposal from TVMI LICENSE AGREEMF~NT BETWEEN THE TEMEUCULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND THE TEMECULA VALLEY MUSEUM, INC., FOR OPERATION OF MUSEUM GIFt SHOP AND WEDDING CHAPEL THIS LICENSE AGREEMF~NT is made and entered into by and between the Temecula Community Services District ("TCSD") and the Temecula Valley Museum, Inc., a California non-profit corporation ("Association") as of May 25, 1999. In consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and undertakings set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Recitals. This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and purposes which each of the parties acknowledge and agree are true and correct: a. The City of Temecula ("City") is the owner of certain real property in the City of Temecula which is legally described and depicted on Exhibit A., attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full ("Property"). b. The Property consists of the Temecula Museum and the historic St. Catherine' s Church. The Temecula Museum is a new building nearing completion, which will be used as a museum for historic western artifacts from the Temecula area. St. Catherine' s Church is a historic building originally constructed in 1917 and recently restored by the TCSD. While the building has been restored to its decor and style of the 1900's, it is still a fragile historical structure and its restoration has not been designed to accommodate substantial public traffic. c. The Association is a non-profit corporation duly incorporated and authorized to do business in the State of California. Association is dedicated to promoting the Temecula Museum and raising funds for exhibits in the Museum. d. The TCSD and Association desire to enter into this Agreement to provide the terms and conditions upon which Association will operate a gift shop within the Museum Building and operate St. Catherine' s Church as a non-denominational wedding chapel. e. The area to be used for the Museum Gift Shop and the area of St. Catherine' s Church are designated and described on Exhibit B. and shall be collectively known as the "Premises." The area of the Museum Gift Shop shall be five hundred eleven (511) square feet. Exhibit B. is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. f. As used in this Agreement, "Director" shall mean the Director of Community Services of the City of Temecula. R:~USEPWIUSEUM~ICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MUSEUM GIFT SHOP OPEARATIONS.doc 2. Grant of License. a. TCSD hereby grants to Association a license to use the Premises, on the terms and conditions and for the uses hereinafter specified in this License Agreement. b. Except as specifically provided hereinafter to the contrary, Association shall have the exclusive right and obligation to use the Premises to operate a gift shop in the Museum Building ("Gift Shop" and a wedding chapel in the St. Catherine' s Church ("Wedding Chapel"). Association shall not use the Premises for any other uses without the prior written consent of the Director. c. Association shall not use the Wedding Chapel for any reason more than twenty (20) hours per week measured from 12:00 a.m. on Monday until 11:59 p.m. on the following Sunday. Uses shall include weddings as well as wedding practices, but excludes maintenance activities. 3. Term. Association may utilize the Premises from the date the TCSD issues a certificate of occupancy for the Museum until June 30, 2001, unless sooner terminated pursuant to this Agreement. The agreement may be extended for two - one (1) year optional terms upon mutual agreement by both parties. Association shall not be entitled to begin use of the Premises until all insurance documents required by Section 15 of this License Agreement have been duly completed and are on file with the Director. 4. License Fee. a. The Association's primary mission is to lead revenue generating and fund raising activities to enhance and assist in the operation and maintenance of the museum facility and chapel. Association shall pay to the TCSD a License fee of thirty percent (30%) of the gross revenues of the Gift Shop and $30.00 per wedding held at the Wedding Chapel. Additional revenues the Association generates will be used for inventory, events, museum promotions, and wedding chapel operations. b. The license fee shall be paid within thirty (30) calendar days of the end of each calendar quarter based upon the gross revenues of the Gift Shop and Wedding Chapel activity during the calendar quarter. Calendar quarters shall end on March 30, June 30, September 30, and December 31 of each year. c. Association shall keep complete and accurate records, in accordance with standard and customary retail business practices, of each transaction or receipt of revenue at the Gift Shop and the Wedding Chapel by means of cash register receipts or numbered receipts so as to allow accurate determination of the gross revenues from which to calculate the License Fee. Association shall keep and secure all records relating to the Gift Shop and Wedding Chapel, including but not limited to, cash register and revenue receipts, for R:\RUSEPxaMUSEUM\LICEHSE AGREEMENT FOR MUSEUM G]FF SHOP OPEARATIONS .doc 2 three (3) years from end of the Association' s fiscal year in which the record was prepared. The Association' s revenue accounting procedures and documentation requirements shall be approved in writing by the City' s Director of Finance prior to commencement of possession of the Premises. Any changes in the Association's revenue accounting procedures and documentation shall also be approved in writing by the City' s Director of Finance prior to implementation. d. As used in this License, "Gross Revenues" shall mean all income or revenue of whatever kind and from any source received by the Association arising from the Association' s operation of the Gift Shop, including but not limited to revenue from the sale of merchandise at the Gift Shop and revenue from the sale of wedding merchandise. e. The President of the Association and the City Manager of the City are authorized to enter into implementation agreements to establish accounting procedures and definitions for determining Gross Revenues and other matters affecting this License, provided the terms of such implementation agreements are not in conflict with the terms of this License. 5. Use Permits. This Agreement is not in lieu of obtaining a Use Permit or Outdoor Event Permit from the City for uses other than a Gift Shop or Wedding Chapel. Association shall procure all permits and licenses required by the City of Temecula or other governmental entities to conduct special events for fundraising for the Museum either on the Premises or the Property. Association shall comply with all governmental rules, regulations, statutes, ordinances and conditions of approval of permits. Association agrees to pay all facility use fees applicable to its Use Permit, pursuant to such ordinances and resolutions of the City Council setting fees for use of City facilities. Association may obtain a temporary Alcoholic Beverage Control License for use of the Premises or Property, subject to any conditions imposed in the ABC permit and any permits issued by the City. 6. Fixtures. The Premises has been improved with: certain store fixtures which are listed on Exhibit C., attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. These fixtures are the property of the TCSD. Association may use these fixtures, and will be responsible for maintaining and repairing said fixtures during the period it uses the Premises. 7. Use of Premiers; Merchandise. a. Association shall use the Premises only as a Gift Shop in the Museum Building and a wedding chapel in the St. Catherine's Church. Association shall not interfere with the use and enjoyment of the portion of the Property outside the Premises. b. Association shall be authorized to sell merchandise related to the western theme of the Museum and agrees that all sales of merchandise and services shall be of good quality and condition. TCSD retains the right to require Association to discontinue sale or use of those items the Director reasonably determines the condition of the merchandise or services are not of good quality and condition, upon five (5) days written notice by the R:x, RUSEPxdVlUSEUM\LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MUSEUM GIFT SHOP OPEARATIONS .doc 3 Director. For sales tax purposes, the point of sale for all merchandise shall be the Property. (TCSD) shall also have the right to sell food or beverages on the Premises). Association shall maintain at all times a minimum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) in inventory for the Gift Shop. Upon termination of this agreement the TCSD will purchase the remaining inventory up to a maximum of $10,000 at a wholesale price. The TCSD will provide $10,000 towards the purchase of start-up inventory and merchandise for the gift shop, which will be matched by a $10,000 purchase of inventory by the Association. The total start-up inventory will be $20,000. 8. Association Officers. Employees. A~,ents and Volunteers. Association will use its best efforts to insure that its officers, employees, agents and volunteers shall at all times conduct themselves in a professional manner and that they will conform to all applicable ordinances and regulations now applicable to the Property, as well as all ordinances and regulations which may be adopted by the City. In the event of any conflict of between this Agreement and the Park ordinances and regulations, the Park ordinance and regulations shall control. Association shall maintain a staff adequate to operate and administer all facilities located on the Premises in a safe and orderly manner. 9. Third Party Agreements. Association shall not, without the express, prior written consent of the Director enter into agreements with third parties concerning, among other things, advertising and signage at the Premises, operation of concessions, and sale of food, beverage, and concession items at the Premises. 10. Damage Provisions. Association shall pay for the repair and/or replacement of au damaged structures, equipment and facilities in areas occupied or used by Association which are damaged through any act of Association, its officers, employees, agents, volunteers, subcontractors, and persons attending or participating in any Association event. 11. Liens. Association shall not directly or indirectly, create or permit to be created or to remain, and will promptly discharge, at its expense, any mortgage, lien, encumbrance, charge, or pledge of the Premises or fixtures or fumishings, or any part thereof. Prior to occupancy of the Premises, TCSD shall cause to be posted and recorded a "Notice of Non-responsibility" in the manner required by law. 12. Improvements. Repairs and Maintenance. Association shall make no substantial alteration or repair to the Premises without the prior written consent of the Director of Community Services, including but not limited to grading, carpentry, electrical, sewer, paving and painting. Association shall, at its sole cost and expense, repair and maintain in good order the interior of the Premises and the fixtures provided by the City. 13. Return of the Premises. Upon the termination of this Agreement, Association shall return the Premises in as good as condition and repair as the Premises now exist, reasonable wear and tear excepted. R:XRUSEP~MUSEUM\LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MUSEUM GIFt SHOP OPEARATION$ .doc 4 14. Indemnification. City and TCSD shall not be liable for any loss, damages, or injury to person or property of any person occasioned by or arising out of any act of Association or of anyone holding under Association, nor the occupancy or use of the Premises or any part thereof by or under Association, nor directly or indirectly from any state or condition of said Premises or any part thereof during the term of this Agreement. Association shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold City and the TCSD and their officers, agents, volunteers, and employees harmless from any and all damages arising out of any act or omission of Association, its officers, employees, agents subcontractors, volunteers and persons attending Association events on the Premises, except as the same may arise from the City' s or TCSD's sole negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct (or that of City's or TCSD's agents or employees). 15. Liability Insurance. Association shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the use of the Premises by Association, its agents, representatives, employees or sublicensees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the following coverages and any updated insurance industry standard policies: (1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage provided on ISO-CGL Form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. (2) Worker' s Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance, provided this may be waived by the City Manager in the event Association does not employ any employees or volunteers are covered under the City's volunteer program. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Association 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. The general liability policy shall include non-owned automobile liability insurance. (2) Worker's Comp and Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease, and state requirements. c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option R:XRUSEPXlVIUSEUM\LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MUSEUM Gffrr SHOP OPEARATION$ .doe -5- of the City Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self- insured retentions as respects the City or TCSD, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Association shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (1) The City and TCSD, their 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 Association; products and completed operations of the Association; premises owned, occupied or used by the Association; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Association. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City and TCSD, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (2) For any claims related to this project, the Association's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City and TCSD, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City and TCSD, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Association' 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 and TCSD, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (4) The Association'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, cancelled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mall, return receipt requested, has been given to the TCSD. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best' s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. f. Verifmation of Coverage. Association shall furnish the TCSD with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City or ISO form CG 20 10 11 85. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before use commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Association' s insurer may provide complete, certified R;XRUSEPXlVlUSEUM\LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MUSEUM GIFT SHOP OPEARATIONS.do~ -6- copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications. Association shall not be entitled to use the Premises until all required insurance documents are on file with the Director. g. Failure to Comply with Insurance Requirements. In the event the Association fails to submit the required documentation for insurance to the Director within the times required by this Agreement or the Director receives notice or is made aware of the termination of any required insurance policy, the Director may immediately suspend Association' s right to use the Premises and shall cause a notice of default to be issued to the Association. 16. Assignment and Sublettint,. Association shall not assign its interest in this Agreement or in the Premises to any person or entity without first obtaining the Director' s written consent. Any assignment or sublicense without the Director' s prior written consent shall be voidable and, at the Director' s election, shall constitute a default. 17. Default and Right to Terminate. a. This Agreement may be terminated by either party, for any reason, with or without cause, by providing two (2) months prior written notice of termination. b. If Association should fall to perform, keep or observe any of the terms, conditions or covenants as set forth in this Agreement, TCSD shall give Association notice to correct the failure within said thirty (30) days, and if such action is not cured by Association within thirty (30) day period, Association shall be in default of this Agreement and Association' s rights hereunder shall at the option of the TCSD, be terminated and forfeited. Such election to terminate shall not be construed as a waiver of any claim the TCSD may have against Association, consistent with such termination. If, however, any failure is of such nature that it cannot be physically remedied within thirty (30) days, except for the payment of money, and if Association hall have commenced the elimination of such failure promptly after the receipt of such notice, and shall continuously and diligently proceed in good faith to eliminate such default, then the period for correction shall be extended for such length of time as is reasonably necessary to complete such correction. The failure of Association to fund the necessary corrections shall not justify an extension of the time to cure beyond the initial 30 day period. c. Upon any termination of this Agreement, Association covenants and agrees to surrender and to forfeit this Agreement, and deliver up the Premises peaceably to the TCSD immediately upon any such termination. If said Association shall remain in possession of said Premises after any termination of this Agreement, Association shall be deemed guilty of an unlawful detention of the Premises. d. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, the TCSD shall not be deemed to be in default until thirty (30) days after notice of R:~RUSEP~/IUSEUM~LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MUSEUM OlFr SHOP OPEARATIONS .doc 7 default is given by the Association to the TCSD. If such default cannot be cured within such thirty day period, the TCSD shall not be deemed to be in default provided that, within such thirty (30) day period, the TCSD shall commence and thereafter diligently prosecute efforts to cure the default. 18. Lel, al Remedies. Each party shall have all remedies as may be allowed by law or equity to enforce its rights in this Agreement. No legal action shall be fried by one party against the other party until such time as the other party has received the notice of default as provided in this Agreement. Any such action shall be fred in Riverside County, California. The prevailing party in a court action shah be enti~ed to reasonable attorney' s fees and costs. 19. Use Restrictions. Association agrees to maintain the Premises in a clean and neat condition, free and clear of garbage and debris. No dumping, storage of hazardous or toxic waste, nor the maintenance of any nuisance, public or private, shall be permitted. No rights across any contiguous parcels are granted by this Agreement and Association agrees to secure all such required access at its sole cost and expense. 20. Covenants for Non-Discrimination. The Association covenants by and for itself and any successors in interest that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, age, handicap, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Premises, nor shall the Association itself or any person claiming under or through it establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees of the Premises. 21. Taxes; Assessments. Association shall pay when due all applicable federal, state, or local taxes, fees, charges, or assessments arising from Associations use of the Premises or operations upon the Premises, including, but not limited to, any possessory interest tax which may be imposed upon Association' s use of the Premises. 22. Notice. 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 mall, 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: City: TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: Herman Parker R:~.RUSEP~blUSEUMU, ICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MUSEUM GIPT SHOP OPEARATIONS.doc 8 Association: Director of Community Services Temecula Valley Museum, Inc. P.O. Box 782 Temecula, CA 92593 Attention: President 23. Entire Afrreement. This Agreement, and the documents attached hereto or mentioned herein, contain all of the agreements of the Parties hereto with respect to any matter covered or mentioned in this Agreement, and no prior agreement or understanding pertaining to any such matter shall be effective for any purpose. 24. Amendments. No provision of this Agreement may be amended or added to except by an agreement in writing, duly approved by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District and the Board of Directors of the Association. //// IIII R:XRUSEPXIVIUSEUM'~LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MUSEUM GIFT SHOP OPEARATIONS .doc 9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. TEMEUCLA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Jeff Comerchero President ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney TEMECULA VALLEY MUSEUM, INC., a California Non-Profit Corporation By: Name: Title: By: Name: Title: R:~RUSEPYMUSEUM~LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MUSEUM GIFt SHOP OPEARATIONS .doc - 10- EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND DEPICTION OF PROPERTY R:x, RUSEPMMUSEUM\LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MUSEUM GIFT SHOP OPEARATIONS.doc -11- EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR EXHIBIT BEING A PORTION OF LOT 6, BLOCK 2, OF THE PAUBA LAND AND WATER COMPANY SUBDIVISION MAP, iN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS FILED IN BOOK 11, PAGE 507 OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF MORENO ROA/D, SAID POINT BEING THE MOST SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE SHOWN AS BEING NORTH 17°08'42'' EAST, 646.93 FEET AS SHOWN ON PinaCEL MAP NO. 24038, IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS FILED IN BOOK 171, PAGES 71 THROUGH 72, INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF MORENO ROA/D NORTH 17°08'19'' EAST, 98.78 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTH 72°51'41" EAST, 142.10 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 43°49'25" EAST 48.42 FEET; THENCE NORTH 86°27'02'' EAST, 7.57 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 45°59'11" EAST, 14.72 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 44000'49" WEST, 1.89 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 45°S9' 11" EAST, 4.91 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 44°00'49'' WEST, 12.55 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 45°59' 11'' EAST, 40.83 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 44°C0'49'' WEST, 12.56 FEET; THENCE NORTH 45°59'!1'' WEST 3.30 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 44°00'49" WEST 33.94 FEET; THENCE NORTH 45°59'11'' WEST 9.06 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 44°00'49'' WEST 7.11 FEET; THENCE NORTH 45o59, 11" WEST 8.44 FEET; hSH PLAT. DOC CITY OF iEMECULA 1 !/19,96 THENCE NORTH 44°00'49'' EAST, 7.11 FEET; THENCE NORTH 45°59'11'' WEST THENCE NORTH 43°52'47'' WEST THENCE NORTH 47°47'23" WEST THENCE NORTH 26°07'53" WEST THENCE NORTH 13°08'48" WEST BEGINNING; 6.27 FEET; i6.57 FEET; 2.81 FEET; 6.67 FEET; 7.99 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF CONTAINING 3,275.31 SQUARE FEET OR 0,075 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO JJSH_PLAT.DOC CITY OF TEMECULA 11/19/96 .( It Ex~ NO. EXHIBIT "B" PORT/ON PAUBA LAND LOT 6 __BLOC}( & WA'FEF{ 2 SUBDIVISIOf',J O Z APN MB I'Jt507 8,D, N 45'59'11" W 14.72' N 86'27'02" E 921-070-018 T.P.O.B. 142,10' ,y 0 , ~1 ~Z'55, F, 3' ( ) DENOTES RECORD DATA PER PARCEL MAP NO. 24038. PM 171/71-72. Trans-Pacific Consultants - 274~,7 Enterprise Circle West. Temecula. CA.. 92590' CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS, PLANNERS THIS PLAT IS SOLELY AN AID IN LOCATING THE PARCEL(S) DESCRIBED IN THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT. IT IS NOT PART OF THE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION filEREIN. SCALE: 1'= 40" 1O.Aw. BY TJL DATE11/18/961 EXHIBIT w.o. # SHEET 1 OF 1 412-012 FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION SH_PLAT. DWG EYa{IBIT "A" LEC~ DESCRIPTION FOR EXHIBIT BEING A PORTION OF P.aiCEL 2 OF PARCEL ~zip NO. 24038, iN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS FILED iN BOOK 171, PAGES 71 THROUGH 72, INCLUSIVE, OF PkRCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIb~ING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY COP~NER OF PARCEL 1 OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 24038; THENCE kLONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, SAID LINE BEING ALSO COMMON TO SAID PA~RCEL 2, NORTH 51°38'19'' EAST, 140.60 ~EET (NORTH 51°38'42'' EAST, RECORD PER SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 24038); THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE SOUTH 38°27'26'' EAST, 42 ~= FEET TO THE BEGINNING 3F A 10 00 FOOT PJtDIUS ,CURVE cONCAVE WESTERLY; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL fnJqGLE OF 80°49'27'', A DISTANCE OF 14.11 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 42°22'00" WEST, 45.36 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A 24.50 FOOT RADIUS NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, A PJ~DIi~L LINE TO SAID POINT BE/LRS SOUTH 51046'34" EAST; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTPjiL ~GLE OF 41°28'24'', A DISTANCE OF 17.73 FEET; ?HENCE SOUTH 88°5:9'2~'' WEST, 4 65 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 35°34'04'' WEST, 50.21 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 50°26' 34" WEST, 15.36 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A !97.00 FOOT P/DIUS NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, A R~HDIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEAiS NORTH 38°26'39'' WEST; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07°26'32'', A DIST~/WCE OF 25.59 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 45°16' 18" WEST, 19.97 FEET TO THE BEGii'rNING OF A ~ 00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE L.~ORTHERLY; ,j o THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ~aNGLE OF :B9°!2' 11", A DIST~.NCE OF 7.78 FEET; tHENCE NORTH 45°31' 31'' WEST, i!3.97 FEET; LISH PLAT.DOC CITY OF '~EMECULA 11/19/96 THENCE SOUTH 45°02'02'' WEST, 41.99 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 60°02'10'' WEST, 7.48 FEET; THENCE NORTH 44°30'32'' WEST, S5.42 FEET; THENCE NORTH 09°40'48'' WEST, 83.75 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A 73.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, A Pj~_DIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 77°26'18'' EAST; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURI/E THROUGH A CENTPJ~L 3~GLE OF 21055, 15", A DISTAINCE OF 27.93 FEET; THENCE NORTH 38°18'48'' WEST, 100.33 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A 26.00 FOOT .RADIUS NON-T~GENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, A RkDIAL LiNE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 46°59'37'' EAST; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ~LONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTPJUu ;dqGLE OF 16°19'52'', A DISTANCE OF 7.41 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF MORENO ROAD (88.00 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL Iv~AP NO. 24038; THENCE A_LONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE NORTH 17°08'19'' EAST, 55.83 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PkRCEL 2, SAID COPaER BEING ALSO C01~ON TO SAID PA/~CEL 1; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2 SOUTH 72°51'41'' EAST, 22.09 TO AN ANGLE POINT; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE LiNE COMMON TO SAID PARCELS 1 AND 2 SOUTH 38°21'41'' EAST, 215.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 29,305.17 SQUARE FEET OR 0.673 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO J:~SH PLAT.DOC CITY OF TEMECULA l 1/19/96 44' EXHIBIT "B DArA TABLE NO. A/BEARING RADIUS I80'49'27" I0.00' 2 41 '28'24 ' 24. 50' 0756'32' 197,00' 73,00' 26.00' 89'12'11" 2I~5'15" 16'19'52' LENGTH 14, I1' 17,73' 25.59' 7.78' 27.93' 7.41' .< 0 0 Z 0 50' PCL I PARCEL MAP NO, P M -I 7-1/71- 72 2 PAUBA LAND 24038 aEm ' 12/31/98:"' No. 635 WATER CO, ,SUBDIVI,SION MB 1-l/507 ,S,D, CO, ( ) DENOTES RECORD DATA PER PARCEL MAP NO. 24038. PM 171/71-72, Trans-Pacific Consultants 27447 Enterprise Circle West, Temeculo. CA., 92590 THIS PLAT IS SOLELY AN AI0 IN LOCATING THE PARCEL(S) DESCRIBED IN THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT, IT IS NOT PART OF TIlE WRITTEN OESCRIPT10N THEREIN, SCALE: I'= 60' I DRAWN BY TJL DATE11/18/961 EXHIBIT FOR CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS, SHEET 1 OF t PLANNERS w.o. # LEGAL DESCRIPTION SH _PLAT. DWG EXHIBIT B DESCRWTION AND DEPICTION OF GIFF SHOP PREMISES R:XR. USEPXMUSEUM\LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MUSEUM GIFT SHOP OPEARATIONS.doc - 12- Exhibit "B" 'F ~F N ~2 --I --I EXHIBIT C GIFt SHOP FIXTURES SUPPLIED BY CITY R:XRUSEPxaMUSEUM\LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MUSEUM GIFT SHOP OPEARATIONS .doe - 13- EXHIBIT 'C' FIXTURES Slate Board and fixtures Cabinetry Book Shelves Storage shelves in closet Counter Counter glass display Check-in Counter Two (2) Display Cases ,J Mr. Herman Parker Director of Community Services City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Herman, I am writing this letter to confirm our desire to manage the Museum Gift Shop and Wedding Chapei which has been offered to us by the city in previous correspondence. We have successfully operated the Wedding Chapel since it opened and have contributed a great deal to the entire project both financially and in our support. I have met with most of the City Council members over the past two years and most recently Joan Sparkman and I met with Jeff Comerchero at which time we presented our credentials and preliminary plans for the gift shop operation. He was impressed and most satisfied with our approach and organization. I will be submitting a complete business plan within the 30 days which outlines our total operational plan. We are agreed to share 30% of our gift shop gross revenues with the city and have already met your insurance requirements as outlined in previously. We also agree to pay $30.00 per for each wedding and rehearsal for the use of the chapel. Our board members have spent hundreds of hours preparing for this opportunity and are absolutely confident that we have the management experience, resolve and volunteer personnel to meet the challenge. Our dedication and purpose has met the test over this past two years and we certainly feel we have earned the support of the city. Working with the RTAWC we have combined our efforts to assure that all of the volunteer help wdl be in place upon completion of the project. We look forward to working with you and your staff to finally bring this dream of ours to fruition and pledge our continued support. Sjncere~i~ t, Temecula Valley Museum Board of Directors ~.~ TEMECULA TABLE OF CONTENT~ TYPES OF MERCHANDISE DISPLAY CONCEPTS STAFFING, HOURS OF OPERATION REVENUE TO CITY ,J . i EMECULA MERCHANDISE The list below is representative of some of the categories and types of products we have been looking for at the L.A. Gift Mart. We will attend the Oasis gift show in Phoenix in the summer as well as other major gift shows. We have been visiting other museum gift shops including San Diego, Los Angeles, and Santa Barbara. We have been discussing merchandise and resources with other museum gift shop managers who have been very helpful and open. Our price mix and selection will provide some- thing for everyone. 1. BOOKS, Adult, children's (see attached partial list of titles) 2. PACKAGED FOOD ITEMS Gourmet Corner, RTAWC to have branded items including jams, dry mixes, (scones, soups,etc.) Up-market packaging with foil labels. Selected packaged snacks, nuts, candy, etc. Gift baskets featuring local products, wine, salsa, coffee, candy, other pre-packaged items suitable for baskets. 3. JEWELRY RIngs, bracelets, charms, etc., in silver and semi-precious stones, indian style, western style, equestrian style and a variety of "branded" items. 4. GARMENTS - FABRIC ITEMS "Branded"T shirts, sweat shirts, stone-washed denim, throws, indian rugs, etc. 5. MUGS, WINE GLASSES, ACCESSORIES etc. - all "Branded" with museum logo 6. PAPER ITEMS Post cards, notes, etc. 7. COLLECTIBLES A select variety and price ranges of western bronzes, reproductions, granite sculpture, porcelain, stone ware, glass, cast iron. 8. CANDLES Unique and up market candles, holders, etc. 9. PLUSH TOYS, DOLLS AND COLLECTIBLES Western and indian themes, animals, "giddy-up ponies", indian and western style collectible dolls. 10. CHILDREN'S ITEMS Educational and learning toys, games, life science, exploration and discovery, creative play, select electronics. 11. PROPRIETARY PRODUCTS We plan to develop items unique to the museum. A replica of the wedding chapel in ceramic or cold cast material. A variety of branded items, a high quality, pictorial "coffee table" style book on the history of Temecula which we will design and publish. We will develop our own post cards using archival photos. A puzzle representing the Temecula Valley and a children's coloring book featuring historical visuals or illustrations relevant to Temecula are but a few of the possibilities. /- ,J VALLEY' MUSEUM DISPLAYS The relatively small gift shop interior had been initially planned to utilize the wall area with modular fixtures that attach to the versatile "slat board" panels. We have a secure glass case at the check out counter for all jewelry items and the more expensive small collectibles. The perimeter counters have been designed to hold back-up stock behind locked doors and features open display areas designed for shelves or open areas. We have also provided a drop panel for a hidden light source to illuminate these open display areas. The center of the shop has been left open until we have better defined the product mix. We plan to cluster specific categories together to make a statement within each featured category. Food items for instance will be together as will Children's items, etc. There will be two or three special pedestal type displays built to match the existing decor. We will also utilize standard glass displays for other collectible items requiring security as the product mix develops. STAFFING, HOURS OF OPERATION I had asked the RTAWC to work with us in developing all volunteer help for both the gift shop and museum. I formed a four person committee, including myself, comprised of Jo Ann Lamb, Betty Taylor and Terry Blanton, current president of the RTAWC, specifically to work on the gift shop project. We spent a day at the L.A. Mart last week and have made a number of selec- tions. We have all either owned retail businesses or have years of work experience in retail. We already have the staff to operate the gift shop signed up and will begin working on the docent list within the next few weeks. We will have one retail experienced lead person on the floor at all times to assure continuity and professionalism. These people have already been secured. The RTAWC members will be augmented by outside volunteers from the community through newspaper ads, articles and public activities presented by the RTAWC. We will also present our program to the various service clubs in the area. Joan Sparkman and I are already sched- uled to speak before the Rotary club within the next few weeks. We understand the current plans are for the museum to be open Tuesday through Saturday and a half day on Sunday. Closed on Monday. We will operate the gift shop during the same hours. Special holidays like Christmas may require extended hours and additional personnel which we are prepared to provide. We have planned to have three people available daily for the gift shop. Two on duty at all times and the third to cover breaks. One will be assigned to the museum entry to collect entrance fees and the other mihding the store. The museum will have two docents on each floor each day. ,J TEMECULA MU REVENUES TO THE CITY Herman Parker and I have had a number of planning meetings regarding the opera- tional and financial plans for the gift shop. Herman has indicated the city would like to receive 30% of our gross revenues from the gift shop operation. We have agreed to this. Our only goal is to be able to pay our operating costs without having the board members personally contribute to do so. The board has personally con- tributed more than $5000.00 to the chapel and cannot continue to financially support the museum operation out of pocket. Our estimated revenues for the first year of operation is based on a projected number of visitors to the museum. Our visitor estimates are based on the numbers generated by the Old Town Museum. The last few years of operation in Old Town produced an average of 1000 visitors per month. We fully expect these numbers to be even greater given the growth of the community, the increased planned events, and the quality of the new museum. Shortly after becoming fully operational, we estimate that 2000 people per month will visit the TVM. If only half of those people visit the gift shop, then there will be 1000 people per month in the gift shop. We estimate an additional 250 locals per month to come specifically to the gift shop who may not visit the muse- um. This results in 750 buyers per month or 9000 per year. With an average of only $5.00 per purchase we will generate $45,000.00 in sales. The RTAWC is featuring the museum on their December home tour. They average 1500 visitors on the tour week- end for one day. This year is a two day event. We expect an additional 1000 buyers @ $5.00 which adds $5000.00 to our total sales potential and given the fact it will be the Christmas season, we expect even higher sales. Based on these conservative esti- mates we should easily top $50,000.00 the first year. We will try to keystone our costs to average 50%+ gross profit. A more detailed projection of revenues and costs will be presented in our final business plan. The wedding chapel is operated on a much lower profit margin to make it affordable to the greatest number of people. We will pay .the city a flat fee of $30.00 per wedding which includes time for rehearsals. For 1998, there were 26 weddings, or an average of one every two .weeks. These weddings grossed $7,500.00. It is estimated that as the chapel becomes better known and publicized, there will be 52 weddings per year, or one each week for a gross of $15,000.00. Our goal is to have two weddings per week for an annual gross of $30,000.00. We now have yellow page advertising for the chapel and will increase our promotion once the museum is open. We have $10,000.00 set aside for initial inventory and ask the city to match these funds to enable us to fully stock the gift shop up to expectations. After that we will maintain a minimum of $10,000.00 in inventory at all times. : EMECULA MUSEUM VOLUNTEER ATTIRE Working closely with the RTAWC, who will provide most of the volunteers, we have all agreed that a signature vest in denim material with the museum logo will provide the most visible and tasteful separation of staff and visitors. We suggested denim skirts or pants as well. Docents can choose their own blouses or shirts. This consistent look will establish the continuity and image appropriate to the theme of the museum. We will have vests on hand for the volunteers to wear that must be left at the museum. Most volunteers will want to own their own personal vest. ITEM 5 APPROV.~~-" CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAN CITY MANAGER TO; FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: 1. CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Board of Directors .Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services May 25, 1999 Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the construction and operation of sports field lighting at James L. Day Middle School ~Todd Holmes, Development Services Administrator That the Board of Directors: Approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the construction of sports field lighting at James L. Day Middle School. Direct staff to file the Mitigated Negative Declaration, with the appropriate filing fee, for the project with the County Clerk of Records Office. DISCUSSION: On April 13, 1999, the TCSD entered into an agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified School District for the use of parking lots and athletic fields at James L. Day Middle School. The purpose of this agreement was 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. TCSD intends to install a lighting system to illuminate the fields for night use. The school is under construction and will open for student use in August 1999. The proposed sports field lighting system is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). To comply with CEQA, an environmental checklist was prepared and staff evaluated the potential impacts to the environment. The project was been posted for the public meeting, the notice was placed in the newspaper, and the notice was sent to all property owners within 1,200 feet of the middle school property. In addition, staff toured the area and identified approximately 30 other residences that could be affected by the proposed lighting. These property owners were also notified. Based upon the discussions in the Initial Environmental Study, staff has determined that the lighting project will have no significant impacts except in the area of light and glare. This r:\rusep\agendas\Whslite.csd potential impact will be mitigated through compliance with the Palomar Lighting Ordinance. The proposed lighting system, the Musco Sports Lighting Total Light Control system, will comply with these requirements and is expected to reduce the impacts to the community by significantly decreasing glare, light spillage and skyglow. The hours of operation for the lights will be from dusk until 10 p.m. FISCAL IMPACT: After the lighting system is installed, the annual cost for electricity will be approximately ~ 16,000. 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 as Campos Verde Middle School Lighting. Since the adoption of the Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 1999-2003, the Temecula Valley Unified School District has officially named the school James L. Day Middle School. ATTACHMENTS: Environmental Checklist Vicinity Map Site plan for James L. Day Middle School Project Sheet from the Capital Improvement Program for F.Y. 1999/2000 r:\rusep\agenda~\tvhsiite.csd City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist Project Title Lead Agency Name and Address Contact Person and Phone Number Project Location Project Sponsor's Name and Address General Plan Designation Zoning Description of Project lighting for the James L. Day Middle School athletic fields City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Stephen Brown, AICP (909) 694-6400 North General Kearny Road east of Margarita Road and west of La Colima Road. City of Temecula, Community Services Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 Low Medium Residential Specific Plan Overlay (Campos Verdes) Installation of lighting and joint use of the James L. Day Middle School athletic field by the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Valley Unified School District. See attached Exhibit "A" for joint use area map. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting Other public agencies whose approval is required Generally surrounded by vacant land. To the north vacant and residential uses 1000 feet from the site. To the east, vacant hills and single family residential further to the east. Vacant to the south with residential construction within 1500 feet of the project site. Vacant to the west, Promenade mall, further west across Margarita Road. None R:\CEOA\EA57ies.doc 1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use Planning Population and Housing Geologic Problems Water Air Quality Transportation/Circulation Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources X Hazards Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance None Determination (To be completed by the lead agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Printed name For R:\CEQA\EA57ies.doc 2 1. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: Potentially PotentiallySignificant UnlessLess Than SignificantMitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Physically divide an established community? X b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Co X Comments: 1. all The installation of athletic field lighting will not conflict with applicable land use plans or policies adopted by any agencies or will the project divide a community or conflict with applicable habitat conservation plans. The proposed project anticipates the installation of lights and joint use for the James L. Day athletic fields, which is consistent with the existing school use. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQA\Ea57ies.doc 3 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C, Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X X Comments: 2. all The addition of athletic field lighting and joint use will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections, induce substantial population growth, or displace any housing units. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQA\EA57ies .doc 4 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project? Issues and Supporting Information Sources Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or X that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B X of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of X septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X X Comments: 3. all The installation of athletic field lighting and joint use will not create or be affected by additional geologic problems. No significant effects are anticipated by this project. R:\CEQA\EA57ies .doc 5 4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Co do Issues and Supporting Information Sources Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact incorporated Impact Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Comments: 4.all The installation of lighting and joint use of the existing athletic fields will not affect any hydrologic or water quality issues. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact X X X X X X X X X X R:\CEQA\EA57ies .doc 6 5. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X of people? Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X X X Comments: 5.all Athletic field lighting and joint use will not affect area or regional air quality to any measurable degree. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQA\EA57ies.doc 7 6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: ao Issues and Supporting Information Sources Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in inadequate parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks? Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Comments: 6.all The project will not result in significant increases in vehicle trips, traffic congestion, or increase the demand for roads or parking spaces. Adjacent roadways have sufficient capacity available and the middle school facility has 67 parking spaces on site that will be available during off-school times. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated because of this project. No Impact X X X X X X X R:\CEQA\EA57ies.doc 8 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: ao Issues and Supporting Information Sources Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat X or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected X wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Comments: 7.all James L. Day middle school is currently under construction and the entire site has been disturbed because of grading and building activity. As a consequence, the site is not considered habitat for any plant or wildlife species. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQA\EA57ies .doc 9 8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important X mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incoq~orated Impact Impact X Comments: 8.all The project site is not located in an area of known mineral resources nor will the project result in the loss of locally-important mineral resources as none are identified in the General Plan for this area. No significant impacts are anticipated for this as a result of this project. R:\CEQA\EA57ies .doc 10 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Crate a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or X acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of X hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, X injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: 9.all Athletic field lighting and joint use of the athletic field will not cause an increase in community hazards. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQA\EA57ies.doc 11 10. NOISE. Would the project result in: b, Issues and Supporting Information Sources Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact incorporated Impact Impact X X X Comments: lO.a,b,d. The proposal will result in an increase in the duration of the noise generated from the project site. The proposed use as a middle school will generate noise typical for this type of facility. The addition of athletic field lighting will increase the time the noise is generated into the evening by extending activities beyond the normal daylight hours. The lights are scheduled to be turned off by 10:00 p.m. every night and not to be utilized at all on Sunday nights. This practice corresponds with other lighted parks in Temecula. Provisions for amplified sound are a component of this assessment. Sound amplification equipment will be allowed to operated between 4:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Saturday. Sound amplification will not be permitted on Sundays. The nearest homes are located approximately 1000 feet from the playing fields which will help reduce the impacts to the local residential communities. No significant impacts are anticipated for this project when the mitigation measures (restricted operating times) are followed. 10.e,f. The project site is not located within an airport land use area or near a private airport. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQA\EA57ies.doc 12 11. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered Government services in any of the following areas: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Issues and Supporting Information Sources Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associates with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? b. Fire protection? X c. Police protection? X d. Schools? X e. Parks? X f. Other public facilities? X No Impact X Comments: 11 .all The project could have the potential for a slight increase in on-going maintenance and this will require some additional (and anticipated) expenditures by the City. This on-going maintenance will be contained within the Temecula Community Services Department budget and is expected to be minimal. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQA\EA57ies .doc 13 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water X drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the X project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment X provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? fo Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X X X X Comments: 12.all The project will not result in the need for new or expanded public utility systems. All utility systems are already available at the school site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQA\Ea57ies.doc 14 13. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Potentially ~ PotentiallySignificant UnlessLess Than SignificantMitigation Significant Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact '~. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not X limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic building within a state scenic highway? Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X X No Impact X Comments: 13.a,b,c The project will not affect a scenic vista, damage scenic resources, or degrade the existing visual character of the site. The proposed use is consistent with the urban form anticipated for the development of this area. Given the intense urban uses surrounding the site (or anticipated to be built) the project is consistent with current and planned development. 13.d. While some additional onsite lighting is expected, the shielding of fixtures and the substantial distance from sensitive uses will eliminate any off-site illumination issues. The project will use specified lamps and observe hours of illumination that are consistent with the Palomar Lighting Policies of the General Plan and Ordinance 655. R:\CEQA\EA57ies.doc 15 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially PotentiallySignificant UnlessLess Than SignificantMitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred X outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: 14.all The project will not have an impact on scientific resources noted above since the site has been disturbed by the construction of the middle school. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQA\EA57ies,doc 16 15. RECREATION. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require X the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X Comments; 15.all The project is expected to meet a portion of the existing community recreation needs. As a result, it will not increase the current or future demand for parks or other recreational facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQA\EA57ies.doc 17 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. bo Issues and Supporting Information Sources Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of, restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: 16.a. 16.b. 16.c. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X R:\CEQA\EA57ies.doc 18 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above check list were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. SOURCES City of Temecula General Plan. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. R:\CEQA\EA57ies.doc 19 \\ VICINITY MAP Sports Field Lighting At James L. Day Middle School t~//~ /~ AGR~',EMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECUIA AND TEMECUIA VALLEY ~ SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR JOINT USE OF A PORTION OF MIT}DLE SCHOOL NO. 4 Page 9 / / / / JOINT USE FACILITIES EXHIBIT "A" JOINT USE FACILITIES l i t t i 1 I I I I 1 I I ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 r- ~ I~ 0 ~ '~ .c d 0 C .-~-,_ Cl c~ t- O 0 0 0 0 0 qq ~oo~ 0000 0 0000 0000 ~00~ C E ' C ~ ~ 0 C "'1 -- C ~ C C o~: 0 o PORTOLA DEVELOPMENT. CALIFORNIA, LLC 30211 Banderas. Suite 130 Rancho Santa Margarita. CA 92688 (949) 858-4980: (94% 858-4984 t~.x May 10. 1999 Todd Holmes City of Temecula Community Services Department 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula. CA 92589-9033 P,E: Sports Field Lights at James L. Day Middle School Dear Mr. Holmes. cc: J. O'Grady H. Parker We are in receipt of a memorandum from your department indicating the intention of the Temecula Community Service District Board of Directors and Temecula Unified School District to cooperate in an effort to light the athletic fields for night use. Please be aware that we are strongly against this effort. Portola Development. California, LLC is the owner of the residential portion of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. Portola's property surrounds the middle school property on three sides. In addition, we own the park site and the commercial site directly across the street from the middle school property. In cooperation with Woodside Homes, an affiliated company, 242 single family residences will be developed within the next two years. Although at this date we do not know the exact layout of the lights on the fields. ~ve believe to install any nighttime lights at the ball fields would be to negatively impact the quiet enjoyment the future homeowners of Campos Verdes expect and deserve. In addition, we have contacted and will be working with the the Meadowview Community Association to make them aware of the intention of the City to install the above mentioned lights. Together, we would like you to consider an alternative site for the placement of nighttime lights. Sincerely, Portola Developmen~t, California, LLC Nate Pugsley, Project Manager CC: Temecula City Council. to be included with the 5,/25/99 City Council Meeting TCSD DEPARTMENTAL REPORT APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER ~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Board of Directors Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services May 25, 1999 Departmental Report PREPARED BY: Gall L. Zigler, Administrative Secretary The construction of Margarita Community Park is complete and the dedication and grand opening was held on April 22, 1999. Features of the park site include parking, lighting, tot lots, picnic facilities, landscaping, irrigation, pedestrian walkways, a roller hockey rink, tennis courts, and ballfield lighting. On January 25, 1999, the Community Services Department released a Request for Qualifications for architectural design services for the expansion of the Mary Phillips Senior Center. The proposed expansion will include kitchen upgrades and a 2,500 to 3,000 square foot enlargement of the building to include additional space for meetings and classes. At the March meeting, the Community Services Commission appointed a Commissioner to work with staff on the design for the expansion for this facility. The first design committee meeting will be held in June of 1999. The Margarita Sidewalk Project is currently under construction. E.A. Mendoza is the contractor. The improvements will include the installation of concrete curb and gutter, landscaping, irrigation and sidewalk along the west side of Margarita Road between Rancho Vista Road and Pauba Road. Additionally, an ADA access ramp from Margarita Road to the adjacent ballfields, and slope landscaping are included as part of the project. The project should be completed by June 1999. The City of Temecula Community Services Department brought forward to the TCSD Board of Directors a Joint Use Agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified School District for use of the Temecula Valley High School Tennis Courts. The agreement was approved by the Board of Education on August 18, 1998. The agreement provides for the lighting and maintenance of eight tennis courts at Temecula Valley High School, by the City of Temecula, in exchange for R:XZIGLERGXXDEFFRPTX9905 .doc May 19, 1999 the use of the tennis courts in the City's overall parks and recreation program. Construction should begin in mid June 1999 and completed by the end of August 1999. The City Council awarded a construction contract to Terra Cal Construction for the Phase II improvements to the Temecula Duck Pond. This project is nearing the end of construction. Staff anticipates the project will be in the 90-day maintenance period in June and the park should be dedicated in September of 1999. Improvements include stabilization of the pond edge, walkways, landscape, irrigation, bandstand, restroom, parking facilities, and road improvements to Ynez Road. The recreation division held their annual "Come Fly A Kite Day" on Sunday, May 16, 1999, at Paloma Del Sol Park. This is the third year for this event and each year more and more residents participate in the program. There were approximately 200 - 300 in attendance at this event. Staff is gearing up for the Temecula Community Services Department's annual Summer Day Camp program. This year's program will accommodate up to 75 children, ranging in age from 6 to 12 years of age. Held at the Community Recreation Center, the program provides arts, crafts, games, swimming and excursions to all participants in the program. This is a very successful program, and all sessions are full each summer. The recreation division is putting the final touches on the Summer/Fall issue of the City of Temecula's Guide to Leisure Activities brochure. This issue of the recreation brochure will offer many new and exciting classes and programs including the Summer Aquatics program, the Star Spangled 4~ of July parade and fireworks show, end the Santa's Electric Light Parade. The maintenance division continues to oversee the ma!ntenance of parks and recreation facilities, as well as all other City owned public buildin3s or facilities. The maintenance division paid special attention to preparing Margarita Community Park for the dedication and grand opening ceremony. In addition, the maintenance division is working closely with the contractor to open Margarita Community Park on April 22, 1999. The City had hoped that the State Legislature would support a $1 billion bond to build libraries throughout California. At this point, it is not certain whether or not his bond will move forward. In the meantime, staff is pursuing other sources including Riverside County, the State Senate, and Federal sources through Senator Barbara Boxer. In addition to City staff pursuing funding, the County Librarian is also looking for funding for the Temecula Library project, as the Temecula Library is the highest circulating library in the Riverside County Library System and is the County's number one library to be constructed once funding is identified. R:L?_,IGLERG~G)EFFRFI'X9905 .doc May 19, 19~9 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEM I TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Members John Meyer, Housing and Redevelopment Manager ~ May 25, 1999 Granting of an Easement for Southern California Edison RECOMMENDATION: That the Redevelopment Agency adopts a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99--- A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA GRANTING AN EASEMENT FOR ELECTRICAL SUPPLY AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS FACILITATING INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS RELATING TO THE MISSION VILLAGE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT. BACKGROUND: The Redevelopment Agency has partnered with the Affirmed Housing Group to rehabilitate 38 existing apartment units and develop 38 new units. All 76 units will remain affordable for 30 years. The attached documents are for electrical supply systems and communication systems for the Mission Village project along the westedy side of Pujol, south of Sixth Street. This easement needs to be granted by the Agency and recorded to facilitate construction activities for the project. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 99- 2. Exhibit"A" 3. Exhibit"B" 4. Grant of Easement R:\PROJECTS\GRANTEASEMENTSCE.doc O5/13/99 1 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 99~ A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA GRANTING AN EASEMENT FOR ELECTRICAL SUPPLY AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS FACILITATING INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS RELATING TO THE MISSION VILLAGE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT. THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, The legal description for the easement is set forth and depicted in Exhibit "A" attached hereto; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula grants an Easement for electrical supply systems and communication systems, attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B", for the purposes stated therein. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting on the 25'h day of May 1999. Karel F. Lindemans, Chairperson ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSDIE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) R:XPROJECTS\RESOLLrHONGRANTEASEMENTSCE.doc 05/13/99 1 I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk/Agency Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 99- was duly and regularly adopted by the Agency Members of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 25m day of May 1999, by the following vote: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/Agency Secretary R:XPROJECTS\RESOLUTIONGRANTEASEMENTSCE. doc 05/13/99 2 ATTACHMENT 2 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION WORK ORDER NUMBER: 6077-6795 A.I. NUMBER: 9-6724 Two strips of land situated in that portion of Parcel 1 as conveyed in Grant Deed recorded December 11. 1991 as Instrument No. 429068. Official Records. in the City of Temecula. in said Riverside County, more particularly described as follows: Strip No. 1 A strip of land 12.0 feet in width, the centerline of which is described as follows: COMMENCENG at the intersection of the centerlines of Sixth Street and Pujol Street as shown on Record of Survey, recorded May 31, 1973 in Book 59, Page 47, of Records of Survey in the office of the Recorder of said County; thence along a course on the centerline of Sixth Street, South 44° 29' 12" West, 239.84 feet to a point on the Southwesterly line of the Temecula Townsite as shown on said Record of Survey: thence Southeasterly along said Southwesterly line to a point that is parallel with and distant Southeasterly 25.0 feet, measured at right angles from the centerline of Sixth Street to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 44° 29' 12" West, 5.0 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as Point "A"; thence continuing along the last mentioned course a distance of 21.0 feet. Strip No. 2 A strip of land 6.0 feet in width, the centerline of which is described as follows: BEGINNING at Point "A"; thence North 53° West, 35.0 feet. (9859-0173-05-03) ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT 4 RECORDING REQUESTED BY DSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON An EDISON INTERNA770NAL Company WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO DSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON An EDISON INTERNATIONAL Company Real Properties and Administrative Services 14803 Chestnut Street Westminster. CA 92683-5240 Attn: Southeastern Region SPACE ABOVE THiS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE GRANT OF DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX $ NONE (VALUE DISTRICT WORK ORDER qIDENTWY MAP SIZE EASEMENT AND_CONSIDERATION LESS THAN $100.00) San Jacinto 6077-6795 9-6724 SO. CALIF. EDISON CO. FlU 482-1722-1 APPROVED: REAL PROPERTIES BY DATE ~-edel/e 1 O[:)r~ei~ ~C, SiG OF DECLARANT OR AGENT DETERMINING TAX FIRM NAME AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESPPL/JA 2/23/99 A~. · 940-31 0-018 Agency REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA. a public body, corporate and politic (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor"), hereby grants to SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, a corporation. its successors and assigns (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee"), an easement and right of way to construct. use, maintain. operate, alter, add to. repair. replace. reconstruct. inspect and remove at any time and from time to time overhead and underground electrical supply systems and communication systems (hereinafter referred to as "systems"), consisting of poles, guys and anchors, crossarms. wires, underground conduits, cables, vaults, manholes. handholes. and including above-ground enclosures, markers and concrete pads and other appurtenant fixtures and equipment necessary or useful for distributing electrical energy and for transmitting intelligence by electrical means. in, on, over, under. across and along that certain real property in the County of Riverside, State of California. described as follows: FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. This legal description was prepared pursuant to Sec. 8730© of the Business & Professions Code. The Grantor agrees for themselves, their heirs, and assigns, not to erect, place or maintain, nor to permit the erection, placement or maintenance of any building, planter boxes, earth fill or other structures except walls and fences on the hereinbefore described easement area. The Grantee, and its contractors, agents and employees, shall have the right to trim or top such trees and to cut such roots as may endanger or interfere with said systems and shall have free access to said systems and every part thereof, at all times, for the purpose of exercising the rights herein granted: provided, however, that in making any excavation on said property of the Grantor, the Grantee shall make the same in such a manner as will cause the least injury to the surface of the ground around such excavation, and shall replace the earth so removed by it and restore the surface of the ground to as near the same condition as it was prior to such excavation as is practicable. EXECUTED this day of ,19 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a public body, corporate and politic. By: Its: By: Its: GRANTOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) On , 19 , before me, a Notary Public. personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satist~.ctory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name{s) [ is/are ] subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that [he/she/they] executed the same in [his/her/their] authorized capacityties), 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. Signature of Notary STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ss. On , 19 , before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) [ is/are ] subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that [he/she/they] executed the same in [his/her/their] authorized capacity(ies), and that by [ his/her/their ] signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary (9859-0173-04-03) ITEM 2 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Members John Meyer, Housing and Redevelopment Manager~,~ May 25, 1999 Granting of an Easement for Rancho Califomia Water District RECOMMENDATION: That the Redevelopment Agency adopts a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99--- A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA GRANTING AN EASEMENT FOR WATER PIPELINES AND RELATED APPURTENANCES FACILITATING INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS RELATING TO THE MISSION VILLAGE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT. BACKGROUND: The Redevelopment Agency has partnered with the Affirmed Housing Group to rehabilitate 38 existing apartment units and develop 38 new units. All 76 units will remain affordable for 30 years. The attached documents are for water pipelines and related appurtenances for the Mission Village project along the westerly side of Pujol, south of Sixth Street. This easement needs to be granted by the Agency and recorded to fadlitate construction activities for the project. On March 23, 1999, the Redevelopment Agency approved a Resolution granting an easement for the Rancho California Water District. Since that time, the location of the easement has been changed, making it necessary to approve an additional resolution. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 99- 2. Exhibit"A" 3. Exhibit"B" 4. Grant of Easement R:\PROJECTS\GRANTEASEMENT.doc ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 99~ A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA GRANTING AN EASEMENT FOR WATER PIPELINES AND RELATED APPURTENANCES FACILITATING INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS RELATING TO THE MISSION VILLAGE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, The legal description for the easement is set forth and depicted in Exhibit "A" attached hereto; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula grants an Easement for water pipelines and appurtenances purposes, substantially the for attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B", for the purposes stated therein. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting on the 25th day of May 1999. Karel F. Lindemans, Chairperson ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSDIE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) R:~PROJECTS\RESOLUTIONGRANTEASEMENT.doc I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk/Agency Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 99- was duly and regularly adopted by the Agency Members of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 25th day of May 1999, by the following vote: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/Agency Secretary R:~ROJECTS\RESOLUTIONGRANTEASEMENT.doc ATTACHMENT 2 EXHIBIT "A" BEING A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN CERTIFICATE OF PARCEL MERGER NO. 98-0422 APPROVED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLAiVNING DEPARTMENT ON 3-10-99 AND RECORDED 3-11-99 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 099980 RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF SIXTH STREET AND PUJOL STREET AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 74 PAGE 86 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY IN THE RECORDER'S OFFICE OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE, ON THE CENTERLINE OF SIXTH STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP, SOUTH 45°31'15'' EAST, 405.83 FEET; THENCE, LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE, SOUTH 44°28'45'' WEST, 30.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID PUJOL STREET, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUR POINT OF ~RGINNING; THENCE, ON SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 45°31'15" EAST, 28.00 FEET; THENCE, LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, SOUTH 44°28'45'' WEST, 8.00 FEET; THENCE, PARALLEL WITH SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, NORTH 45°31'15" WEST, 28.00 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 44028'45'' EAST, 8.00 FEET TO THE TRUR POINT OF ~GINNING. PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: JAMES A. DRENON, JR. , P.L.S. 6153 EXPIRES 3/31/02 DATE ATTACHMENT 3 EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE T I >< PUJOL N 45'31 '15" 405.83' STREET (60.0' R.O.W.) W CENTERLINE OF R.O.W. LL.I PARCEL MERGER INST. NO. 099980 REC'D. ,3-11-99 10 20 40 I I Inch = 20 Feet ,~a,t%LAND 3. .~s 2 / 5//,~/.~ :~ DISTRICT SUB~CT: WATER EASEMENT FOR RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER THIS PLAT IS SOLELY AN AID IN LOCATING THE PARCEL(S) DESCRIBED IN THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT, IT IS NOT A PART OF THE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION THEREIN, sc~: A PORTION OF AND OF MAP BOOK __~ PAGES__ TO __ MISSION VII.I.&GE APARTMENTS CITY Of TEMECULA P.A. 98-0209 1'= 20.0' DRAGON' BY: FCR/CAD DATE: 09/04/98 CHECKED BY: JAD SHEET 1 OF 1 SHMF, T(S: W.O.# 329-1 Recording Requested by RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT After Recordation Return to: Rancho California Water District 42135 Winchester Road Post Office Box 9017 Temecula, CA 92589-9017 GRANT OF EASEMENT ATTACHMENT 4 Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY hereby GRANT(S) to the RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT, a public corporation, a perpetual non-exclusive easement and right of way for pipeline or pipelines, together with incidental appurtenances, connections and structures in, over, under, upon, along, through and across the real property situated in THE CITY OF TEIvlECXJI_~in the County of Riverside. State of Califomia. hereinafter described. EXHIBITS A & B HEREBY ATTACHED AND MADE A PART HEREOF. Together with the right to grade and improve said right of way and to enter upon and to pass and repass over and along said strip of land for the construction, operation and maintenance of the facilities to be constructed in said easements by the RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT. It is understood and agreed that the easements and rights of way acquired herein are subject to the right of the owner. his successors and assigns, to use the surface of the land within the boundary lines of said easements and rights of way to the extent that such use is compatible with the full and free exercise of said easements and rights of way by the RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT; provided; however, that no fences, block walls, or other structures or other improvements shall be constructed upon, over, and along said easements and rights of way without first obtaining the written consent of the RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT. No fill or paving of any natore shall be placed or maintained over the surface of the ground, nor shall any earth be removed from the cover of said pipeline after construction, without first obtaining the written approval of the RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been executed this day of CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE The undersigned, being the duly appointed agent of RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT, a public corporation, Riverside County, California, pursuant to its Resolution No. 22, as mended by Resolution No. 196, does hereby accept on behalf of said District the grant of all interests in real estate for public purposes as described in the attached Grant of Easement dated ,19 , by and between the RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRiCT, and and does hereby certify that the Grantee consents to the recordation of said Grant. RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT DATED: , 19 By: General Manager "District" ITEM 3 DIRECTOR OF FI CE ,~. CITY MANAGER,~ z- TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Executive Director/Agency Members ~.~ John Meyer, Housing and Redevelopment Manager May 25, 1999 Revision of the Facade Improvement Program Prepared By: Joyce Powers, Senior Redevelopment Analyst RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve an additional $15,000 grant option to the Facade Improvement Program available only for required seismic and foundation repairs, and fire safety requirements. 2. Approve the recommended revised financing structure. BACKGROUND: The Facade Improvement Program was originally approved in April 1995 as rebate program to facilitate rehabilitation and enhance the western theme in the Tourist Retail Core in Old Town. The rebate amount was calculated as a percentage of the eligible project costs and ranged from 30% to 50%, up to a maximum of $10,000 per applicant. Revisions have been made to the financing structure, which have increased available assistance per applicant to encourage more merchant participation. The maximum level of assistance has since been increased by another $10,000, but for a few projects involving extensive structural seismic modifications and fire sprinklers, $20,000 has proven to be inadequate. Therefore, an additional $15,000 grant is proposed for the more extensive rehabilitation. This incentive will pursue City and Agency goals to preserve historic and other aged structures in Old Town. The estimated cost to install fire sprinklers in a 6,000 square feet building at $2.25 per square foot is $13,500; in some cases, the roof must also be reinforced to withstand the extra weight. In addition, seismic modifications for historic buildings frequently require repair of the deteriorating or inadequate foundation. The expenses often discourage owners from reoccupying commercial property that is standing vacant. After surveying the area, staff estimates that approximately 3-5 structures would be eligible for the additional assistance. For four grants, the cost would be $60,000. R:powersj\fac,,ade~staffrpt 5-25-99 1 The current financing structure of the Facade Improvement Program, which expires on June 30, 1999, offers: an initial grant of up to $5,000; · a $5, 000 forgivable loan if project costs exceed the grant amount; · for projects over $10,000, a rebate ranging from 30% to 50%, depending on project costs (maximum rebate amount is $10,000); and · a prime rate loan from a minimum of $10,000 to $50,000, provided the applicant has been declined by a SBA approved lender and has sufficient collateral to repay the loan. To streamline the financing structure and eliminate document processing required for the forgivable loan, staff recommends the following: · an initial grant of up to $5,000; · up to an additional $15,000 grant only for seismic modifications, foundation repairs, and required fire safety improvements; and, · a 50% matching rebate of eligible costs up to a program maximum of $15,000 in RDA rebate funds ($30,000 in actual costs). For a project not eligible for the second specialized grant option, assistance of up to $20,000 would be available, depending on the valuation of eligible improvements. The applicant would first apply for the $5,000 grant, and would then be eligible for a 50% rebate of costs over $5,000 up to a $15,000 rebate. If the project were also eligible for the additional $15,000 grant for seismic and fire safety improvements, the maximum assistance would be $35,000. For more extensive projects beyond the intent of the FaCade Improvement Program, the Agency may consider a low-interest loan on an individual basis. If outside the Program Parameters, the project will be submitted to the Agency Board for approval. The Agency's goals are to encourage private investment in the area as well as preserve older structures and enhance the area's western theme. The recommended revised Facade Improvement Program parameters are attached. FISCAL IMPACT: The FY1998-99 budget for the Fa(~ade Improvement Program currently contains $37,000 (account number 280 99 813 5804). The FY 1999-2000 budget is proposed to be $300,000. ATTACHMENT: Revised Facade Improvement Program Parameters R:powersj\fa~,ade~staffrpt 5-25-99 2 REVISED PROGRAM PARAMETERS FACADE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CITY OF TEM ECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OLD TOWN FACADE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Improving and upgrading building facades within Old Town's Tourist Retail Core is one of the important goals of the Redevelopment Agency· The Redevelopment Agency is offering this Old Town Facade Improvement Program as an incentive to participating businesses to rehabilitate existing non- residential buildings in need of external and internal rehabilitation work and to bring structures up to existing building and safety codes. The Program is designed to bring new life to existing buildings in the Tourist Retail Core which do not conform to the "Old West" design theme as specified in the City's Old Town Specific Plan. By assisting property owners to upgrade the appearance and safety of their buildings, the aesthetic environment of Old Town is further authenticated, thus improving the economic climate for all merchants and the City as a whole. The Redevelopment Agency offers financial assistance to property owners and tenants in the Old Town area in the form of grants and rebates, thereby making rehabilitation both affordable and desirable to participating businesses. Financing options are discussed in the Financial Assistance section. TARGET PROJECTS The following are "target projects" that the Facade Improvement Program is designed to assist in order to upgrade the project area: 2. 3. 4. Buildings with seismic deficiencies or other Temecula City Code violations including but not limited to Fire, Safety, Planning, and Building Codes; Buildings in need of facade renovation (including rear treatments); Businesses in need of bringing existing signage into conformance with current code requirements; and Businesses located in the Tourist Retail Core district. PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY In order to meet the requirements for project funding under the California Community Redevelopment Law, to comply with health and safety elements and requirements, and to leverage available funds to the greatest extent possible, the following eligibility criteria have been established: 2. 3. 4. The building shall be located in the Old Town Specified Plan area. Participants must bring non-conforming uses and non-conforming signage into compliance with current applicable City and Agency requirements. The rehabilitation work must be consistent with the Old Town Specific Plan Design Guidelines in effect at the time of application. The rehabilitation work must meet all appropriate City Codes, Ordinances and Standards. ELIGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS The following construction, rehabilitation, and project activities are eligible for funding Painting of entire building (all painted surfaces are required to be repainted); Awnings, marquees, parapet walls, doors, windows, arcade/canopy facade and display window lighting, signs; Removal of non-conforming signs; Tile and pavement between door and sidewalk; Corrections of conditions necessary to bring structures and/or signage into conformance with City Codes and Ordinances including but not limited to Fire, Americans with Disability Act (ADA), Planning, Building Codes, and seismic standards; and, Other similar facade improvements as approved by the City. INELIGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS/RESTRICTIONS The following construction, rehabilitation, and/or project activities are not eligible for funding: Routine maintenance such as landscaping; All interior improvements, except display lighting; General structural upgrade improvements not required by Building, ADA, and Fire Codes and/or City Codes; New construction; No existing work or completed improvements; Any projects not specifically reviewed and approved by the Agency in conjunction with the Program; Trade fixtures and equipment; Restroom additions or modifications required due to change in occupancy. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS Below are the Facade Improvement Program requirements. These requirements are subject to change without notice. Additionally, project funding is subject to availability of program funds. All improvements must be approved in advance by the Planning Department, OTLRB, and as required, the Planning Commission. Applicants must submit two written bids from licensed contractors. Applicants of multiple businesses within a building are encouraged to work together to receive one set of bids for the entire building. All work must be completed by contractors licensed by the State of California. The applicant is responsible for selecting a contractor, and executing agreements. No work is to begin until after the Agreement is signed by the City, property owner, and business owner· A Facade Improvement Program sign will be displayed either on the exterior or in a front window of the building, from the date of the application approval until 30 days after completion of all improvements, After the completion of the project the applicant shall submit to the City a statement indicating his/her satisfaction with the work performed by the contractor prior to releasing the funds to the contractor. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE The Agency will offer financial assistance in the form of grants and/or rebates, thereby making rehabilitation both affordable and desirable to participating businesses in the project area. The following options are available and may be combined: Initial Grant An initial grant of up to $5,000 per applicant is available for eligible improvements. Supplemental Grant for required seismic, foundation, and fire safety improvements The property owner may apply for an additional grant of up to $15,000 to correct seismic and foundation deficiencies confirmed by the Building Department and for fire sprinklers and fire walls required by the Uniform Fire Code. 2 Rebate The Participants may request a 50% matching rebate of eligible costs up to 815,0OO in RDA rebate funds (830,OOO in actual costs). The amount of the rebate available to the applicant is calculated on a linear foot basis of 81OO. Linear feet shall be those of the individual business front facade for a merchant applicant. For a property owner applicant improving the entire building, linear feet shall be the front facade of the building, including any second floor business facade, up to a maximum of 150 linear feet. The rebate received may not exceed the eligible facade linear feet multiplied by 81OO or 81 5,000, whichever is lower. Before construction begins, the applicant must deposit private funds with the Finance Department to cover any costs which will not be paid from Facade Improvement Program funds to ensure completion of the project. When the project is completed and finaled by the Building Department, the applicant must provide the Agency copies of all work receipts and invoices. If all work is complete and satisfactory, the Agency will issue a Certificate of Completion for the project and release the appropriate funds. Progress payments may be approved for projects over 85,000. Once the funds have been issued, applicants commit to properly maintain the improvements and keep storefronts clean and free from graffiti. If an applicant fails to meet the terms and conditions as outlined in the Agreement, all assistance will be due and payable within 60 days of notification. R:jpowers\facade\disclosure ITEM 4 APPROVj~~~:~ CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FIN CITY MANAGER TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: Executive Director/Agency Members John Meyer, Housing and Redevelopment Manager DATE: May 25, 1999 SUBJECT: Revision of the Residential Improvement Program, the First Time Homebuyer Program, and the Employee Relocation Program Prepared By: Joyce Powers, Senior Redevelopment Analyst RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors: 1. Approve the attached revised Program Parameters for the Residential Improvement Program. 2. Approve the attached revised Program Parameters for the First Time Homebuyer Program. 3. Approve the attached revised Program Parameters for the Employee Relocation Program. BACKGROUND: Residential Improvement Program On September 4, 1996, the Redevelopment Agency approved the Residential Improvement Program to assist low to moderate income property owners with rehabilitation of their home. The program goals are to preserve the supply of affordable housing and eliminate blight. Three components for improving owner-occupied homes comprise the existing Residential Improvement Program: · The Senior Housing Repair Program, which is a grant of up to $3,000 available to seniors with household incomes up to 120% of the median; · The Single-Family Emergency Grant Program, which is a grant of up to $2,500 available to households with incomes up to 80% of median for correction of code violations; and · The Single-Family Paint and Fence Repair Loan Program, which is a forgivable loan of up to $5,000 for families earning up to 80% of median income for exterior improvements. The interest rate on the loan is the prime rate at the time of closing. R:powersj\staff reports\res improv-FTHB 5-99 1 Assistance is now available only in the selected assigned neighborhoods of Old Town, La Serena, Winchester Creek, and for all condominiums. Originally, efforts were focused on those neighborhoods appearing to be the most in need. Staff recommends that the program be expanded to the entire city to facilitate preservation of all affordable housing exhibiting signs of aging and deferred maintenance. Redevelopment Agency Housing Funds may be used outside of the project area for this purpose. The attached Revised Program Parameters combine the single-family emergency grant and the paint and fence repair loan as the Home Improvement Loan with a program maximum of $5,000. The loan will remain forgivable in five years if the borrower continues to own and occupy the home. The increase of the eligible income to 100% of median is recommended to assist more families, thereby expanding preservation efforts. First Time Homebuyer Program The First Time Homebuyer Program, adopted in June 1996, has since added 50 new affordable single-family residences to the city's housing stock. The Program offers second trust deed mortgages of up to $24,000 to households earning median income and below. The following recommendations improve the loans terms, making the monthly payments more affordable. Currently, the loan has a 20-year term. Payments are deferred for the first 5 years and then convert to amortized or interest only payments over the remaining 15 years. If the home purchased is located in the assigned neighborhoods of Old Town, La Serena, or Winchester Creek, interest only payments are collected in years 6 through 20. The loan is then forgiven at the 20-year maturity date, unless it has been sold sooner, in which case the loan would have been repaid. For homes purchased elsewhere in the city, the payments are fully amortized, and there is no forgiveness. The attached Revised Program Parameters create one set of loan terms regardless of the home's location, as long as the borrower's income does not exceed the area median. In addition, the loan term is extended to 30 years so the amortized monthly payments are not a significant hardship when they commence in year six. The 30-year loan with the first five years payment-deferred are the terms adopted for the Employee Relocation Program. The current loan terms also include an interest rate at prime at the time of closing. Because the prime rate (now about 7.75% - 8%) exceeds the market interest rate for a conventional or FHA first mortgage, participating lenders have difficulty obtaining approval for our program in the secondary mortgage market. Therefore, staff recommends reducing the rate to 5%. Not only will the monthly payments be more affordable, it will help more lower income borrowers purchase a home by expanding their first mortgage opportunities. These recommended changes would reduce the monthly payment for a $24,000 first time homebuyer loan from $225 to $140. Employee Relocation Program The Employee Relocation Program was approved in January 1999 as an Economic Development incentive. It offers a downpayment assistance loan of up to $15,000 to families employed by a company approved for program participation because it has relocated to Temecula or expaned in the City. Staff recommends reducing the interest rate on the loan from the prime rate to 5% so the monthly payments are more affordable. R:powersj~staff reports\res improv-FTHB 5-99 2 FISCAL IMPACT: The Home Improvement Program is funded by the Redevelopment Agency's Low to Moderate Income Housing Setaside Fund. The FY 1998-99 budget currently contains $76,000 (account number 165-199-813-5804). The proposed budget for FY 1999-2000 is $200,000. The First Time Homebuyer Program is funded by the Agency's Low to Moderate Income Housing Setaside Fund. The FY 1998-99 budget currently contains approximately $196,000 (account number 165-199-999-5449). The proposed budget for FY 1999-2000 is $300,000. The Employee Relocation Program is also funded by the Agency's Low to Moderate Income Housing Setaside Fund. The FY 1998-99 budget currently contains $200,000 (account number 165-199-999-5448). The proposed budget for FY 1999-2000 is $100,000. ATTACHMENTS: Revised Program Parameters for the Residential Improvement Program: The Senior Housing Repair Grant The Home Improvement Loan Revised Program Parameters for the First Time Homebuyer Program Revised Program Parameters for the Employee Relocation Program R:powersj\staff reports~,res improv-FTHB 5-99 3 RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVISED PROGRAM PARAMETERS CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SENIOR HOUSING REPAIR GRANT PROGRAM Property Type: Single-family detached homes, condominium units, townhouses, and manufactured homes Property Location: Within the city limits Maximum Amount: $3,000 grant Requirements: The home must be owned and occupied by the senior applicant, aged 55 or older, to be eligible. The applicant's annual gross income may not exceed 120% of the area median income. Housing staff will perform a preinspection of all work to be done to determine its eligibility for funding. Eligible repairs include: · Code items · Deterioration of the structure or fencing · Repair or replacement of roofing · HVAC systems, wall heaters, and evaporative coolers · Windows · Plumbing · Electrical Participants must obtain a minimum of two bids from licensed contractors prior to performance of any work or funding approval. For eligible repairs totaling less than $250, no bids will be required. All work must be inspected by housing staff and building inspections, if required, prior to any payment for the work. Payment may be made directly to the approved contractor or to the homeowner as reimbursement. CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HOME IMPROVEMENT LOAN PROGRAM Property Type: Single-family detached homes, condominium units, townhouses, and manufactured homes Property Location: Within the city limits Maximum Amount: $5,000 loan Loan Terms: A 5-year term at 5% interest. The loan is forgiven on the maturity date if the terms have not been breached. If title to the property is transferred, the borrower ceases to occupy the residence, of if the first mortgage is refinanced and cash is taken out, the loan becomes immediately due and payable. Requirements: The home must be owned and occupied by the applicant(s). The applicant's annual gross income may not exceed the area median income. Housing staff will perform a preinspection of all work to be done to determine its eligibility for funding. Eligible repairs include: · Code items · Deterioration of the structure or fencing · Repair or replacement of roofing · HVAC systems, wall heaters, and evaporative coolers · Windows · Plumbing · Electrical · Front yard irrigation Participants must obtain a minimum of two bids from licensed contractors prior to performance of any work or funding approval. All work must be inspected by housing staff and building inspections, if required, prior to any payment for the work. Payment may be made directly to the approved contractor or to the homeowner as reimbursement. FIRST TIME HOMEBUYER PROGRAM REVISED PROGRAM PARAMETERS CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FIRST TIME BUYER PROGRAM The City of Temecula FTHB Program is designed to provide loan assistance to lower income persons in the purchase of their first home. Assistance may be provided for a portion of the down payment and/or closing costs associated with the purchase of a home. The amount of assistance available depends upon the buyer's qualifications and the price of the home. The maximum amount of assistance is twenty percent (20%) of the purchase price plus closing costs, up to a total loan amount of $24,000. Loan Terms: This a 30-year second mortgage loan at 5% interest. The loan is deferred for the first 5 years, then fully amortized in years 6-30. If the borrower transfers title, ceases to occupy the property as his or her principal residence, or refinances with cash taken out, the loan becomes due and payable. To qualify as a first time homebuyer: The purchaser cannot have owned a home for the previous three years from the date of application. The purchaser must sign a sworn application attesting that they have not owned a home. In addition, the last three years tax returns will be reviewed to ascertain that no mortgage interest or real estate tax deductions have been claimed. For the purposes of determining home ownership, a dwelling unit that was not permanently affixed to a permanent foundation (i.e., a mobile home) shall not be included in the three-year requirement. Qualifying incomes: In order to be eligible for this program, the buyer's annual income shall not exceed the area median income, as determined by HUD, adjusted for family size. Income limits are adjusted annually. Other buyer requirements: The buyer must have sufficient income and creditworthiness to qualify for a first mortgage through one of the Participating Lenders. In addition, the buyer must provide a minimum of three percent (3%) of the purchase price as a down payment from their own funds and must accept the highest loan-to-value ratio first loan for which they qualify. Maximum home price: The purchase price of the home is limited only by the applicant's ability to qualify for financing. The purchase price shall not exceed the fair market value indicated by a property appraisal. Eligible properties: The FTHB program may be used to purchase any new or resale home that is: (1) in the City limits; (2) permanently fixed to a permanent foundation; (3) has a minimum of two bedrooms; and, (4) is currently occupied by the Seller or vacant (tenant-occupied homes are not eligible.) The purchaser must reside in the home as his or her principal residence within sixty (60) days of purchase. The home must be in sound condition and meet both Housing Quality Standards as determined by the RDA and applicable Building and Safety standards; it must also be suitable for occupancy upon purchase. Furthermore, the borrower shall agree to maintain the home in good condition for the term of the RDA assistance. The purchaser shall be required to obtain. a one- year home warranty as part of the home purchase. EMPLOYEE RELOCATION PROGRAM REVISED PROGRAM PARAMETERS CITY OF TEMECULA EMPLOYEE RELOCATION PROGRAM The Employee Relocation Program is designed to assist families, with their home purchase, who are moving to the City of Temecula due to relocation of their Employer. The City of Temecula offers a second trust deed loan of up to 10% of the purchase price, but not to exceed $15,000. The City's assistance loan benefits families by providing them with a downpayment for which they do not have to make monthly payments during the first five years. To be eligible, the Applicant must be employed with a company that has been approved by the City of Temecula to participate in the Program. The companies include those that have recently expanded or relocated to the City. In addition, the Applicant's gross annual household income must be below the following limits according to their family size: Household Members Income Limit 1 $39,65O 2 $45,30O 3 $51,000 4 $56,650 5 $61,200 6 $65,700 7 $70,250 8 or more $74,800 *The income limits are 120% of the area median income and are subject to change annually. Loan Terms: This is a 30-year second mortgage loan. Repayment terms are as follows: · For the first 5 years, there are no payments required on the downpayment assistance. · For the remaining 25 years, repayment of the assistance loan, at 5% simple interest, is fully amortized and collected in 300 equal monthly payments. Purchase Price: The purchase price of the home is limited only by the applicant's ability to qualify for financing. Buyer's Investment: The buyer must contribute a minimum of 3% of the purchase price toward the acquisition of their home. Allowable Assets: The buyer's family assets (excluding personal property and funds in restricted retirement accounts) remaining after close of escrow may not exceed a 12 month housing expense (PITI) reserve. Closing Costs: Closing costs may be paid by the downpayment assistance loan as long as total assistance does not exceed $15,000. Eligible Properties: The Program is available for new and resale properties city-wide. Single family homes, condominiums, and townhouses, which are either vacant or owner-occupied, are eligible. The home must be in sound condition and meet Housing Quality Standards as determined by the RDA. Although the homebuyer need not be a first time buyer, the home purchased under this program must be the Recipient's primary residence. Availability of Downpayment Assistance: Program assistance is available to eligible applicants for up to one year after the date of the approved employer's relocation or expansion, as long as program funds are available. First Mortgaqe Lender: Any lender previously approved by the City may participate in the Program. The participating lender must accept the City's loan application concurrently with their application and is responsible for all loan processing. Future Refinancinq: The City will subordinate the assistance loan, second to a new first mortgage, only if no cash is taken out during the refinance transaction. RDA DEPARTMENTAL REPORT APPROVAL .... EXECUTIVE DIRECTO'/~,-~ TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Members John Meyer, Housing & Redevelopment Manager ~ May 25, 1999 Monthly Departmental Report Attached for your information is the monthly report as of May 25, 1999 for the Redevelopment Department. This report covers Housing and Redevelopment. HOUSING First Time Homebuyers Program Funding in the amount of $400,000 is available for FY 98-99. 15 Loans have been closed for $313,760 with 2 loans pending. Residential Improvement Programs For FY 98/99, 37 projects have been completed and 12 are in process. The program budget is $200,000 and $141,649.64 has been funded. The majority of these projects are roof repairs, repainting and fence replacement. Loan Management The Department has contracted with a loan management company for long-term collection and management of the Agency's portfolio of Residential Improvement and First Time Homebuyer loans. Affordable Rental Housing Projects Agency staff has the responsibility for monitoring all projects obtaining Agency assistance to \\TEMEC FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\REDEV\SYERSK\MONTHLLY\REPORT.MAY.doc rehabilitate existing affordable rental housing as well as new construction. After completion, annual reporting is required to ensure all tenants continue to meet income criteria outlined in the Project Regulatory Agreement and that all rents charged are within established affordable limits. Review of a 30-unit project, Rancho Creek Apartments, has been completed and the project is in compliance with affordability covenants. North Pujol Redevelopment Project Rehabilitation of 38 distressed affordable housing units is underway, and construction of 38 new units has begun. All units will be occupied by very low and low-income families. OLD TOWN Old Town Streetscape Improvement Projects The Streetscape improvement project is complete. The sound system is operational and the gateway arches and flag poles have been installed. The Gateway plaques have been ordered and are scheduled to arrive in a few weeks. Facade Improvement/Non-Conforming Sign Program The following facade improvement/sign projects are completed: · Express Bodicare (new business on Front Street) - New signs only · Musicians Workshop (Mercedes) - New handicap parking and restroom facilities, new front windows and front entry door The following facade improvements are underway: · Second Street Automotive (Second and Mercedes) - Complete Facade Renovation · Rancon Building (Front Street) - Repaint Trim · Kreigers General Store (Mercedes) New exterior facade and handicap restroom facilities · U.S. Land (Front Street) Exterior Paint · Swing Inn (Front Street) - Exterior Paint R:\syersk\monthly\report. May 2 ITEM 17 CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Mn I Gary Thornhill, Deputy City a age May 25, 1999 Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Planning Application No. PA98- 0219 (Conditional Use Permit) - Cox Communications wireless Personal Communications System (PCS), with antennas mounted atop a 60-foot high monopole disguised as an evergreen pine tree ("monopine") at the Rancho California Water 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. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~19pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 5-25-99.doc 1 BACKGROUND: The City Council heard the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on this case on February 9, March 23, and Apdl 13, 1999. At the last headng, the Council directed staff to review the topographic maps with Mr. Shawn Bierle, and to obtain a second opinion from an exped as to an alternate location. Staff contacted Mr. Bierle and received written correspondence on April 23, 1999 along with alternate locations noted on topographic maps. Staff met with the applicant's representative, Mr. Greg Morrison, on April 26, 1999, to determine the feasibility of these sites. Mr. Morrison and the Cox Communications Radio Frequency Engineer studied all the listed sites. Mr. Morrison also contacted the individual property owners involved. The results of his work was submitted on May 5, 1999 by memorandum. At the direction of the Council, staff obtained the services of AEI-CASC Engineering to provide a second opinion regarding the alternate sites. Staff met with Mr. Richard Stephens REA, the Planning Director of AEI-CASC, on May 7, to review the case file, all exhibits and the maps from Mr. Bierle. A follow-up meeting occurred on May 11, to provide additional information, before Mr. Stephens conducted his site visits. AEI-CASC issued their opinion on May 13, 1999. ANALYSIS: The AEI-CASC report is attached, along with the Telecommunications Bio for Mr. Stephens. In summary, the report concludes that the proposed site and project is the best alternative in both location and design. A co-location approach with the existing Pacific Bell monopole at the proposed site was considered. However, the existing monopole is not constructed for co-location and a new monopole would necessarily require the construction of a pole higher than the 60-foot pole proposed by Cox, and the cooperation of Pacific Bell to agree to co-location. With approvals already granted, it is unlikely that Pac Bell would share in the cost or risk interruption of service. Furthermore, there was testimony from adjacent residents on Merlot Crest that they would not support this option either. AEI-CASC indicated that Cox could rework their network configuration to avoid the proposed site. However, that would require poles at more than one site. The proposed "triangle" would be replaced by a "rectangle" or other polygon network and impact more sites. This alternative would be inefficient, costly, and promote the proliferation of poles. AEI-CASC made findings similar to those recommended to the Commission and Council by Planning Department staff. Tree SDecies The Council expressed some concern about the Italian Stone Pines as the species of choice to camouflage the monopole. In July of 1998, during the redesign phase of this project, staff worked closely with the applicant's representative as well as the City's Landscape Architect, to select a tree suitable for the area, the availability of the species at nearby nurseries at the size that will provide instant camouflage, its ability to withstand transport and harsh conditions, and the ability of Cox to manufacture simulated limbs. Considering all these factors staff requested the applicant to use the Italian Stone Pine. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~19pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 5-25-99.doc 2 FISCAL IMPACT: Negligible, either with or without the project. SPECIFIC ACTION: The Planning Department recommends the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the approval of Planning Application No. PA98-0219. 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 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:\STAFFRPT~219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 5-25-99.doc 3 Attachments: 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. City Council Resolution No. 99- - Page 5 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Page 9 Correspondence dated April 23, 1999 from Shawn Bierle - Page 13 Correspondence dated May 5, 1999 from Greg Morrison - Page 14 AEI-CASC Report dated May 13, 1999- Page 15 AEI-CASC Telecommunications Bio- Page 16 Minutes of the City Council hearing of February 9, 1999 - Page 17 Staff Report to the City Council dated February 9, 1999 - Page 18 Minutes of the City Council hearing of March 23, 1999 - Page 19 Staff Report to the City Council dated March 23, 1999 - Page 20 Minutes of the City Council hearing of April 13, 1999 - Page 21 Staff Report to the City Council dated April 13, 1999 - Page 22 R:\STAFFRP'I'~I 9pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 5-25-99.doc 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 99- \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 5-25-99.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 public headngs pertaining to Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit- Appeal) on February 9, 1999, April 13, 1999, and May 25, 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: \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~.19pa98,CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 5-25-99,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 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 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 "mortopine." 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. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRP'r~.19pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 5-25-99.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 25th day of May, 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 25th day of May, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNI NG\STAFFRPT~.I 9pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 5-25-99.doc 8 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~19pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 5-25-99.doc 9 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Revised by City Council May 25, 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) 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. Approval Date: Expiration Date: 953-060-022 May 25, 1999 May 25, 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 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 \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNI NG\STAFFRP'T%219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 5-25-99.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. o 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 shall 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 buried underground or hidden in a manner acceptable to the Building Official. 11. The antenna must be adequately grounded, for protection against a direct strike of lightning, with an adequate grounding method approve by the City of Temecula Building Official. 12. Installation must meet wind velocity criteria as set forth in the Uniform Building Code when deemed necessary by the City of Temecula Building official. Prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy: 13. The applicant shall replace any landscaping removed or damaged during the installation of equipment. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~.19pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 5-25-99.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 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 \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~19pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 5-25-99.doc 12 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CORRESPONDENCE DATED APRIL 23, 1999 FROM SHAWN BIERLE \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRP'I'~.19pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 5-25-99.doc 13 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 CORRESPONDENCE DATED MAY 5, 1999 FROM GREG MORRISON \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~I 9pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 5-25-99.doc 14 StoorzaZie aus&Metzger Memorandum Public Relations PublicAffairs Government Relations Stoorza, Ziegaus & Metzger, Inc. Riverside Centre 3403 Tenth Street Suite 810 Riverside, CA 92501 909.781.2240 Fmx 9( 19-781.0845 DATE: May 5, 1999 TO: Carole Donahoe FROM: RE: Greg Morrison PA98-0219 Temecula Monopole Per your request, please find listed below Cox Communications findings from April 30, 1999 for the list of 8 potential sites we identified for potential alternatives for a PCS monopole. In addition to the reasons listed below, Cox is also restricted by the following conditions: A) The FCC limits the amount of energy or strength of signal output from PCS antennas to about 54 decibels, therefore, providing for approximately 3 miles between antennas, B) The technology also requires that each antenna have a "line of site", no signal blockage, in order to commtmicate efficiently and accurately, C) The potential location must be appropriately zoned, and D) Cox must have property owner consent. 1) Site 1647 - This site is too far north of the existing two sites in the City of Temecula and would not provide the coverage area needed for the central and eastern portion of Temecula. The site is also located near French Valley Airport and would present possible height restfictions from the FAA. (not feasible) 2) Site 1284a Site 1284b- These sites are located at Temeku Hills Country Club and would require a 75-85 foot monopole to provide the required coverage, due to the drop in elevation. In addition, we spoke with Temeku Hills representative Wade Hall. Mr. Hall informed us that the Temeku Hills Country Club would not be interested in providing lease space to locate Cox's antenna. (not feasible) 3) Site 1281 - (RCWD water tanks) Due to the drop in elevation and surrounding hilly terrain the monopole would have to be a minimum of 85 feet to provide coverage east Margarita Road. There are also some concems about available space on-site to locate the antenna base and equipment cabinets. z,,la,,a E,,~pire sa, ~'ego Sacramento LosAngeles Carole Donahoe 05/05/99 Page 2 4) Park Site Across from elementary school on La Serena - This site is located at a Park, in which local residents opposed light standards in the park and asked the City to have them removed. This site is also too far north of the Paloma Park site and would not be able to communicate or "hand-off" to the Paloma Park antenna. (not feasible) 5) Site 1887, Crystal Ridge, 1664, and 1469 - These sites are restricted by topography to the east and the distance the signal would have to travel to the other two existing sites in the City is too far. (not feasible) Please provide AEI Casc with a copy of the color coverage map for their use, along with these specific findings. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions. ATTACHMENT NO. 4 AEI-CASC REPORT DATED MAY 13, 1999 \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRP'I'~19pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 5-25-99.doc 15 munications n Temecula Contents Introduction .................................... Location ..........................................1 Background ....................................2 Issues ..............................................4 Alternate Sites ..................................6 Alternate Design .............................9 Findings and Recommendations ... ] 1 Exhibits .........................................14 Wireless Telecommunications Facility Siting and Design Study PA98-021 9 R1-069-C Butter field Introduction The City of Temecula City Council has requested a "second opinion" regarding the siting and design of a proposed wireless telecommunications facility at the Kearney water tank site on 31008 Rancho California Road. The AEI-CASC Companies have been retained by the City to provide technical expertise relevant to this application, alternative sites and design. Personal Communications Servic~ ( PCS} Federal Communications Commission terminology describing intelligent, digital wireless, personal two-way communications systems. A broad range of telecommunications ser~nces that enable people and devices to communicate independent of location. Location .... ....," ' , t General i Kearney Reservoir '1 and ~(/ell # 139 ~ ! t 31 O0 Rancho '~;. .. California Road, Temecula t North of . Rancho California west of Butterfield Stage Road; east of Meadows Parkway; and south of La Serena Way t Riverside County Assessors Parcel Number 953-060-022 Elevation ] 350 msl Thomas Bros map Riverside County page 959, E-4 Coverage Cell Site Higher telecommuni- cations structures covering a larger geographic area, but with a lower service demand. Coverage sites serve to expand coverage in large ar- eas or in areas with difficult terrains and to enhance coverage for portable systems. Coverage sites allow users to make and maintain calls as they travel. Background In the mid 90s Cox Communications PCS (Sprint PCS) began developing their personal communications service (PCS) network in the Inland Empire. This digital wireless telecommunications network requires monopoles or other facilities to be constructed within a few miles of each site to enable service for all areas. Two sites were approved within the City of Temecula (R1-064-C and RI- 060-B), and it was determined that an additional site was required to provide continuous coverage in the northwestern area of the Proposal General Kearney Reservoir Site 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 sixty-five-foot (65') high monopole disguised as an evergreen pine tree ("monopine"). History The project was submitted on May 20, 1998. On June I 0, i 998, the applicant's representative met with staff and members of the Chardonnay Hills Homeowner's Association at the project site. For the next three months TDI and staff worked together to research alternative locations and monopole heights. On October 14, 1998 TDI presented a creative solution to address the concerns of the adjacent homeowners, by lowering the antennas on the monopole height to sixty feet (60'), 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 May 1999 2 tract located to the south of the project site testified to voice concerns regarding the emission of electromagnetic fields IEMF) from the Cox equipment. They protested the time of the hearing because it was conducted when residents work, and requested a continuance in order to investigate the project. The Planning Director concurred with the request for a continuance and asked staff to schedule the item on a Planning Commission agenda in order to provide a more convenient public hearing at 6 P.M. Staff advertised this case for the Planning Commission's December 16, 1998 hearing. On December 16, 1998 the Planning Commission heard testimony from the appl!cant's representatives including Dr. Jerrold T. Bushberg. The Commission also received testimony and a petition in opposition from adjacent homeowners on Merlot Crest. The Commission continued the case to January 6, 1999 and asked the applicant's representatives to consider alternative sites and to provide copies of the selection reports that determined the proposed site. The Commission also asked the City Attorney to provide information on case law involving cellular facilities and the regulations that specify or limit the Commission's action. 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. 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 in two letters (attached). With regards to an alternate design for the project, the applicant proposes to enhance the mortopine with additional stealthing options: 1) To install three Italian Stone Pine trees 48" box-sized rather than 36" box for faster growth 2) To install additional Italian Stone Pine trees on the propertys south slope as an additional buffer between the site and the residential properties on Merlot Crest. (See attached City of Temecula Community Department Case Processing Flow Chart) Chronology 5/20/98 Minor Conditional Use Permit application filed by Cox Communications PCS (RI069-C) Rancho California Water District letter of intent On-site visit with City Planning Staff and Chardonnay Hills Homeowners Association representatives 10/14/98 Submittal of Redesign 11/I 2/98 Director of Planning hearing 12/I 6/98 Planning Commission continued (Dr. Jerrold T. Bushberg testimony regarding radio frequency emissions) Planning Commission approval Appeal to City Council Notice of Exemption filed "Not identified as an obstruction" by Federal Aviation Administration (98-AWP-2425-C)E) City Council continued City Council continued City Council continued City Council Hearing 6/9/98 6/10/98 1/6/99 1/12/99 1/21/99 2/5/99 2/9/99 3/23/99 4/13/99 5/25/99 Facilities Siting Limitations The following section provides excerpts from the Telecommunications Act of 1996 regarding facilities Siting limitations: § 704 Facilities Siting; Radio Frequency Emission Standards a/National Wireless Telecommunications Siting Policy '[B]' Limitations 't~lJ The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by an State or local government or instrumentality thereof- '71J shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services,' and "l'llJ shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the 14 May 1999 4 provision of personal wireless services. 'TiiJ a State or local government or instrumentaliCy thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modi(y personal wireless service facilz~ies within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request. '7iii) Any decision by a State of local government or instrumentaliCy thereof to deny a request to p/ace, construct, or modi(y personal wi~'eless service facilities shaft be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. '7iv/No State or local government or instrumentaliCy 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 Commission ~ regulations concerning such emissions. 7v) Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentaliCy thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentaliCy thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the Commission for relief Issues Location The proposed facility is located at an existing Rancho California Water District water tank site. The site currently has two water tanks and a Pacific Bell Mobile Services monopole. The site is elevated above the surrounding area, and there are no significant geographical features. There is no mature vegetation onsite and no known rare, threatened, or endangered species. To allow for water tanks and related facilities, the site is zoned "Public Institutional" (PI). The proposed Cox PCS faciliCy is permitted by Conditional Use Permit in this zone. The General Plan encourages the clustering of public and institutional facilities to the extent E I' C A S ( 4 May 1999 5 "%:"-'<ti:~:!~:'~::' :;~:-~i'~.~ t':7':""~7::'''''''~:' 'C!~2% :::"...:. ::' .!::':. non-residential '..-'.,:,t""%:,Z;~:j:L,:~:~:::~.~:.:.:.:'-'::;-~i"'Site ?'::' '..: :. ~z '::', .:;:: Radio ':... ';. *'~"-~": 7'"'~:':.:,.Z,:, ,.: L'~j. ~L~': L: ~::'.;~,..",..;~':".':' (~'.'{';"'~:~ Frequency · ,~"2t, ',"" "" :'~"~' ~::;:~:~:, ~'::-.:'~J :':~" ;~ -: ~; "' :-::; :,,4,,': ~, ,;~ Radiation ::'<~':": '.;; .... ' · , ,F:' ~>~':.-.:'::~';" ,.'F:',L:"7(' of local residents ..,, ..... . "" :. '~:z'2. ~' .,.'~.' ~.~::j'~:. ':-2~'z'*'' :'- ". ~.' ~':. is the perceived ...... :.{, ,: ?,-';"-; ,,". :: "· 7~,~- -' y.':~,.health threat -:~,~::'-'~;~.~.~;":"'"~.~:7'~~:~ exposure to radio ffequen~ emissions (pa~icularly electromagnetic fields - EMF) generated by wireless telecommunication facilities. The Federal Communications Commission (FEE) has determined that local governments may not regulate facilities based on this concern. (See above excerpts from the Telecommunications Act of 1996 regarding facilities siting). Structural Integrity The equipment is proposed to be located over ~t00 feet from the nearest residence on Merlot Crest Drive and approximately i, I O0 feet from the nearest residence in the Chardonnay Hills subdivision to the north. Based on distance to existing residences and tower height, there is minimal risk of property damage or injury resulting from antenna structure failure. Aircraft Obstruction The proposed facility has received Federal Aviation Administration clearance for this site. (Aeronautical Study No. 98-AWP-2425-0E) Attractive Nuisance The proposed facility is surrounded by/>foot high chain link fence topped with an additional 1-foot of barbed wire. Antenna Siting Criteria In order for a v, qreless facility to be acceptable for a provider, the following criteria must be met by a potential site candidate: 1 ) An antenna must have "line-of-site" to adjacent wireless facilities to ensure seamless, reliable coverage for customers; 2) The proposed location must comply with local zoning requirements; 3) A property owner's consent; 4) The facility needs to be located within the area it will cover. Sprint PCS Aesthetics Visual ;,npacts The proposed site has several significant visual obstructions including two water tanks and a PCS monopole. The water tanks have not been screened by landscaping or berms. The slopes around the water tanks are manufactured and currently being landscaped. The PacBell monopole is the more aesthetic "flower tower," but is not a stealth design. Design Cox Communications proposes a "stealth" antenna structure disguised as a pine tree. These "monopines" have artificial branches and needles attached to a monopole. To enhance this effect, three (3) Italian stone pinetrees are proposed at the base of the structure as well as three (3) on the south side of the property to help screen the base station and monopole. The proposed surrounding chain link fence would have vinyl slats inserted with the same color (beige) as the water tank. Height The proposed antenna structure is a sixty-five feet (65') high. The antenna array is at sixty feet [60'), and there is an additional five feet (S') of artificial tree branches. The existing antenna structure is a fifty foot (50') PCS "flower tower" for Pacific Bell Mobile Services. The adjacent water tank is thirty feet, six inches (30' 6") high. Cox Communications has requested this height to provide optimum coverage for the areas currently not served by their existing facilities. Their Radio Frequency Engineers have determined that reducing the antenna height will result in areas where there will be "dropped calls"--no service. (The attachec~ exhibit shows the area of coverage with the t~vo existing facilities.) Alternative Sites This report studies eleven {11 ) alternative sites as directed by the City Council and Staff. Each site was evaluated for physical opportunities and constraints, zoning, compatibility, and radio frequency [RF) criteria. This mirrors the PCS carrier site selection criteria: There are very specific guidelines used in selecting a monopole site, the most critical of which are zoning approval property owner approval and testing for optimum radio frequency i'RFJ signal communication with other existing antennas which requires Co-location 1) Siting multiple antenna structures within the same local area. Also called ' 'antenna farms.' 2) Multiple antennas attached to an existing or proposed fleestanding antenna structure. Also called donor sites and "piggy-backing'. 3) Roof-mounted antenna (RMA) attached to the top of a building or other structure. 4) FaCade-mount in which the antenna is attached to (an) exterior wall(s) of a building or other structure. S) Enclosed in which the antenna facility is entirely contained within a building primarily occupied by another permitted use. Types 3, 4, & S are tenant improvements (TI). distance of three ': :' :',':'Z. ~.,L~:i=:-:~/:':::'::-~. miles (3 mi} - .5. ' ........ [.... :.'%-- -; bea/veen '~'~~L'%',,,-""' ~,;, antennas. D, Inc. ' 0 ~vi~ , . .::' ...'-". %-'. L.-,_ ~.':~ o ~o .. '' .....:-': -. :..' :'.::'.2~%'. ,,;. It is neither ~.;...', . :_ ..,~ ,.~': '-% .-,~, practical nor ,~~,_.: desirable to - ~~ grelocating the existing sites. i C~ of Tem~ulo S~rch Ring(s). Some alternatives consider Coun~ sites, but the provision of seNices is designed for the Ci~ seNice, and optimum siting would be within the coverage area. i Coveroge C~I Sit~. ~ alternative to larger coverage cell sites, would be a more intensive ne~ork of small cell sites. Increasing the number of antenna stru~ures would ~ more visually obtrusive to the communi~. The following alternative sites have been reviewed by TDI and AEleCASC. In general, we concur with TDrs evaluation of site feasibility based on the above criteria. As PCS usage increases, these coverage cell sites may not be able to handle the volume of calls. At this time additional capacity cell sites may be required. The results of this study may be used to identify potential candidate sites if and when this need arises. Mobile Home Property 41280 Berkswell Lane, Temecula Low Medium Density Residential In addition to zoning restrictions, research by FFDI] 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. TDI, Calloway Winery 32720 Rancho California Road, Riverside County '--' ~. E I-C A S ~ o.',"'~"','~' '14 May 1999 8 Property owner indicated that they were not interested in Ifacilities sitingl, as it would require them to enter into a long-term lease and interfere with current property improvements. TD/, Inc Norma Marshall Reservoir Site Norma Marshall Reservoir Site Margarita Road, Temecula Public Institutional (PI) Due to the drop in elevation and surrounding hilly terrain the monopole would have to be a minimum of 85 feet to provide coverage east of Margarita Road. There are also some concerns about available space on-site to locate the antenna base and equipment cabinets. TD/ This is an existing water tank site north of Rancho Vista Road; south of Rancho California Road; and east of Margarita Road. The site is within the Public Institutional IPI) zone. There is very little space to construct a monopole and BTS unit, but fa~;ademounted antenna panels could be accommodated. However, at 1281 elevation, this site does not have adequate "line of sight" to the north, south or east. The proposed location is about seventy feet ~+70') higher at 1350. Concealed Antennas Also called disguised, camouflaged, 'stealth' antennas, etc. These antennas are blended into the environment so as not to be seen or recognized. They include architecturally screened roof- mounted antenna, faCade-mounted antenna as design features, 'tree" poles which may appear to be palms or pines, clock towers, entry statement signage, and other types of concealment. Thornton Winery 32575 Rancho California Road, Riverside County The property owner was willing to discuss possible options for locating on the property. However after further research by [TDI] 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. TD/, Inc. Mount Palomar Winery 33820 Rancho California Road, Riverside County The property owner was willing to discuss possible options for location on the property, however after further research by [TDI] 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. TDI, Inc. Crystal Ridge, Santa Rosa Mountain Sites [3] Rural Residential, Riverside County These sites are restricted by topography to the east and the distance the signal would have to travel to the other two existing sites in the City is too far. TD/ These sites are vanous hilltops in unincorporated land southeast of the City in the Santa Rosa Mountains. The peaks elevations are, from northwest to southeast: 1887, 1664, and 1469. Although these sites might be able to serve the Old Town and central business district, their radius coverage of approximately three miles 1+_3 mil would not be sufficient to serve areas to the northeast. [The PCS telecommunications network requires facilities within approximatly every three miles.] Skunk Hollow Peak (Site 1647) Rural Residential, Riverside County May 1999 9 This site is too far north of the existing two s~tes in the City of Temecuia and would not provide the coverage area needed for the central and eastern portion of Temecula. The site is also located near French Valley Airport and would present possible height restrictions from the FAA. TD/ This site is a ] 647 elevation hilltop approximately one half mile north of the City and one half mile west of Skunk Hollow. This site exceeds the maximum three- mile distance necessary to complete the network with the existing southwest facility. An additional site would be required w~thin or near the existing search ring. Temeku Hills Country Club/Golf Course Rancho California Road, Temecula Margarita Village Specific Plan These sites are located at Temeku Hills Country Club and would require a 75-85 foot monopole to provide the required coverage, due to the drop in elevation. In addition, [TDI] spoke with Temeku Hills representative Wade hall. Mr. Hall informed us that the Temeku Hills Country Club would not be interested in providing lease space to locate Cox's antenna. TD/ This site is on a 1284 elevation hilltop in the Temeku Specific Plan master- planned community north of Rancho California Road; south of La Serena Way; west of Temeku Drive. This site does not have adequate "line of sight" to the north, south or east. [The Temeku Golf Course location is about seventy feet 1_+70') below the proposed site (1350). La Serena Park Site La Serena Way, Temecula Open Space This site is located at a park, in which local residents opposed light standards in the park and asked the City to have them removed. This site is also too far north of the Paloma Park site and would not be able to communicate or "hand-off' to the Paloma Park antenna. TDI Alternative Design General Kearny Reservoir Co-location 31008 Rancho California Road The proposed location offers the best system coverage and signal communication with existing antennas 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. Antenna Structure Co-location The Pacific Bell Mobile Ser~nces monopole has a "flower tower" design with arched panel arms and a tapered pole. This design typically does not Proposed Design TDI accommodate co4ocation. An alternate is to replace the PacBell monopole with a larger antenna structure which would accommodate both carriers. 14 May 1999 10 Surface Treatment Visual obtrusiveness cc, n be minimized by the surface treatment of the facility. Typical monopoles are painted "sky' blue or other pastel color. The proposed facility stealth design surface treatment will simulate a pine tree trunk and will be non-reflective so as not to create glare. The chain link fence slats are to be colored to match the existing water tanks. Lighting The proposed telecommunications facility does not require aircraft warning lights and will not create any glare on adjacent residences. Sound and Vibration PCS facilities do not create audible sounds or detectable vibrations even at very close distances. The nearest residences at 4.00 feet would not discern any noise or vibration from equipment or antennas. Radio Frequency Interference [RFI] and Electromagnetic Compatibility PCS facilities operate at frequencies that do not disrupt radio or television service, garage door openers, or other electronic devices operating within the FCC approved bandwidths. There is additional concern that medical equipment may be susceptible to RFI, but there are no hospitals or other medical facilities in the vicinity. Findings and Recommendations This study concurs with the findings prepared by the Temecula Planning Department as follows: 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 1'1'm AC~I"CASC Companies 937 South Via Lata, Suite 500 Colton California 92324 Tel ¢909) 783-0101 Fax ~909) 783-0108 Web <www.aei-casc. COrn> E-mail rstephens~aei- CSSC.COm 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 agreed to provide three additional Italian Pine trees to assist in the disguise of the "mortopine.' 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 (EMF) surfaced in the 1980s 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 Telecommunications Act of 1996, 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 radio frequency emission effects. We recommend that the City Council approve the application for the proposed wireless telecommunications facility with the recommended Conditions of Approval. Prepared by: Richard Stephens Tom Nievez Susan Stoltenberg with assistance from Niki Cutler May 1999 13 Exhibits Telecom Site Selection Process Existing Cell Sites and Proposed Site Search Ring Coverage- Existing with Proposed Site Coverage Maps (2) Monopine Photograph Proposed PCS Facility Drawings ~ T-1 Title Sheet % A-1 Location Plan ~ A-1.1 Site Profile ~ A-2 Site Plan % A-3 Equipment Layout ~ A-4 Elevations ~ A-5 Bolt Layout & Details ~ A-6 Details % A-7 Details ~ A-8 Details E-1 Electrical Notes E-2 Site Plan % E-3 Power & Ground Plan % E-4 Single Line Diagram & Grounding Diagram System E-5 Details % E-6 Details Case Processing Flow Chart 14 May 1999 14 \...--. / · / Calle,Rocinante ,;' ' - .'<_ · ... ,..,...:.:..." .: :{ ~. ,,: ,. $. :.:;::.~ ~ :/-2 ' ~,,;, ,, ~ ." .~8 '.~. .::, o ........ ~:~' 0 ..,, ..: .' ~: P'';'?"~' , '~ ~';~ ''~> .... ~ ~ ~ '.':.~...:,..,,,' . ~. ~.~ tff Cf~'~.. '% 'e:.',' ....~""""":;~;. ~.::~, · -- 0" "":" c'~,,"'; .....-:. :,, ~.,.,. ..~.~' · m ~ ~.; ';4 ,,~e" ~ ' ~ ~'~Q Q 0 ~ 00 ~©© - / · 'O 0 > · , // 0 Z z 0 3) Z U) .... ; ~ ~°°~ ~. ~c ooo CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CASE PROCESSING FLOW CHART * WEEK 1 INITIAL SUBMITTAL I REVIEVV INITIAL STUDY IAMENDED PLANS/ 5/6 -- ADDITIONAL INFO SUBMITTED 7/8 '1 10 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION REQUEST CONDITIONS SCHEDULE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION/DIRECTOR'S HEARING (DRAFT STAFF REPORT) DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING (10-20 DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENT) FINAL STAFF REPORT/FINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IF E.I.R. REQUIRED SEE SHEET "2" IDIRECTOR'S I PLANNING COMMISSION I~ PROJECT APPROVAL WEEK 11 HEARING "* ~ MEETING NEG DEC ADOPTED PROJECT APPROVAL NEG DEC ADOPTED ~ APPEAL PERIOD I CITY COUNCIL (15 DAYS) SCHEDULE AND NOTICE 4 CITY COUNCILI ""~"'"~ ~'"^~ '~ "~"°"~I'""~' II .o ~..~ I CITY COUNCIL MEETING NEG DEC APPROVAL 12 APPEAL PERIOD 13/14 (15 DAYS) I 16 '~l FINAL CONDITIONS · Negetive 0edamkx, ~ (CEQA and State Planning Law) , Incomplete propel ;Kids four weeks minimum to the Foeeta · " Timeperi~dfr~mDire~f~He~ringap~amv~t~Fin~C~nditi~a~whenn~ape~is~edi~1~daya "' Tim period from Ptanning Commif~on aplm:Nal to Final Conditions, when no appeal i~ filed k 10 day~ IFINAL CONDITIONS ATTACHMENT NO. 5 AEI-CASC TELECOMMUNICATIONS BIO \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~I 9pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 5-25-99.doc 16 AEI.CASC Telecommunications Bio Richard B. Stephens REA Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Advisor Planning Director, The AEI-CASC Companies Tel (909) 783-0101 Fax (909) 783-0108 E-mail rstephens@aei-casc.com Web vvw~v.aei-casc.com Summary Mr. Stephens has been affiliated with wireless telecommunications facilities siting and permitting since 1993. Since that time he has assisted in the design and development of several wireless telecommunications networks including the siting and permitting of hundreds of facilities. He has provided technical assistance to numerous jurisdictions and is a continuing speaker/author on telecommunications and information technology. Education/Teaching/Training Ric received a Masters in Urban and Regional Planning, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona and has been a lecturer/faculty advisor at the university since 1991. He teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in planning principles, urban design, environmental planning, and studios. He has also taught at UCLA, UCR, and is a faculty member of the University of Redlands. Ric is a California Registered Environmental Assessor No. 6946. Consulting Mr. Stephens was the lead planner for developing several regional networks for Pacific Bell Mobile Services and Cox Sprint PCS. Jurisdictions for these networks included portions of Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Ventura Counties. The combined number of facilities sited and permitted by Mr. Stephens and his planning division exceeded 600 wireless telecommunications facilities. Ric was the lead planner in the preparation of the City of Diamond Bar "Radio and Television Antennas & Wireless Telecommunications Facilities" ordinance. Programs Mr. Stephens has coordinated and presented wireless telecommunications seminars throughout the state including: · "Wireless Communications" Planning Commissioners Forum, Riverside ] 997 · "An Information Superhighway Map" National APA Conference, San Diego 1997 · "Wireless Telecommunication Antenna and Facilities Draft Guidelines Workshop" Los Angeles 1997 · "Building the Information Skyway" IES APA Workshop, Ontario 1996 1 937 South Via Lata, Suite 500 · Colton, CA 92324 · (909) 783-01 01 ° FAX (909) 783-0108 · "The Superinformation Skyway: Wireless Communication and the Global Envelope" CCAPA Conference, Palm Springs 1996 · "Wireless Telecommunications Conference" Los Angeles Section APA, Long Beach 1996 · "Appraisal and Acquisition of Telecommunication Sites" Fourth Annual Valuation Conference, International Right of Way Association, 1996 · "Wireless Communications Workshop" San Diego Section APA · "Wireless Telecommunications I1" CCAPA Conference, San Diego 1994 Publications Mr. Stephens has written and edited numerous technical articles related to wireless telecommunications including: · "Wireless Communications--Monopoles, Towers, and Concealed Antennas" · "Aesthetics and Planning for Wireless Communications Facilities" · 'Telecommunications Information--A Reference Guide for the Superinformation Skyway" · "Telecommunications Facilities Regulations" which received the Inland Empire Section American Planning Association "Nuts and Bolts" Award. · "Pianificazione ed estetica delle reti senza fill in USA." an article for the Italian National Planning institute on telecommunications facilities esthetics: He assisted in the landmark document "Wireless Communications Facilities Issues Paper" published by SANDAG. He was interviewed by P/ann/~7.~,/I///nne.,cc~z'a for the article "The information 'superskyway' man!" Mr. Stephens and his staff recently assisted the City of Diamond Bar in creating their L,r,42-e/e..c.c ,%Tc///z'/e.c Ordinance. Ric is currently the editor for the American Planning Association Information Technology Division newsletter,/nfoTE)(77 Professional Organizations/Awards Mr. Stephens was a Planning Commissioner for the City of Hemet and is currently a Planning Commissioner for the City of Riverside. He is the editor for two American Planning Association newsletters: InTo TEXTand/V/ounta/27s and ~chore~. He is the webmaster for numerous Internet websites including: · Inland Empire Section American Planning Association http://www.eee.org/bus/apa · American Planning Association Resort and Tourism Division http://vvvvw.aei- casc.com/resort · Association of Environmental Professionals http://vvvvvv.aei-casc.com/aep · Southern California Planning Congress http://vwvvv.aei-casc.com/scpc Ric is an International Advisor to the Japan Association of Planning Administration and the U.S. Delegate to the International Society of City and Regional Planners, an advisory body to the United Nations. Mr. Stephens has received over 20 professional planning awards including the American Planning Association National "Distinguished Contribution Award." ATTACHMENT NO. 6 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL HEARING OF FEBRUARY 9, 1999 \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 5-25-99.doc 17 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 9, 1999 CLOSED SESSION A meeting of fie City of Temecula City Council was called to order at 5:00 P.M. It was duly moved end seconded to adjourn to Closed Session pursuant to Govemment Code Sections: 1. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Govemment Code Section 54956.8 conceming the acquisition of real property located at 28721 Front Street, Temecula (APN 922-073- 017 and 922-0048-022 end 922-073-024). The negotiating parties are the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and First and Front, LLP and Cleveland Investment Company. Under negotiation is the pdce and terms of payment to the real property interests proposed to be acquired. The Agency/City negotiators are Shawn Nelson, James O'Gredy, end John Meyer. 2. Conference with City Attomey and legal counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) with respect to two matters of existing litigation involving the City and/or the Agency. The following cases/claims will be discussed: a) Quality Contmctor's Network vs. Temecula Valley Museum and b) Claim of Westside City II (Bill Dandy). 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 end circumstances. 4. Discussion of candidates for posiUon of City Manegar pursuant to Govemment Code Section 54957. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers: Comerchero, Undemans, Robarts, Stone, and Ford. Absent: Councilmember:. None. PRELUDE MUSIC The prelude music was provided by Eve Craig. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Reverend Lyle Paterson. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Mayor Pro Tam Stone. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Certificate of Soedal Achievement to Nell Everett Plummer for attaininn Eanie Scout rink Mayor Pro Tern Stone presented the Certificate to Nell Everett Plummer. Certificate of Soedal Achievement to Scott C. Robedson for attainino Eaaie Scout rank Mayor Pro Tem Stone presented the Certificate to Scott C. Robertson. Cedficate of Soedal Achievement to Robert Bdan Slater for minino Fanle Scout rank Mayor Pro Tern Stone pmsentecl the Certjficate to Robert Brian Slater. Certfficate of Appredation to Honorable Arunia "V'~' Samvdarien Mayor Pro Tern Stone presented the Certificate to Honorable Samydarian who, with appredation, was in attendance to accept the Certificate. Certfficate of Appreciation to the Assistance League of Temecula Valley Mayor Pm Tern Stone presented the Certificate which was accepted by Ms. Peggy Wiley and Ms. MaWann Edwards. Cedificate of Appreciation to Joseoh Kicak Mayor Ford presented the Certificate to retiring 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 Coundlman Comerchero his five-year service pin. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Kay Willlame and Ms. Melody Brunsting, representing the Temecula Town Association on behalf of the Temecule Rod Run, presented the Councilmembers with Rod Run rnomentos and invited all to attend the pinned Red Run festivities. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Mayor Pro Tern Stone advised that he had attended · California League of Cities meeting at which the fallout of the Vehicle License Fee was discussed, advising that them is no allocation guarantee to the cities from the State f the economy ware to decline but that there will be an allocation guarantee for the upcoming second end 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 Citys Community Services Funding Program, noting that the application deedline is March 5, 1999. C. Reviewing the ongoing progress of RTA services, Coundlman Lindemans noted that in the near Mum individuals will be able to travel by bus to Lake Elsinore, Hemet, and Riverside. D. Commenting on the benefits the City has derived from retiring Public Works Director Kicak's experience, Councilman Robarts noted that Mr. Kicek will be greatly missed. E. Coundlman Robarts informed the City Council that he has been selected to serve on the 1999 Transportation Infrastructure and Services Staedng Committee which develops policies and recommendations for consideration and review by fie Policy Committee. F. Coundlman Roberrs 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 mulU-spedes piaNopen space plan for Riverside County, noting that he will keep the Coundl apprised. CONSENT CALENDAR Standard Ordinance Adeption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to wane the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 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 Januarlf 21, 1999, City Council meeting, Mayor Pro Tern Stone noted that he would be abstaining with regard to this issue.) Resolution Approvino 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 Treasurer'e Reoort as of December 31.1998 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasumr's Report as of December 31, 1998. City Deleaetion to Voorburo. The Nethedends RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve an official City delegation to travel to Voorburg, The Netherlands in · joint trip with the Temecule Sister Cities Association. First Amendment to Actlea City Manaoer Aoreement RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the First Amendment to the Employment AgreernenL Proeerty Insurance Renewal RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve the City of Ternecula Property Insurance Policy renewal with Reliance Insurance Cornpeny and Royal/Agriculture end Frontier Insurance Company for the pedod of February 26,1999 through February 26, 2000 in the amount of $61,764. Purchase of One (11 Citv Vehicle (Truck1 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve the purchase of one (1) 1999 Chevrolet full-size pick-up from Paradise Chevrolet in the amount of $25,094.38. Records Destruction Aporoval RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve the scheduled destruction of certain City records in accordance with the City of Temecula epproved Records Retention Policy. 10 State Historical Desianatlon for Burnham Store ('l'emecuia 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 fie Bumham Store to the Site Office of Historic 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 Califomia Road1 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 (VVITHIN TRACT NO. 23142) Accept Public Imorovemertts in Tract No, 23142 (located norlheastedv of the intersection of Meadows Parkway at Rancho California Rcedl RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Accept the Public Improvements in Tract No. 23142; 12.2 Authorize the reduction in Faithful Performance security to the warranty amount and initiation of the one-year warranty period; 12.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. Maroadta Road/Overland Drive and Lone Canyon Creek imorovements Reimbursement Agreement with Rancho California Water District for Work Performed Durina Construction - Project No. PVV97-07 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 Mergerite 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; 14 15 16 13.3 Approve an appropriation of $47,200.00 from Reimbursement Revenue to the project account. Rancho Califomia Road at Interstate Route 15 - Bridne W'Klenino and Northbound Ramo Imorovements - Proiect No. PW95-12 - Increase Construction Continaancv RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Authorize the Acting City Manager to approve change orders with Riverside Construction Company for Rancho Califomia Road at Interstate Route 15 - Bridge W'~lening and Northbound Ramp Improvements (Project No. PVV95-12) in an additional amount of $82,000.00 above the previously approved 10% contingency. Professional Services Aoreernent with Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douala$. Inc. for the Final Desion Southbound Off-Ramp and I-15 Widenino north of Winchester Road - Project No. PW98-07 - and Northbound On-Ramp Widanino RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Approve the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Ternecula and Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. for the final design of the southbound Off-Ramp, 1-15 widening north V.~nchester Road - Project No. PVV98-O7 - 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 $60,226.00 from the construction budget to the design budget for the addiUonal design costs associated with a change to the project scope Professional Services Anreement with Parsons Brinckerhoff ouade & Douala$. Inc. for Final Desion Southbound Off-Ramp and I-15 Wrdenino north of Rancho California Road - Proiect No, PVV98-08 RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Approve the Pro{easional Services Agreement between the City of Ternecula 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 addiUonal design costs assodated with a change to the project scope 6 17 18 19 20 Professional Services Agreement for Pile Dosion Revisions and Review and Processina of Retainin~ Well P,.,Mrees for the Ovedand Drive Overcrossino et Interstate Route 15 - Proiect No. PW95-11 RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Approve a professional services agreement with TYLIN-InternationaI-McDaniei 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 Geetechnical. Inc. for the Rancho California Road/Interstate Route 15 Interchanae- Proieot No. PW95-12 RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Approve Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement between the City of Temecula and Petra Geetechnical, Inc. to provide additional Professional Inspection Services for the Rancho Califomia 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 Aareement with Parsons Brinckerhoff ~uade & Dounles. Inc. for Additional Improvements for the Rancho California Road Interchanae RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Approve a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Temecula and Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. to provide additional design for the Rancho California Road Interchange Improvements for $45,503.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract; 19.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $4,550.30 which is equal to 10% of the centact 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 Solidt Construction Bids for the Street Name Sion ReDlaoarnent Proiect - Project No. PVV98-18 RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Approve the plans end specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solidt construction bids for the Street Name Sign Replacement - Project No. PW98-18. 21 Mamarita Road/Overland Drive Street Imorovement Sewer Aarqement with Pacific CentuP/' Homes for Work to be Performed durinn Prolect No, PW97-07 RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 Approve the attached Agreement with Pacific Century Homes for the cost to install certain sewer improvements within the Margadts Road/Overland Drive Street Improvement - Project No. PW97-07 - that is necessary to serve the Pacific Century Homes project and authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement; 21.2 Increase the Construction Contingency by $25,360.00 to cover this additional work; 21.3 Approve an appropriation of $25,360.00 from Reimbursement Revenue to the project account. 22 Professional Services Aareement for Ovedand Drive Overcrossino - Prolect No. PVV95-11 RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 Approve a Professional Services Agreement for Construction Support Services for Ovedand Drive Overcrossing - Project No. PW95-11 -to TYLIN Intemational- McDaniel for $38,270.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contmc~ 22.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $3,827.00 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. 23 Acceleration of Budoeted Funds for Ovedand Ddve Overcros sinn - Project No. PW95-11 RECOMMENDATION: 23.1 Approve the acceleration of $4,230,000.00 from the Capital Improvement Budget for FY 19992000 to the current FY1998-1999 budget for the Overland Drive Overcrossing - Project No. FNV95-11. I 24 Second Readino 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 ALCOHOMC BEVERAGES IN PUBLIC PLACES 8 MOTION: Councilman Robads moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-9,11-13, 15-22, and 24 (Item No. 10 was continued to the February 23, 1999, City Council meeting; Item Nos. 14 and 23 wee pulled for separate discussion; see below). The motion was seconded by Councilman Lindemans end 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 - Bridoe W'Klenina and Northbound Ramp Improvements - Project No. PW95-12 - Increase Construction Continoencv RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Authorize the Acting City Manager to approve change orders with Riverside Construction Company for Rencho Califomle Road at Interstate Routs 15 - Bridge Wdening and Northbound Ramp Improvements (Project No. PW95-12) in an additional amount of $82,000.00 above the previously approved 10% contingency. In response to Mayor Pro Tam Stone, Public Works Director Kicak presented the staff report (as per agenda material) with Senior Engineer Hughes further clarifying the proposed change order increase, commenUng on the unpredictable utility conflicts, and noUng that the change orders for this project have been carefully reviewed and monitored by staff and that the proposed costs am justifiable. MOTION: Coundlman Undemans moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Coundlman Robarts end voice vote reflected unanimous approval. r' 23 Acceleration of Budaeted Funds for Ovedand Ddve Overcrossinn - Pmlect No. PVV95-11 RECOMMENDATION: 23.1 Approve the acceleration of $4,230,000.00 from the Capital Improvement Budget for FY 19992000 to the current FY1998-1999 budget for the Overland Drive Overcrossing - Project No. PVV95-11. Public Works Director Kicak rsviewecl the staff repod (of record). MOTION: Coundlman Comerchem moved to approve the staff recommendation. The mobon was seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PUBLIC HEARINGS 25 ADoeel of the Plannire Commission's Denial of Planninn ADolicaUon No. PA98-0347 (Develooment Plan1 -The deslan. constmcUon and ooemtion of 15 soeculetive industdaVmanufactudng/ofitce buildinns toteline 81,885 sauare feat located on two parcels consistina of 6.02 acres with associated Imrkina and landscaoina (located on ~te west side of Commerce Center Drive adlacent to Muftieta Creek north of Via Montezuma) (ConUnued from the January 26, 1999, City Council meeting.) RECOMMENDATION: 25.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ' TEMECULA AFFRIMING THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 98- 0347 DEVELOPMENT PLAN - THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF 15 SPECULATIVE INDUSTRIAL, MANUFACTURING, OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 81,885 SQUARE FEET LOCATED ON TVVO PARCELS CONSISTING OF 6.02 ACRES VVITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE, ADJACENT TO MURRIETA CREEK, NORTH OF VIA MONTEZUMA, KNOVVN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 921-4004)17 AND 921-400-044 In light of the submittal time of the information received from the applicaUon, Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that staff was unable to provide it in the staff report end that staff has not had the opportunity to fully review the informaUon which Mr. Markham will be emily reviewing. At this time, Mayor Ford opened the public headng. Referendng submitted matadal of mcorcl (copies provided to the Coundlmembers), Mr. Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, rapresenting the applicant, informed the Courtall of the applicant's willingness to construct a concrete biocidtilt-up wall along the south side; reviewed the parking requirements for olfice, manufacturing, and warehouse uses, noting that the proposed project will exceed those requirements, as par the Development Cede, by 54 spaces; and dadfled that parkjng spaces am being assigned to each individual building, advising that them will be no shared parking. Mr. Markham furlher noted the following: that each individual owner will own the individual building pad and that the landscaping, driveways, end 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; the 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 owner's own accord; that the applicant has requested the imposition of two Conditions of Approval - one permitting the installaUon of fencing and geUng after the recordation of the Final Map and after the formation of the property association and another condition prohibiting outside storage. If the Coundi were to disapprove of the proposed fenring and geUng plans, Mr. Markham noted that the applicant would request that the Council approve, at a minimum, fencing between the various units to ready delineate the individual parking areas for each unit. W'dh respect to a suggestion menUoned at the January :26, 1999, City Courtall meeUng, Mr. Markham advised that the placement of a front geta for the overall project would not be feasible in that it would limit off- hour deliveries. Addressing the concam with regard to outside storage and related Code enforcement, Mr. Markham, for Councilman 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. Coundlman Undemans 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 furlher elaborated on the proposed fencing and gating plan, noting that the applicant, at a minimum, would request that the delineating fences be appmved with no gates. Mr. Markham advised that if gates were approved, the necessary access would be provided to the Fire Department. It was noted, by Mr. Markham, that the parcel merger has been filed but that it was put on hold after the Planning Commission haadng. City Attorney Thorson advised that the City Council may impose a CondiUon of Approval requiring the removal of the fenring within s specified time if outside storage were to occur;, noted that prior to enforcing the condiUon, the Planning Commission must hold s public headng to determine failure of adhering to the Condition of Approval; suggested that the Coundl approve two Conditions of Approval - one to prohibit outside storage and another which would address the number of allowable violaUons pdor to it being reviewed by the Planning Commission for possible revocation of the fenring; and clarified that imposition of s condition with regard to the outside storage would grant the City the authority to address this issue. Deputy City Manager Thornhill 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 Mnill and noting th~ once a business o~gmws such · uni~ and parking requirementl ere no longer met~ the owner/tenlm could reloc~ls to a le~er sile within the City~ ~herefore, in ligh~ of the prol~sed changes, Mayor Pm Tern Stone, ed~oed by Councilman RoberLs, spoke in suppor~ of the request. ~ As well commenting on the City's need for such a project, Deputy City Manager Thornhill 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 violalions pdor to it requiring a Planning Commission public hearing. Mr. Thornhill noted that the Fire Department had expressed no conGem with regard to this project. Echoing Mayor Pro Tem Stone's comment with regard to the Citys need for such a project, Councilman Comerchero relayed his apprehension with regard to the fencing but advised that his pdmary conGem was with regard to the outside storage, noting that this concern has been addressed. Although he would favor the elimination of additional fencing, Councilman Comeahem. relayed his support of the project if the elimination of the gates were acceptable. If the center gates wore removed, Coundlman Lindemans relayed his support of the project. Following some additional discussion with regard to the fondng and the gates, it was the consensus of the City Coundl that the forming be set beck two parldng spaces for each unit, thereby, providing additional room in front of the gate end less room behind the gate and, thereby, decreasing the potential space for outside storage. Mr. Markham voiced no objection to Coundl's recommendation to set the fenring further back and as well agreed to eliminate the center gates (6 total) but relayed the applicanfs desire to retain the cross fenring to properly delineate parking spaces par unit. In response to City Attorney 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 Coundl meeting. The motion was seconded by Coundlman Robads and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. At 9:04 P.M.. Mayor Ford called a shod recess and reconvened the meeting at 9:16 P.M. 26 Apoeai of the Plannine Commission's Aporoval of Plannino Acolication No. PA98-0219 (CondiUonal Use Permitl - Cox Communications Wireless Personal Communications System (PCSI with antennas mounted atoo a 60-f6ot hiah monopole disnuised as an evergreen pine tree ("mortopine") ~t the Rancho California Water District weir 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 (t) 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 NANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOWS PARCEL NO. 953060-022 Although staff had as well expressed some concam wilh regard to the aestheUcs 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 fadlilies pose no health problems, staff has no concern with regard to this issue; and advised that the zoning for this facility is in conformance with the City's General Plan. City Attorney 'Thorson noted that Councilman Lindemans had appealed this matter on the basis of the importance of the issue and the need for the City Council to review it; advised that the appeal documents am contained in the record; and noted that the applicant has the burden of proof. In response to the residents' concam relative to health threats posed by such a facility, City Attomey Thorson referenced the opinions of several experts in the eiectmrnagnetic emissions field which is that them am not health risks associated with such facilities. Mr. Thorson as wall basis of placement, 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 lime, Mayor Ford opened the public hearing. Mr. Gag Morrison, representing Cox Communications, addressed several concams/questions from the City Council, noting the following: · that the Pacirm Bell site is 50' high and that it was constructed in 1996 prior to fie construction of the existing homes; · that alternaUve sites warn 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 esthetic purposes raises the height to 65'; · that ha has attemptad to address the residents' concams with regard to the health issues in vadous ways including written communications from the Amedcan Cancer Sodsty; Mr. Mordson provldad additional explanation of radio signal frequency; · that the 65' pole raises no FAA concerns; 13 · that a majority of the pole will be located behind N existing water tank and that N residents will actually see appmxirrmtely 30' of the pole; · that additional foliage could be provided to furlher address the aestheUc appearance and to hide the panels; · that the life expectancy of the fake foliage is approximately 5 to l0 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, repmsentjng the Water District, informed fhe Councilmembers that he was in attendance to answer any questions and/or concerns. Refemndng the FCC's ruling regarding the placement, constnjction, and modificaUon of personal wireless sewices, 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 facility. Concuffing with Mr. LeDoux's comment, Mayor Pro Tern Stone noted that the City may deny such a fadlity as long as it is not based on health cortcems as preempted by the Federal government. Viewing the proposed project as visually unacceptable, Mr. Frank DiGlecomo, 32032 IVlerlot Crest, relayed his opposition to the proposed project end 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 District 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 Bierle, 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 fadlity; and staid that such a fadlity should not be Iocltad in a residential area. City Attorney Thorson noted that the City may deny this project as long as substanUal evidence can support the denial and that it not be roletad to eestheUc appearance. Mayor Pro Tem Stone suggested that the height of the tower be lowered. Coundlman Underhans relayed his concams with such facilities with regard to aesthetic appearance and health issues. :. Viewing the site as aesthetically unpleasing, Councilman Robarts as wall commented on the cumulative impacts such faciliUes may have on the health issues end, therefore, suggested the exploraUon of another location. Referencing the communication from the Amedcan Cancer Society, Mayor Pro Tam Stone voiced no concam 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 prolifemtion of such poles and, therefore, suggested that the Zoning Ordinance be 14 maddressed end that architactural guidelines for such fadlilies be created; and stated that such fadlities should require regularly scheduled evaluations to address health concerns. If this project were approved, Mr. Storm suggested the formation of a subcommittee comprised of City Councilmembers and the residents in order to create a suitable design. Although echoing the concern of cumulative impact of such facilities, Councilmen Cornerchero spoke in support of the project but relayed his desire lha{ periodic msintenance inspections be conducted ae imposed by the Planning Commission end further c/rifled that such inspections should be conducted every two years. Although he is not of the opinion that these type of facilities creme a health dsk, Mayor Ford relayed a concern as to the prolifemtion 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 alternative sites. Noting that although the zoning for ~he site is accurate, Mr. Ford advised that such zoning was initially intended for the Water District tank. City Attorney Thorson suggested that the public headng hot be closed in order to give the applicant the opportunity to investigate alternative sites as well as to explore alternative fotiage coverings for aesthetic purposes. MOTION: Coundlman Comerchem moved to keep the public headng open and to direct staff to address with the applicant alternative sites as well as address the aestheUc appearance and that the matter be conUnuecl to the March 23, 1999, City Council meeting. The motion was seconded by Coundlman Roberts end voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COUNCIL BUSINESS 27 Award of Construction Contract for Pale Road Bddoe Proiect- Projot No, PVV97-15 - Federal Proiect No. BRLS-5459(0031 RECOMMENDATION: 27.1 Award a conslnx:tion cch~-ict for the Pale ROad Bridge Project- Project No. I:NV97- 15 to Granite Construction Company in the amoum 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 ccmtract 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 various ac__~_unts as follows: · Environmental $ 780,000.00 · Administration $ 820,700.00 · Construction $3,000,000.00 15 Director of Public Works K]cak reviewed the staff report including the amended supplemental matedal (of record) and provided clarification as to bhe timing of the vadous phases of this project. MOTION: Councilman Roberts move to approve staff recommendation. The rnoUon was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. CITY MANAGEWS REPORT On behalf of City staff, Acting City Manager Nelson wished touring Public Works Dimmr Kicak and his wife a joyous retirement and noted that Senior Engineer Hughes will he 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 benefited as a result of retiring Public Works Director Kicak's experience and background, Mayor Pro Tem Stone requested that the naming of the Public Works Yard be agendized for the next City Coundl meeting and suggested that it be named the Joe Kicak Public Works Yard. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT City Attomey Thorson advised that them ware no reportable actions from the Closed Session under the Brown Act. ADJOURNMENT At 10:40 P.M., Mayor Ford formally edjoumed the City COuncil meeting to Thursday, February 18, 1999, 5:00 P.M., for the purpose of Closed Session with s Workshop meeting scheduled st 6:00 P.M., City Coundl Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ,~;; ~ I ~teven J. Ford, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, · rk - [SEAL} 16 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL DATED FEBRUARY 9, 1999 \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRP'I'~.19pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 5-25-99.doc 18 APPROV CITY A RNEY DIRECTOR OF FIN CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager : ~:~.------ Gary Thomhill, Deputy City Manage 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 ("rnonopine") at the Rancho California Water Distdct water tank site at 3100 Rancho California Road Prepared by: Carole K. Donahoe, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council: 1. Adopt the Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA98-0219; 2. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0219 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- APPEAL), UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0219 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) TO CONSTRUCT A WIRELESS PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM (PCS) FACILITY CONSISTING OF TWELVE (12) PANEL ANTENNAS, ONE (1) GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS) ANTENNA, AND SIX (6) CABINETS HOUSING A BASE TRANSCEIVER STATION (BTS) UNIT AND OTHER ELECTRONIC AND BATTERY EQUIPMENT. THE ANTENNAS WILL BE MOUNTED ATOP A 60-FOOT HIGH MONOPOLE, DISGUISED AS AN EVERGREEN PINE TREE ("MONOPINE") LOCATED AT THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT WATER TANK SITE AT 3100 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 953-060-022. \\TEMEC_FS201 ~)ATA~)EPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT%219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal,doc 1 BACKGROUND: The project was submitted on May 20, 1998 by Cox Communications representative 'I'DI, Inc. On June 10, 1998 TDI agreed to meet with staff and members of the Chardonnay Hills Homeowners' Association at the project site to hear concerns of adjacent property owners. For the next three months 'rDI and staff worked together to research alternative locations and monopole heights. On October 14, 1998 TDI presented a creative solution to address the concerns of the adjacent homeowners, by lowering the antennas on the monopole to 60 feet, and by disguising the pole and antennae as a pine tree. The modified proposal was sent to and was endorsed by the Chardonnay Hills Homeowners' Association Board of Directors. A Director's Headng was conducted on November 12, 1998. Five homeowners from the new Appalachia tract located to the south of the project site testified regarding the emission of electromagnetic fields (EMF) from the Cox equipment. They protested the time of the hearing because it was conducted when residents work, and requested a continuance in order to investigate the project. The Planning Director concurred with the request for a continuance, and asked staff to schedule the item on a Planning Commission agenda in order to provide a more convenient public hearing at 6 p.m. Staff advertised this case for the Planning Commission's December 16, 1998 hearing. On December 16, 1998 the Planning Commission heard testimony from the applicant's representatives including Dr. Jerrold T. Bushberg. The Commission also received testimony and a petition in opposition from adjacent homeowners on Medot Crest Drive in the Appalachia tract. The Commission continued the case to January 6, 1999 and asked the applicant's representatives to consider alternative sites and to provide copies of the selection reports that determined the proposed site. The Commission also asked the City Attorney to provide information on case law involving cellular fadlities 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 Medot Crest. Drive. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission approved the project by a vote of 2 to 1 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 Council overtum the Planning Commission's decision. On January 12, Councilman Farel Lindemans filed a formal appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, stating that the project involved land use concerns that should be heard by the City Council. ANALYSIS: Mr. LeDoux expressed concerns regarding the potential for health hazards and the lack of proof that wireless fadlities are safe. He protested federal law that pre-empts local jurisdictions from denying the siting of wireless facilities based on environmental concerns due to radio frequency transmissions. Environmental Preemption The 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 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. \\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA~EPTS~PLANNING%STAFFRPT'c?.I 9pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal,doc 2 BACKGROUND: The project was submitted on May 20, 1998 by Cox Communications representative 'i'DL Inc. On June 10, 1998 TDI agreed to meet with staff and members of the Chardonnay Hills Homeowners' Association at the project site to hear concems of adjacent property owners. For the next three months TEll and staff worked together to research alternative locations and monopole heights. On October 14, 1998 'I'DI presented a creative solution to address the concerns of the adjacent homeowners, by lowering the antennas on the monopole to 60 feet, and by disguising the pole and antennae as a pine tree. The modified proposal was sent to and was endorsed by the Chardonnay Hills Homeowners' Association Board of Directors. A Directors Hearing was conducted on November 12, 1998. Five homeowners from the new Appalachia tract located to the south of the project site testified regarding the emission of electromagnetic fields (EMF) from the Cox equipment. They protested the time of the hearing because it was conducted when residents work, and requested a continuance in order to investigate the project. The Planning Director concurred with the request for a continuance, and asked staff to schedule the item on a Planning Commission agenda in order to provide a more convenient public hearing at 6 p.m. Staff advertised this case for the Planning Commission's December 16, 1998 hearing. On December 16, 1998 the Planning Commission heard testimony from the applicant's representatives including Dr. Jerrold T. Bushberg. The Commission also received testimony and a petition in opposition from adjacent homeowners on Medot Crest Drive in the Appalachia tract. The Commission continued the case to January 6, 1999 and asked the applicant's representatives to consider altemative sites and to provide copies of the selection reports that determined the proposed site. The Commission also asked the City Attorney to provide information on case law involving cellular facilities and the regulations that specify or limit the Commission's action. On January 6, 1999 Planning Commissioners discussed the site selection process with the applicant and preemption rulings with the City Attorney. The Commission took testimony in opposition from three residents on Medot Crest. Drive. At the condusion of the hearing, the Commission approved the project by a vote of 2 to 1 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 Council overtum the Planning Commission's decision. On January 12, Councilman Farel 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 Preemption The concern regarding electromagnetic fields (EMFs) surfaced in the 1980's, and as a result, several organizations reviewed the issue and developed standards for protection against radio frequency emissions. Study after study has concluded that there is no demonstrated evidence that exposure to wireless service facilities is harmful to people. As part of the 1996 Wireless Communications Act, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established an exposure standard that is a hybrid of various standards developed by others. The FCC controls frequencies used by various entities and regulates the certification of their facilities. The 1996 Act expressly preempts state and local government regulation of the placement, construction, and modifications of wireless service facilities on the basis of environmental effects. The City Attorney has recommended that the project be conditioned to provide annual evidence of 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~ATA~DEPTS~LANNING~STAFFRPT~219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal.doc 2 Land Use Compatibility The applicant proposes to locate the Cox Communications equipment on a site zoned for Public and Institutional facilities. The site is owned by the Rancho California Water District and currently has two existing above-ground water tanks and associated pump equipment, as well as a 50-foot high Pacific Bell monopole with ground-mounted equipment. The proposed Cox PCS facility qualifies as a utility and is permitted by Conditional Use Permit in the Public Institutional zone. The General Plan encourages the clustering of public and institutional facilities to the extent possible in both residential and non- residential land use designations. The water tanks and Pacific Bell monopole existed at the site prior to the construction of homes on Medot Crest Ddve. Project Desiqn The applicant's representative has worked diligently and cooperatively with staff to address aesthetic concerns. The monopine and ground-mounted equipment are proposed to be located on the north side of the water tanks, approximately 130 feet east of the existing Pacific Bell monopole. Three (3) Italian Stone Pine trees and an irrigation system to service them will be installed north and east of the equipment, to add credence to the disguised monopine. The equipment is proposed to be located over 400 feet from the nearest residence on Medot Crest Drive and approximately 1,100 feet from the nearest residence in the Chardonnay Hills subdivision to the north. FISCAL IMPACT: Negligible, either with or without the project. SPECIFIC ACTION: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the approval of Planning Application No. PA98-0219o The telecommunications industry is regulated with standards in place for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. The proposed Cox Communications facility complies with these standards and the project has been conditioned to provide continuous recertification by the Federal Communications Commission. The project meets City zoning requirements, guidelines and policies regarding land use compatibility and project design. Approval of the project is based upon the following findings: FINDINGS The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The PCS facility qualifies as a public utility, which is a use permitted by Conditional Use Permit in the Public Institutional zone. The General Plan encourages the clustering of public and institutional facilities to the extent possible in both residential or non-residential land use designations. The existing Pacific Bell installation and water tanks at the site provide such an area. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. The project is compatible with the existing public facilities already at the site. The design of the facilities have been modified to be compatible with adjacent residential uses. There is no demonstrated evidence that wireless communication systems adversely affect adjacent residences. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or Coundl in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The applicant has revised the design of the monopole to simulate a pine tree and has provided three additional Italian Pine trees to assist in the disguise of the "mortopine." \\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRP"I~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 pan of the 1996 Wireless Communications Act, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established an exposure standard that is a hybrid of various standards developed by others. The FCC controls frequendes 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. Attachments: 3. 4. 5. 6. City Council Resolution No. 99- - Page 5 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Page 9 Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision- Page 10 Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission hearing of December 16, 1998 - Page 11 Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission hearing of January 6, 1999 - Page 12 Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated December 16, 1998 - Page 12 Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 6, 1999 - Page 14 \\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT~2.19pa98.CC STAFFR PT-Appeal.doc 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 pan 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 frequendes used by various entities and regulates the certification of their facilities. The 1996 Act expressly preempts state and local government regulation of the placement, construc-tjon, 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. 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. 99- - Page 5 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Page 9 Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision- Page 10 Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission hearing of December 16, 1998 - Page 11 Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission hearing of January 6, 1999 - Page 12 Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated December 16, 1998- Page 12 Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 6, 1999 - Page 14 \\TEMEC_FS201 ~:)ATA~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRP'I~219pa98.CC STAFFR PT-Appeal.doc 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS 15 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 RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Continue to the April 13, 1999, City Council meeting. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to continue Agenda Item No. 15 to the April 13, 1999, City Council meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberrs and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. AGENDA ITEM NOS. 17 AND 18 CONSIDERED OUT OF ORDER (see page two for action) 17 Second Series of 1999 General Plan Land Use Map Amendments (Campos Verdes Specific Plan: Norm Reeves site on Jefferson Road: portions of Kahwea Road and Avenida del Reposo and Nob Court: Jefferson Road/Winchester Detention Basin: and northwest of Winchester and Nicholas Road RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Adopt Addendum No. 4 to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 348) certified for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan (Planning Application No. PA99-0016); 17.2 Make a Finding for Planning Application No. PA99-0022 that the impacts of these General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes constitute a reduction in overall impacts and, as a result, fall within the environmental impacts previously discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan; 17.3 Approve a Mitigate Negative Declaration with a De Minimus Impact Finding for Planning Application No. PA98-0511; 17.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR VARIOUS AREAS THROUGHOUT THE CITY FOR THE SECOND GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FOR 1999 (PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA99-0016, PA99-0022, AND PA98-0511) Minutes\032399 ATTACHMENT NO. 8 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL HEARING OF MARCH 23, 1999 \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 5-25-99.doc 19 ATTACHMENT NO. 9 STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL DATED MARCH 23, 1999 \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~19pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 5--25-99.doc 20 APPROV TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager March 23, 1999 Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Planning Application No. PA98- 0219 (Conditional Use Permit) - Cox Communications wireless Personal Communications System (PCS), with antennas mounted atop a 60-foot high monopole disguised as an evergreen pine tree ("monopine") at the Rancho California Water District water tank site at 3100 Rancho California Road Prepared by: Carole K. Donahoe, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this case be continued to the April 13, 1999 City Council meeting. This case was heard by the City Council on February 9, 1999 at which time the Council continued the matter to March 23, 1999. The Council asked the applicant to review alternative sites previously considered and to explore other possible alternative sites. Staff has had several discussions with the applicant and continues to offer assistance. R:\STAFFRPT~.19pa98,CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 3-23-99.doc 1 ATTACHMENT NO. 10 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL HEARING OF APRIL 13, 1999 \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRP'1'~.19pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 5-25-99.doc 21 17 Second Readin.q of Ordinance No. 99-09 RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 99-09 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION NO. 2.40.'100 TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO COMPENSATION FOR CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY OF OF THE MONTHLY 18 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 99-10 RECOM M E N DATI ON: 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 MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-18. The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. At 8:01 P. M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 8:15 P.M., the City Council resumed with regularly scheduled City Council business. PUBLIC HEARINGS 19 Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Plannin.q Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit) - Cox Communications Wireless Personal Communications System (PCS) with antennas mounted atop a 60-foot high monopole disguised as an ever.qreen pine tree (monopine) at the Rancho California Water District 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: Minutes\041399 9 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 By way of overheads, Deputy City Manager Thornhill presented the staff report (as per agenda material), advising that Mr. Ron Guerriero, Chairman of the Planning Commission, will be abstaining with regard to this matter but that Planning Commissioner Naggar is in attendance to address any City Council concerns, questions, etc. For Councilman Lindemans, Mr. Thornhill reviewed the applicant's review process of other viable locations and noted that no second opinion had been provided as to the requested location. At this time, Mayor Ford opened the public hearing. By way of overheads, Mr. Greg Morrison, representing the applicant, reviewed the applicant's rationale as it relates to the proposed site; noted no objection to work with staff as it relates to proposed and additional landscaping along the south slope as well as a landscaping maintenance program. In response to Councilman Comerchero's desire to provide sufficient landscaping, Mr. Morrison voiced no objection to exploring the use of other types of fast-growing trees; noted that foliage coverage could be lowered on the pole; advised that this third pole would sufficiently service the entire City; and stated that in the event Cox Communications were to change its technology to satellite, the applicant would be willing to remove the pole at the applicant's expense. Councilman Roberts suggested that the City Council consider a zoning amendment and that until such an amendment has been considered that a moratorium be considered. Mr. Roberrs as well suggested the use of Eucalyptus trees, which are fast-growing trees and drought resistant, and recommended that proper and similar screening be provided for the fence. By way of topographical maps, Mr. Shawn Bierle, 32016 Merlot Crest, referenced other possible sites which would not have neighboring residential homes; relayed his and numerous residents opposition to the proposed site; and presented a petition of opposition. Noting that the proposed pole would be placed on property owned by the Rancho California Water District, Mr. Frank Digiacomo, 32032 Merlot Crest, reiterated a previously noted concern Minutes\041399 10 as it relates to Conflict of Interest for the Board of Directors for the Water District. Considering the visual plight of the proposed site, he noted his objection to it. In light of his experience with radio frequency, Mr. Mike Burton, 30366 Santa Cecilia, noted that the amount of radio frequency exposure from the proposed pole will not create a health risk hazard and relayed his support of the site. Mr. John Camp, 32012 Merlot Crest, as well relayed his opposition to the proposed site. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Stone, Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that such antennas are not permitted in residential zones and that he would review the topographical maps presented by Mr. Bierle to determine other allowable locations. Relaying his opposition to the proposed site, Councilman Lindemans commented on the Council's ability to consider a General Plan amendment. Mr. Lindemans requested that a second opinion as to the proposed location be provided; viewed the proposed pole as aesthetically unpleasing; and voiced no concern as to health risks. Although a General Plan amendment could be considered by the City Council, Mayor Pro Tem Stone noted that this applicant has attempted to mitigate any potential impacts. With regard to the proposed landscaping, Mr. Stone noted that it will as well address the visual appearance of the existing tank and pole. For Councilman Roberts, City Attorney Thorson provided clarification of those consequences associated with denying the proposed request, noting the following: that although administrative remedies have to be exhausted, the applicant may appeal to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) of the State; that the PUC has the reserved jurisdiction over the citing of these facilities; and that the City Council may submit conditions of approval to the PUC to uphold the Council's aesthetic conditions. MOTION: Councilman Lindemans moved to uphold the appeal and deny the project. The motion was seconded by Mayor Ford. (This motion was ultimately withdrawn; see below.) Reiterating his previous comment, Mayor Pro Tem Stone noted that by way of additional landscaping, the applicant has undertaken measures to mitigate the aesthetic appearance; that health risks are not an issue of concern; that the denial of this project could compromise the City's radio frequency need during an emergency; that the City Council could review a General Plan amendment but that it should not preclude the applicant from constructing the requested pole; and that he, therefore, would oppose denial of the request. Although the applicant has undertaken measures to mitigate any potential impacts, Mayor Ford relayed his opposition to the installation of a second pole and supported the exploration of alternative sites. In light of the comments, Councilman Roberts, echoed by Councilman Comerchero, suggested to continue this matter one more time in order to ensure that alternatives sites have been properly explored and in order to obtain a second opinion. Minutes\041399 11 Concurring with Councilman Roberts' suggestion, Councilman Lindemans, echoed by Mayor Ford, withdrew his originally made motion to uphold the appeal and deny the project. MOTION: Councilman Roberrs moved to continue this agenda item to the May 25, 1999, City Council meeting in order for staff to review the topographical maps with Mr. Bierle as well as the applicant and to receive a second opinion as to site location. The motion was seconded by Councilman Lindemans and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. At 9:12 P.M., Mayor Ford called a recess and reconvened the meeting at 9:20 P.M. 20 Temecula Library Site Selection and Conceptual Plan RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Approve the site selection on Pauba Road west of Parkview Fire Station 84 and preliminary conceptual plan for the Temecula Library; 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 facility. Deputy Director of Community Services Ruse reviewed the staff report (as per agenda material) and introduced Mr. Jim Wirick and Mr. Rick Dimado of LPA who, by way of a power point presentation, presented the conceptual site and building design. In response to Councilman Lindemans, Deputy Director Ruse noted that although staff has not been able to identify, at this point in time, grant funding for the library, staff will continue to explore all options. Councilman Roberts recommended that the City's lobbyist in Washington be directed to explore possible grant funding for the library. Ms. Grace Mellman, 36500 DePortola Road, encouraged the City Council to approve the Temecula site selection and conceptual plan. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to concur with the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 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. Mayor Pro Tem Stone noted that he would be abstaining with regard to this agenda item. City Clerk Jones presented the staff report (of record). Minutes\041399 12 ATTACHMENT NO. 11 STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL DATED APRIL 13, 1999 \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~19pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 5-25-99.doc 22 APPROV, CITY ATr'ORNEYN.~ 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:\STAFFRPT'c?19pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 4.-13-99.cloc 1 BACKGROUND: On January 12, 1999 the City Coundl 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 three 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 Wireless Communications Act expressly preempts state and local government regulation of the placement, construction, and modifications of wireless 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 residential and non-residential land use designations. The water tanks and Pacific Bell monopole already existed at the site prior to the construction of homes on Merlot Crest Drive. The equipment is proposed to be located over 400 feet from the nearest residence on Metlot Crest Drive and approximately 1,100 feet from the Pearest residence in the Cnaraonnay Hills subdivision to the north. The applicant has worked diligently and cooperatively with staff to address the Council's concerns. 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-O219. 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'~219pa98.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 stuay 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'r~219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-A,opeal 4-13-99.doc 3 Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 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 headng 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 4-13-99.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 BATI'ERY 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 hearings 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~219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 4-13-99.doc 6 Section 1. Findinas. That City Coundl, 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 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 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 "mortopine." 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 ........ s'~'~=-'~- Condition of Approval No. 9 has been inciuded ..... ~- the =r""'s regulations and .,-- ........-_,. require tnis. 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'R2.19pa98.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 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 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~19pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 4-13-99.doc 8 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFRP'I'~I 9pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 4-13-99.doc 9 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Revised by City Counc~ April 13, 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) 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. 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 cneck 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 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 R:\STAFFRPT~219pa98.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. o 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 diligentiy 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 36" 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 insta~ation. (Amended by City Council, April 13, 1999) 10. All electrical wiring associated with the antenna shall be buried underground or hidden in a manner acceptaale to the Buiiaing Ofi~c~aj. 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:\STAFFRPT'C219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 4-13-99.doc 11 14. 15. 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. 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. 17. 18. 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. 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. 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. 21. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 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 24. 25. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Rancho California Water District, as noted in their correspondence dated June 9, 1998 attached. 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. 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 mad, 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~19pa98.CC STAFFRPT*Appeal 4-13-99,doc 12 Date 6- 6-6& 2:32 PI,i ;~.ANCHC WARS?, -~v=~w~_c;;- Board olD;rectors Cuba F, go Presxdett Ralph H. Daily ~r V~ce Pre~:der, t Lian D. Haman ~ug Kulberg ~ott A. Melnt~ Je~y ~ Minkler OITlcer~ John F. Hennlgnr PhiHip L. Forbes E. P. "B~b" L~mon~, Kenneth C. Dea.ly Perry R. ~uck Land8 M. F~goso C ~hchae~ ~wett Best Be~t & ~eger June 9, 1998 P~t-IP Fax Note 7671 Pta BY FACSIIvm,E TRANSMISSION (909) 694-6479 Clty of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: VtANNING APPLEATION NO. PA_q~219 ~fiNOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) Dear Sir: In accordance with the City of Temecula Development Review Commirtee's request m cormection with the above subject application, please be advised that the property m question is located within the boundaries of the Rancho California Water District (RCMFD). Currently, RCWD is considering entering into a lease agreement with the applicant, Telecommumcations Development and Innovations (TDI)/Cox Commumcations for the purpose of installing cellular commumcations equipment at our resetvoLt site. RCWD's conditions for a lease agreement would require that the Lessee meet the following requirements: · The equipment be placed so as not to interfere with the current or future use of this site, including RCWD's future plans to restall radio transmi-csion equipment for the SCADA System (frequencies must be compatible). RCWD's Operations Department requests that a frequenc} interference study be performed at the expense of Cox Commumcations to veri~ compatibility of transmitting frequencies. · A separate power meter be obtained at the site from Southern California Edison (SCE). · All necessary City perrmttmg processes be obtained prior to construction. · An9 California En~iromental 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 TDI's facilities will be allowed by RCWD, City of Tf~m ecula Page 2 June 9, 1998 ~ you have any questions regarding this matter, the items Listed, please contact me. Sincerely yours, ~,,RAT~H~/~O~RNXA WATER D Paul J. Gonz:~z General Serdces Manager or ff you need further clarification of k\199~\corr~s~onzsl~zXg~132.do~ DAVID P. ZAPPE General Managcr-Chicr Enginc~r RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909~(-1200 909/788-9965 FAX 51180.1 City of Temecula Plannin De artment posto}L xgo33 Temecula. Califomia 92589-9033 Attention: C/~ t2, {') / rrT D~D Pq ~ H 0 g. Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: p/C~ C:~ ~ _ 19 2- I ~ The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not lan check, city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard repOrts for su~:~ cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific mnterest to the Distdct indudinB District Master Draina e Plan fadlities, other ional flood control and draina e facilitjes which could be consioered a logical compOnen~o extension of a master~p~n s stem, and Distdct Area ~rainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general n~rt~re is provided. The Distnct has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way I n constitute or imply District approva or e dorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue: t/This prgject would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan fadlities nor are other facilities of regional roterest proposed. This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The Distdct will acce t ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Distdct stan~P~rds, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a I ical extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The District wohl°~ consider accepting ownership of such fac~l~t/es on wntten request of the City. Facilitjes must be constructed to Di tdct standards, and D strict Man check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, 'nspection and administrative fees will be required. ~/This project is located within the limits of the District's h'? R~IF_.JP, C/~F_.F_.r, '7'EF/LCUL.-A Vr~Lj-~ea Drainage Plan for which draina e fees have been adoptS; applicable fees sf~oulcl be pa~d by cashiers check or money order onl to ~e Flood Control Distdct or City prior to issuance of building or permits. whichever comes ~'~t. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuanc~ o: Lne actual permit. GENERAL INFORMATION This projc-~ ma re~uire a National Pollutsnt Discharge Elimination System (NPDES/ permit. from the State Water Resources Control E~oard. Clearance for grading. recordation, or other final approva should not be given until the City has Oetermined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If this pro'ect invotves a Federal Emergen_cy Management Agency (FEMA map _l:~ed flood plain. then the Ci should require tRe applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans and o~er information reouired to me~ FEMA reauirernents. and should further require that the a plicant oDtain a Conditional Letter of MaD Revision CLOMR) pd0r to grading, recorclation or other final approvalPof the project, and a Letter of Map ReviSion (LOMR(; pdor to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain !sim acted by this project, the City should require the a licant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the Ca~omia Department of Fish and Game and a Clean P~ater Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. or written correspondence from these a encies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quail Cert~cation may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board pdor to issuance of ~e Corps 404 permit. STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer TO: FROM: County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT , ° 5 t H Specialist III CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PA98-0219 DATE: June 2, 1998 The Dcpartmcnt of Envirom-nental Hcalth has received and reviewed the Conditional Use Permit No. PA98-0219 and have no objections. If permanent structures for employees are required that maintain restrooms, this Department will require "will serve letters" from the sewer and water agency. CH:dr (909) 955-8980 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CORRESPONDENCE DATED MARCH 31, 1999 R:\STAFFRP'I'~219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal 4-13-99.doc 13 C i Telecommunlcallons Developmeats & Innovations 'll)Llnc. 3150Brte~Stn~ Su~ 250 Cosla Mesa. C~ 92626 March 31, 1999 714'668'8288 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 Council's requests. There are very specific guidelines used in selecting a monopole site, the most critical of which are zoning approval, properly 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 Cotmcil 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: Rancho California Water District (RCWD) Status: Current Site. This proposed location offers the best system coverage and signal communication with existing antennas vdthin 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) OwnerFFenant: 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 Rancho 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 Rancho 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 in. feasible due to the surrounding topography and that the distance from existing antennas could not adequately complete a signal. 33820 Rancho 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 a_Qer 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 Dines ne~ the base of the antep_na for added c,,-vem~:e. However. Lq 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 southem 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 cop~dent this site not onjy conr.,:.-s v~d.'& i~e Ci~' ~rdLnances bu: '~ll also provide for the best service coverage to Temecula and Southwest County resiaents. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, TDI, Inc. CL2~5 · s6 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL HEARING OF FEBRUARY 9, 1999 R:\STAFFRPT%219pa98.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 adjoum 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 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and First and Front, LLP and Cleveland Investment Company. Under negotiation is the price and terms of payment to the real property interests proposed to be acquired. The Agency/City negotiators are Shawn Nelson, James O'Grady, and John Meyer. 2. Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to 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 Contractors 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 Attomey 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 Govemment 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 Nell Everett Plummer for attaining Eagle Scout rank Mayor Pro Tern Stone presented the Certificate to Nell Everett Plummer. Certificate of Special Achievement to Scott C. Robertson for attainin.cl Eaqle Scout rank Mayor Pro Tern Stone presented the Certificate to Scott C. Robertson. Certificate of Special Achievement to Robert Brian Slater for attaining EaGle Scout rank Mayor Pro Tern Stone presented the Certificate to Robert Bdan Slater. Certificate of ApOreciation to Honorable Arunia "Vic" Saraydadan Mayor Pro Tern Stone presented the Certificate to Honorable Saraydadan who, with appreciation, was in attendance to accept the Certificate. Certificate of ADOreciation to the Assistance LeaQue of Temecula Valley Mayor Pro Tern Stone presented the Certificate which was accepted by Ms. Peggy Wiley and Ms. Maryann Edwards. Certificate of ApOreciation to JoseDh Kicak Mayor Ford presented the Certificate to retiring 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 behalf of the Temecula Rod Run, presented the Councilmembers with Rod Run momentos and invited all to attend the planned Rod Run festivities. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Mayor Pro ~'em Stone advised that he had a~en~ed a California Leag;,e 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. 2 D. Commenting on the benefits the City has derived from retiring Public Works Director Kicak's expenence, 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 Steering Committee which develops policies and recommendations for consideration and review by the Policy Committee. F. Councilman Roberrs 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. 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 Tern Stone noted that he would be abstaining with regard to this issue.) 3 Resolution Approvincl 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 7 8 9 City Treasurer's Report as of December 31, 1998 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurers Report as of December 31, 1998. City DeleGation to Voorbur.cl, The Netherlands RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve an official City delegation to travel to Voorburg, The Netherlands in a joint tnp with the Temecula Sister Cities Association. First Amendment to Acting City ManaGer AGreement 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 penod of February 26,1999 through February 26, 2000 in the amount of :$61,764. Purchase of One (1) City Vehicle (Truck) RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 .:-,pp:ove :he pur~,nase o: one {~,~ '~ 999 Chevrolet full-size pick-up from Paradise Chevrolet in the amount of $25,094.36. Records Destruction Approval RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 ADDrove the scheduled destruction of certain City records in accordan,,-~ with the C;ty of Temecu~a approvea Recoras Retenuon Potxcy. 10 State Historical DesiQnation for Burnham Store ETemecula Mercantile) 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 Historic Preservation. (This Consent Calendar Item was continued to the meeting of February 23, 1999.) 11 Acceptance of Public Streets into the City-Maintained Street System ('within Tract No. 23142 -located northeasterly of the intersection of Meadows Parkway at Rancno 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) 12 Accept Public Improvements in Tract No. 23142 (located northeasterly of the intersection of Meadows Parkway at Rancho California Road) RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Accept the Public Improvements in Tract No. 23142; 12.2 Authonze the reduction in Faithful Performance secudty to the warranty amount and initiation of the one-year warranty penoa; 12.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. 13 Marqanta Road/Overland Drive and Lonci Canyon Creek Improvements Reimbursement Aereement with Rancho California Water District for Work Performed Dudn.cl Construction - Project No. PW97~07 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Approve the attached reimbursement agreement with Rancho California Water Distnct (RCWD) for the cost to relocate existing water improvements necessan! for the construction of Marganta 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; 14 15 13.3 Approve an appropriation of $47,200.00 from Reimbursement Revenue to the project account. Rancho California Road at Interstate Route 15- Bddee Widenine and Northbound Ramp Improvements - Project No. PW95-12 - Increase Construction Contineency RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Authorize the Acting City Manager to approve change orders with Riverside Construction Company for Rancho California Road at Interstate Route 15 - Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements (Project No. PW95-12) in an additional amount of $82,000.00 above the previously approved 10% contingency. Professional Services A.ereement with Parsons Bdnckerhoff Quade & Douelas, Inc. for the Final Desion Southbound Off-Ramp and I-15 Widenine north of Winchester Road - Project No, PW98-07 - and Northbound On-Ramp Widenine 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 VVinchester 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. 15 Professional Services Aereement with Parsons Bdnckerhoff Quade & Douelas, Inc. for Final Desjan Southbound Off-Ramp and I-15 Widenin.cl north of Rancho California Road - Proiect No. PW98-08 RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Approve the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Temecula and Parsons Bnnckerhoff Quade & Douglas, inc. for the final design of the southbound Off-Ramp and 1-15 wiaening nor-~n Rancno C. alifornia Road- Project No. PW98-08- for $94,368.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract; 16.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $9,436.00 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount; 16.3 Authorize the transfer of $48,000.00 from the construction budget to the design budget for the additional design costs associated with a change to the project scope of work. 17 18 19 2O Professional Services A.Qreement for Pile Desicln Revisions and Review and Processing of Retaining Wall ChanGes for the Ovedand Ddve Overcrossinc~ at Interstate Route 15 - Project No. PW95-11 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 Ddve 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 AGreement 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 Geotechnical, Inc. to provide additional Professional Inspection Services for the Rancho California Road/Interstate Route 15 Interchange- Project No. PW95-12 - in an amount not to exceed $29,000.00 and authorize the Mayor to sign Amendment No. 1. Professional Services AGreement with Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douc]las, 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 authonze the Mayor to execute the contract; 19.2 Authonze 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 Appropnate $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 Project - Project No. PW98-18 RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Street Name Sign Replacement - Project No. PW98-18. 21 22 23 Mar.clarita Road/Overland Ddve Street Improvement Sewer A.areement with Pacific Century Homes for Work to be Performed durincl Project No. PW97-07 RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 Approve the attached Agreement with Pacific Century Homes for the cost to install certain sewer improvements within the Margarita Road/Overland Drive Street Improvement - Project No. PW97-07 - that is necessary to serve the Pacific Century Homes project and authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement; 21.2 Increase the Construction Contingency by $25,360.00 to cover this additional work; 21.3 Approve an appropriation of $25,360.00 from Reimbursement Revenue to the project account. Professional Services A.clreement for Ovedand Drive Overcrossin.ci - Project No. PW95-11 RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 Approve a Professional Services Agreement for Construction Support Services for Ovedand Drive Overcrossing - Project No. PW95-11 - to TYLIN International- McDaniel for $38,270.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract; 22.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $3,827.00 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. Acceleration of Budcleted Funds for Ovedand Ddve Overcrossincl - 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 F¥! 998-1999 budget for the Ovenanc~ DRve Overcrossing - Project No. PW95-'I I. 24 Second Readin.el 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 Roberts moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-9,11-13, 15-22, and 24 (Item No. 10 was continued to the February 23, 1999, City Council meeting; Item Nos. 14 and 23 were pulled for separate discussion; see below). The motion was seconded by Councilman Lindemans and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Mayor Pro Tem Stone who abstained with regard to Item No. 2.2. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS SEPARATELY DISCUSSED 14 Rancho California Road at Interstate Route 15 - Bddcle Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements - Project No. PW95-12 - Increase Construction ContinQency RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Authorize the Acting City Manager to approve change orders with Riverside Construction Company for Rancho California Road at Interstate Route 15 - Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements (Project No. PW95-12) in an additional amount of $82,000.00 above the previously approved 10% contingency. 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 Budcleted Funds for Ovedand Ddve OvercrossinQ - 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 F"Y! 998-1999 budget for the Ovedand Ddve Overcrosslng - Project No. PW95-11. 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 ADpeal of the Plannino Commission's Denial of PlanninQ Application No. PA98-0347 (Development Plan) - The ~lesiQn, construction and operation of 15 s;>eculative industdal/manufacturin.oJoffice buildinQs totalinO 81,885 square feet located on two parcels consistina of 6.02 acres with associated Darkin.Q and landscapinc~ (located on the west side of Commerce Center Ddve adjacent to Mumeta Creek north of Via Montezuma) (Continued from the January 26, 1999, City Council meeting.) RECOMMENDATION: 25.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AFFRIMING THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 98- 0347 DEVELOPMENT PLAN - THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF 15 SPECULATIVE INDUSTRIAL, -MANUFACTURING, OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 81,885 SQUARE FEET LOCATED ON TWO PARCELS CONSISTING OF 6.02 ACRES WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE, ADJACENT TO MURRIETA CREEK, NORTH OF VIA MONTEZUMA, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 921-400-017 AND 921-400-044 In light of the submittal time of the information received from the application, Deputy City Manager Thommi!i advised that staff was unable to provie'-: ~t in '.~e staff repor~ and that staff has not nacl the opportunity to fully rewew the information wn~cn Mr. MarkRam will be orally reviewing. At this time, Mayor Ford opened the public hearing. Referencing submitted material of record (copies provided to the Councilmembers), Mr. Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, representing the applicant, informed the Council of the aDDlicant's willingness to construct a concrete block/tilt-up wall along the south side; reviewed the parking requirements for office, manufac~unng, aria warehouse uses, noting that t~e 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 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 February 23, 1999, City Council meeting; Item Nos. 14 and 23 were pulled for separate discussion; see below). The motion was seconded by Councilman 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 California Road at Interstate Route 15 - BddQe Widenin.cl and Northbound Ramp Improvements - Project No. PW95-12 - Increase Construction Continclency RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Authorize the Acting City Manager to approve change orders with Riverside Construction Company for Rancho California Road at Interstate Route 15 - Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements (Project No. PW95-12) in an additional amount of $82,000.00 above the previously approved 10% contingency. In response to Mayor Pro Tern 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 am 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 Budaeted Funds for Ovedand Drive Overcrossina - 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 F"Y! 998-1999 budget for the Overland Ddve Overcrosssng - Project No. PW95-11. 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. · 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 clesirous 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 permitting the installation of fencing and gating after the recordation 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 vanous units to cleady delineate the individual parking areas for each unit. With respect to a suggestion mentioned at the January 26, 1999, City Council meeting, Mr. Markham advised that the placement of a front gate for the overall project would not be feasible in that it would limit off- hour deliveries. Addressing the concem with regard to outside storage and related Code enforcement, Mr. Markham, for Councilman 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 overneads, 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 Department. It was noted, by Mr. Markham, that the parcel merger has been filed but that it was put on hold after the Planning Commission heanng. City Attorney Thorson advised that the City Council may impose a Condition of Approval re~.uiring the removal of the fencing within a specified time if outside storage were to occur; notect that prior to enforcing the condition, the Planning Commission must hold a public heanng to determine failure of adhenng 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 pnor 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 Tern 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 pnor to it requiring a Planning Commission public headng. Mr. Thornhill noted that the Fire Department had expressed no concern with regard to this project. Echoing Mayor Pro Tem 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 primary concern was with regard to the outside storage, noting that this concern has been addressed. Although he would favor the elimination of additional fencing, Councilman 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 Council 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 applicanrs desire to retain the cross fencing to propedy delineate parking spaces per unit. In response to City Attorney Thorson's comments, the following motion was offered: MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Stone moved to direct staff to amend the proposed resolution to appropnately reflect the changes as recommended by the City Council and to agendize the matte: fc. the =eD~arv 23.1999, City Council meeting. T~e rnct~on was seconded by Councilman/-,c, oens one voice vote refiec~ea unammous approval. At 9:04 P.M., Mayor Ford called a short recess and reconvened the meeting at 9:16 P.M. 26 Appeal of the Plannine 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 hiah monopole discluised as an everareen Dine tree ("monoDine"~ at the Ran:ho Cali:omia Water District. water tank site at 3100 Rancno Caiiforn~a Roaa 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 APPUCATION 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 Thomhill 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 concern with regard to this issue; and advised that the zoning for this facility is in conformance with the City's General Plan, City Attorney Thorson noted that Councilman Lindemans had appealed this matter on the basis of the importance of the issue and the need for the City Council to review it; ai: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 govemment may regulate the placement, construction, or modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of enwronmental 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 hearing. Mr. Greg Mornson, 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 prior 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' concerns with regard to the health issues in various ways including written communications from the Amedcan Cancer Society; Mr. Mornson 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 facility. 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 Council determine whether or not there 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 Tem Stone noted that the Board Members of the Water District 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 Bierle, 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 Droject as limited: objec-led to the visua appearance of this facility; and stated ths: suc,'~ a ;aci;it:~ snou'.d nat De iocate~ ~n a resiOent;_ area. City Attorney 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 ccncems with such facilities wi~h regard to aesthetic appearance ancl 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 stated that such facilities should require regularly scheduled evaluations to address health concems. 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 Comerchero spoke in support of the project but relayed his desire that periodic maintenance inspections be conducted as imposed by the Planning Commission and further clarified that such inspections should be conducted every two years. Although he is not of the opinion that these type of facilities create a health risk, Mayor Ford relayed a concern as to the preliferation 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 alternative sites. Noting that although the zoning for the site is accurate, Mr. Ford advised that such zoning was initially intended for the Water District tank. City Attorney Thorson suggested that the public heanng 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 hearing open and to direct staff to address with the applicant alternative 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 Bddcle Project- Project No. PW97-15- Federal Project No. BRLS-5459(003) RECOMMENDATION: 27.1 27.2 27.3 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; Authonze the Acting City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $439,857.40, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount; Accelerate the funding by transfernng the budgeted amounts in FY 1999-2000 to FY 1998-1999. The total amount of transfer is $4,600,700.00 to the various accounts as follows: · Environmental $ 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 clarffication as to the timing of the various phases of this project. MOTION: Councilman Roberts moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT On behalf of City staff, Acting City Manager Nelson wished retiring 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 retiring 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 Attorney 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 Drive, Temecula, California. ~"~teven J. Ford, Mayor ATTEST: i~ Jones, [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, '~ 'FrO A~~ CITY A RNEY DIRECTOR OF FIN CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager : ::~---- Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manag~'r February 9, 1999 Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit) - Cox Communications wireless Personal Communications System (PCS), with antennas mounted atop a 60-foot high monopole disguised as an evergreen pine tree ("monopine") at the Rancho California Water 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. \\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA~)EPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRp'D219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-AppeaI.cloc 1 BACKGROUND: The project was submitted on May 20. 1998 by Cox Communications representative TDI, Inc. On June 10, 1998 TDI agreed to meet with staff and members of the Chardonnay Hills Homeowners' Association at the project site to hear concems of adjacent property owners. For the next three months TDI and staff worked together to research alternative locations and monopole heights. On October 14, 1998 'TDI presented a creative solution to address the concerns of the adjacent homeowners, by 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 Directors Hearing was conducted on November 12, 1998. Five homeowners from the new Appalachia tract located to the south of the project site testified regarding the emission of electromagnetic fields (EMF) from the Cox equipment. They protested the time of the hearing because it was conducted when residents work, and requested a continuance in order to investigate the project. The Planning Director concurred with the request for a continuance, and asked staff to schedule the item on a Planning Commission agenda in order to provide a more convenient public heanng at 6 p.m. Staff advertised this case for the Planning Commission's December 16, 1998 hearing. On December 16, 1998 the Planning Commission heard testimony from the applicant's representatives including Dr. Jerrold T. Bushberg. The Commission also received testimony and a petition in opposition from adjacent homeowners on Merlot Crest Drive in the Appalachia tract. The Commission continued the case to January 6, 1999 and asked the applicant's representatives to consider altemative sites and to provide copies of the selection reports that determined the proposed site. The Commission also asked the City Attorney to provide information on case law involving cellular facilities and the regulations that specify or limit the Commission's action. On January 6, 1999 Planning Commissioners discussed the site selection process with the applicant and preemption rulings with the City Attorney. The Commission took testimony in opposition from three residents on Medot Crest. Ddve. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission approved the project by a vote of 2 to 1 with two Commissioners abstaining due to a possible conflict of interest. On January 12, 1999 the City Council heard oral communications from Larry LeDoux, a resident on Merlot Crest, who requested that the Council overtum the Planning Commission's decision. On January 12, Councilman Karel Lindemans filed a fon'nal appeal of the Planning CommissioNs decision, stating that the pro e: involved land use concerns that should be hear~ by the Ci~,. 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 Preemption .':re :,,snr:em re,:arming ele:rama_anet,c fie!as (-'M=s) sufface~ in the 1980's. and as a ~es-~::. seve:a: orgamzatlons 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 pan of the 1996 Wireless Communications Act, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established an exposure standard that is a hybrid of various standards developed by others. The FCC controls frequencies used by various entities and regulates the certification of their facilities. The 1996 Act expressly preernpts 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. \\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA~:)EPTS~DLANNINGt, STAFFRPT~.I 9pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal.doc 2 Land Use Compatibility The applicant proposes to locate the Cox Communications equipment on a site zoned for Public and Institutional facilities. The site is owned by the Rancho California Water Distdct and currently has two existing above-ground water tanks and associated pump equipment, as well as a 50-foot high Pacific Bell monopole with ground-mounted equipment. 'The proposed Cox PCS facility qualifies as a utility and is permitted by Conditional Use Permit in the Public Institutional zone. The General Plan encourages the clustering of public and institutional facilities to the extent possible in both residential and non- residential land use designations. The water tanks and Pacific Bell monopole existed at the site pnor to the construction of homes on Medot Crest Ddve. Project Desicln The applicant's representative has worked diligently and cooperatively with staff to address aesthetic concerns. The monopine and ground-mounted equipment are proposed to be located on the north side of the water tanks, approximately 130 feet east of the existing Padtic Bell monopole. Three (3) Italian Stone Pine trees and an irrigation system to service them will be installed north and east of the equipment, to add credence to the disguised monopine. The equipment is proposed to be located over 400 feet from the nearest residence on Merlot 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 I The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The PCS facility qualifies as a public utility, which is a use permitted by Conditional Use Permit in the Public Institutional zone. The General Plan encourages the clustering of public and institutional facilities to the extent possible in both residential or non-residential land use designations. The existing Pacific Bell installation and water tanks at the site provide such an area. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. The project is compatible with the existing public facilities already at the site. The design of the facilities have been modified to be compatible with adjacent residential uses. There is no demonstrated evidence that wireless communication systems adversely affect adjacent residences. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or Coundl in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The applicant has revised the design of the monopole to simulate a pine tree and has provided three additional Italian Pine trees to assist in the disguise of the "monopine." \\TEME C_FS201QATA%DEPTS~LANNING%STAFFRP'F%219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal.cloc 3 The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The concern regarding electromagnetic fields (EMFs) surfaced in the 1980's and as a result, several organizations reviewed the issue and developed standards for the protection against radio frequency emissions. Study and after study concluded that there was no demonstrated evidence that exposure to wireless service facilities was harmful to people. As 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, constructjon, 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, Attachments: 3. 4. 5. 6. City Council Resolution No. 99- - Page 5 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Page 9 Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision - Page 10 Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission hearing of December 16, 1998 - Page 11 Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission hearing of January 6, 1999 - Page 12 Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated December 16, 1998 - Page 12 Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 6, 1999 - Page 14 \\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT~219pa98. CC STAFFRPT-Appeal.doc 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 99- \\TEMEC_FS201 ~)ATAU}EPTSkPLANNING',STAFFRPT~219pa98.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 tame 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 hme the CIty staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to tln=s 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 t~me the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either ~n 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 heanng pena~mng to Planning No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit- Appeal) on February 9, 1999, at which time ~nteres~ed 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 Planrang Apphcat~on No PA98-0219; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findiners. That City Council, in denying Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit -Appeal) and upholding the Planning Commission's decision approving \'~TEMEC_FS201QATA~EPTS~PLANNING~TAFFRPT~.I 9pa98.CC STAFFRPT-AppeaI.Ooc 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 w~th the existing public facilities already at the site. The design of the facilities have been modified to De compatible with adjacent residential uses. There is no demonstrated evidence that w~reless 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 Planrang 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 detnmental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The concern regarding electromagnetic fields (EMFs) surfaced in the 1980's and as a result, several organizations reviewed the issue and developed standards for the protection against radio frequency emissions. Study and after study concluded that there was no demonstrated evidence that exposure to wireless service facilities was harmful to people. As pan of the 1996 Wireless Communications Act, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) estaDhshed an exposure standard that ~s a hybrid of various standards developed by others. The FCC controls frequencies used by various entities and regulates the certification of their faciht~es The 1996 Act expressly preempts state and local government regulahon of the Dlacement :325tructlon, aRC moCifigatlons of w~re!ess F~',,'!Ce fa3i!?!es or:, ',re: ::sin sf e'-', '.'~'T.=' :2 e':: ', The C~ty Attorney has recommenaea that me project De condit~oned to provide annual evidence of recertification by the FCC, in order to ensure compliance with the FCC's regulations and standarcls Condlhon of Approval No. 9 has been ~ncluded 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 Stahon (BTS) unit and other electronic and battery equipment. The antennas will be mounted atop a 60-foot h~gh monopole, disguised as an evergreen p~ne tree ("monop~ne") located at me Rancho Cahforn~a v~TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA~:)EPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRpT~219pa98.CC STAFFRPToAppeaI.cloc 7 Water Distnct water tank site at 3100 Rancho California Road, and known as Assessors 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 ) 1. Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolubon 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. Approval Date: Expiration Date: 953-060-022 January 6, 1999 January 6, 2001 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier~s check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption required uncler Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and Califomia Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to inOemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right R:'£TAFFRP'F219pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.cloc 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 penod 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 Clty'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. 8. The applicant shall submit for review and approval Construction Landscape and Irngation Plans. 9. Three (3) Italian Stone Pine trees shall be installed at a minimum of 36" boxed size. 10 All electrical wiring associated with the antenna shall be buried underground or hidden in a manner acceptable to the Building Official. 11. The antenna must be adequately grounded, for protection against a direct strike of lightning, with an adequate grounding method approve by the City of Temecula Building Official. 12. installation must meet wind velocity criteria as set forth in the Uniform Building Code when deemed necessary by the City of Temecula Building official. Prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy: 13. The applicant shall replace any landscaping removed or damaged during the installation of equipment. 14. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Manager a copy of the annual recertification document issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that ensures compliance of the project with its standards and regulations. 15 The applicant shall periodically refurbish or paint as necessary to maintain the color and texture of the monopine as originally approved by the Commission. R:/£TAFFRP?~.lgpa-98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doe 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; Califomia 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 electncal meter provisions for power for the operation of extenor 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 Califomia 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 Enwronmental Health, as no~eci ~n their correspondence c~ated June 2, 1998 attacnea. 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~219pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc 11 Jeffrey L. ~kXer G.e,orle .~[. V/oo~ C_jty of Ternecu/a PDnninE Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 ~ APRF_ATION NO. PA_q8.02m (MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMID Dear sm In accordance with the City of TemecuIa Development Review Committee's request m connection with the above subject application. please be advised that the property m questlob is located within the boundaries of the Ranclio California Water District (RCWD). Currently, RCWD is considering entenng into a lease agreement with the applicant, Telecommunications Development and Innovations (TDD/Cox Commnnicatioms for the purpose of installing cellular commumcations equipment at our reservoir site. R. CWD's conditions for a lease agreement would requn'e that the Lessee meet the following requlroments: · The equipment be placed so as not to interfere with the current or future use of this site. mdudmg RCWD's future plans to install radio transmi-~sion equipment for the SCADA System (frequencies must be compatible). RCWD's Operations Departm~nt requests that a frequency' interference study be performed at the expense of Cox Communications to verily compatibility of transmitting frequencies. · A separate power meter be obtained at the site from Southern California Edison (SCE). · All necessary City perrmning processes be obtained prior to construction. · Any California FEn~Vonmental QualiW Control Act (CEQA) requireme_nts 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 TDI's facilities will be allowed by RCWD. !lamcl~ Cadtb~nUs wsmsr herSet 42135 V~mchestet PdN~ , Poet Office Box 9017 · Ttmc~,,Ua, Cslifm'ma 92589-901~ · (9091676-4101 · FAX/909) 878-0615 F CIty of Temecula Page 2 June 9, 1998 ff you have any questions regarding this matter, or ff you need further clarification of the item-~ listed, please contact Sincerely yours, ~.,.RA~~O.RNL~ WATER D Paul J. General Services Manager DAVID P. ZAPPE acncral Manager-Chief Engineer RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT ] 995 MARKer STREET PJVEILSIDE, CA 9250 I 909~'5~200 909r71~8-9965 FAX ; ,' 51 lg0.1 City of Temecula Plannin De artment Temecula. California 92589-9033 Attention: Ladies a.d Gentlemen: Re: The Distnct does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not lan chec~ city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for su~:~ cases. Distnct comments/recommendations for such cases am normally limited to items of specific roterest to the District indudin9 District Master Draina · Plan radiities, other ional flood control and draina e facili'des which could be consioered a Ir, x:Jical componen~gor extension of a masterr~p~n s stem, and District Area ~rainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a 9eneral nsn~usre is provided. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue: ~/This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other fadlities of regional ~nterest proposed. This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will acce t ownership of suc~ facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District stan~lP~rds, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a I ical extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The District wo~Jl°~ consider accepting ownership of such tac~lmes on wntten reqnue~lt of the Ch'y. Facilities must be consmJcted to District standards, and D~sthct Man chec~ and inspectio wil be required for District acceptance. plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. / This project is located within the limits of the Disthct's NO R~I 7A Cf~EE~, f'EF/E.C-ULA Vr~LL~ea Drainage Plan for which draina e fees have been adopte~; ap~cafDle tees sd'ould be pa~d 13y cashiers check or money order onl to ~e Floo~ Co~bul District or City pnor to issuance of building or grading permits, whichever comes ~rsL Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect, at the time of issuance of the actual permrL GENERAL INFORMATION This p,--oje~ ma re-uire a National Poll',,~nt Discharge Elimination System (NPDES perm~ from the S~te Water Resources Control ~oard. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should be given until the not City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If this pro'oct involves a Federal Emergen.C'y Management Agency (FEMA map _l:~ flood plain then the C' should require ~e applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans and o~er |nformation reduired to m~e~ FEMA occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain !sim acted by this project, the City should require the a licant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean PV~ater Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these aaencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quail CertF~cation may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Controt Board pnor to issuance of ~e Corps 404 permit. /'~"~~ Very truly yours, STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer C: TO: FROM: County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT : ~arole Do e, A~.CP ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PA98-0219 DATE: June 2, 1998 The Dcpm"tmcnt of Environmental Health has received and reviewed the Conditional Use Permit No. PA98-0219 and have no objections. If permanent structures for employees are required that maintain restrooms, this Department will require "will serve letters" from the sewer and water agency. CH:dr (909) 955-8980 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION \\TEMEC_FS201~ATA%DEPTS~LANNING~STAFFRPT~19pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal.cloc 10 City of Temecula Community Development Department 43200 Business Park Drive · Temecula · CA · 92590 P.O. Box 9033, Temecula · CA · 92589-9033 (909) 694-6400 · FAX (909) 694-6477 Appeal Ohgjnal CaseNumber(s) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0219 (COhqDITIONAL USE PERMIT) A. PURPOSE The purpose of the appeal procedure is to provide a method of recourse for persons aggrieved by or dissatisfied with an action taken by an administntive agency of the City in the administntion or enforcement of any provisions of the Development Code. B. FFI ,ING REQUTREM'FNTS 1. Development Application. 2. Appeal Form. B. Firing Fee. C. NOTICE OF APPEAI. - T!'M~. l .IMIT A notice of an appeal by any individual who is aggrieved by or dissatisfied with a decision made by him or in his behalf, or with any action, order, requirement, decision or determination shall not be acted upon unless flied within fiftee~ (1~ calendar clays after service of written notice of the decision. D. NOTICE OF APPEAl.- CONT~.NTS Appealing the decision of: Planning Commission on January 6, 1999. (Specify Director of Planning or p|a..ing Commission AND Action Dat~) Specify exactly what is being appealed: Decision of approval. It: \rA~APPI~C\A~p.~mp 7/16/~ ~ 1 Reason or justification to support the appeal. Appellant must submit with this appeal each issue wl,' ~ the appellant alleges was wrongly detexmined together with every agreement and a copy of every ik Of evidence. (Attach separate 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 bv the applicant and the communitv. In the event any Notice of Appea/applicant fails to answer any information set forth above, then the request will be returned to the appellant, with a statement of the deficiencies. The appellant shall be allowed five (5) calendar days in which to refile the notice of appeal. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING OF DECEMBER 16, 1998 \\TEMEC_FS201 ~)ATA~DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~I 9pa98CC STAFFRPT-Appeal.c~oc 11 DRAFT 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 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 Cudey'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. bonahoe 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 Dis: 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 detnmental to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Mr. Greg Mornsion, representing the applicant, presented a display sample of the monop~ne 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 am 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 Staven, 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 opimon, noting that relative to the height and level of emissions. an adjacent neighbor could De on hm roof 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and be safe from harm; advised that if the system realfunctioned, 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 Marlot 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 m opposition to the proposed project, recommending :': ::,e Commiss~or, cen~al or postponement of the issue, for the tallowrag ressons. 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 concem 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, Bierle almost conclusively focused on powedine electnc 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 ~on~zlng and non-ionizing radiowaves, noting that non-ionizing radiowaves at me 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. Intoally. the Commission expressed their comments on the proposed project, as follows: Commissioner Naggar relayed that since he was not completely knowledgeable on me 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 simitar facility, and since the area Is zoned for such facilibes. he would accept the staff recommendation and vote ~n favor of the pro.lect. Chairwoman Slaven noted her concurrence with Commissioner Naggar's comments, further commenting that the quality of life included liwng without fear, and since the residents nave expressed grave concerns with the EMF emissions, she could not support the project, suggesting that the applicant site another location, away from residential areas. Attorney Curley clarified that since the Federal Communication Act of 1996, expressly considered the environmental effects that it is not in our jurisdiction to base the criteria of the land use findings on the EMF emissions, due to the aforementioned preemption, noting that DRAFT the Public Utilities Commission could override a decision, if based upon the stated criteria; advised that this determination has been made due to the technical nature of the informational data. Commissioner Naggar requested provision of information on case law involving cellular facilities and the regulation that specify or limit the Commission's action. Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that the adjacent neighbors could have investigated and determined that their property is located adjacent to a public utility site, noting that the existing Pacific Bell monopole was at the site, pnor to the residents locating there. Project Planner Donahoe advised that although the data was not currently available. me 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 unammous approval with the exception of Commissioners Guerriero and Webster who abstained. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT A With regard to Dr. John Hus~ng's Economic Development Strategy report, it was noted that if the Commission had auestions, Assistant City Manager O'Grady could address those issues at a Plann',n_: 3~mm;sslon meet,.n.g. B. With regard to the parking of trucks along Diaz Road, it was noted that Code Enforcement has referred the matter to the Police Department. COMMISSIONER REPORTS No comments. ATTACHMENT NO. 4 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING OF JANUARY 6, 1999 \\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRpT~219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-Appeal.aoc 12 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. PC 994)01 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPUCATION NO. PAg&-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. modi~ 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 Cedartree per staff recommendation The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. At this time, Agenda Item No. 4 was heard. 4. PlannincI 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 ("monopine"), one (1) Global Positioning System (GPS) antenna, and six (6) cabinets housing a base transceiver station (BTS) unit and other electronic and battery equipmenL RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Depament that the Planning Commission approve the request. Commissioners Webster and Guemero 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 summan/of location site research material, via suppiemental agenda material; and reiaye~ that the Conditions of Approval have been amended per Commission input at the December 16, 1999 meeting. Mr. Greg Mornson, representing the applicant, addressed the health concems associated with this project, presenting data from the American Cancer Society, clarifying that non-ionizjng radiation (i.e., radio frequency waves) is not a carcinogen and does not promote the growth of cancer once it has started; by way of overheads, presented a detailed overview of the site selection process, the criteda used to determine potential site locations, and the rationale for the present proposed site plan (per supplemental agenda material). DRAFT Mr. Paul Gonzalez, representing RCWD (Rancho California Water District), provided a brief summaW of District Policy regarding public posting of the proposed project, noting that this particular project was noticed three timas; advised that the revenue generated fforn this proposed project wil offset rate increases; and relayed that RCWD has conesponded with Larry LeDoux, a conuemed public member. inviting him to attend the RCWD Board meetings, and advising that RCWD would specifr..ally notice him regarding any future applications for additional antennas at this particular site. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed project, primanly due to health concerns associated with the radiowave emissions from the monopole: Shawn Biede TerTy Hood Robert Rasband 32016 Medot Crest 32040 Medot Crest 32044 Merlot Crest Chairwoman Slaven closed the public headng. Attomey Cudey advised that although the Commission had latitude regarding the typical land-use determination, there were limitations regarding the Commission's action with regard to this particular project (specified in the agenda material); dadfled Conditional Use Permits; reiterated the Findings for this particular project in the staff report; relayed that the Commission's decision must be based on substantial evidence regarding those particular Findings; advised that with regard to the land-use decision, due to the FCC (Federal Communication Commission) regulations, the Commission cannot deny the project based on the radio frequency wave concerns; and 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 facilitation of the public telecommunication system. Commissioner Naggar expressed difficulty voting on this particular 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) inconsLstency with the General Plan 2) incompatib~ity with the adiacent use, and 3) detrimental to the general welfare of the community. .%smm:ss:oner S,c.;.";,.s~aK exDre-sse: tna: = ...._ ne ._~ somDasslon far [ne ~mmunn'y's no',ed concern, since there was ^'fD,,~L;~r' cieany a visible e×isting similar facility on the proposea site plan (noting its e×istence pnor to the adjacent construction of the homes), and the fact that the c~ustering of such facilitates is encouraged, and in light of the presented documented rationale for the proposed site location, he would support the project. Chairwoman Slaven dadfled the rationale for continuing the project at the December 16, 1999 Planning Commission meeting; noted that the Commission's charge had been dadfled to make a determination based on the Findings (of record) reiterated by Attorney Cudey, operating under the Laws of the State of California; for informational purposes. aueded the ,,:.. .-.:a:!sS!i~-,. of t'~e :-; :'.di:~ of a res=ce.':.:iaj area he×: :~ the exis:l~,; fas:i!ry; re~ayec tna~ '.he ;.mpcse~ si~e ;;an wdl De aesmetically peasing, ana an improvement of the existing use, and in light of the legal constraints and requirements of the Commission, she would support the project. MOTION: Commissioner Soltysiak moved to dose the public hearing; adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA98-0219; and adopt Resolution No. 99-002 approving Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Condition Use Permit) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report, subject to the amended Conditions of Approval. DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. PC 99-002 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPUCAT1ON NO. PA98-0219 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT), TO CONSTRUCT A WIRELESS PC$ FACIUTY CONSISTING OF TWELVE PANEL ANTENNAS MOUNTED ATOP A 60-FOOT MONOPOLE, A GPS ANTENNA AND SIX CABINETS HOUSING A BT$ 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 n_o, and Commissioners Guemero and Webster who abstained. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT A. Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that since at the January 213, 1999, Planning Commission meeting Mr. Bob Davis w~ll be presenting the Traffic Circulation Update, the Commission could submit specific concerns and questions pnor to the meeting for submittal to Mr. Davis. Commissioner Nagga~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 wortshops 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 pnor to her departure. COMMISSIONER REPORTS A. Chairwoman Slaven noted that the Amencan 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 Naggads desire to attend the conference. B With regard to Mr. Blac~'s submittal (see. page 1, under Public Comments for reference), Ms. Ubnoske noted. for Chairwoman Slaven, mat staff has been in contact with Mr. Black, ana appreciated the aoditional information submitted, relaying that staff will continue to communicate with Mr. Black. For CommL~sioner Soltysiak, Attorney 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 regara to the language of the Design Guiaelines, specifically, conceming conformance of the architectural standard for specific uses. Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that staff could investx:jate and expand the guidelines to improve the ctanty. ATTACHMENT NO. 5 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DATED DECEMBER 16, 1998 ',xTEMEC_FS201 \DATA~DEPTS\PLANNINGLSTAFFRPT~219pa98.CC STAFFRPT-AppeaI.cloc 13 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 1998 OR/8/N4 Planning Application No. PA98..O219 (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 monopole, disguised as an evergreen pine tree ("mortopine). 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) PROPOSED ZONING: Not Applicable GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: P (Public/Institutional Facilities) EXISTING LAND USE: Two existing above-ground water tanks and associated pump equipment, and a Pacific Bell 50-foot high monopole with associated ground-mounted equipment. ,,TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEI=TS\PLANNING~STAFFRpT~219pA98.pC.Ooc 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 w~m staff and members of the Charclonnay Hills Homeowners' Association at the project site. For me next three months TDI and staff worked together to research alternative locations and monopole heights. On October 14, 1998 TDI presented a creative solution to address the concerns of the adjacent homeowners, by Iowenng the antennas on the monopole height to 60 feet, and by disguising the pole and antennae as a pine tree. The modified proposal was sent to and was endorsed by the Chardonnay Hills Homeowners' Association Board of Directors. A 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 concerns regarding the emission of electromagnetic fields (EMF) from the Cox equipment. They protested the time of the hearing because ~t 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 scneclule the item on a Planning Commission agenda in order to provide a more convenient public heanng at 6 p.m. Staff advertised this case for the Planning Commission's December 16, 1998 hearing PROJECT DESCRIPTION The monop~ne and ground-mounted equipment are proposed to be located on the north side of the water tanks, approximately 130 feet east of the existing Pacific Bell monopole. The equipment will De installed on the outside of the existing chain link fence that surrounds the water tanks, but will add s~rn~lar chain link fencing around its installation. Three (3) Italian Stone Pine trees and an irrigation 3),5ie'T t:, se,%'i~_e t~ern will De :natalleO norm arts east af tne equipment, to Go:, :teaante to the a~sgu~sea mortopine. ANALYSIS Prolect Desiqn Staff recommends approval of the design of the project. The applicanrs representative has worked dihgently and cooDeratlvely with staff to address the aesthetic concerns cf the adiac, ent T;rcpe,~',,' owners. Electromaclnet~c 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 ~reless 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 vancue standards developed by others. The FCC controls frequencies used by various entities and regulates the certification of their facilities. The 1996 Act expressly preempts state and local government regulation of the placement, construction, and modifications of wireless service facilities on the basis of environmental effects. ',\TEMEC_FS201~DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRpT~.lCpA98.pC.do¢ The City Attorney has recommended that the project be conditioned to provide annual evidence of receni~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. Included as Exhibit No." I" is a chart comparing typical exposure levels from vanous radio frequency and m~crowave sources. Additionally. TDI has asked Dr. Jerrold T. Bushberg of the University of Califom~a, Berkeley, to attend the Commission heanng to provide information and address questionS. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The pro)ect 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 drover to provide tetecommunications 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 wew 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 recommencl 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 ~n the Public Institutional zone. The General Plan encourages the clustering of puDtiC ancl institutional facilities to the extent possible in both residential or non-residential lanc~ use designations. The existing Pacific Bell installation and water tanks at the site DFOVlde SUCh an area. The proposecl 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 puDhc facilities already at the site. The design of the facilities have been modified to be compatible w~th adjacent residential uses. There is no demonstrated evidence that wireless comrnun~cation systems aclversely affect adjacent residences. The s~te for a proposecl conditional use is adequate in size and shape-to accommodate the yarcts, walls. fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Comm~sslon or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighbornood. 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 concludecl that there was no demonstrated evidence that exposure to wireless service facilities was harmful to people. As part of the 1996 Wireless Communications Act, the ,',TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~19pA98.pC.doc 3 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established an exposure standard that is ~- 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. That the ctecision 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 Heanng 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 Char J. Site Cross Section \\TEMEC_FS201 ~)ATA%DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT%21 9PA98.PC.¢Ioc 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING OF NOVEMBER 12, 1998 ~\TEMEC_FS2011DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING~,STAFFRpT'~21gpAgB.pC.aoc MINIfI'5 OF A REGULAR MEETING OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR NOVEMBER 12, 1998 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula planning DireCtor was called to order on Thursday. November 12. 1998 at 1:30 PM, at the City of Temecula Main Conference Room. 43200 BusineSs Park Drive, Temecula, California. Senior Planner Matthew Fagan presiding. Also present were Project Planner Carole Donahoe and Minute Clerk Cathy Davis. 1. Planninz Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit~ Project Planner Carole Dottahoe presented the staff report for PA98--0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) 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 ("mortopine"), one (1) Global Positioning System (GPS) antenna, and six (6) cabinets housing a base transceiver station (BTS) unit and other electronic and battery equipment located at the Rancho California Water District water tank site at 3100 Rancho California Road, on the north side of Ranch California Road, between Butterfield Stage Road and Meadows Park'way, and south of La Serena Way. Senior Planner Matthew Fagan opened the public hearing at 1:45 PM. Richard Zolla, 32020 Merlot Crest, Temecula spoke in opposition to the project. He stated that he felt there is a lot of undeveloped areas and this could be located somewhere else. Shawn Bierle, 32016 Merlot Crest, Temecula spoke in opposition to the project due to health concerns. Frank DiGiacomo, 32032 Merlot Crest, Temecula spoke in opposition to the project due to health concems. Louis LeDoux, 32004 Merlot Crest, Temecula spoke in opposition for to project due to health hazards and EMS emissions. He would like further study and proof that this type of monopole is safe. Leo Finegold, 32036 Merlot Crest, Temecula spoke in opposition to the project due to lack of notice and not enough time to research possible health concerns. He also suggested some different locations. Senior Planner Matthew Fagan closed the public hearing at 2:23 PM. An additional condition was added to the Conditions of Approval. Applicant is to ensure that the toorio-tree is periodically maintained in order to retain the color and materials as approved. R:~-OIBtgI~IRRF, AR.MIN ll/l~'gg k. lb Applicant Adan Madrid, TDI, Inc., 3 150 Bristol Street, Suite 250, Costa Mesa, 'CA with the modified Conditions of Approval. COrtCUI'T Senior Plnnner Matthew Fagan continued this matter to a noticed planning Commission meeting for the following reasons: Requests from homeowners for time to further study the issues. Requests from homeowners for additional information regarding EMFs Requests from homeowners for additional exhibits such as line of sight Requests from homeowners to hold a hearing at a more convenient time for residents who work. The meeting was adjourned at 2:23 P.M. Mat-,Ja~ Se~morPlanner R:\FORM$~DIRI-iEAR.MIN II/I$/98 klb ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS ~\TEMEC_FS21)1%DATA~EPTSVaLANNING~TAFFRPT'~.lgPA98.PC.cloc 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. ',STA FFRPT'~219PA98. PC .doc CITY OF TEMECULA LM ] / LM LM CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT B GENERAL PLAN MA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998 R: \STAFFR?T'~. 19PA98. PC.doc CITY OF TEMECULA SP CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT C PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998 ZONING MAP R: ,STAFFP-j~'~ 19PA98 .PC.doc CITY OF TEMECULA (k") Ho~.c- \ \ CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT D SURROUNDING LAND U5 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998 R:~TA]=FRPT~ 19PA98. PC. doc CITY OFTEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998 SITE PLAN R: ',STA FFRPT'2 19PA9B. PC. doc CITY OF TEMECULA ,/ CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT F EQUIPMENT P!_/ PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998 R: \STA FFRPT~219PA98. PC. doc CITY OF TEMECULA O CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998 SITE PLAN R ,,STAFFRPT',2 19PA98. PC .doc CITY OF TEMECULA PINE TR_r~ MONOPCLE ,, W/~N~ ARRA.v5 ,~nv~_ /"' S~r SHOP DRAW}NGS (3 TOTAL) /,~,, LOCATION OF GP$ A,'CrE~NA. Srr~, ELrVA"~0N NOT SHOWN IN TRUE PLANE SC,~.F.: p 1 NORTH ELrVATION ~ : /,=-= ~ -C' 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: '.STA FFR.,rF': 19PA98. PC. doc CITY OF TEMECULA ',,,\ /, \ \ \ \ \\ \ I,, ,/ \\ \ \ CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT F EQUIPMENT PL/ PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998 R: \STA FFRi:'T\219PA98. PC. doc Exposure in Microwatts/cm2 CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT I PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 16_ lfig8 TYPICAL EXPOSURE CHART CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT J SITE CROSS SECTI¢3 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998 R:\STAFFRPT~219PA98.PC.cloc ATTACHMENT NO. 6 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DATED JANUARY 6, 1999 ,\TEMEC_FS201QATA~DEPTS\PLANNINGLSTAFFRPT~19pa98,CC STAFFRPT-AppeaI,~ioc 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 recommencls 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 Posmonlng System (GPS) antenna, and six (6) caDsnets housing a Base Transce~ver Station (BTS) unit and other etectronm anc~ battery equipment. The antennas will be mounted atop a 60-foot mgh monopole, disguised as an evergreen pine tree ("monoplne"). LOCATION: North of Rancho Califomia Road, west of Butterfield Stage Road. east of Meadows Parkway, and south of La Serena Way on Rancno California Water Distnct property. CASE STATUS: This project was presented to the Planning Commission on December 16. 1998, at which time the Commmsion heard testimony from the applicant's representatives including Dr. Jerrold T. Bustnberg. The Commission also received testimony and a petition in opposition from adjacent homeowners on Merlot Crest. The Commission continued the case to January 6, 1999 and asked ttne applicant's representatives to consider alternative sites and to provide copies of the selection reports that determined the proposed site. The Commission also asked the City Attorney to provide information on case law involving cellular facilities and the regulations that specify or limit the Commission's action. R:ISTA-FFRPT,219pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc 1 ANALYSIS: Site Selection Subsequent to the hearing, staff met with the applicanrs 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 heanng of January 6, 1999. Case Law The City Attorney's office provided several 0ocuments for distribution to the Commission and they are included under Attachment 2. Coffespondence Staff received a copy of correspondence to Larry Ledoux from the Ranc. no California Water District's General Manager dated December 21, 1998. This correspondence is included under Attachment 3. Amendments to the Conditions of ADDroval During the heanng of December 16, 1998, the Commission considered the following items as possible additions to the Conditions of Approval: Pnor 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 mortopine 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 moncoine as originally aD~rove~ Dy 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:~STAFFRP'I~19pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc 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 Orcler 159-A Rules Relating to the Construction of Cellular Radiotelephone Facilities in California B. Overview, Police Power (Excerpt from Curtiffs 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 O~er Telecommunications Facilities," Pages 129-130 Correspondence from Rancho California Water Distdct to Larry Ledoux dated DecemDer 21, 1998 - Blue Page 13 Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated December 16, 1998 - Blue Page 14 R:LSTAFFRFrx219pa,g8 PC STAFF REPORT :Z.doc 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 99- R:~STAFFRPT~Igpa.98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc ATFACHMENT NO. I PC RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0219, (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT), TO CONSTRUCT A WIRELESS PCS FACILITY CONSISTING OF TWELVE PANEL ANTENNAS MOUNTED ATOP A 60-FOOT MONOPOLE, A GPS ANTENNA AND SIX CABINETS HOUSING A BTS UNIT AND OTHER ELECTRONIC AND BATTERY EQUIPMENT, LOCATED AT THE RCWD WATER TANK SITE, 3100 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 953-060-022 WHEREAS, Cox Communications PCS, L.P. filed Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit) which is in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan anti 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 nearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons hacl an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission heanngs 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 ~ncorporated by reference. Section 2. Findiners. That the Temecula Planning Commission. in aDproving ~ia~'~:~-~ ,:..-~,cstion No. ~A9.,3-C2~9 (Condmonal Use ~erm~t~, hereby ma~,es me fotiow~ng findings as requ~rea ~n 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~2 19pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc 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, landscaptng, 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 devetopecl standards for the protection against radio frequency emissions. Study and after study concluded that there was no demonstrated evidence that exposure to wireless service facilities was harmful to people. As pan of the 1996 Wireless Communications Act, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established an exposure standard that is a hybrid of various standards developed by others. The FCC controls frequencies used by various entities and regulates the certification of their facilities. The 1996 Act expressly preempts state and local government regulation of the placement, construction, and modifications of wireless service facilities on the basis of environmental effects. The City Attorney has recommended that the project be conditioned to provide annual evidence of recertification by the FCC, in order to ensure compliance with the FCC's regulations and standards. Condition of Approval No. 9 has been included. E. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a conclitlonal use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The proiect qualifies under the California Enwronmental Quality Act (CEQA~ for a Categ:r:Gal Exemption under Sec:'~n FaGl~t!es. Class 1 (b), because it ~5 a minor alteration of an existing facility, ~nvolwng ne~,,=ti;ie 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) Danel antennas. one (1) Global Positioning System (GPS~ antenna anc s:x (6'.i cabinets housing a Base Transce~ver Station (BTS) unet and other eie.:tron~c ans battery equipment. The antennas will be mounted atop a 60-foot high monopole, disguised as an evergreen pine tree Croonopine"). R:'~TAFFRPT~19pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc 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 UIDnoske, Secretary RASTAFFRPT~219pa98 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 TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES," PAGES 129-130 R:xSTAFFRPT'3.19pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc 12 ' Attachment A ]lloNd ' """' "'MAY 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 1990) OPINION ADOPTINGGENERALORDER 159-A RU~ RELATI]~3 TO TwR- u)NS'rMuCTION OF t"~rr.T.ULAR RADIOTR~.~PHONE FACILITIES IN CALIFORNIA Su.m,arv 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 !59-A replaces the current advice letter notification process with a notification letter. Cellular carriers will provide copies cf such notification to local government authorities. Commission authorization prior to construction would no longer be required. The revisions 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, ~ne Commission will review the need to preempt local jurisdiction, allowing local agencies and citizens an opportunity to present their positions. TheC~llul~ utility Will have-the burden of" proof to demonstrate that accommodating local agency requirements - I - R.90-01-012 ALJ~BDP/sid for any specific site would frustrate the Commission's objectives. If the cellular utility is able to prove this point, the Commission will preempt local Jurisdiction pu~Su~nt~to"its-authority under Article XII, Section 8 of the Califo~_r/%i.'.~ ._.Ccm_a_.titution. Backcrro,,nd The issue before the Commission is the advice letter notification procedure that has been in effect for the last five years pursuant to GO 159. Under this procedure, cellular carriers are required to file advice letters for each cell site, and Commission approval of each such filing is required to complete the siting process. Also, the advice letter procedure did result in increased involvement by the Commission in the interpretation and enforcement of local land use planning regulation and building permit issuance (see Decision (D.) 94-11-018 and D.94-11-019). There is general agreement that the advice letter procedure is cumbersome and needs to be changed. To address these concerns, five workshops were held, noticed settlement conferences were held pursuant to Rule 51.1(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, and a proposed settlement was executed by the Settlement Parties.1 The proposed 1 The Cellular Carriers Association cf Ca!iftrT..ia (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 N~oa Ce!!u!~r Te!e~hcn~ ~-~anv, C=r~.~nlcaz!onS C~rlpDrazlcn and Sa_inas Ceiiuia~ Teiepnone C~mpany; Cal-One Cellular Company; GTE Mobilnet of California Limited Partnership and its Affiliates GTEC Mobilnet of Santa Barbara Limited Partnership, GTE Mobilnet of San Diego, Inc., Contel of (Footnote continues on next page) - 2 - R.90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/sid settlement, which comprises a revised GO 159, herein referred 'to as the Settlement GO, was filed with the Commission on November 1, 1995, as a "Joint Motion of the Cellular Carriers Association of California and Participating Carriers to Apprgve and Adopt Settlement of Issues Raised in R.90-01-012." The Settlement GO was amended on January 3, 1996 to address the concerns of the California League of Cities and other local governmental interests. Comments and/or reply comments on the propose~ GO !59-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, Sa!inas and Vista, respectively, - Counties of E1 Dorado, Fresno and Madera, respectively, - GTE Mobilenet and Associates, </~cznDze ccnz!nued from ~rev=cus 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 ,~i. =.~'--~- ........... - 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 =ha= 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 =heir tariffs once a ~aarzer. 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 a~Dlications and ....... sccumenzs w~ii continue tc De retained by nne carriers and will be available to the Commission upon request. Copies of the notification letter will be provided to the city planning director, the city clerk, and the city manager of the affected city, or where - 4 - R.90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/sid no city is involved, a copy of the notification letter will be provided to the county planning director, the.clerk of the board of supervisors, and the county executive of the affected county. GO 159-A ~6n~f~s t0'Trecc~l~e'thatPrimarY authority regarding cell siting issues should~continue to'be deferred to local authorities. Local authorities would continue to issue permits, oversee--California-Environm~nt&I Quality Act (CEQA) compliance, and adopt and implement noticing and public comment requirements, if any. The Commission's role continues to be that of the agency of last resort, intervening only when a utility contends that.local actions impede statewide goals, or local agencies contend that a utility's actions are frustrating local interests. Discussion We discuss below the comments received on the proposed GO 159-A. Local Agencies are Ill-Equipped to Regulate 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 utiiities 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 con=end =hat contrary =o UCAN's assertions, local government agencies have non- evidenced any concern =ha= =hey are ill-prepared =o handle cell sine matters as claimed by UCAN. Local government agency representatives expressed =he view =ha= i= is =he responsibility of the local jurisdiction =o look after =he interests of their commuaity, they should be =he ones =o de=ermine whether or no= they want to have the cellular facility in their area, and the local government agencies have =heir own enforcement procedures and do not want more state oversight. The carriers submit =ha= =here was consensus among the workshop participants =ha= the local agency should continue to have =he primary role =o regulate the siting of cellular facilities. Also, the carriers (Bakersfield) argue that under present law, local land use questions are resolved b~ local authorities, which are best placed to review the local impacts of a particular proposal. The carriers point out =ha= one of =he 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 !59-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 =o local governments in its exercise of its authority to regulate the location and design of cell s~zes an~ MfiSOs inciu!ing (a) zhe issuance of la~d use approvals; (b) acting as Lead Agency for purpose of satisfying CEQA; and (c) the satisfaction of noticing procedures for both land use approvals and CEQA.procedures. However, because statewide - 6 - R.90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/Sid telecommunications interests in some infrequent cases may be in conflict with local interests, the Commission continues to reserve jurisdiction to preempt those matters which are inconsistent with the overall statewide communications objectives. The Commission continues to have an interest in assuring that individual local government decisions do not impact uniform state interests, or create unconscionable standards. Further, we note that the proposed GO 159-A was served on all California Cities and Counties and comments were invited.3 No city or county filed comments stating that local agencies are ill equipped to handle siting matters and there were no requests for the Commission to take back from local agencies the primary authority regarding siting of cellular facilities that was delegated under GO 159.4 Accordingly, we are not persuaded by UCAN's argument that GO 159-A represents a change.in Commission regulatory policy, or that the Commission should exercise oversight over individual cell site applications currently being handled by local agencies. Local Governments Should Not and Have Not Demonstrated the Ability or Interest in Investigating Adverse Health and Safety ImPacts of Wireless Sites UCAN states that currently, there is substantial dispute abou~ 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 c~unty clerks and cc~nty zDunsel cf 4 GO 159, issued pursuant to D.90-03-080 dated March 28, 1990, states: "Accordingly, the Commission delegates its authority to regulate the location and design of cellular facilities to local agencies, except in those instances when there is a clear conflict with statewide interests .... " (P. 3.) - 7 - R.90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/Sid technologies. In addition to the national research being conducteu on Electromagnetic Field {EMF) effects of cellular transmission, there is increased scrutiny of GSM technolog~ for Personal Communications Services ('PCS) facilities. AcCording to UCAN, problems associated with GSM are becoming increasingly apparent, particularly to users of hearing aids, and pacemakers. Also, UCAN argues that local governments do not have the expertise to determine whether GSM technology should be. used in this country. UCAN notes that GO 159-A mandates that local governments shall issue land use approvals and act as the Lead Agency to satisfy CEQA. 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 control over the construction of cellular sites and MTSOs to prevent these adverse consequences. 'Pacific Bell Mobile Services5 (PBMS) states that it intends to use GSM technology in deployanent 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 manufacturers; as well as other organizations and the FCC. PBMS contends that the main issue is primarily with the handsets and not the siting of facilities. PBMS notes that use of handsets is subject to FCC regulation and must be · treated as a separate issue from the location of network facilities 5 Pacific Bell Mobile Services is not a member of the Cellular Carriers Association of California. - 8 - R.90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/sid I_. ~_ which is the instant focus of the settlement agreement and proposed GO 159-A submitted to'the Commission pursuant to the Joint Motion~ Further, the carriers (CCAC) argue that the fact that local governments might lack =he 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 =hat 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 z~is proceeding is the current advice letter procedure for notification of the Commission of the construction of new cellular faci!ities~ 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 iniiv~"=l sizes ar.i hDid hearings in :his prcceeiin~ on the hea!:h and safety implications of new wireless technologies, is de=led. - 9 - R.90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/sid Ra-y of the Terms 4, the Proposed GO 159-A are Ambiguous UCAN argues that particular words in the proposed GO 159-A are ambiguous. .. First. UCAN contends that each local government would propound its own definition of "unnecessary delay.''6 UCAN urges the Commission to adopt a clear definition of unnecessary delay. We do not share UCAN's concern. We should point out that in GO 159 the words "unnecessarily delayed" are used in a similar context7 and, thus far have caused no problems to the Commission or local agencies. Furthermore, as a practical matter it is not reasonable, aside from the fact that local agencies may conclude that the Commission wishes to ride roughshod over them, to set one definite time limit to cover all contested cell site projects because all projects do not have the same .complexities. 6 GO 159-A states: "A. Goals The Commission's goals with regard to the construction of cell sites and MTSOs are to ensure that: · , · - cellular service providers are not unnecessarily delayed by site review by the CPUC; and ..." (Section II.A, p. 3, emphasis added.) 7 In GO 159, the Commission states: The 2DmmissiDn ms aUopzin[ _hi~ General Orier no ensure Lnaz: - cellular companies are not unnecessarily delayed by site review." (GO 159, Section II, p. 3, emphasis added.) - 10 - R.90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/sid so vague that a utility, when filing its quarterly report, conceivably could comply with this requirement simply by identifying its cell sites by the county in which the site is located. We do not share UCAN's concern. For new sites and Second, UCAN argues that the definition of "locatiom" is modifications, the carriers are required in the notification letter to provide the Commission with the lot address and the assessor's parcel number. We believe that when the carriers file quarterly reports,s 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 !59-A does not define "emergency," UCAN argues that the utilities can define emergency as they see fit, finish the construction, and then provide the government with a fait accomoli. 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 effectlveness of cellular communications in such emer~excy situations. The carriers submit than even if a utility were to build facilities under emergency circumstances, the utility must 8 GO !59-A states: "Section V - QUARrY UPDATES 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 =he presence of =ha= facility in subsequent filings where i= must obtain all necessary permits and file an advice letter, or remove =he facility. Thus, carriers cannot, as UCAN suggests, build a cellular =elecommunica=ions system by-defining emergent-/ "as they see fit," and then avoid =he consequences of such actions. Again, we do not share UCAN~s concerns. GO 159-A states: "In all cases of emergency consnruc=ion,.=he cellular service provider shall, as soon as practicable, provide =he Commission's Safety & Enforcement Division with a notification letter outlining =he construction it performed and how such construction was necessitated by the emergency condition." (P. 6, emphasis added.) we believe =hat =he above requirement balances =he need for carriers to act promptly in emergency situations wiUh the need for governmental entities to regulate the siting of permanent facilities. The Settlement Ageement Shouldbe Modified to Require Preemp=iveAuthoritTtobe Exercised on an ExDe~ted Basis Pacific Bell Mobile Service (PBMS) submits that upon application by the cellular service provider for preemptlye authority, the Commission should give preference =o 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 otkl-.-= civil actions "to the end that all such actions be quickly heard and determined" (Section 21167.1). PBMS argues that the exercise cf the Commission's preempzive authority could take a very long time and delays themselves can frustrate the Commission's goals or statewide public interests. PBMS suggests that =he Commission take judicial no=ice of the length of time it took for resolution of such matters in - 12 - R.90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/sid past, and the Commission should then determine what procedural mechanism could be put in place which would allow these matters to be handled most promptly. Alternatively, PBMS suggests that the Commission exercise its preemptire authority on an expedited basis, perhaps by "issuing a de novo decision" on an application for preemptive authority within 30-60 days. Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company (BACTC) agrees with PBMS and urges the Commission to exercise its preemptire 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 =~ p~eemptZve authori-_y to constract a facility in the City of Mountain View. A decision was rendered nearly a year later on July 22, 1992.9 Therefore, BACTC believes that in those rare instances where siting a cellular facility is very difficult, the Commission should continue to assist the carriers in constructing those sites. 9 See Bay Area Cellular Telephone ComPanY v. City of Mountain View, D.92-07-074, 45 CPUC2d 141. Also, see GTE Mobilnet v. City of Los Gatos, D.90-03-080, 36 CPUC2d 133 at 137. - 13 - R.90-01-012 ALJ/~DP/sid On the other. hand, the carriers (CCAC) believe the Commission's record of filings for preemption demonstrates that the current preemption application process functions sufficiently well and does not merit revision. The carriers also have practical concerns regarding PBMS' suggestion that the Commission should act on applications for preemptive authority through a de novo decision within 30 to 60 days. The carriers point out that any matters that cannot be resolved between the local government and the wireless provider are likely to involve complicated, and/or highly contested issues. In such cases, the carriers believe that it is unrealistic to expect the Commission to resolve fairly a disputed cell-siting matter in less than 60 days. According to the carriers, such an expedited procedure could very likely leave local governments with the impression that the Commission and wireless providers are attempting to ride roughshod over them by severely restricting the time in which to argue their case. Thus, the carriers, like local governmental agencies, believe the best course is to preserve the current procedural process which affords sufficient opportunity to consider applications for preemption in a timely but fair manner. We have not lost sight of the fact that the Commission's intent in adopting GO 159 was partly to "ensure [that] cellular companies [were] non unnecessarily delayed by site review." (D.90-03-080, 36 CPUC2d 133 at 137.) To that end, the Commission granted utilities permission :o appeal for preemptive authority. In that way, the Commission would be required to intervene "only in a minority of situations where irreconcilable differences or intolerable delays arise." (Id. at 134.) And the record shows - 14 - R.90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/sid that since GO 159 was introduced in 1990, carriers-have applied for preemption only in three instances.10 Based on the small number of instances involved, it appears that the present arrangement between the local agencies and the Commission is working reasonably well. Most local agencies recog. ize 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. Cou~ents of Parents for the Elimination of the Schoolyard Tower (PEST) PEST opposes the settlement and urges the Commission to adopt stringent regulations in the revised general order as regards the placement of cellular facilities at and near schools. PEST states that there are specific laws mandated in the California State Education Code which govern the process by which a cellular facility may be sited on public school property. Further, PEST contends that the California Department of Education is not an enfcrcing agency. Consequently, individual school districts are re~a!red tc use educational funds in costly legal battles with cellular companies to ensure that the State Education Code is followed when cellular facilities are erected on public school 10 City of Mountain View, City of Los Gatos and, in 1991, PacTel Cellular, applied for, then subsequently withdrew a request for preemptive authority for construction in the Sacramento area. - 15 - R.90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/sid property.11 PEST's concern is that the revised general order does not ensure that parents receive notice of potential cell sites on' school property in order to address health Concerns associated with EMF emissions. PEST notes that the Commission stated: "Cellular Companies can be encouraged to consider alternative siting, especially if projected cell sites are in-close proximity to schools or hospitals. School and hospital sites can be designated only as last-choice possibilities." (D.95-11-017.) PEST submits that this statement is not enough. PEST requests that the language below be inserted in'the proposed general order: "When cellular facilities are sited on school property, the law 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 en~i~y 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. !1 PEST cites the cellular facility installed at E1 Morro Elementary School in Laguna Beach, and a possible installation at Patrick Menry Middle School in the Los Angeles Unified School District. We ncze nhaz 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 =he 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. o 17 o R.90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/Sid I.. ~=' 'u_ PEST also contends than the notificationletter from the cellular carrier must identify the specific location of the facility on the parcel for the property. we believe that local agencies, as part of their permitting process, may obtain detailed information from the carrier regarding such maUters. However, GO 159-A requires that a parcel number be furnished. We_believe =haU is sufficient for Commission record purposes since the Commission will non normally be involved in the siting.process.12 PEST's request is denied. Comments of Local Aaencies 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: (for new sites) the number of antennae to be ~- .... anl z~e zuilCln~ slze(s~ b: (for modifications) a description of the modification work." (GO 159-A, p. 5.) - 18 - R. 90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/Sid for comments do no= find the Commission's retention of the right to intervene, when there is a clear violation of statewide interest,' unduly burdensome. However, there are differences of opinion with regard to three questions posed in the ALJ's .ruling which transmitted the proposed GO 159-A for comment. ResDonses tO 0uestions in ALJ Rulin~ The responses to the three questions posed in the ALJ's ruling are summarized below: Issue No. 1 The proposedGO should specifically provide for local citiz~n~ to be able to appeal to the Commission for preemption. The local agencies generally conclude that citizens have adequate opportunities for comment and appeal at the local level (first at the planning commission level and then at the city council level). There was no support for the idea that the proposed GO should specifically provide for citizens to be able to appeal to the Commission for preemption. The League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties believe that the public appeal proposed in Issue No. 1 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 ~n~ormed of the authority and control over cell siting that the Commission has delegated to local agencies so that they may use th~s authority to their fullest advantage when processing application- 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 tame of issuance of this decision should suffice. Additionally, the Commission's Safety & Enforcement Division may send a single letter to each city and county, one time after the modified GO 159-A is adopted by the Commission, explaining how the new procedures affect cell siting issues before local governments. In this manner, all participants, including carriers, local governments, members of the general public, and Commission staff will follow the same "script." We believe that letters on an annual basis from the Commission staff or with every local permit request would be an unnecessary intrusion into local agency affairs. Issue No. 3 The Commission should completely abrogate its jurisdiction over cell siting matters. This solution would be an alternative to the proposed changes in GO 159-A. Under this scenario the local agencies would have complete authority over cell siting matters, and the cellular carriers and local citizens would have to resort to the courts to settle all disputes with the local agency. The League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties (LCC&C) believes that if the Commission wou!~ be completely ur. invo!ved in sell siti~ ma~ers abrogation might involve possible legislation and an analysis cf 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 pur?ose. First, it informs the CS~.iSSiTn Cf zne ac~ivizles of the cellular cartlets, 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 C_MRS 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 =ha= the Commission continues =o have jurisdiction and the proposed GO 159-A should be adopted. The record demonstrates ample support by local agencies, the carriers, and =he Commission staff for =he new rules. We believe =hat the proposed GO 159-A sets forth an appropriate, light-handed regulatory scheme which strikes a balance between =he 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. No=cellular Providers 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 no=cellular commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers (D.95-10-032, ordering paragraph 6, p. 32). Currently, no=cellular CMRS providers are subject to interim local permit and minimum Commission notification requirements pending issuance of C~ !59-A. We believe that application of GO 159-A to cellular and noncellular providers alike will harmonize California cell siting policy with federal policy by effectively "leveling the playing field" for all CMRS providers regarding the construction of cellular towers. The Joint Motion in ~he Joint Motion filed on january 3, 1996, pursuant to Rule 51.1, the Sponsoring Parties request that the Commission approve the settlement which sets forth the proposed GO 159-A, attached to this decision as Appendix A. We note that the settlement has taken many months to necotiate Thouch some ~--~=-s wish to =--=---~ an~ er~edi~e the 2ommissicn's preempz!ve option, and ozners may prefer to abolish GO 159 entirely, the ultimate settlement avoids these extremes. Instead, the GO is clarified in a way which reaffirms the primary role of local jurisdictions in resolving cell-siting - 22 - R.90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/sid disputes. Other, more contentious questions have been reserved for the future. Specifically, there are ongoing procedures at both the state and federal level regarding the health'and safety implications of cellular technology. Nothing. in the proposed GO 159 will cut these procedures short. we believe that the settlement submitted pursuant to the Joint Motion is reasonable. in light of the whole record, consistent with the law, and in the public interest (Rule 51.1(e)).. More importantly, the proposed GO !59-A obviates the need for Commission involvement in the'interpretation and enforcement of local land use planning regulation and building permit issuance. Further, GO !59-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, and GO 159 should be replaced with GO 159-A. FindinGs of Fact 1. Currently, pursuant to GO 159, cellular carriers are required to file advice letters for each new cell site, provide copies of local government permits, and seek Commission approval to complete its siting process. 2. The current advice letter procedure, which has been in effect for the last five years pursuant to GO 159, has proved'to be too cumbersome and it needs to be changed. 3. Five workshops, followed by duly noticed settlement conferences, were held and a proposed settlement was executed by the Settlement Parties. 4. The settlement document sets forth a revised GO !59-A which proposes a more streamlined procedure for notification to the Commission of new cellular facilities or significant modifications to existing facilities. - 23 - R.90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/sid ~=~ .... 5. The proposed GO 159-A continues to recognize =ha= 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 =his 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, =he 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 !e~ied since this is n~t the appr~prla~e ~roceedin~ tc a!Cres~ t e 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 !59-A and is not a sufficient reason to reject the proposed GO 159-A. cDnclude zna~ zne se~tiement agreemen~ proposing a revised general order designated as GO 159-A is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with the law, and in the public interest. - 24 - R.90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/Sid ORDER IT IS ORDEi~m~ Chat: 1. ~eneral Order (GO} 15S-A, attached So this decision as Appendix A, which prescribes the rules applicable to siting and environmental review of cellular mobile radiotelephone utility facilities, is adopted. 2. Henceforth, cellular mobile radiotelephone utility facilities under this Commission's jurisdiction shall be constructed in accordance with the rules set forth in GO !59-A. 3. GO 159-A replaces GO 159 issued pursuant to Decision (D.) 90-03-080 dated March 28, 1990. 4. Under the procedure adopted in GO 159-A, prior to commencing construction of a new facility or major modification to an existing facility, cellular carriers shall'send a notification letter to the Commission's Safety and Enforcement Division within 15 business days of receipt of all requisite land use approvals stating that such approvals have been received, or that no land use approvals are required (see sample letter GO !59-A, p. 8). As set forth in GO !59-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 !59-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 noncellular providers were interim until the Commission issued its decision in this proceeding. Accordingly, the cell notification requirements promulgated in this decision for cellular providers shall be applicable to noncellular providers to achieve uniformity of cell site notification requirements for cellular and noncellular providers alike. 9. The Executive Director shall serve a copy of this decision on all regulated cellular mobile radiotelephone utilities, counties and cities in the state of California, and other parties of record in this proceeding R.90-01-012. !0. 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. !1. This proceeding shall remain open to further consider facilities siting matters as prescribed by the Federal Teiecommunications Act of 1996 (Section 704). This order is effective today. Dated May 8, 1996,. at San Francisco, California. P. GREGORY CONLON President DANIEL Wm. FESSLER JESSIE J. KNIG~Ff, JR. PrENRY M. DUQUE JOSIAH L. NEEPER Commissioners - 26 - 90-01-012 GENERAL ORDER 159A PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RULES RELATING TO TH~ CONSTRUCTION OF COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICE FACILITIES I/q CALIFOPalA (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 required by the relevant local government agency. A cellular service prorider shall provide a notification letter to the Commission Chat iC 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 cf Contents and rules are set forth below. 1 90-01-012 II. III. iV. VI. VII. VIII. APPENDIX A. /AIJ/BDP/sid TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE ....................... 3 DEFINITIONS ...... - .......... NOTIFICATION LETTER ................ 4 B. C. D. Generally ................... 4 Contents ................... 5 Service By Mail ............... 5 Exemptions .................. 6 (i) (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 R. 90-01-01 2 The Commission has previously found in numerous authorizing specific cellular systems that construction of cellular systems generally serves the public convenience and necessity.- The' Commission has also found =hat =he impacts of' cell sites and MTSOs are highly localized. The. Commission recognizes that the goals and interests of local government and =he state may create competing demands. This General Order balances the above mentioned statewide interests with local doncerns regarding the siting, design, and construction of cell sites and MTSOs.- The procedures described herein should apply uniformly on a statewide basis. .... . -~=:~,_,-.~ decisions 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 righ=~to. 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 shall have the burden of demonstrating that accommodating local 90-01-012 IILJ'IBDPI.t~I APPENDIX Page governmen='s requiremenUs for":any:Tspec~[f~ .... Site'would unduly frustrate the Commission's goals or statewide interests. Further, local government and citizens shall have an opportunity to protest a request for preemption and'to present their positions. If a cellular service provider establishes that an action by local government unduly frustrates the Commission's objectives, then the Commission may preempt a local government pursuant to the Commission's authority under the California Constitution, Article XII, section 8. SECTION III- DEFINITIONS The following terms are used throughout this General Order: Construction includes the construction of any new cellsite or 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 al.1 of the public. Local Gover-men= or Local Govez--mental Agencies means any government entity with land use approval authority over the proposed cellsite or MTSO. Local Govez-m~en~ or Local Governmental Agencies includes, but is not limited to, cities, counties, school districts, and agencies that administer state and federal lands. ~mer;en:~- Csll Site cr Emer~eLcy ,.~fiSO Faciiizy means temporary sites or facilities constructed in response to disaster or emergency circumstances· SECTION IV - NOTIFICATION LETTER A. Generally A -=:"'!at service ~r.3vider must ser~e a notLficauion letter on nne 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 /AL//BDP/sids Contents 1. 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. (for new sites) the numbar of antennae to be installed, the tower design, appearance and height, and the building size(s). (for modifications) modification work. a description of the The business addresses of all Local Governmental Agencies. A statement whether a land use approval is required, and if so, whether such approval was obtained including the identification or reference number of the land use approval, if any. Where no land use approval is needed, a statement setting forth the reason(s) for the exemption. The cellular service provider's notification letter shall be in the form attached hereto as Appendix A. Service By Mail A notification letter satisfying the requirements described in this section shall be served on the Commission's Safety & Enforcement Division or its successor within 15 business days after all land use approvals are initially issued or there is a dete,mr, ination that no such approvals are required. A copy of the notification letter shall be served concurrently by mail on each Local Governmental Agency(ies), and in the case of construction on public school facilities or property, on the governing board of the affected school district, as well as upon any other entity requesting service. Where a city is an affected Local Governmental Agency, service of the notification letter to the city shall consist of service of separate copies of the notification letter upon the city planning director, the city clerk, and the city manager· Where a county is an affected Local Governmental Agency, service of the notification letter to the county shall consist of service of separate copies of the notification letter upon the county planning R.90-O~ -0~ 2/ALJ/BDP/sid APPENDIX A Page 6. director, the clerk of the board of supervisors, and the county executive. D. Exemptions 1. Minor Maintenance and Repair Work For purposes of this General Order, "construction" does not include: a) any maintenance, repair or replacement of existing facilities; b) 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; c) installation of equipment; environmental monitoring d) , ..-~_ _ al or site survey any soil c~ocic invest=--=-= .... 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 re~re 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 90-01 -ol 2 .... "' ..... :""- official acting in an o~£icial capacity. 't' or EmergencV cell sites or MTS0 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 service provider may file an application requesting that the Commission exercise its preemptive authority to construct a cell site or MTSO. All such applications shall comply with this Commissicn'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. 7 R, 90-01-012 ,.APP DT X ' -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 an ( ) , or Mr. of the CPUC Safety &.Enforcement Division at ( ) Very truly yours, Attachment co: Mr. name and address (END OF APPENDII A) Attachment B 1 Overview A. Police Power The legal basis for all land use regulation is the police power of the city! to protect the public health, safety and welfare of its residents. Bennan v. Par/rer, 348 U.S. 26 (1954). A land use regulation lies w~thm the police power if it is reasonably related to the public welfare. AssocZared Home Btdialen, Inc. v. Ci~ of Livermare, 18 Cal. 3d 582 (1976). As Justice William O. Douglas, speaking for the United States Supreme Court, stated: The ccmcept of the public we[fare is broad and inclusive .... The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as weU as monet~r.'. It is within the power of the legislature to detertame that the commumty should be beauUful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean. well-balanced as well as czrefully patzolled. Betnun, 348 U.S. at 33. This statement is recognized by Califorma courts "as a correct descrip- tion of the authority of a state or city to enact legislation under the police power." Memnntd/a, Inc. v. Cityq'San Diego, 26 Cal. 3d 848, 86I (1980). The police power, even though established by common law, is set forth m the California Constitution, which confers on cities the power to 'mo~ and enforce within [their] limits all local police, sanitary and other ordinances and reg~.dations not m conflict with general laws." Cal. Cons~., art. XI, ~ 7. The California Supreme Court has stated: Under the police power Fanted by the Conststution, counties and cities have plenary authority to govern, subject o~y to the limitanon that they exercise this power within their temtorial limits and subordinate to state law. [Citation omitted.] Apart from this limitation, the 'police power [of a county or city] under this provision... is as brad as the police power exer- erahie by the Legislatm'e itself.' ~ Fam, rt~es, lmr. ~. Gnurmonr ~ High St3ool Dirt., 39 Cal. 3d 878,885 (1985). 1. IAnnen the word 'city" is used, it also means "county"; 'city council" also means 'boLd o{ supervtsn." CURTIN'S CALIFORNIA LAND USE AND PLANNING LAW 2 · In excreting the polic~ power, the city must act within all applicable statutory provisions so there will bc no 'conflict with general hws." The city's actions must also meet constitutional prin- ciples of due process, that is, they must bc rea- sonable, nondiscriminatory and not arbitnry or capricious. See, e.g., G. ~ D. HoEand Cmmrutmm Ca. ~. C/ty 0fMag~///e, 12 CaL App. :~d 989 (1970). Of course, a city cannot act where the state has completely occupied the subiect matter, that is, where it has proerupted the 6rid.2 See, e.g., Peap/e er re/. Dmkmej/an ~. County afMmdat~, 36 Cal. 3d 476, 483-85 (1984); Moreban ~. County of Sasta Barbara, 7 Cal. 4th 725 (1994). Land use regulations arc a manifestation of the local police powers conferred by the State Constitution, not an exercise of authority dele- gated by statute. Strutam ~. County of Sacrament0, 275 Cal.App. 2d 412,417 (1969). For example, state zoning laws pcmimng to adoption of local zoning regulations arc not intended as specific grant~ of authority but as minimum standards to bc observed m local zoning practices. As sated by the California Supreme Court: We have recognized that a city's or county's power to control its own land use decisions derives from this inherent police power, not from the dclcganon of authon~, by the sure. Ureas High &bo~l D&n., 39 CaL 3d 878, 885--86 (1985) (upholding a school facilities impact fee imposed by a county without statutory authorization); BirtrenfitZd ~. City of Berkeley, 17 Cal. 3d 129, 140-42 (1976) (upholding city rent control initiative despite lack of express statutory authority).) D~V/ta :,. Couv.~ ~f.Va?a, 9 Cal. 4Cn 762 __ (1995). Under the State Constitution an ordinance cannot conflict with general laws-preemption. For example, Government Code (heroinafter referred to as "Gov't Code') Section 65858 relating to interim ordinances, preempts the field of "moratorium" ordinances. See Banit of the On'eat ~. To'am of Tihron, 220 CalApp. 3d 2. For an excellent discussion on preemption, see C, ove. rnor's Office of Planning and Research, Pre~mpoon of Loal Land Use Authority m California, 1989. 992 (1990) (holding that a city could not have an mtmm monmnum ordinance m effax bepnd the two years prescribed m state hw);, Ms'~b~t, 7 Cal. 4th at 725 (finding that a couaty's zonin~ ordinances relating m merger of andquaz~l lots were impliedly precmpted by the mcrgex provi- sions of the Map Act). Also at times, the Lcgish- ture will adopt policies and criteria for establish- mcnt of certain types of residential uses which preempt local zoning. See, e.g., 1992 California Child Day Care Act, Health & Safety Code §~ 1596.64-1596.70 (in parUcular § 1597.30 rdat- mg to family day care centers). This Act occu- pies the field to the exclusion of mumdial 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 arc a similar laws for other se- lected uses. For example, see the Community Care Facility Agt, Health & Safety Code §§ 15 1567.8 for homes for mentally disabled or capped persons for residential facilities scrvi~., six or fewer persons. Id. at ~ 1566.3. The police power is an elastic per. Regu- lations arc sustained under the complex condi- Uons of today whick but a short time ago, might have been condemned as arbitrary and unrea- so:~.ioie. ~.ucitd ~'. .~,m~er t~¢ad~ C. · ~ .. ~.5. 365, 387 (1926). In the 1970s, Justice Douglas, speaking for the United States Supreme Court, uphdd a vil- lage's zoning ordinance relating to land use nstrictions on single-family dwelling umts: A quiet place where yards are wide, people few. and motor vehicles restricted arc legiti- mate guadelmes in a land use project addressed m ~mily needs. This goal is a pcrmigdble one within Bennan ~. Parker, mpra. The police power is not confined to elimination of filth, stench, and unhealthy places; it is -,,~pie m hy out zones where family values, youth values, and the blessings of quiet seclusion and desk air m,i~ the area a sanctuary for people. V',/ugr afBd/~ Tern ~a. Boraas, 416U.S. 1,9(1~ Likewise, the courts have held that regula- tions affecting economic mteresu in real prop- crty are also an appropriate exercise of the pohcc power. For example, regulations imple- menUng local rent conu'ol laws (BirkenfeM v. City of Serkdey, 17 CoL 3d 129 (1976)) and regu- lations relating to condominium conversions (Griffin Development Co. v. City of Oxnard, 39 Col. 3d 256 (1985)) have been upheld. The CaLifurma Supreme Court has held that acstheuc reasons alone justify the exercise of the police power when it upheld, in parr., the City of San Dicgo's total ban of off~ite adverming signs (Metroratdia, IrK. v. City orSart Diego, 26 Col. 3d 848 (1980)) and the Culver Cityas public art fee ordinance (Ebrlich v. City of Culver C:': , 12 Col. 4th 854 (1996)). Also, the United States Supreme Court, in upholcLmg a local ordinance prohibit- ing the posUng of signs on public property, stat- ed that aesthetic interests are substantial govern- mental interests which a city can address under its police power. Mereben of City Council v. Tar- payersf0r ./;intent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984). Land use regulations constitute a proper exercise of the police power. Associated Home Bm'lders, inc. v. City of Livennon, 18 Col. 3d 582 (1976). A city may exercise its police power to provide a "modern, enlightened and progressive corntourney..'Rancbo La Costa v. County of San Diego, ill C_dd.App. 3d 54, 60 (1980). The Urnted States Supreme Court has stated that land use regulations may bc enacted thxough the police power "to enhance the quality. of life by preserv- ing the character and desirable acsthcUc fea- tures of a caty.' Penn Central Trantp. Co. v. City ofNe~z, Drk, 438 U.S. 104, 129 (1978). In Ewmg v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, plain- Uff homeowners challenged the consUruuonali- rv of a zoning ordinance prohibiting "transient commercial use of residenUal proper'tT,' for remuneraUon, for less than 30 consecutrve da.vs. Ewmg, 234 Cal.App. 3d 1579 (1991). Plaintiffs claimed the ordinance amounted to a taking, was void as being arbitrary and vague, and vio- lated their ciUzens' 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: It nan& m reason that the 'resideanal chanc- ter' of a neighborhood is threatened when a signifieam number of homes at least 12% in ~ ease, act~rdmg to the record are occupied not by permanent residents but by a stream of mn~nts toying a weekend. a week. or even 29 days. Whether or not u-a_~ent rentals have the other 'unmingatable, adverse un.~aets' c:ated by the Council, such rentals undoubtedly affect the essential character of a neighborhood and the stability of a corntourney. Short-term ten- ants have little interest in public agencies or m the weftire of the citizem'y. They do not par- Ueipate in local government, coach hntc 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 activiUes that weld and Id. at 1591. In holding that the ordinance was related to a legitimate governmental goal, the court held: Blessed with unparalleled geography, dimate, beauty, and charm, Carreel naturally attracts numerous short-term visitors. Again, it stands to reason that Cannel would w~sh to preserve an endave of angle-family homes as the heart and sold of the caty. We believe that el'us rea- son alone is 'suf~ciendy cogent to preclude us from saying, as It must be said before the ordi- nance can be declared unconsutuuonal, that such provisions are clearly arbitn~' and reasonable, having no substanUal relaUon to the public health, safety, morals or general wellart.' [CitaUon otmtted.] Id. at 1592. In reviewing a police power enactment, the following rule has been hid down by the courts: It is a well settled rule that determmaUon of the necessity and form of regLdauons enacted pursuant to the police power 'is primarily a legislaUve and not a judicial funcuon, and is to be tested in the coum not by what the judges individually or collectively may think of the wisdom or necessity of a parUcLdar regulation, but solely by the answer to the quesUon is there any reasonable basis in fact to support thg legislaUve determination of the regula- tion's wisdom and necessity?' (Consolidated CUITTIN~ CALIFORNIA LAND USE AND PLANNING LAW 4 · r11~c Rzk Pmn~u Ce. 2d 515, S22 (1962)). F~o~ ~o~blenm of ~e relation ~ ~ly d~ubl~ ~e le~a~ve d~in,don n~ ~ ~ [Gm~on ~] R~la ~. Cal~ Co~ C~'n, 163 ~p. 3d 623,629 (1985). ~e ~fo~a Supreme Co~ ~d ~P~ ~e ~d ~ r~on ~~ ~- ~onal a~ ~on m ~ ~ a r~b[e ~a~on m ~e ~ w~e. ~, 18 ~ 3d 582, ~1 (197~. B, Statutory Frmrnowork The following state laws outline the legal frlmework within which a city must exercise its land use functions: · Establishment of plmmmg agencies, com- missions and departments. Gov't Code ~§ 65100-65106. · General plan and specific plan. Gev't Code ~§ 6530065457. · Zoning r~guhtions. Gev't Code ~ 65800- 65912. · Subdivision M~pAct. G~atCode~§66410_ 66499.58. · Califorma Environmental Quality Act. Pub. Res. Code ~ 21000-21178.1; Code Regs. tit. 14, §§ 15000--15387. · Other hw~ atld sliturea. · Palph M. Brm~ A~_ G~ Code ~ 54950- 54962 (also Iraown as The Open Meet- mg Act). · -.t~per~.' Deve_iopm-2.~ abre~-nen~. Code §§ 65864-65869.5. · Permit Streamlining Act, Gov't Code ~ 65920-65959.3. C. The Planning Commission The planning commission is a permanent committee of five or more citizens who have been appoint~l by the aty council, or the mayor in some cid~, m review and act on matmrs relat- ed to planning and d~velopmcnt. The commis- sion holds re~uhdy scheduled public hearings to consider land use matters, such as the general plan, specific plan, rezonmgs, use permits and subdivisions. Commissioners can serve at the pleasure of the council, so that comrni_~_~ion membership changes in response to changes in the council, or members can have fixed terms. The practice varies from city to city. A city need not create a plamUng commis- sion. C.-~v't C, ode§ 65101. In fact, in some juris- dictions, especially smaller ones, there is no planrang commission and the city council per- forms in that capacity. Basically, the commission advises the city council on land use matters. The council may choose to follow the recommendaUons of the comw~on, or the council may reverse or mod- ify commission actions or send proposals back to the commission for further review. In addi- tion, commission decisions are subject to appeal w the council and the council has the final say in all city matters. The city couunumty development or plat. ning deparunent is the cornmission's staff. The planners can advise the commission on the general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance and other land use regu- lations. In addition. they provide background information and recommcndaUons on the posals tna: are under r~e comm~sszor.'s con- sideranon, answer technical questions, and make sure that meetings have been properly advertised in advance. The commission is also advised by the city attorncy's office and public works depa~ u.ent, The city council may assign any or ~ll of the follov~ing t~s~ to its planning commission (Gov't Code ~ 65103, 65400, 65401, 65402): · Assist in writing the general plan and community or specific plan and hold public hemngs on such plan; · Hold hearings and act upon proposed amendments to the general pl~a and spe- ciBc plan; · InvesUgate and maicc recommendation to the city council regarding rcasonabl. and pracrlca] means for implementing the general plan or elements of the gen- eral plan, so r~at it wiil serve as an effec- tive guide for orderly growth and devel- opmcnt, preservation and conservation of open-space land and natural resources, and the efficient expenditure of public fun& relari-g m the subjem 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 regmnal housing needs determined pur- suant to Gov't Code § 65584; the local efforts to remove governmental con- straints on housing pursuant to Gov't Code § 65583(e)(3). · Hold heanngs and act upon proposed changes to the zoning ordinance and zoning maps; · Hold hearings and act on tentative subdi- vision maps; · Annually review the city's capital im- provement program and the public works projects of other local agencies for con- sistency with the general plan; · Promote public interest in the general plan; · Consult with and advise public officials and agencies, utilities, organizations and cntnz. cns regarding implementanon of the general plan; · Coordinate local plans and programs w~th those of other public agencies; · Report to the city council on the confor- rmty, of proposed public land acquisiUon or disposal with the adopted general plan; and · Undertake special plan_rung studies as needed. The planning commission holds regular rnee~ngs and special meetings as needed. For the most part, sate law requires public n~rtngs b~fore planning acUons are taken. At its meet- ings, the planning commission weighs plarmmg proposals in light of sate and local regulations and potential environmental effects and listens to testimony from interested partzes. If neces- sal3r, the commition may continue a hcanng m a later time to allow more informanon to bc gathered or to take additional tesUmony. Thc comrni~sion usually considers several items at each heanng, considering each proposal sepa- rately and ruisrxg action before moving on to the next item on the agenda. Depending upon local ordinance provi- sions, the commission's decision on a project may be: (1) referred to the city council as a rec- ommendation for action (for example, gcncral plan amendments and rczonings); or (2) consid- ered a fixml action unless appealed to the council (subdivisions, variances, use permits, etc.). The council will then hold a noticed public 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 meam that a quorum of commissioners can discuss commission business in a public meeting only. For more informaUon on the Brown Act, see Chapter 19, SecUon A (Ralph M. Brown Act). Reading material for Planning Commis- sioners: · Governor's Office of Plansung and Re- search, The Planning Comrmssioner's Book (1989). · League of California Cities, Harming Cormmssioner's Handbook (1995). · Guide to California Planning (1991) by W'ffiiam Fulton, Solano Press. ATIONS · Commas- ~ommon- ,58; Jones 2d 460. - Schuck. .report v. 167 La ~napolis. 143 Nob ~: Swett. 120 NJL lb. Co. v. S NE 1T. 113 NE ,'YS 20i McGee. ndersor. 25E2:~. ~92. ~ '~ ~r~er ~: 609. 35 124 Tex 95 ,'To;: tnd. 75 ore8 x' MUNICIPAL POLICE POWER AND ORDINANCES § 24.12 Wisconsin. Rust v. State Board of Dental Examiners, 216 Wis 127, 256 NV,' 919: Milwaukee v. Kaun, 204 Wis 103,235 NW 551. s United States. Noble State Bnnk 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- tinned 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 Anz 440, 265 P 602. Arkansas. State v. Hurlock, 185 Ark 807, 49 SW2d 611. California. Ex pane 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.3 and somewhat rr..ore specifically, public order. health. safety, and morris.4 See § 24.03. See § 24.188 et seq. See § 24.13. See § 24.12. § 24.12. --Public order, health, safety and morals. The lemtimste objects of the police power embrace the safe- g-aa,-a:ng or :he bucolic order. health, safety. and morals.~ a_no the protection of the hves~ 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 .v's Water 25 NYS2d iffxcult to avoked. xs {e rest, r'ic- necessary.' ~rals. and ,lic peace. 7ineburgh {eights v. i 26. 484 :man. 44 cO' v. .157 P2d ,ns, 184 ilred. 20 DreseFve Car] . 80D ?2,d 583 OD COD- iivxsxon MUNICIPAL POLICE POWER AND ORDINANCES § 24.13 due to developer's failure to comet ongoing drainage problem). a 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 Line Sparkler of WV, Ltd. v. Teach, 187 W Va 271,418 SE2d 585 (1992). Wyoming. Sun Ridge Development, Inc. v. City of Cheyenne, 787 P2d 583 (Wyo 1990) (valid moratorium on con- struction in residential subdivision due to developer's failure to correct ongoing drainage problems ). 3 West Virginia. State ex rel. State Line Sparkler of VfV, 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 connotatxon "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 histo~' police power was closely associated with the preservation of public peace, safety, morals. and health, under modern conditions it includes the general wet- fare which embraces regulations to promote the economic welfare, public convenience, and general prosperity of the com- m,!nity.3 Tb_is chan_~e in concention or at least m practice relative :: the broa~ objcc:~ of the ponce power alsclc_~=~ ~ts a.~7. am~c character and capacity for growth.' Whatever is contrary to public policy or immical to the public interests is subject to the police power of the state and within legislative control.~ The police power is positive as well as nega- rive 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 often- Si~'- AZCCr-iL~_"!': ::-u rec?n'. '.'~r? ..,_: ..... :~_, ............. kas been ccnstanL~:' exerc~.s~.a ~.- murzc;pal:ues, not only ~o 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 § :~4.13 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS economic as well.' 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 valiaity of safety appliance, hours of labor, minimum wage, and other labor legislation, including worker's compensa- tion laws." The public welfare as a proper object of the police power embraces public convenience," comfort,~° prosperity," and finan- cial security of the people.l= 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. 73 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. 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 leas* obScLLre. In matters of this nature it is true. never~heiess, that courts are inchned 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. 75 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 horn any question of pubhc health. safety. or morals. The validity of any g~ven regulation must depend upon the circum- stances of each case and the character of the regulation, whether arbitrary. or reasonable, and whether really designed to accom- plish a legitimate public purpose. '5 PIONS exeF- ion of Lhnes ulbject 3over, h the ,ensa- tower ]nan- ~'hach ~tions pros- }ubLic .ity of t~e or upon men. .ed to .t the ~rfer- se of if'the that local _~ce9 - fiuar. .~xer- fthe ther ;olIl - MUNICIPAL POLICE POWER AND ORDINANCES §2A.13 Since the police power is inherent in the effective conduct and maintenance of government'7 and extends to all great public needs,~' 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.'g The relief and protection of the poor, indigent, and infirm, and the security of society against the occurrence of poverty, disease, insanity, and infnmaity 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. 2o ~U-ited 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 "ex~ends to so deai- mg with the conditions which exast In the state as to bnng out of them the greatest welfare of its people." Bacon v Walker. 204 US 311.51 LEd 499, 2T S Ct Californxa. Carnn v. Palm Spnngs. 14 Cai App 3d 706.92 Cal Rptr 535. Colorado, Willison v. Cooke, 54 Cole 320, 130 P 828. Iowa. State v. Iowa State Board of Health. 233 Iowa 872, 10 NV,'2d 561. Kentucky. Commonwealth v. McCray, 250 Ky 182.61 SW2d 1043~ Shaeffier v. Park Hills. 279 SXA'2d 21 K,' Michaga.n. People v. Sell. 310 Mich 305, 17 NVi2d 193. quotxng thas treatise. Missouri. City of Blue Spnngs v. Gregory., 764 SW2d 101 (Me 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: Mornson v. C, entler, 152 Misc 710,273 NYS 952. North Dakota. Russell v. Fargo. 28 NrD 300, 148 NIA' 610. Ohio. City of University Heights v. Dachman. 20 Ohio App 3d 26. 484 NE2d 199. Oklahoma. Bevendge v. Haroer & Turner C,:i Tr~s:. _' 6,~ C. ki.~ 509. P2d 435. Oregon. Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners. 148 Or 50, 34 P2d 311: Donohue v. Rosenthai, 147 Or 408, 34 P2d 316. Tennessee. Solof v. Chattanooga, 180 Tema 296, 174 SW2d 471, 176 SW2d 816, quoting this treatise; Bowen v. H~nnah. 167 Tenm 451.71 z ',t"~ = F;T2. Tens, Lombarao v. Dallas, 124 Tex 1, 73 SW2d 475. affg 47 SW2d 495 (Tex Civ App). ~ United States. See Wall Distribu- tors. Inc. v. City of Newport News. 782 F2d 1165 (CA4 1986) {coin-operated 45 Pd. PORATIONS ff the natural and mummpality are -ntal purposes for Curtiss-Wnght act Hampton, 82 d 125. State v. Jones. '.d 675. ~tv v. Hatthe. 240 sustaining valid- dznance wholly .Lug yards on sole ld be offensive to Best v, Zonzng it of Pittsburgh, i 606: County of ~ Pa Cornrow 357, ~ome law ~. · v. Smith. 618 atute controlling is and Junkyards lunty v .',"V,'2d 59! ,~,,le wrecking ~welj v Fermer. N~'S2d 22.22S on s Por, a Sksns. wa~er. 829 F2d Iv s suDsLanua] --SiF. eL;~S jusi;- m~ng portable for Free Speech o~d of Corn rs. NJ 1992~ ~must for ~nere ~ be ~onat Plg- on~uct prO~ID- ~mg dmSng of MUNICIPAL POLICE POWER AND ORDINANCES 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. Henrang, 414 So 2d 331 (La). lVIissouri. Municipality may by its leg~siative body prescribe rules for adorning of cemetery and erecting monuments, tombstones, and orna- menlo on cemetery lots and may forbid improper adornment thereof. Ham- mersly v. La Forge, 80 SW2d 211 (Mo App). Pennsylvania, Statute may create mumcipal an jury. to superase erec- tion of structures on or over highways and requinng 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,S72 F Supp 1320 (D NJ 1994!. § 24.16 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. Dons Pona Signs. Inc. v. City of Clearsrarer, 829 F2d 1051 (CAll 1987). California. Tahoe Regional Plan- ning Agency v. King, 233 Cal App 3d 1365. 285 Cat 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 circurastances of each case). s United States. McCormack v. Township of Clinton.872 F Supp 1320 (D NJ 1994). North Carolina. A-S-P Assomates 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 resincoons. building setback lines and the like, mav 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? 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 na-'~ in its neoniron floes not affect :to vaEditv.-~ 7:.uz, the fact mat 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~mple, with respect to ordi- nances as to billboards? signs? and housing projects, sl,,m clearance, or eradication of blighted urban areas.7 Similarly, in regulating and restricting a motor vehicle junk business, esthetic considerations may be regarded? and aesthetics are also recog- nized as a legitimate governmental objective in the regulation of junked or abandoned private vehicles unreiated to a junk busi- ness) So also, aesthetic considerations serve as a legitimate basis for a ban on drinking of intox/cating liquor in public outdoor places. ,o 1 California. Aesthetics should be considered as a factor, together with o~her factors, m 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. Willlares. 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- hey Lake. 91 Wash 2d 19.586 P2d 860, citing thxs treatise. See § 24.15. ~ Connecticut. Murphy, Inc. To~m of Westport. 131 Conr~ 292, 40 AZd 177, Michigan. See O'Bnen v. State HAghway Corntar, 375 Mach 545, 134 N~'2d 700 ~aesthetics shou/d at least be taken into account m determin/ng whether the police power is properly exercised ). New York. People v. New York Cent. R. Co.. 5 Misc 2d 232. 165 577 "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." Perlrnut- ter v. Greene. 259 1~' 327, 182 hIE 5. Zon/ng, see ch 25. ~ United States. St. Lou/s Poster Advertising Co. v. St. Louis, 249 US 269, 63 LEd 599, 39 S Ct 274, affg 195 SW 717 (Mo). 'That m adddtion ~o these sufficient facts (public safety from fires), consid- erations of an aesthetic nature also entered into the reason for their pas- sage, would not invalidate them." Welch v. Swasey, 214 US 91, 53 LEd 923, 29 S Ct 567. ~ United States. National Adver- tising Co. v. City of Orange. 861 P'2d 246 (CA9 19~ :. Twin goais of traffic safety and appearance of city are substantial gov- ernment goals which serve as proper basis for mumcipal regulation of out- door advertising signs. Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 US 490, 69 LEd 2d 800, 101 S Ct 2882. As to billboard ordinances, see § 24.382. Townskup of Clinton. 8?2 F Supp 1320 (D NJ 1994). ~ New York. Murray v. LaGuarcLia, 180 Misc 760, 43 NYS2d 408. 54 L~TIONS ; r,O ordi- Ls, sl111~ larly, in esthetic ;o recog- latrlon of nk busi- ~te basis OLI~OOF Perimut- ~2 NHE 5. ~s Poster · 249 US · affg 195 su.ffiment ,. con'sial- 53 k E~ Z Aciver- ~61 Y2d 69 L Ei es. ~uarma. MUNICIPAL POLICE POWER AND ORDINANCES § 24.17 Generally as t~ 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 (CAS). Tennessee. See City of Clarksville v. Moore, 688 SW2d 428 (Tenn) Iorcii- nance prohibiting storage of abandoned vehicles on residential prennses valid). l0 Louisiana. Lake Charles v. Hen- nine, 414 So 2d 331 (La). § 24.17. Subjects. Generally speaking, any matter reasonably relating to the broad objects of the police power, to wit, the maintenance of the public peace, order, safety, health, morals, convenience, and gen- eral welfare and prosperity, is a proper subject for the exercise of the power.' Proper subjects for regulation by the police power of the state are not merely those that are of statewide concern. but they include those of special and local concern which can be made the subject of special law or ordinance.2 With respect to persons subject to the police power, business and other corporations as well as individual persons are in gen- eral subject to a proper exercise of it,z 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.' With respect to rights subject to the police power, both per- sonals and propertys rights secured by the Constitution are subject to the la~cul 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 tLrne. Accordingly, new subjects or measures come within the police power as required by changing circumstances of economic and social life and by growth of knowledge; in this respect, as stated above, the police power has a dynamic or progressive capacity.s ~atently. all t!'lnzs that are mjmnous to the publ, ic 2_-e ,=roper subjects for an exermse of the pohce power2 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 be regulated. ~2 Other matters coming within the police power include: -- the regulation of fish and game;~z -- the prohibition of wooden buildings;" -- the regulation of railways and other means of public conveyance; ~s -- the regulation of interments m burial grounds;~6 -- the restriction of objectionable trades to certain localities;~7 -- the management of anticipatory wide spread damages due to natural disasters, such as flooding; ~8 -- compulsory vaccination of children; ~s -- the confinement of the insane or those afflicted with contagious diseases;~ -- the restraint of vagrants, beggars, and intoxicated persons;2~ -- the suppression of obscene publications; ~ -- houses of ill'fame;' -- gambling houses;=4 and -- places where intoxicating liquors are sold.2s Proper subjects for regulation under the police power are to be considered as justified only in connection x~th legitimate objects of the police power. For example: -- to preser~,e the peace the carryi.'ng 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;2~ -- 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 subdi~:sion so as to ~ r. f3rce .zrz:nzge re~:auons;~ -- to protect the public health numerous regulations, such as those relating to quarantine and sanitation, may be promulgated and carried out;s~ 56 ~r~ATIONS depend- ac~ed may ude: of public certain damages :ted ~ith toxicated 'or 3_re ro !~Krltirrlate weapons t-Igllons n~ re_,~u- ~mposed 30 as tO CIPAL POLICE~:= POWER AND ORDINANCES §24.17 to safeguard the public morals. indecent practices, utter- ances and publications, g~mbling, and lotteries may be prohibited;3' -- to prevent fraud and dishonesty, business dealings and transactions; 3~ -- weights and measures;~ -- 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;~ and -- to protect patrons, reasonable regulations of the service and charge of public utilities are authorized.36 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,37 the demolition of buildings and structures in the path of a conflagra- tion,~ the slaughter of diseased cattle39 and the destruction of decayed or unwholesome food.~ Under the guise of the police power a municipal corporation cannot regulate subjects not witkin the police power or otherwise within the competence of the municipal corporation to regulate. *~ 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.~ However, when the police power is exercised in good faith. or. in other words, when there is a good faith endeavor to exercise the power. every intendment ~11 be indulged to sustain the regulation. and all doubts will be resolved in favor of the validity of the exercise of the power.~ This is in accordance ~'ith the rules that the validity of statutes and ordi- nances ~s favored~ and presumed.~s ~ United States. Eubanl~ v Kich- 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 34h Marysville v. Standard Oil Co.. 27 F2d 478: Marrs v. Oxford. 24 F2d 541. California. Gin S. Chow v. Santa Barbara, 217 Cal 673.22 P2d 5: Ex parte Lawrence, 55 Cal App 2d 491. 131 P2d 27. Florida. Metropolitan Dade County Fair Housing & Employment Appeals Board v. Sunnse Village Mobile Home Park, Inc., 511 So 2d 962 (Fla 1987) ~ age discrimination in housing ordinance L l']|{nOiS. Metropolis v. Gibbons. 334 Ill 431. 166 NE 115: People v. John Doe of Rosehill Cemetery Co.. 334 Ill 555,166 NE 112. 57 : ,| Attachment D 47 OSCS e 332 (1998) .... (II) shall noc prohJ,bt~ o= have the effect of probJ.b~Ln~ the ~D~rovision of personal ~r_reless services. (ii) A State or local gove~= or ~t~nzality thereof sha~ act ~y re~es= for authorization ~o place, c~=mc~, or ~ify personal ..telass semite facilities within a reason~le period of =~ after =he re~esr =s d~ filed with su~ govern= or i~n=ali=y, =ak~g nature ~d scope of such re~es=. (iii) ~y decision by a State or local gove~n= or thereof to deny a re~es= =o place, co~=~c=, or ~fy personal wireless seduce ~acili=ies shall be ~i=~ ~d supposed by s~sn~=ial evid~ce conuained in a writ=an record. (~v) No State or local g~e~-= or ~=~=aliEy~ereof re.late the place~n=, co~c=i~, ~d~fica=lon of pers~al ~reless semite facilities on the basis of =he enviro~n=al elfcons of ra~o fre~ency emss~ons to =he extent that su~ facilities c~ly ~=h ~e C~ssion's radiations conceding such (v~ ~y person adversely affected by ~y final at=ion or fail~e by a Staue or local gove~en= or ~y ~=~-ntali=~ thereof =ncons~s=en= w~=h =h~s s~paragraph ~y, within 30 da~s after su~ at=ion or failure =o act, co~-nce ~ action in ~y court of c~eten= j~is~ction. court shall hear and decide such action on ~ expedited basis. ~y person adversely affected by ~ act or fail~e =o ac~ by a State or local gove~nt or ~ Ch. 4 / .tillties in pecial permit nctitioned for st determine .neralizations ate regulato- uption in the ;tance t~ find regulates." A · ould destroy :s tendency.. xs preemption >e general or extent that a question is c service re- government ~llingness to ~c statuto~' ~ublic service rations that ~"~'~onale, a anicipal ., may be ~f a preemp- .d for urUfor'm ~, v Potomac 511, 525, 573 ~lng that ~ntk me need for a Dparent xn the nsy. lvama stat- uon. regs. rdmg Lauons of th~ ,Coy Rosen- LS.2d 895, 898, .,; New Bruns- v. Old Bridge ~uDer 122. 636 .... =~-:~',, Pun- 351 A.20 328 v. Department 667. 680, 322 Attachment E § 4.25 GOVERNMENTAL AND COMMUNITY USES 129 tion determination.'9 Many disputed classifications involve radio and other communication facilities, and the case results vary?° 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 Telecommunications Facili- ties Cellular telephone Wwers 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 w four hundred feet high, is increasing in response to the demand, Many neighbors, however, deplore them. While they may have health concerns? 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 discrLminate 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. Utlls., 420 Mass. 22.27, 547 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 Mammma v. Zoning Bd. of App. of Town of Cortlandt, 110 Misc.2d 534, 442 N.Y.S.2d 689 (1981). 21. Celi~ez Telephone Co. v. Rosen- berg, 82 N.Y.2d 354, 604 N.Y.S.2d 895, 624 N.E.2d 990 (1993) (applying "more lenient" public utility variance standard to ceUular towers. But see Smart SMR of New York, Inc. v. Bor. of Fair Lawn. 152 N.J. 309, 704 A.2d 1271 (1998) (declining to fred mono- pole inherently beneficial). 22. Finding cellular use to be a public utility, see Hawk v. Zomng Heanng Bd. of Butler Twn.. 152 Pa. Cmwlth. 48, 618 .a~2d i087. i(F-J0 <t992~; ~ayne v. Taylor, :7~ ,~_D.2d 979, 578 N.Y.5.2d 32? (1991); McC, aw Commuracations v. Marion County, 95 OrApp. 552, 773 P.2d 779 (1989) (cellu- lar use found to be a public utility, but not a necessary one as req~ured by the ordi- nance). To the contrary, see Bell Atlantic Mobile System, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Twp. of O'Har~ 676 A_2d 1255 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (not a public utility where zorung ordinance did not define the term). 23. As to satellite dish antennas, 47 C.F.R. § 25.104 preernpts zorung that mate- nally litmrs transrmssxon or ~ncreases costs on users urdess the zoning authonn., can prove it is reasonable. See Christopher Neu- mann, Note, FCC Preemption of Zorung Ordinances that Restrict Satellite Dish An- tenna Piacemen~: Sound PohCv or Lepska- uve Overkill? 7! 5t.jonn's L.~ev. 635 (1997). The Telecommurucauons Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 332, does not expressly preempt local zorung for purposes of regujaung dig~- taJ telev~xon facilities, the next wave of progress. The FCC, however. may have plied preemption authority. See, e.g., City of New York v. Federal Commumcations Corn- ratsalon, 486 U.S. 57, 108 S.Ct. 1637. 100 L.Ed.2d 48 (1988). The wave pronnses to be of udal dimenszons, as many ensting broad- ca.sung towers are loaded to capacity. 2.4. See Hawk v. Zornrig Hearing Bd. of Butler Twp., 152 Pa. Cmw|th. 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)(1) and (II). 130 TYPES OF ZONES &USES Ch 4 The Act precludes consideration of the environmental effects of radio frequency emission if the facility complies with federal regulations concerning such emi.~sions. The Act also provides for expedited judicial rexnew of adverse rulings by state or local government booLies. In Bell- South Mobility, Inc. v. Gwinnett County,= 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 trRn-~perta- 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.zs 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.3~ 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 AoDe~s, for example. h~ found t~,e towers to ::.,: ~,r, heren~y Lene~c:aL" uses su~ect tca relaxec, v~,~n.nce ,:est.:: 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 government can re- quire utilities to underground their services. Aesthetics generally is the reason undergrounding is desired, though issues of sa/ety may also be alleged. Cost is the problem from the utiLities' perspective. In a Missouri 26. 944 F.Supp. 923 ~N,:~ 5a.19,,~6). See Sprint SpeCtrum, L.P.v. CIty of Medi- na~ 924 F.Supp. 1036 (W.D.Wa.1996), 27. See cases cited supra notes 21-22. 28. Oldham County Planning & Zon- ing Comm'n v. Courier Commumcations Corp., 722 S.W.2d 904 (KyApp. 1987) (hold- mg that a mobile telephone semce seekjng to construct a 290 foot tower is a public utility and exempt by state statute). 29. Ohio Rev. Code § 519.211 (B) (spe- cifically confernng power on local govern- ment over cellular sennces~; Pa. Cons. Stat. § 102(2~(ivL 30. N.j. discussed an New Brunswick Cellular Tele- phone Co. v. Old Bridge Twp. Planrang Bd.. 270 N.J.Super. 122, 636 A, 2d 588, 596 (1993). 31. Cellular Telephone Co. v. Rosen- berg, 82 N.Y.2d 364. 604 N.Y.S.2d 895. 624 N.E.2d 990 (1993) (applying "more lenient" public utility variance standard to cellular tower). But see Smart SMR of New York, Inc. v. Borough of Fsar Lawn Bd. of Adj.. 152 N,I. 309. 764 A.2d 1271 (1998) (declin- ing to find monopole inherently b~nefieial). 32. S~e supra § 4.25B. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 CORRESPONDENCE FROM RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT TO LARRY LEDOUX DATED DECEMBER 21, 1998 R:~'TAFFRPT~lgptgg 1~ STAF~ R~PORT 2.do~ l acho 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 Rancno California Water District's (RCWD) General Kearney Reservoir site, I can assure you that there are presently no plans or applications for any facilities beyond those of Cox P.C.S., Assets, L.L.C., which are currently being reviewed by the Temecula 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 De forthcoming. I have instructed my staff that you should be notified of any such item that may come before the BoarC of Directors. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT John F. Hennlgar General Manager CC: RCWD Board of Directors Ms. Carol Donahoe, City of Temecula Planning Department U~ADMIN\WORDPROC\LINDA98\98335.DOC .t ', DEC 2, 3 1998 By RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW NUMBER ONE CNIC CENTER CIRCLE BIq;-~, C-AJ.J;:OIclNIA (12~21 POST OFFICE BOX 10,St) BFIF_A, CALIFORNIA B'?Ag'~-105(i (714.1 990-0eOI FACSIMILE (714) g~O-6230 February 4, 1999 City. of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, 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 the applicability of federal law to state and local regulations and ordinances and m panicular the application of the federal Telecommumcations 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 Congre.~s enacted 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. This statute expressly limits the ability of state and local governments to enact regulations in the area of mobile telecommunication services. With regard to cellular towers or personal wireless service facilities, 47 U.S.C. § 332 (c)(7)(B)(iv) expressly preempts local and state regulation. This statute states: "No State or local gove..':mmen: or ins:rumentality 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 Commission's regulations concerning such emissions." RIGHARDB, WATSON & GERBHON February3, 1999 Page 2 Under decisions of the United States Supreme Court dating back the earliest days of the Constitution and continuing to the present, federal law supersedes or "preempts" state and local laws which are in conflict with it. Federal preempuon 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. Coast. art. VI, § 4, d.2. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made. under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the I~nd; 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 Constitution or laws passed by See McCulloch v. Ma.ryland, 4 663 (1962) (holding that "It]he and local laws which conflict with the provisions of the U.S. the federal government are preempted by the federal laws. Wheat 316, 4 LEd. 579 (18199 and Free v. Bland, 369 U.S. relative importance to the State of its own law is not material when there is a conflict with a valid federal law .... [A]ny state law, however clearly within a State's acknowledged power, which interferes with or is contrary to federal law. must yield." Accordingly, any state or local regulation which conflicts with or is contrary to federal law must also yield to the federal law. Preemntion may ne referred when Cnngre~ iegtsiates cnmprehenslveiy m a parucular 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 ,2ramance of L:e City of 'Vqhntxer wmca requireci city residents to obtain a conditional use permit in order to restall a satellite television receiving antenna. The California Court of Appeal held that the ordinance conflicted with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") order preempting local regulations of satellite antennas which are inconsistent with the FCC order requiring that local regulations contain "reasonable and clearly defined aesthetic objectives." See Hunter, 209 Cal. App.3d 588, 597. The City of Whinier's satellite nrdinance did nnt contain specific screening or placement requirements for satellite television receiving antennas, and thus, conflicted with the federal order. RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON February3, 1999 Page 3 As discussed above, fiac Telecommunieations 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 placemere of wireless service facilities based on the environmental effects of the radio frequenc'y emissions produced by such facilities if these emissions comply with the federal standards. Any state or local regulations imposing different or greater restrictions from the federal standards regarding the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions would be in direct conflict with 47 U.S.C. § 332 (c)(7)(B)(iv). Thus, such a regulation would be preempteft by federal law and would be invalid. me. If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call CC. Shawn Nelson Jim O'Grady GaD' Thornkill Debbic Ubnoske Peter M. Thorson. Esq. Very truly yours, ITEM 18 CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City ManagedCity Council ~,~Susan W. Jones City Clerk/Director of Support Services May 25, 1999 Old Town Local Review Board Appointment RECOMMENDATION: Appoint two members and one alternate to serve full terms on the Old Town Local Review Board. BACKGROUND: There are currently three positions, two full terms and one alternate, available on the Old Town Local Review Board. The terms of both Paul Nielsen and Walt Allen will be expiring on May 15, 1999. There is also a vacant alternate position available. The available positions were advertised and posted in accordance with the City Council's adopted policy and procedure for making appointments and reappointments. Three applications were received and forwarded to the Council Subcommittee consisting of Mayor Ford and Councilman Lindemans. After review of the applications, Mayor Ford and Councilman Lindemans recommend the reappointment of Walt Allen, the appointment of Carl Ross, and the appointment of Otto Baron as alternate. Attached are copies of the applications that were received by the filing deadline of March 25, 1999. ATTACHMENT: Copy of Applications for Appointment Agenda Reports~ppointrnent Old Town Advisory u-~-I~-VYAtU:UO RCVD CITY OF TEMECULA APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE OLD TOWN LOCAL REVIEW BOARD NAME: c)f-fn l~.r3~rr3 R~rnn ADDRESS: 28681 Pujol St. HOME PHONE: 506-2461 OCCUPATION: Antique Dealer EMPLOYER NAME: Krieger ' EMPLOYER ADDRESS: 41 91 5 EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES: YEARS RESIDENT OF TEMECULA Temecula Ca. 92590 694-8746 WORK PHONE: / Old Town Tour Guide s / Temecula T Tours & Transit 4th Street LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY BOARD, COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR(S) OF SERVICE: None ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical, community, service): Temecula Valley Car Club BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS BOARD, AND WHY YOU BEUEVE YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC(Useadditionalpaperifnecessa~): I am throughly knowledgable about Western Architectural styles, and familiar with the historical background of "Old Town" and the Temecula Valley. I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for public information purposes. Return to: City Clerk's Office, 43200 Business Park Drive (909) 694-6444 OR Mail to: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, Ca. 92589-9033 Commissions~Application for Olcl Town Local Review Board · FEB 2 CITY OF TEMECULA APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE OLD TOWN LOCAL REVIEW BOARD NAME: ADDRESS: "'~"?,..'Z,{PO C-I.~..A~L.., HOME PHONE: ~ ~' ~' ~ ~ { WORK PHONE: OCCUPATION: EMPLOYER NAME: ~l~~ ~~ ~~T~ MPLo ER DDR SS: EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES: YEARS RESIDENT OF TEMECULA ~ l!4(~'/~'~, A, LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY O!ILOTHEJ_R.GITY BOARD, COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR(S) OF SERVICE: ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical, community, service): BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS BOARD, 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 Return to: City Clerk's Office, 43200 Business Park Drive (909) 694-6444 Mail to: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, Ca. 92589-9033 purposes. OR Commissions~Application for Old Town Local Review Board CITY OF TEMECULA APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE OLD TOWN LOCAL REVIEW BOARD NAME: CARL ROSS ADDRESS: 43886 BUTTERNUT DR. HOME PHONE: (909) 676-9575 OCCUPATION: RETIRED EMPLOYER NAME: EMPLOYER ADDRESS: YEARS RESIDENT OF TEMECULA 4 92592 WORK PHONE: (909)676-9575 EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES: BGS, UNIVERSITY OF MEBRASKA - OMAHA; MASTERS IN MANAGEMENT, CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY. LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY BOARD, COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU HAVE SERVED OND THE YEAR(S) OF SERVICE: NONE ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical, community, service): RETIRED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 'BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS BOARD, AND WHY YOU BELIEVE YOU YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Use additional paper if necessary): I am interested in how Old Town evolves and have the time to devote to this interest. I recognize the uniqueness of Old Town and feel it should be the "Center Piece" attraction for Temecula. I substitute teach in the TVUSD, have studied history and can articulate a point of view. I would enjoy giving presentations to the public on the cultural heritage of this region. I support the most recent architectural improvements in Old Town. However, the above ground electrical and telephone line, particularly around Main street, distract from the gas streetlight fa(;ade. We have made a great start in Old Town - I want to keep the momentum and am willing to work hard to that end. I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for public informa ion purposes. Return to: City Clerk's Office, 43200 Business Park Drive (909) 694-6444 OE,. ......... ,~ .... ~ .... . Mail to: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, Ca. 92589-9033 : '. ~, ""' ' Commissions~q3plication for Old Town Local Review Board CITY OF TEMECULA CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor Steve Ford Councilmember Lindemans ~(~Susan Jones, City Clerk/Director of Support Services Apdl 5, 1999 Old Town Local Review Board Attached are copies of the applications received by the deadline of March 25, 1999. There are three positions available. The terms of Committee Member Paul Nielsen and Committee Member Walt Allen will expire May 15, 1999. There is also a vacant alternate member position available. All three positions will run through May 15, 2002. Please review the applications and advise me of your recommendation by Monday, April 26, 1999, if possible. I have scheduled this for the Council meeting of May 11, 1999. Thank you. Enclosures SWJ:cd R:ICOMMISSIONSIMEMO TO COUNCIL FOR COMM APPTS. DOC 3/25/99 0~-15-99A10:06 RCVD CITY OF TEMECULA APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE OLD TOWN LOCAL REVIEW BOARD NAME: n~-~-n l~.r3w~T-rt R~T'nn YEARS RESIDENT OF TEMECULA ADDRESS: 28681 Pujol St. Temecula Ca. 92590 694-8746 HOME PHONE: 50 6 - 2 4 61 WORK PHONE: OCCUPATION: Antique Dealer / Old Town Tour Guide EMPLOYER NAME: Krieger's / Temecula T Tours & Transit EMPLOYER ADDRESS: 41 91 5 4th Street EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES: 2 LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY BOARD, COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR(S) OF SERVICE: None ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG:(Professional, technical, community, se~ice): Temecula Valley Car Club BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS BOARD, AND WHY YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC(Useadditionalpaperifnecessa~): I am throughly knowledgable about Western Architectural styles, and familiar with the historical background of "Old Town" and the Temecula Valley. I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for public information purposes. Return to: City Clerk's Office, 43200 Business Park Drive (909) 694-6444 OR Mail to: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, Ca. 92589-9033 Commissions%Application for Old Town Local Review Board ~=~v~ ~Ee 2 cITY OF TEMECULA APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE OLD TOWN LOCAL REVIEW BOARD NAME: ADDRESS: ~:'~¢~O HOME PHONE: ~ ~* ~' ~ ~ { WORK PHONE: OCCUPATION: ~ EMPLOYER NAME: EMPLOYER ADDRESS: EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES: 5 ,Z999 YEARS RESIDENT OF TEMECULA ('/"J ---- q?_.Sq Z_- LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY O~ITY BOARD, COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR(S) OF SERVICE: ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical, community, service): BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS BOARD, 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 at~y~tson purposes. .' f Return to: City Clerk's Office, 43200 Business Park Drive (909) 694-6444 Mail to: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, Ca. 9258.9-9033 Commissions%Application for Old Town Local Review Board CITY OF TEMECULA APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE OLD TOWN LOCAL REVIEW BOARD NAME: CARL ROSS ADDRESS: 43886 BUTTERNUT DR. HOME PHONE: (909) 676-9575 OCCUPATION: RETIRED EMPLOYER NAME: EMPLOYER ADDRESS: YEARS RESIDENT OF TEMECULA 4 92592 WORK PHONE: (909)676-9575 EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES: BGS, UNIVERSITY OF MEBRASKA - OMAHA; MASTERS IN MANAGEMENT, CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY. LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY BOARD, COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU HAVE SERVED OND THE YEAR(S) OF SERVICE: NONE ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical, community, service): RETIRED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS BOARD, AND WHY YOU BELIEVE YOU YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Use additional paper if necessary): I am interested in how Old Town evolves and have the time to devote to this interest. I recognize the uniqueness of Old Town and feel it should be the "Center Piece" attraction for Temecula. I substitute teach in the TVUSD, have studied history and can articulate a point of view. I would enjoy giving presentations to the public on the cultural heritage of this region. I support the most recent architectural improvements in Old Town. However, the above ground electrical and telephone line, particularly around Main street, distract from the gas streetlight facade. We have made a great start in Old Town - I want to keep the momentum and am willing to work hard to that end. I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for public informa ion purposes. Return to: City Clerk's Office, 43200 Business Park Drive (909) 694-6444 Oi~ Mail to: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, Ca. 92589-9033 Commissions~,pplication for Old Town Local Review Board ITEM 19 APPROVAL CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City ManagedCity Council '--'~H. erman D. Parker, Director of Community Services May 25, 1999 City Council Chamber- Facility Use Policy PREPARED BY: Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction for the use of the City Council Chambers. DISCUSSION: In recent months, the City Council Chambers has been requested to be utilized by various community groups and organizations within the City. Most recently the Rotary Club used the facility for an annual fund raising event. Although these requests have not been presented often, staff feels it is appropriate to adopt a policy for reserved use of the City Council Chambers. It is staffs intent to introduce to the City Council a formal policy for reservation and use of the City Council Chambers with an effective date of July 1, 1999. Staff will work with our City Attorney to draft this policy to bring forward to the City Council for the June 22, 1999 City Council meeting. On a temporary basis, through June 30, 1999, staff would recommend that requests for use of the City Council Chambers be directed to the Community Services Department for reservation. Groups or organizations requesting use of the facility would be required to complete a facility use form and service order request form to ensure that staff is aware of the intended use and set-up the facility appropriately. Other than governmental uses, all other user groups and organizations would be required to pay facility rental fees, associated staff costs and provide the City with $1,000,000 General Liability Insurance naming the City of Temecula as additional insured. The fee for renting the City Council Chambers during this temporary time frame would be consistent with the fees outlined in Resolution No. 93-97 for use of a large multi-purpose room. Currently the rate for non-profit uses is $25 for the first 3 hours, $7 for each hour thereafter. The community user base rate is $90 for the first 3 hours, $20 for each hour thereafter. For-profit user groups will not be allowed. The Community Services Department would also require a cleaning secudty deposit in the amount of $100. Should additional equipment be requested, appropriate staffing and staff costs would also have to be paid by the renter(s). Because of the location of the City Council Chambers on the 2"d floor, in a secured area of City Hall it would be staffs recommendation that an policy be adopted on July 1, 1999, limiting the use of the City Council Chambers to City Council meetings, meetings of City Commissioner or advisory committees, City departments conducting meetings, work shops, training sessions, etc., or other R:tZIGLERG~AGENDAS\ChamberReservations.doc governmental agencies. Limited usage by non-profit groups may be permitted. Staff would not recommend that the City Council Chambers be used for religious or political gatherings and activities. FISCAL IMPACT: Requests for use of the Council Chambers at this time are seldom. The Community Services Department will reserve and receive reservation fees for use of the Council Chambers. We are uncertain at this time what fees will be generated. R:~ZIGLERG~,GENDAS\ChamberReservations.doc ITEM 20 ORAL REPORT DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS CITY ATTORN~'PROV/~'L't'T''''~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/Ci_~_.,n, dl Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager May 25, 1999 Monthly Report The following are the recent highlights for the Planning Division of the Community Development Department in the month of April 1999. CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITIES New Cases The Division received 39 new applications for administrative and other minor cases and home occupations and 4 new applications for public hearings during the month of April. The new public hearing cases are as follows: Development Plans (over 10,000 square feet) Specific Plan Pre-applications Childtime Childrens Center - Pre-application for new 8,000 square feet child day care center on southwest side of Nicolas Road near the intersection with Roripaugh Road. The pre-application meeting was held on April 21, 1999. Meadowview Golf Course - A pre-application meeting with the applicant was held on April 21, 1999. Status of Fast Track Projects The City's award-winning Fast Track process provides a way for major businesses relocating to or expanding in Temecula to get their fadlities constructed and occupied in the shortest possible time. The current Fast Track projects are as follows: Moving and Storage company relocation on Zevo Drive. - The relocation of an existing business to a new 14,600 square foot building. Certificate of Occupancy is pending. R:WIONTHLY. RPT\1999~April 99.doc 1 PLANNING DIVISION MONTHLY REPORT Burkey Machine & Tool - Development Plan for new 16,000 square feet machine and tool fadlity with 27 employees at the northeast corner of Winchester Road and Colt Court. The anticipated Planning Commission hearing date is for June 16, 1999. Status of Major Projects Staff is working with project applicants to address any remaining issues and get the following cases ready for public hearing before the Community Development Director or Planning Commission: Rebel Rent's new fadlity on Winchester Road in the Westside Business Center. Staff is awaiting second resubmittal from the applicant. Several of staffs original comments need to be addressed from the original DRC comments. A new 11,300 square foot speculative commercial building on Enterprise Circle South. Staff is waiting for a resubmittal from the applicant based upon staffs DRC comments. Rancho Community Church expansion on Vallejo Avenue. This project may require a focused environmental impact report to enable the City to effectively deal with the potential impacts associated with this project. Tentative Parcel Map 28627, the Margarita Canyon Property. Staff is waiting for the applicant to rectify issues raised by Caltrans. Wolf Valley Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report: A comment letter was mailed to the applicant. Staff is awaiting resubmittal from the applicant. A 28-1ot tract map on Via La Vida east of Calle Palmas, Tentative Tract Map 29036. Staff is still waiting for a re-submittal addressing the comments raised the DRC meeting. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report. Staff has received re- submittal and is reviewing to determine if the Draft EIR can be circulated for public review and comment. Padtic Gulf Properties - A development of a 244 unit senior apartment complex with two and three story building on an 8.13 acre lot including a Planned Development Overlay (PDO). Located on the northeast corner of Winchester Road and Nicolas Road. Planning Commission had concerns with the proposed zoning. The applicant has made changes to the zoning request and the item will go before the Planning Commission on June 2, 1999. Winston Tires - Conditional Use Permit to design, construct and operate a 5,310 square foot tire sales and installation, automotive service and repair fadlity. Located at 40385 Winchester Road, within the Winchester Meadows Shopping Center at the northeast corner of Margarita Road and Winchester Road. The second set of revised plans have been submitted and are currently under review. Clayton Hill, DVM - Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the development of a veterinarian hospital on a .69 acre lot. Located on the south side of Winchester Road, west of Nicolas Road. Staff is still awaiting resubmittal. GMC Building - Development Plan for new 19,000 square feet light industrial spec building on the north side of Rio Nedo, between Via Industria and Tierra Alta Way. It has been scheduled for Development Review Committee on April 22, 1999. R:'~MONTHLY. RPT~1999'~,pri199.doc 2 PLANNING DIVISION MONTHLY REPORT The following Mall Out-Lot developments have been submitted as of April 15, 1999: - TGI Fddays Restaurant, 6,400 square feet. - Barnes & Noble Booksellers, 23,000 square feet. - Krause's Sofa, 10,000 square feet. - Men's Warehouse, 10,000 square feet. - Burger King, 3,800 square feet. - Souplantation restaurant, 7, 100 square feet. - On the Border restaurant, 7,000 square feet. (All the Out-Lot projects will be approved administratively.) Don Mosco - A 22,200 square foot speculative office and warehouse building located on Colt Court and Winchester Road (Tract Map No. 28471-1). Awaiting resubmittal. Don Mosco - A 13,800 square foot speculative office and warehouse building located on the west side of Colt Court adjacent to Bostik (Tract Map No. 28471-1 Lot 5). Awaiting resubmittal. Edwards Theater - Specific Plan Amendment, allowing the theater to erect a freestanding marquee sign (26 feet in height). The sign is proposed at the easternmost entrance from Winchester Road to the Temecula Promenade Mall. Scheduled for Planning Commission May 19, 1999. Mequita and Assodates design and construction of a concrete tilt-up speculative building to develop as condos. Located on Madison Avenue (Parcel Map 23561-1). Awaiting resubmittal. Small Business Assistance US Land: Staff worked with Redevelopment Department in helping landowner secure financing and Old Town Local Review Board approval for new paint and a minor remodel of this building. Rosa's Cantina: Helped applicant obtain advanced date for Development Review Committee and expedited approval by the Old Town Local Review Board. Emmanuel Christian Fellowship: Staff made a special site visit and worked with the applicant on finding a suitable sign location for this site. Rancho West Apartments: Advised applicant regarding a new sign and resolved problem with the Fire Department over proposed location. Expos West Home and Garden Show Chappy's Roadhouse BBQ Open Wheel Racing Events (Northwest Sports Park) Special Event Permits , , , R:VvlONTHLY. RPT~I 999~April 99.doc -k Temecula Medical Park: Staff made site visit and helped landowner obtain release of a landscaping bond. PLANNING DIVISION MONTHLY REPORT The Great Race - City of Temecula -k Frontier Days Rodeo at the Northwest Sports Complex SPECIAL PROJECTS & LONG RANGE PLANNING ACTIVITIES The Division also commits work efforts toward larger scale and longer time frame projects for both private and public purposes. These activities can range from a relatively simple ordinance or environmental review to a new spedtic plan or a general plan amendment. Some of the major spedal projects and long range planning activities are as follows: Housing Element Update: Based upon the Request-for-Proposal that was issued, the City has received five responses. Staff is in the process of reviewing the proposals and will be conducting interviews in May. Staff expects to be able to present the Council with the draft contract in June 1999. The mitigated Negative Declaration for the NW Sports Park was distributed for public review and comment. No significant comments were received and the Community Development director approved the Negative Declaration on April 22, 1999. Old Town In Lieu Parking Program: Based upon direction provided by the Old Town Parking Subcommittee, the revised proposal will be presented to the Planning Commission in May. Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the City Redevelopment Plan: The consultant is currently gathering information to begin preparation of the Draft EIR. Staff is currently reviewing the consultant's initial submittals. Southside Spedtic Plan: Staff is preparing to revisit the draft Specific Plan and land use standards. Massage Business Ordinance: A revised draft of the ordinance was reviewed by the City Attorney and presented at the May 3, 1999 meeting of the local massage practitioners. Staff is currently revising the draft Ordinance based upon their input. General Plan Circulation Element Update: The consultant is currently ~nalizing the mall opening and build-out traffic studies. Subdivision Ordinance: Staff is preparing the Ordinance for the Commission's consideration. It is scheduled to be considered at their May 19, 1999 meeting. Traditional Neighborhood Development Ordinance: Final changes are being made prior to scheduling this item for the Planning Commission's consideration. Redhawk/Vail Ranch Annexation Study: The preliminary efforts have all been completed and the Coundl has set a date for the election. Surface Mining Ordinance: Staff is making final changes based upon feedback from the State pdor to submitting this item to the Coundl for their consideration R:VvlONTHLY. RPT~I 999~Apdl 99.doc 4 PLANNING DIVISION MONTHLY REPORT -k Geographic Information System (GIS): Staff is ~nalizing maps for Area "A" under the RV Ordinance, and a Quino Checkerspot Butterfly/California Gnatcatcher study and habitat area maps. The habitat maps will be reviewed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The colored Zoning Map is now available to the public. Sign Ordinance Handbooks: To make it easier for City staff and the business community to implement the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance, staff is preparing handbooks for Office and Industrial Signage Handbooks. The Commercial Sign Handbook is already being used, Antenna Ordinance: Staff is responding to the City Attorneys comments on the draft ordinance. Coordination with the Bureau of Census. Staff continues to work with the Bureau to ensure an accurate and complete count for the 2000 census. Final map and address changes have been submitted to the Bureau. Application Fee Study: Staff has been assembling information for the City's consultant on the new application fee study. The study is being performed to ensure that the City is charging reasonable and accurate application fees. Hillside Development Policy: Staff has prepared the policies for review by other City departments. R:WIONTHLY.RPT~I 999~April 99.doc 5 CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City ManagedCity Council Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manager May 18, 1999 SUBJECT: Economic Development Monthly Departmental Report Prepared by: Gloria Wolnick, Marketing Coordinator The following are the recent highlights for the Economic Development Department for the month of Apdl 1999. Economic Development Trader Joe's has announced that they will be adding up to 15 stores in the West. Nego- tiations are currently underway to open a store in Temecula off of Winchester Road. Lon Bruesgard announced that Four Slide Engineering would be relocating to Temecula. The company will occupy 32,000 sq. ft. and will have approximately 30 employees. They will be located on Rio Nedo. Industries served by Four Slide Engi- neering include a wide range - aerospace, electronics, computers, medical electronics, communications, automotive, sprinkler-irrigation, lighting and numerous OEM manufacturers. Staff has continued discussions with Chemicon per Council direction. The Husing Report was brought before Council on April 20t". At that time Council pro- vided staff with direction to set up a sub-committee to work with the two water districts. Retention Visits Staff attended five site visits with EDC members in April. Grant Yates went on a tour of Maxxim Medical with Dick Kurtz and Plant Manager Michael Tokarz. Maxxim assembles surgical trays for hospitals throughout the West. There are 250 employees in their Temecula plant with many of the jobs at low wage. They are satisfied with the quality of the workforce with most of their employees coming from the Perris/Elsinore area. He also attended site visits with Endar, Western Eagle Foundation, and Hudson RCI. Aaron Adams, Allie Kuhns and Dick Kurtz attended a site visit with Western Metal Fabricators. Leads and Inquiries In the month of April, the City responded to 3 leads and 7 inquiries. Note: Information on Fast Track, Expansion, Relocation and Speculative Building can now be found in the Community Development Department report. Staff attended the IEEP Membership Luncheon in Ontado on Apdl 28th, The topic focused on The Inland Empire Economic Investment Collaborative (IEEIC). The IEEIC is a partnership of six agencies providing workforce preparation programs to indi- viduals living in the Inland Empire. This regional collaborative received a $700,000 grant to maximize the delivery of employment training, and education services, which collabo- rates in the development of shared systems to improve efficiency and effectiveness in delivering workforce development services. A representative from each agency spoke and presented their role in the Collaborative and their relationship to economic development. Staff met with the Southwest Riverside County EDC on April 6th to discuss marketing/planning issues, leads and programs. Staff met with the cities of Lake Elsinore and Murrieta and the EDC on April 20*h regard- ing the Riverside County Workforce Development Board Grant awarded to our region. The grant totaled $100,000 and the money will be used to produce a Business Needs Survey and a Business Resource Guide. The Resource Group has been hired to facilitate and produce a Business Needs Survey. The survey will be sent out to industrial/manufacturing businesses in the region. In addition to the survey, a Business Resource Guide will be produced and will also be utilized on the web site as well as on CD Rom. The guide will be used to inform prospective and existing business owners of assistance including programs, services, regulations, financing, business associations, business and industry, education, health care and demographics. Shawn Nelson attended the Murrieta Temecula Group meetings on April 9th at Callaway Winery and met with a number of local and regional community leaders. Jim O'Grady at*tended the April 9th EDC Strategic Planning meeting. The EDC's focus is on industrial development. They are currently developing their work plan for the up- coming 14 months. On April 21't staff met with Group One Productions to revise and finalize Temecula's video spot for the County Kiosk Network. 2 On April 5th staff met with the Standing Economic Development Subcommittee to review the Economic Development funding requests for FY '99 - 2000. Commercial Brokers The Broker Database Meeting was held on April 13th with staff, the EDC and local commercial real estate brokers. The brokers were receptive to having a database that they will update and maintain. The database program will run through the Southwest Riverside County EDC but will be linked to the City's Web Site. Debbie Ubnoske met with brokers from CB Richard Ellis. Staff provided the brokers with various types of information including the Community Profile, business kit, Com- muter Census, etc. Media/Publicity Business Facilities magazine is producing a section within their Industry Report that covers great California locations for growing Biotech companies. The City placed an ad in the May issue and Temecula will receive editorial coverage as well. The City pro- vided a business kit and specific information on Chemicon and Guidant. Jim O'Grady was interviewed by the publication as well. Also, the City was able to highlight one of its available industrial/warehouse sites. The 85,390 sq. ~. state-of-the-art facility in the Westside Business Centre Park was featured. As a bonus, the City will receive expo- sure in BioPharm magazine, a well-received Bio-Pharmaceutical trade publication, and will be included on Business Facilities' website. With their insert program with vertical publications Temecula is able to expand its reach and it also stretches our advertising dollar. The publication is a monthly site selection tool for over 40,500 corporate site selectors with over 486,000 impressions a year. The City placed an ad in the San Diego Business Journal High Tech Directory and received a listing and 500 word advertorial. The Spring directory is distributed at trade shows, job fairs, the High Tech 200 Gala Awards Dinner and is also used by the San Diego EDC out of town. Each directory has about six months of active service. Approximately 30,000 issues will be printed. Staff produced an article on the City's Small Business Assistance Program for the Chamber of Commerce newsletter. Knute Noland, the City's first Development Proc- essing Coordinator implements this new program. Knute Noland and Gloria Wolnick met with Mr. Tom Rostai of American Wholesale Furniture who utilized this program prior to opening his new store in Temecula. Mr. Rostai provides a strong testimonial in support of this new program. The City has initiated this program as a way to show the develop- ment community that it is committed to personal customer service. 3 TOURISM Staff attended the Chamber of Commerce Toudsm Committee Meeting on Apdl 1't. Jennifer Nutter, with the Inland Empire Toudsm Council, was the guest speaker and she updated the committee on the IETC's activities and programs. The City and Chamber coordinated and provided a Familiarization Tour on Apdl 20th tO three representatives from PGI Destination Management Company in San Diego, Celebrity Tours (a bus company in Palm Springs) and three San Diego hotel concierges. On April 20th staff met with Bev Stureman and graphic designer Annie Howell regarding the design of a new tourism rack brochure for the City of Temecula. Special Events Staff is coordinating with the Chamber and TTA on The Great Race event, which will be held on June 19, 1999. The Great Race will begin in Marietta, Georgia and will consist of 100 vintage cars traveling across country with the final destination being Anaheim. Old Town Temecula will be the lunch stop for the event. The first meeting was held at the City on April 21st. The City and Chamber coordinated on the staffing of volunteers for the City/Chamber Tourism Booth at the Balloon & Wine Festival. In addition, Staff provided handout materials to be distributed to festival attendees. The Maintenance Superintendents Association (MSA) Inland Empire/Desert Chapter was established in 1986 and covers San Bemardino and Riverside Counties. Staff assisted this organization in setting up two of their annual events in Temecula. The first event was the MSA's Secretary's Luncheon that was held at Thornton Winery on April 22"d. The Vinther's Association, hotels, restaurants, golf clubs and Old Town mer- chants provided raffle prizes. Sixty-nine guests attended the luncheon. MSA's second event included the 3rd Annual MSA Scholarship Golf Tournament that was held on May 7th at Temeku Hills. Last year the event attracted 31 golfers and this year the attendance reached 64 golfers plus 15 volunteers. Golfers enjoyed a great day of golf and a luncheon immediately following the tournament. Both events were very successful and Temecula was able to showcase its tourism climate to this audience. MSA is planning to hold their annual conference in Temecula in the year 2003. This 3- day event will attract over 3,000 attendees from California, Colorado and Adzona. Travel Trade Shows The California Travel Market was held in Anaheim on Apdl 12, 13 and 14. The event was very successful and a lot of contacts were made. Temecula was well represented and the City will follow-up with the IETC on the leads. As members of the Inland Empire Tourism Council, Temecula was able to participate at no charge at the LA Times Travel Show that was held on Apdl 24 and 25. The 4 Chamber participated at the show with the IETC on April 24th. Travel agents from LA, San Diego, Woodland Hills and Hollywood attended this consumer show in the morning. Agents that attended the show will be added to the City's Tourism Database for future mailings. Media/Advertisinq The IETC placed an ad in Sunset Magazine and has received many requests on Temecula and the Inland Empire. IETC has mailed out over 800 City of Temecula rack brochures responding to ad requests over a three-week period. Volga, an informational magazine distributed in Los Angeles, wrote an article on Temecula and included Old Town. The City sent tourism information and slides for their use. Staff has been working with Edc Rose, a wdter for a Travel Book called Southern California Best Places. Temecula will be included in this publication. Staff supplied Mr. Rose with Temecula information and contacts. The May issue of Inland Empire Magazine contained a special section saluting Temecula, its wineries, Old Town, and the Balloon & Wine Festival. (see attached) Staff is working with District Manager Cathy Zaitz with AAA Tour Book on updating Temecula information for next year. Sunset Magazine is preparing an article on the best towns and cities in the West. Staff submitted an informational packet addressing the attributes of our community to Sunset. Staff worked with Laura Perfetti of John Muir Publications on their upcoming Travel Smart Southern California publication. Staff provided input on editorial and edited the information. Staff also put them in touch with a local professional photographer to pro- vide photography of our area. The photographer was paid for his services. Temecula will have its own chapter and the book will be sold nationally in bookstores and special interest stores. The City purchased a full-page ad in the San Diego North Convention & Visitors Bureau Official 2000 Visitors & Conference Guide. Temecula will also receive edito- rial & listings throughout the publication. There are 50,000 copies produced. The guide is distributed directly and by mail to the travel industries' familiadzation trips, trade shows, through media kits, newspaper travel editors in the U.S. and Canada, and to individual visitors making inquiries throughout the year. Attachments: Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Report Southwest Riverside County EDC Report Temecula Valley Film Council Report Inland Empire Magazine Article 5 27450 Ynez Road, Suite 104 Temecula, CA 92591 Phone (909) 676-5090 · Fax (909) 694-0201 May 7, 1999 Shawn Nelson, City Manager City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Sha~vn: Attached please find the Monthly Activity Report provided as per our contract with the City of Temecula. This is the month of April at a glance: Business Inquiry Highlights · 7 businesses requested information on starting or relocating their business in Temecula. They received a business packet which includes demographic, relocation, housing, etc. Committee Highlights The Tourism Committee coordinated and provided a Familiarization Tour on April 20th to three destination management companies, three hotel concierges and two bus tour companies. The One-page Tourism Street Map is completed and currently being distributed at the Chamber office, TVCC's Weekend Visitor Center, hotels, and restaurants, etc. Meetings for the "Great Race" are underway. The event is scheduled for Saturday, June 19. Chamber staff is providing obtaining sponsors for the event. The Tourism Committee will ask for volunteers to assist with this event. Volunteers from the City, Chamber and Tourism Committee assisted with the City/Chamber Tourism Booth at the Balloon & Wine Festival. Prior to the event, Chamber staff provided information on the Balloon & Wine Festival to over 1,400 phone call requests. Education Committee: Student of the Year applications have been distributed to the high schools for students who have been awarded prior Student of the Month awards. This year's awards luncheon will be held on June 1, 1999 at Sizzler American Grill in Temecula. The Ways & Means Committee is pleased to announce the successful 1999 Team Member of the Year Award Luncheon & Fashion show held on Wednesday, April 21 at Embassy Suites Hotel. Christina Mena, a Customer Service representative of Toyota Temecula Valley was awarded the 1999 Team Member of the Year Award. The Chamber office is actively seeking participants for the 1999/2000 Temecula Valley Pageant. City Report Page two The Chamrock Golf Classic was a sold out event, held on April 6, 1999 at Temecula Creek Inn. Golfers enjoyed a day full of golf, fun and an award banquet immediately following the golf tournament. Local Business Promotions Committee has continued with preparations for the second Success Seminar Series scheduled for June 8, 1999. Unleash Your Marketing Power! is the title foeXr the second series and topics of particular concern to Temecula Valley businesses will be presented and addressed. particularly to Temecula Valley businesses. Little Professor Book Company is the presenting sponsor for this second Success Seminar Series. Marketing of the seminar has been implemented via dyers, press releases and in the Temecula Today! The "Shop Temecula First" 'because it just makes Sense" June campaign is well underway with approximately eighty participants. The Press-Enterprise is June's campaign sponsor. Monthly meetings will continue to be held at the Chamber office. Territories have been distributed among the committee members. Government Action News: The Chamber has completed a broadcast fax to all members concerning important business legislative issues. One important bill, if passed will affect businesses. AB60 places into statute eight-hour overtime and twelve-hour double-time requirements; and unworkable alternative work schedule provisions. A sub-committee was formed to address the transportation issues of the Temecula-Murrieta area, specifically the concerns of the traffic flow on the 2 15 freeway between Mumeta and Moreno Valley, and the roads leading to the Eastside Reservoir Project. A letter of concern ~vill be sent to the appropriate legislators. Tomi Arbogast ,Chamber Vice President, Cheryl Shultz, Government Action Chairperson and Chamber staff attended the Volunteer Leadership Conference and the Small Business Legislative Conference in Sacramento the week of April 26. Representatives from the Califomia Chamber of Commerce, Governor and the State of California offices spoke on Key Business Related Issues. Membership Committee Ambassadors attended 12 ribbon cuttings in April. The Membership committee hosted a new member reception. This event was an opportunity for the new members to introduce their business and to meet staff, Board of Directors and the committees. The new TVCC Membership Directories have arrived. The Chamber provides this free directory. twice per year. The goal of the directory. is to encourage member businesses to network with one another. May Membership Madness Month is gearing up. May is designated for all Chamber members to sponsor one new member for the month. April Mixer was a huge success at the Bank of Commerce. Over 300 business members in attendance. The mixers are held monthly and are a great opportunity for businesses to network. The April Ambassador Networking Breakfast welcomed 65 business members. The Breakfast features two speakers monthly. Each month, members have the opportunity to be in a speaker drawing. City Report Page three Tourism Highlights (Bulk brochure distribution) · 1500 Temecula Brochures to Jennifer Nutter (Executive Director, Inland Empire Tourism Council) responding to requests from an ad IETC placed in Sunset Magazine. · 900 Temecula Brochures to Destination Temecula for distribution for a regional Tupperware top sales event in Temecula. · 750 Winery Brochures, 1 box of One-page Street Maps and 38 Travel Packets to TVC C's Weekend Visitor Center. · 700 Winery. Brochures to Rosa' s Cantina for distribution to customers. · 400 Winery Brochures to Outdoor Resorts for distribution to guests. · 250 Old Town Maps, 100 School Brochures and 12 City Maps to TVCC's Weekend Visitor Center for distribution to visitors. · 225 Visitor Guides to Silver Spoon Restaurant for distribution to tourists. · 225 Visitor Guides, 100 Old Town Maps and 100 Winery Brochures to Galway Downs for a week long horse competition event. · 200 Relocation Packets to the City of Temecula for distribution to prospective businesses coming to Temecula. · 100 Visitor Guides, 25 Winery Brochures to One Song for distribution to tourists. · 100 Visitor Guides to the Film Festival Office for distribution to attendees of the Film Festival. · 100 School Brochures and 25 Relocation Packets to Country' Walk for distribution to clients. · 75 Winery Brochures to the Ritz Carlton for distribution to guests coming to Temecula. · 75 Temecula Brochures to Jobanna Tucker for distribution to guest attending a wedding in Temecula. · 60 Old Town Maps, 60 Temecula Brochures, 60 Visitor Guides and 60 Winery Brochures to Picket International for conference attendees at Temecula Creek Inn. · 50 Travel Packets, 50 Old Town Maps and 50 Visitor Guides to World Harvest Church for distribution to ministers attending at conference in Temecula. · 50 Temecula Brochures and 50 Winery Brochures to Pala Mesa Resort for distribution to guests. · 40 Winery Brochures and 25 Visitor Guides to Temecula Valley Balloons for a mailing to guests. · 50 Winery Brochures and 30 Visitor Guides to the Glass Hutch for distribution to tourists. · 30 Winery Brochures, 30 Old Town Maps and 30 Visitor Guides to Event Team for distribution to American Society of Military Comptrollers attending a tour in Temecula. · 30 Visitor Guides to Temecula Valley Inn for distribution to guests. · 25 Old Town Maps, 25 Winery Brochures and 25 City Maps to Bob Anderson for a Jaguar Auto Club visiting Temecula. · 25 Travel Packets to Solana Ridge Apartments for distribution to new residents · 20 Old To~vn Maps to HBLA for a group staying at the Pala Mesa Resort. · 15 City Maps, 15 Old Town Maps, 15 Temecula Brochures and 15 Winery Brochures to Sherrie Aubrey for distribution to wedding guests staying in Temecula. · 15 Travel Packets to Fast Signs for distribution to the City of Moreno Valley for a tour in Temecula. · 15 Visitor guides to Century 21 Cal Oaks for distribution to prospective clients. Marketing Report · TVCC staff artended the California Travel Market April 12, 13, & 14 and met with 10 tourism buyers from around the world. · TVC C staff attended the Los Angeles Times Travel Show April 24 &25 and distributed approximately 500 Winery Brochures, Temecula Brochures and Old Town Walking Tour Maps. City Report Page four TVCC staff is attending monthly Inland Empire Tourism Council meetings. The goals are; to bring together promoters of regional events in our local area, produce, maintain, and distribute a Regional Calendar of Events, enhance public knowledge and viability of regional events, facilitate event pre-planning via coordination among regional event promoters and to promote public awareness of the Tourism/Event Committee and its functions. Activity Report · Overall Tourism phone calls are up 40.65 percent from last year. · Overall phone calls are up 39.93 percent from last year. · Walk-ins are up 23.63 percent from last year. E-Mail requests: 85 Also attached are the Meeting Minutes for the Tourism, Education, Ways & Means, Local Business Promotions, Government Action, Membership Committees and "How did you hear about Temecula?" report. If you have any question regarding this information, please feel free to call me. Thank you. incere , Alice Sullivan President/CEO cc: Mayor Steven J. Ford Mayor Pro Tem Jeffcry E. Stone Councilman Jeff Comerchero Councilman Karel F. Liatdemans Councilman Ronald H. Roberrs Shawn Nelson, City Manager Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manager Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager Gloria Wolnick, Marketing Coordinator TVCC Board of Directors PHONE CALLS TOURISM TOURISM REFERRALS Calendar of Events ** Special Events General Information TOTAL TOURISM CALLS RELOCATION DEMOGRAPHICS CHAMBER MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL PHONE CALLS * CHAMBER REFERRALS WALK-INS TOURISM CALENDAR OF EVENTS SPECIAL EVENTS GENERAL INFORMATION RELOCATION DEMOGRAPHICS CHAMBER MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL WALK-INS MAILINGS TOURISM RELOCATION DEMOGRAPHICS TOTAL MAILINGS E-MAIL TOURISM RELOCATION MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL E-MAIL GRAND TOTALS PHONE CALLS WALK-INS MAILINGS E-MAIL TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT For April, 1999 Chamber Vis. Center This Month This Month Total Year-To-Date 522 117 1,625 1272 3,536 1950 477 3431 4,429 10,287 358 55 1,954 110 6,013 13,530 955 243 7,477 518 9,193 47,038 168 128 89 684 211 54 1001 48 2,383 69 11 18 84 1 0 4 9 196 1,209 507 320 3,142 733 224 3,937 265 10,337 178 111 115 404 811 440 476 1,727 26 13 46 85 THISi MONTH 6,013 2,383 404 85 81 84 230 395 YEAR-TO-DATE 55,988 6,963 1,298 489 ANNUAL VOLUME COMPARISONS Chamber April, 1998 Chamber April, 1999 Percentage Increase WALK-INS TOURISM 191 168 -12.04 CALENDAR OF EVE~NTS 76 128 68.42 SPECIAL EVENTS 40 89 122.50 GENERAL INFORMATION 410 684 66.83 RELOCATION 151 211 39.74 DEMOGRAPHICS 70 54 -22.86 CHAMBER 872 1001 14.79 MISCELLANEOUS 73 48 -34.25 VISITOR CENTER WALK-INS 203 196 -3.45 TOTAL WALK-INS 2,086 2,579 23.63 MAILINGS TOURISM 224 178 -20.54 RELOCATION 134 111 -17.16 DEMOGRAPHICS 101 115 13.86 TOTAL MAILINGS 459 404 -11.98 E-MAIL TOURISM N/A 16 N/A RELOCATION N/A 15 N/A MISCELLANEOUS N/A 27 N/A * Chamber referrals reflects faxes, walk-ins and phone calls ** Special Events Balloon & Wine = 1,477 Other = 148 PHONE CALLS TOURISM Tourism Referrals 510 522 2.35 Calendar of Events 113 117 3.54 Special Events 1,107 1,625 46.79 General Information 784 1,272 62.24 TOTAL TOURISM CALLS 2,514 3,536 40.65 RELOCATION 163 358 119.63 DEMOGRAPHICS 70 55 -21.43 CHAMBER 1,426 1,954 37.03 MISCELLANEOUS 124 110 -11.29 TOTAL PHONE CALLS 4,297 6,013 39.93 CHAMBER REFERRALS 7,507 13,530 80.23 Economic Development Corporation Temecula ~lle, l' May 11,1999 Jim O'Grady Assistant City Manager City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 RE: Activity Summary The following highlights the activities of the EDC during the month of April: Business Development The EDC responded to two requests for information from IEEP. One request was for an electronics manufacturer with new hires expected to range between 300 and 400. A comprehensive request was submitted for a chemical coating manufacturer who required specific information on housing and relocation programs as well as real estate and operating costs. Three requests received during the month could not be responded to as they required rail access for receipt of raw materials and shipping and an exceptionally high ceiling height for an existing building prevented a response. Responding to a site selection magazine reader response card, information was sent to an injection molding parts manufacturer for automobiles. Demographic information was given to an out of area broker who declined to identify his manufacturing client. Marketing Outreach Staats attended the Southwest Riverside County Manufacturer's Council general meeting on April 14, 1999. Jim JP Polhemus with the IEBA addressed the importance of international trade to the region and Wayne Sutter of Mt. San Jacinto College explained the ACCESS program to those in attendance. Staats gave a presentation regarding EDC-SWRC to the Project Leadership group on April 15, 1999. The all day meeting hosted by the City of Murrieta and the Chamber of Commerce for Murrieta focused information on Regional Government and Economic Development. Representatives were present from City, County and Educational resources to discuss issues relevant to the subject matter. Staats attended the CONNECT Temecula "Links" business program on April 16, 1999. At the luncheon, Mr. Tom L. Hall discussed "How to Identify Tax Post Office Box 1388 · Tenlecula, CA 92593-1388 · ()ffice 9()9/69~,-~ 130 · FAX 909/695-~ 126 Jim O'Grady May 11, 1999 Page Two Deductions Using 419 Plans", which provide asset protection for key executives. Staats gave a presentation about EDC-SWRC at the SBA seminar hosted by Fallbrook National Bank on April 20, 1999. Attendees included start up businesses as well as those who are in need of information on financing alternatives. Staats attended the Third District Workshop hosted by Supervisor Venable at the Ramona Bowl on April 21, 1999. Councilman Karel Lindemans, Chairman of the RTA; Code Enforcement Deputy Director, Scott Barber and Christina Coats, Commissioner of the Riverside County Youth Commission made presentations at the meeting. Staats continues to attend the Southwest Area Transportation Funding District Meetings held at Supervisor Bob Buster's office. The meetings are centered on the regional transportation issues and are held in collaboration with WRCOG to propose a funding mechanism and approach to provide the necessary improvements to relieve congestion and improve mobility upon the Southwest sub-regional transportation network. Business Relations The Business Relations Committee made contact with six companies during the month of April. Staff continues to assist the committee with documentation and preparation of the visit materials and research regarding the companies to be visited. The visitation packets will now include a hard copy of information down- loaded from the business's web page (if they have one). The Career Fair held on April 10, 1999 was judged to be a great success. Twenty-Six Exhibitors talked with and received resumes from the projected 500 to 700 in attendance. Seminars were held throughout the day on job preparation issues. The planning for next year has already begun. An attempt will be made to find an enclosed site that would offer the opportunity to more exhibitors. A new business license list for the City of Murrieta will be provided to the committee so that visits can be planned for some of the new members of Murrieta's business community. An outreach will be made to the chair of the Lake Elsinore Connection group to see if assistance with business visitations would be welcomed. The Southwest Riverside County Workforce Grant Committee met in April to discuss the survey and business resource guide that is to be developed through the grant received from the County of Riverside Workforce Development Board. An RFP was sent to four companies inviting bids to develop the survey instrument and analyze the results obtained. The goal is to complete the survey project by no later than September 1999. Monthly updates will be provided on this program. Mr. Jim O'Grady May 11, 1999 Page Three Administration/Or.qanization Steve Harding conducted the second workshop on April 9, 1999 for the strategic planning process. Staff is assisting Mr. Harding in gathering the information to support the implementation plan being developed. Staff continues to gather information on the One Stop Career Center planning process. An overview of the concept of the One Stop Center was given to the Board of Directors at the regular meeting held on April 28, 1999. This concludes the written summary of activity for the month of April. Please call if there are questions concerning this report. 2/uu~!i Staats ./Interim Executive Director TEMECULA VALLEY FILM COUNCIL ACTIVITIES REPORT APRIL 1999 Election of officers was held on April 23, 1999. Members of the Temecula Valley Film Council are Maggi Allen, President; Sunny Thomas, Vice-President; Judi Staats, Treasurer; Steve Phelps, Secretary; Brian Padberg, Sheri Davis, and Penny Rivera. Fred Huber has resigned his position on the Board of Directors. The Business of the Film Council April 13th the TVFC presented a requested for $30.000 advance on funding for the 1999- 2000 fiscal year in order to obtain a sponsorship for the City of Temecula in the Temecula Valley International Film Festival. Thank you all for your understanding and helpfulness. · The auditions for Temecula Talent Showcase '99 were held on April 10 and 11. Over 75 song and dance acts were seen. There is tremendous talent in the Temecula area. As a fund and fun raiser for the TVFC, the Temecula Talent Showcase '99 will be presented on June 12th in the CRC as part of the Arts Council's Arts in the Country-Arts Fest '99. We have chosen 30 entrants from all over the Inland Empire, mostly from the Temecula area. We have reviewed the TVFC request for Film Council funding, and with donations, fund raising and other cooperative efforts, we have been able to reduce our Film Council request from $45,000 to $29,900. This revised request is being sent to City staff for review and presentation to the City Council. Film Council telephone inquiries are being handled effectively by a voice mail answering system. During the month of March we received 167 calls - 12 - for production and location information, 65 - for Film Festival information, 82 - for Talent Showcase information, 8 - TVFC business. Filming activity Bert Doyon, a local film producer with Doyon Townsend Enterprises, returned to Temecula with his script for a film project scheduled for this summer. The budget is $4 million. There will be 28 filming days, tentatively in Old Town, Sage Rd. off Hwy 79 South, some areas of Warner Springs and 2 residential areas. Cast and crew will be housed in Temecula. · Doyon Townsend Enterprises will produce a 30 second promo/commercial for the Temecula Valley International Film Festival, which will be shown on the cable channel. Local movie producer, David James filmed "The Big Blind". They filmed at the Casino in Lake Elsinore for 3 weeks and at the Old Town Bus Stop and in local strip malls in Temecula for 3 days. David also wrote the screenplay. Financially, they reported spending $120,000 in Elsinore and approximately $30,000 in both Murrieta and Temecula. Stacey Sivek, of Temecula, was the contact person and the production manager. They had a staff of about 100 - 60% were hired locally (electricians, carpenters and extras). They rented apartments in Murrieta and got their supplies and equipment from local merchants in Temecula. Cinema Entertainment Alliance is progressing in their production of the Film Festival. Both James Colbum and Shirley Jones are to receive Lifetime Achievement Awards at the Gala on June 184. Local organizations have volunteered to preview films and the final selections have almost been completed. The filmmakers are being notified. The major studios, MGM, Miramax, Sony and Paramount, have also sent films for viewing. Sponsorships are coming in daily. It looks like an exciting event. Katie Carmichael of American Eagle Outfitters spent a week shooting still photographs in Temecula for American Eagle Outfitters. Ms. Carmichael used the TVFC production guide as one of her resources for locating her production needs locally and stayed at Embassy Suites. We will continue to support the daily management of filmmaker's requests, and encourage the growing awareness of the industry in this community. It is our goal to generate a higher awareness of the Temecula Area within the context of filmmaking activities, and to present the opportunities and benefits of this production to local merchants and businesses. Respectfully, Maggi Allen President, TVFC N AN) M magazine PHOTOGRAPHY BY JIM DORSEY .......................................................................................................................................................................................... = _, . 'i TEMECULA VALLEY BALLOON & WINE FESTIVAL SET TO SOAR MAY 1 & 2 Join the festive atmosphere when more than 50 hot air balloons fill the sky with color and festival-goers on the ground enjoy wine tasting, live music, arts & crafts, Kids' Faire and more. Saturday 6 a.m. to 9 p.m., Sunday 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., Lake Skinner Recreation Area, 37701 Warren Road, six miles nortl~east of Temecula. From 1-15, exit on Winchester Road, go east and follow the signs. $15, children $5. Parking $3. Information: (909) 676-6713. A Valley By Wendy Wilson Temecula has come a ~ong way since the days in the no[-so-cfistant past when it was an obscure ~own just north of the San Diego County line. Over the past decade, booming growth has created a city of more than 45,000 residents and put the area on the map. Gone are the bumper stickers that ioked, "Where the heft is Temecula?" " Nestled in the southwest corner of Riverside County Detween mountains cover~ by avoCa- do and citrus turesque setting. kROWR for i~s w;neries Ut there rs still ;-~i~s and the t~O. and ~ng I~J~ls ~ething more :'~lll~-.than row after row of ~ract'~o~. ~nd ~O~ons-M ~ ,ther%?ores ~d ~tand a ~'>:~': ~ Re:ident '~visitors looking fo ~:u~ slice of 'should ~ing cent~ ~ ~": d as an is ~me't~ several .% after' railroad ·.,,~8t/rived in the late 1880s. " with Western and Spanish coll~ial facades: 'n ' '~' ;'~ '~' ' , ~ tt'~!.,:~p~t ","aS~. ~. la~ 'e..':" ...~ a .~ ~'r~~ ~~ r .... //,""c~ro~pi ng :' ~.',t~.~". "" ' a:":.' · % .' | -': while the ' '~ ~i tt"t",~' ' ~ . , -,,I "~ "", :_.. do . I~..ei, e' ~.'!' ..:; ::-:.. .......,,,.-, .....-... standing a::~ ' .. ,, -,..l-l[ m,:lce. Town uninviting. Repairs were delayed so they could be done ~n conjunction with construction of Rogers-Dale U.S.A., developer Zev Buffman's ambitious western entertainment complex, originally planned for Old Town. When plans for Rogers- Dale U.S.A. shifted to neighboring Murrieta, local opponents said repair work would disrupt Old Town's quaint ambiance. The city, however, went ahead and launched a $5 million streetscape project to spruce up Old Town. Work was com- pleted last November. Old Town got new curbs and streetlights, wood boardwalks and benches, and a sound system along Front Street for background music and special events like the annual Rod Run car show held every February. Also new to Old Town's north and south en- trances are arches designed by local artist Bob Morris. They were made with inlaid steel and stone cutouts and depict Temecula's history. A large mural by another local artist, Robin Golden, similarly offers a rendition of the city's past. Golden painted the mural on the back wall of a strip mall near the Temecula Stage Stop bus depot, near the north entrance to Old Town. Both the mural and depot were completed early last year. Phil Brigandi, author of the newly published book Temecula at the Crossroads of History, applauds the city's commitment to keeping its past alive. "The only thing Temecula's got that separates it from the rest of the new communities in Southern California is its history, and what's going to keep that going is visible reminders of it," he says. Brigandi describes Temecula's history as a "sampler of a bit of everything" that happened in Southern California. Besides a railroad town, Temecula has been an Indian village, mission outpost and ranching community. Meyer says the streetscape project is "lust the first step" toward revitalizing Old Town. A consul- tant's report commissioned by the city recom- mends adding more shops that sell home fur- nishings and outdoor recreation equipment; more restaurants and bars; a playhouse, muse- um and art galleries; and opening bed and breakfast inns or small lodges. The report also urges the city to capitalize on its proximity to its famous wine country by set- ting up an information kiosk and larger outlet store for the wineries' products. Merchants are pleased with the recent improvements and anxious to see what will hap- pen next. "We're a lot happier," says Suzanne St. John, owner of the Silver Spoon Caf~. St. John, who has run her restaurant in Old Town for 11 years, would like to see Old Town break away from its niche as an antique market and bring in a greater variety of shops. She believes that without more diverse offerings, locals have few reasons to make repeat visits. Sharon Sprigg, manager of the Old Town Antique Faire, says the various antique shops complement each other. For instance, when she doesn't have something a customer wants, she calls other shops to see if they do. But she agrees with St. John that Old Town would bene- fit from a mix of shops and cultural attractions. "Not everyone is an antique person," she says. Later this year Old Town will have at least one new attraction mentioned in the consultanUs report: a museum. Originally run out of a store- front, the museum of local history will have its own building with interactive areas for children and exhibits that will appeal to all age groups, according to Herman Parker, the city's director of community services. The city took over the This is Pat Barker... but you probably knew that! What you might not know is that Pat joined Inland Empire National Bank in 1990 and is the Vice President/ Manager of our Fallbrook office. Pat has been a resident of Fallbrook for over 25 years and has over 15 years banking experience in Fallbrook. She understands the way Fallbrook likes to do business and she has the expertise you won't find in a supermarket branch. So if you need a commercial loan, you should be banking with us. Fallbrook's Bank Where Banking Means Business.t (760) 728-9585 139 South Main Street, Fallbrook, CA 92028 Member FDIC When accidents happen, you need fast relief. Here's the prescription: Call on the collision repair experts at Caliber. As authorized repair facilities for major insurance companies nationwide, we'll calm your nerves by smoothing out all the paperwork. Stat. And our certified technicians will get you up and running again with the absolute highest quality repairs in the industry. Guaranteed for the life of your car. Feeling better now? Oh yeah, we will even assist you with your rental car. Now that's just what the doctor ordered. RIALTO REDLANDS RIVERSIDE NORCO 421 W. Rialto Ave. 1120 W. Redlands Blvd. 6634 Indiana Ave. 2000 S. Four Wheel Dr. 874-4470 793-3442 683-6734 736-1398 118 INLAND EMmrE · MAx' 1999 museum project after a nonprofit group ran construction delays. Parker says the museum should open by summer. Whatever Old Town may add or change in coming months and years. it should continue to have a unique appeal. "We don't want to com- pete with the mall and other shopping centers," Meyer says. If Old Town ~s a reminder of Temecu~a's early past, then Tower Plaza is a reflection of its mod- ern history. The plaza, which opened in the 1960s, was Temecula's first contemporary open air shopping center. Past tenants included the public library and an inn. The center lost its hold on the community when new homes went up farther away, along with new strip malls. But like Old Town, Tower Plaza refuses to disappear. While Tower Plaza still has a grocery store and other conveniences you'd find at any strip mall, its newest features are meant to attract people ~ooking for a night out on the town or a fun place to go during the day. The center houses a movie theater, several restaurants, Ben & Jerry's, Starbucks and a used bookstore. In 1997 Tower Plaza began an annual summer program that features outdoor concerts and horse-and-buggy qdes around the parking lot. "It was a forgotten center for awhile and ~t's really come into its own ~n the past year or so." says Roxanne Parady, regional manager for Arden Realty Inc.. the p,aza's owner. Christy Forrest looked around before choos- ing Tower Plaza as the place to open her ceram- ic studio. She was drawn to its old sycamore trees, outdoor gazebo and walkways designed to encourage leisurely strolls between the plaza's two rows of buildings. "There really wasn't another place in Temecula or Murrieta that had this kind of charm," she says. Painted Earth, which opened in August, gives novices a chance to paint pottery that already has been shaped into mugs, plates and other household items. Italian restaurant owners Joe and Pat Scarcella saw the changes at Tower Plaza as a chance to remodel their business, which has been at the plaza for 20 years. Once a non- descript pizzeria, the restaurant unveiled a more cosmopolitan menu and classy Mediterranean look when it re-opened in October at a new loca- tion close to the new movie theater. Lunch spe- cials are around $6 and dinners run between $7 and $13.50. The theater openea at Tower Plaza in December 1997 with eght more screens than the old two-screen cinema ~t replaced. Last year the theater hosted the Temecula Valley International Film Festival. an annual event. The new theater shows art films as part of its regular schedule and classic mowes like Casablanca and The Philadelph/a Story the sec- ond Wednesday night of every month. Bruce Sanborn, president of SoCal Cinemas, says the screenings are an attempt to continue the spirit of the film festival year-round and to distinguish the theater from its competitor, Edwards Theatres. Edwards already has one theater in Temecula and will open a second at the new mall. Tower Plaza merchants are hopeful that the mall won't draw their customers away. Historian Brigandi is among those rooting for the center. The recent turnarounds at Tower Plaza and Old Town have something ~n common, he says. Both places faced losing their status as Temecula's attention turned to new growth, but both have been g~ven a new lease on life. "lt's very gratifying to see both places as active, viable parts of the community." · Go To The Movies Without Leaving Home Home Theater is a high quality video and audio entertainment center that creates the movie experience right in your own home: large screen TV plus spectacular, realistic surround-sound audio. A home theater can be as elaborate or as simple as you wish. HOMETRONICS home theater designers specialize in designing such systems and recommending the very best equipment at various price levels. Home, tonics, Your connection to the best in home entertainment (909) 308-1520 41669 Winchester Road, Suite 101 Temecula, CA 92590 Temecula Town Center. ', TEMECULA TO~ CENTER Corner of Rancho California & Ynez Roads Temecula, California INLAND EMPIRE · MA~ 1999 THE TREATS OF TEMECULA Come experience the charm of Temecula. Between Southern California's gentle rolling hills and majestic snow-capped mountains lies an oasis of lush vineyards, sparkling lakes and the Santa Rosa Plateau. Outdoor recreation abounds for every enthusi- ast. Among them is golf, golf and more golf. There are more than 99 challenging holes at five championship golf courses ~n the area. Nearby Lake Skinner offers a beautiful open atmos- phere with camping, fishing, boating (boat rentals are available) as well as hiking and bik- ing. Special events this year include this month's Balloon and Wine Festival. In June we have the Arts Festival and Summer Nights in Old Town. July will bring our exciting 4th of July celebration/Greek Festival. For more information about Temecula's spe- cial events and accommodations, call the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce at (909) 676-5090. Rancho Ford Lincoln-Mercury hopes you enjoy the Temecula Balloon and Wine Festival. Since 1984, our dealership has served the inland Empire with quahty prod- ucts, courteous treatment, and the best value for your money. We know you have a Choice, which is why our motto, "We do it right...from the start" is more than just a slogan: it is the way our staff approaches their responsibilities ~n working hard to make sure customers are completely satisfied with even/aspect of their business relationship. The month of April marked our 15th anniver- san/~n business. We started out in Sun City, and in 1996 we relocated to Temecula. After three years in Temecula, our business has grown to the point that we are currently in the process of a major expansion· We are adding a brand new state-of-the~art body shop, more service stalls, a larger showroom, and two more acres of display area which can accommodate 150 more vehicles for our customers to choose from. We want to thank our valued customers for their loyalty over the years. If you haven't come to see us, we hope to see you soon! ALL JAZZED UP Groove to the smooth sounds of Champagne Jazz '99 at Thornton Winery. The 1 lth annual jazz concert season features pedormances by Poncho Sanchez and Jeff Golub and Avenue Blue on Sunday, May 2 at 4 p.m.; Lee Ritenour on Sunday, May 16 at 4 p.m.; Rick Braun and Willie & Lobo on Sunday, June 20 at 4 p.m.; Norman Brown on Sunday, June 27 at 4 p.m.; Dave Koz on Saturday, July 17 at 7 p.m. and again on Sunday, July 18 at 4 p,m.; Keiko Matsui and Eric Marienthal on Sunday, August 1 at 5 p.m.; and the season concludes with David Sanborn on Sunday, August 22 at 5 p.m. General admission for each concert is $37.50 ($50 for Dave Koz on July 17 and $45 for David Sanborn on August 22). Gourmet supper packages are $85 per concert ($97 for Dave Koz on July 17 and $90 for David Sanborn on August 22). To reserve tickets or for more information, call the Jazz hotline at (909) 699-3021. Thornton Winery is located at 32575 Rancho California Road in Temecula. Ternelm Hills A Golfers Paradise Under the Management of Dye Golf Services The Inland Empire's Best Full Service Facility For Group aria Corporate our. me.t i-; "" The Grill Room Breakfast · Lunch · Private Events · Sunday Brunch · . ~I~. ':'-' ~7'-. Theater/Auditorium Meeting Room Banquet Facilities On-Site Catering I emeku Hills Golf Club 41687 Temeku Drive, Temecula, CA 1800) 839-9949 · (909) 694-9998 · Fax (909) 694-8011 THORNTON WINERY Temecula Valley's Most Honored Winery 699-0099 I\t~',D E\~Ptl~b · IMp\ 1999 Your # 1 Music': & Entertainment Source _ ,,. ._. NLAND :i magazine On sale at Lucky, Vons, Ralph's, Stater Bros., Albertsons and more! Call (909) e82-3o2e, Ext. 22 For Subscription Information. The Hotel Designed By Business Travelers i For you, our valued guest, the Courtyard by Marriott in Riverside has completed a $1.5 million renovation. Experience the latest in comfort and technologies in one of the newly refur- bished 163 deluxe rooms. 1100 square feet of flexible meeting space to accommodate 5-100 persons. Our pip- ing hot breakfast buffet is the perfect way to start your day and the warm cozy lounge provides rest and relax- ation at the end of your day. Surround yourself with the comfort and convenience that can only be found at the Courtyard by Marriott in Riverside. Voted best hotel ~ chain by Entrepreneur ~ Magazine for business and ~ leisure travel. e~\~ ,~rrlotl 1 510 University Avenue .. Riverside, CA www.courtyard.com Reservations 1-800-321-2211 (909) 276-1200 122 i\~-x\D EMPII~F · M.',\ TEMECULA WINERIES RALLY VINEYARD & WINERY 33833 Rancho California Road: (909i 676-9463 Open daily I0 p.m. to 5 Din. Award winning w~nes produced include Charaonnay. Wh~te R~esl~ng "Montage" (Sauwgnon blanc/Semfi~on biendl. Cabernet Blanc, Muscat Blanc, "TV Red," and "TV White." Tashng room, p~cnic areas CALLAWAY VINEYARD & WINERY 32720 Rancho California Road; (909) 676-4001. Wine shop and tasting room open daily. The region's leading producer of some of America's favonte wines. Wines include Calla-Lees Chardonnay. CaPernet Sauvignon, Sauvignon Blanc and Chenin Blanc. Special collection w~nes include Vtogner P~not Gris and Dolceltd. Tours weekdays at 11 p.m., 1 pro. and 3 p,m.: weekends 11 a.m ~o 4 p,m. every boar on the hour. Tashng $4 per person. CILURZO VINEYARD & WINERY 41220 Carte Contento: (909) 676-5250. Open daily 10 a,m. to 5 p.m, W;nes produced include Chardonnay. Sweet Zinfandel, V~ncheno, Marlot. Petite Sirah and CaPemet Sauv~gnon Tasting room, barrel tast~ngs, gift shop, guided tours, picnic pawhen. FILSINGER VINEYARD & WINERY 39050 De Portola Road; (909) 676-4594. Wines produced are Chardonnay, Fume Blanc, Gewurztrammer, Johannisberg Rieshng, Gamay. Sauwgnon Blanc, CaPernet Sauvtgnon and White Zinfandel They also produce tour different k~nds of champagnes Tasting room ~s open 10 p.m. to 5 p.m. on weed<ends, during the week by appointment; $1 tasting charge Picnic area, HART WINERY 32500 Rancho Cahfornia Road; (909) 676- 6300. Open daily 9 a.m to 4:30 p.m Wines currently pro- duced, some ~n very limited quantmes, include Vicemar. Grenache Rose, Syrah. Mourvedre, BarBara, Z~nfandel and Cabernet Franc Tasting fee is $2 and Includes a souventr g~ass. Limited picnic facilities KEYWAYS VINEYARD & WINERY 37338 De Ponola Road: (909) 676-1451. Open daily 10 a,m. to 5 p.m. Wines pro- duced inciude Barrel Fermented Chardonnay, V~ogn~er. Cabernet Sauvignon, White Zinlandel and Misty ta proph- etdry blend). Antique displays, tasbng room, pcn~c area. MAURICE CAR'RIE VINEYARD & WINERY 34225 Rancho California Road; (909) 676-1711. Open daily 10 am. to 5 p.m. W~nes produced are CaPernet Sauwgnon, Marlot. Pinot No~r. Nebbiolo-Syrah, Chardonnay. Muscat CaneHi. White Zinfandei, Gamay Beaujolais, Johanmsberg Rieshng and Chenin Blanc. Tours for groups of 15 or more with advance reservabons. Tasting room, gift shop, picnic areas, pre-pack- aged dell ~tems available, MOUNT PALOMAR WINERY 33820 Rancho Catitornia Road: (909) 676-5047. Open daily 10 p.m. to 5 p.m. Speciahzing ~n Mediterranean-style wtnes including Sang~ovese, Syrah, Cortese, "Le Mediterrane," Carignane, Moscato and PoP Cream Sherry. Tours Mon.-Fri. 1:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m.. Sat and Sun. at 11:30 a.m. Groups of 20 or more should ca!: ahead. Tasting room with gift Shop ann goutmet dell. Private and scenic p~cmc grounds SANTA MARGARITA WINERY 33490 Madera De Playa: (909~ 676-4431. Smallest winery in Temecula Valley. produong Cabernet Sauvlgnon, Sauvignon BLanc/'Semihon blanc Occasional releases of small amounts of vanetals. Open for tasting Sat. and Sun 11 a.m, to 5 Din.: weekdays appointment. Free tasbng among the barrels STUART CELLARS 33515 Rancho Cahforn~a Road; (909/676- 6414. Open daily 10 a.m, to 5 p.m. Wines produced are Chardonnay, Viognier Ca~hsta. Tatna and Wntage Z~nfande~ Pod. Hilltop p~cmc area. gift shop, wine tasting for $4 (keep the glass/. TEMECULA CREST WINERY 40620 CalVe Contento; 1909i 676-8231. Open daily 10 am. to 5 Pm VV~neS produced D- clude SauvLgnon Blanc, Charoonna'i. R.eshng. CaPemet Blanc, Metlot. Nebblolo and "Contents" Picnic areas, w~ne tasting THORNTON WINERY 32575 Rancho Cahfornia Road: (909, 699-0099. W~nes produced ~nclude Tnornton wntage BLanc de BLanc and Brat Reserve: Non-vintage: Cuvee Rouge and Cuvee de Fronbgnan Premium tap!e w~nes ~nclude ~,' :!~ Cangnane. Cnardonnay. Gioveto and Z~ntandeL Champagne and w~ne tasting lounge ooens daib' at ! I am.. S6 per De- ~ ~.~: son for four wines Tours on the weekend 11 a,m to 4 p.n'. ' ''"' on the hour. Care Champagne gourmel restaurant open On=i,,, 11 a.m to 9 p.m. Gift shop, ~azz concerts w~nemaker e~n hers weddings. group catann9 VAN ROEKEL VINEYARD & WINERY 34567 Rancnc Cahfornla Road: 1909/699-6961. Open daily 10 a,m. to 5 p.m Winner of numerous gold snver anO Bronze medals W~nes produced mciude Chardonna> Fume Blanc. Prod' Blanc Gewurztram~ner Whrte Z~nraneel and MetLot. Gourme: dell foods. tasting room. gih snop clcnlc area ano Dig. .~_'~ around TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council William G. Hughes, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer May 25, 1999 Department of Public Works Monthly Activity Report RECOMMENDATION: Attached for City Council's review and filing is the Department of Public Works' Monthly Activity Reports for the month of April, 1999. MOACTRPT CAHTAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Monthly Acavity Report April 1999 Submitted by: William G. Hughes Date: May 25, 1999 WORK UNDER CONSTRUCTION: 1. 1-15/Rancho California Road Interchange Modifications: This phase of the Rancho California Road loop ramp project improvement is now complete. The landscape maintenance period has begun and the contractor is correcting punch list items. On April 2, 1999, the City submitted plans and specifications for additional ramp improvements to Caltrans for review. The additional work proposed is as tiMlows: Widen both the southbound and northbound on-ramps to two lanes, widen the north side of Rancho California Road from Ynez Road to the northbound on-ramp to provide an additional lane and optional westbound right turn lane, and modify the existing median island just east of Front Street to extend the existing left-turn pocket. The City will be accelerating this new work so it can be included in the Rancho California Road loop ramp permit. 2. Margarita Community Park Phase I: The park dedication was April 22. The project improvements include restrooms, parking areas, picnic areas, play equipment, tennis courts, a roller hockey rink, ballfields, lighting, picnic shelters, sidewalks, landscaping with open turf areas as well as widening Margarita Road adjacent to the park to its ultimate width. The project is completed and is currently in a 90-day landscape maintenance period. 3. Old Town Streetscape Project The street improvements have been completed. A punch list and other detail items are now being worked on by various contractors. 4. 1-15/Winchester Southbound Off-ramp Widening: The contractor has completed the second phase of paving on the southbound exit ramp consisting of widening the southbound off-ramp to provide an additional left turn lane. The City is currently designing an auxiliary exit lane for the southbound 1-15 Freeway off-ramp north of the Santa Gertrudis Creek. This will allow for significantly more vehicle storage off of the freeway. This design has been submitted to Caltrans for approval. 5. Temecula Duck Pond Park: Onsite park improvements are nearly complete with some items remaining to be completed around the pond and park area. The lrees and shrubs have been planted and the turf areas will be hydroseeded in the first week of June. It is anticipated that the paving operation on Ynez Road will be completed the last week of May. Unstable subsurface soil conditions in Ynez Road have delayed roadwork. Park improvements include a gazebo/bandstand, picnic facilities, a restroom, walkways, a parking lot, security lighting, monumentation, landscaping and irrigation. The street improvements will consist of widening of Ynez Road full width between Rancho California Road and Tierra Vista Road and will include new sidewalks, additional turn lanes, traffic signal modifications at Ynez Road and Rancho California Road, a new traffic signal at Ynez Road and Tierra Vista Road, and pavement restriping to improve traffic circulation. Completion is scheduled for August 1999. moactrpt/cip/99/apr 6. Margarita Road Sidewalk (Rancho Vista to Pauba Road): Construction of the curb, gutter and sidewalk are complete and a few items remain to be completed on the landscape portion of the work. Paving operalions on Margarita Road are scheduled to take place the week of May 17. The improvements include the installation of concrete curbs, gutter, and sidewalk along the west side of Margarita Road between Rancho Vista Road and Pauba Road. The sidewalk will improve access to the Rancho California Sports Park. Also, as part of the design, additive alternate improvements will include ADA ramp access from Margarita Road to the adjacent ballfields along with an expanded parking area. Completion is scheduled for June 1999. 7. Winchester Road & Ynez Road Street Widening: The contractor has installed the concrete curbs along Winchester Road and Ynez Road and is placing base in the proposed roadway. The electrical sub-contractor is continuing to place streetlight and traffic signal conduits. Construction is scheduled to be completed in August 1999. 8. Overland Drive Street Improvements & Margarita Road Street Widening: The contractor has completed the box culvert at Overland Drive and is grading the Long Canyon Creek channel. A new detour for the construction of the box culvert at Margarita Road is in place. The electrical sub-contractor is continuing to place street light and traffic signal underground. Construction is scheduled to be completed in August 1999. 9. Winchester Road Median Islands and Enterprise Circle Traffic Signal: The final walk through will be held on Monday, May 17. The project includes the installation of a median island, landscaping and irrigation along Winchester Road from Jefferson Avenue to 900' west. The new median island at Jefferson Avenue will be constructed to provide for a longer left turn pocket for northbound traffic. Construction is now substantially complete. 10. Traffic Signal at Rancho Cali~}rnia Road and Via Las Colinas: The traffic signal was turned on May 11, 1999, and the project is complete. 11.1-15/Overland Drive Overcrossing Improvement: The contractor will be performing the following construction operations: Re-construction of 1,000 feet of Jefferson Avenue in three distinct phases, sewer line installation, construction of bridge falsework (Includes the installation of columns and beams necessary to support construction loads), construction of bridge abutments, grading for abutment approaches, and storm drain improvements. The project includes construction of an 800-foot bridge over 1-15, installing a new traffic signal at Overland Drive and Jefferson Avenue, relocation of SCE power lines, and misc. irrigation/landscape improvements. Construction began in February 1999 with an estimated bridge opening of late October 1999 2 moactrpt/cip/99/apr 12. Pala Road Bridge: The pile driving operations are complete and preparation of the bridge ti~undation continues. This project will include realignment of Pala Road from Highway 79 South to Rainbow Canyon Road, including a new bridge, installation of two new traffic signals, the removal of one existing traffic signal, sidewalks, landscaping, irrigation, street lighting, bike lanes, signing, striping, channel improvements, and provisions for Wetland Mitigation. It is anticipated that the new bridge will be open for vehicle traffic by January 2000. Construction began March 1, 1999 with an estimated completion date of March 2000. 13. Tennis Court Lighting at Temecula Valley High School A pre-construction meeting was held on April 29 and the contractor will start work after high school graduation, which will be on Monday, June 28. This project will install tennis court lighting along with landscaping, irrigation, fencing, striping, and minor concrete work at Temecula Valley High School. Construction will begin on June 29 1999, with an estimated completion date of August 1999. 14. Rotary Park A pre-construction meeting will be conducted the end of May and construction to start in June. This project will install a picnic shade structure, picnic tables, fencing, concrete and drainage structures. Construction is anticipated to begin in June and be completed by the end of August. OUT TO BID: 1. Traffic Signals on Margarita Road at Pio Pico Road and at Pauba Road Design is complete, and authorization to advertise for public bids was granted by City Council on May 11,1999. Bids will be opened June 10, 1999. WORK IN DESIGN: 1. FY96-97 Pavement Management System: Staff received final plans from the consultant. Staff will add the design to pave Winchester Road from Jefferson Avenue to Diaz Road to the project plans and specifications. This project will provide street rehabilitation of Jefferson Avenue from the northerly City limits to Rancho California Road and on Winchester Road from Jefferson Avenue to Diaz Road. This project will also include the installation of street lighting along the entire length Jefferson Avenue. Construction is anticipated to begin in July 1999 with an estimated completion date of September 1999. 3 moactrpt/cip/99/apr 2. Pujol Street Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter: The survey is complete and City staff is currently designing the project. The design is 70% complete. 3. Street Name Sign Replacement - Phase 1 Design plans and specifications for this project are complete. The project will be advertised the first of June. This project will replace existing street name signs in the Santiago Estates area with new plastic molded signs. 4. 1-15 Southbound Off-Ramp Widening at Winchester Road The City Council approved the Consultant's design contract at the February 9 meeting. Phase I will add one (1) southbound lane on the 1-15 Freeway and widen the northbound on-ramp to two lanes. Phase II will widen the bridge over the Santa Gertrudis Creek at the southbound off-ramp. On May 11, 1999, City Council authorized staff to solicit bids once Caltrans approves the plans and specifications. 5. 1-15 Southbound Off-Ramp Widening at Rancho California Road The City Council approved the Consultant's contract at the February 9 meeting. This project will add one (1) southbound lane on the 1-15 Freeway, widen both on-ramps to two lanes, widen the north side of Rancho California Road from Ynez Road to the north bound ramp, lengthen the west bound left turn pocket at Front Street. On May 11, 1999, City Council authorized staff to solicit bids once Caltrans approves the plans and specifications. 6. Butterfield Stage Park Improvements This project is currently being designed and is approximately 90% complete. This project will construct a basketball court near the existing parking lot. 7. Old Town Southside Parking Lots The project is currently being designed in-house. This project corksisis of two (2) proposed parking lots. One will be located on the west side of Front Street just north of Second Street, and the other lot is located on the south side of Fourth Street west of Front Street. 8. Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Undercrossing The project design is now complete. This project will construct a bike trail in the existing Santa Gertrudis Creek under Winchester Road (Hwy. 79N) bridge. 9. First Street Bridge Final construction drawings are complete, construction advertisement is scheduled for May 1999. 4 moactrpt/cip/99/apr O~ ~ n' 0 rn :::) u. 0 0 ,J LLI T ~'00 00,~4 Z o,) (--) O ,,, LU w 0 n ~ n LU~ ~, . ~: Q 0 w 0 -rJ r,, "'1 _J <( ZZ ,~ z ~ ~ 0 0 LU ~- w H I-- ~ 'r ~ ~- C) w ~ ,J w w 0000 uuuu TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Bill Hughes, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent May 5, 1999 Monthly Activity Report - April, 1999 The following activities were performed by Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division in- house personnel for the month of April, 1999: SIGNS A. Total signs replaced 96 B. Total signs installed 17 C. Total signs repaired 4 II. TREES A. Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns 2 III. ASPHALT REPAIRS A. Total square feet of A. C. repairs B. Total Tons 2,270 52 IV. CATCH BASINS A. Total catch basins cleaned 3 Vo RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT A. Total square footage for right-of-way abatement 11,450 VI. GRAFFITI REMOVAL A. Total locations B. Total S.F. 15 1,806 VII. STENCILING A. 183 Bo 5,884 New and repainted legends L.F. of new and repainted red curb and striping Also, City Maintenance staff responded to 48 service order requests ranging from weed abatement, tree trimming, sign repair, A.C. failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings. This is compared to 27 service order requests for the month of March,1999. The Maintenance Crew has also put in 48 events and response to street emergencies. hours of overtime which includes standby time, special The total cost for Street Maintenance performed by Contractors for the month of April, 1999 was $35,943.00 compared to $29,481.35 for the month of March, 1999. Account No. 5402 Account No. 5401 Account No. 999-5402 21,664.00 1,975.00 2,304.00 CC: Ron Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works All Moghadam, Senior Engineer - (CIP/Traffic) Jerry Alegria, Senior Engineer - (Land Development) Greg Butler - Project Coordinator - (Capital Improvement Projcts) Amer Attar - Senior Engineer - (Capital Improvement Projects) · E ~ om 0o w w~w~ o>- ,-~ LU m ~, z_ :::) u.I Z -~ 0 W w Z ;~ _1 uJ ¢/) H. Z LU ~ I-- I~ "J <~ "r LU 0 C~ ~-- :~ UJ "' 0 W 7- 0 "' 0 ~ ~ ~ d STREET MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS The following contractors have performed the following projects for the month of April, 1998 DATE DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST ACCOUNT STREET/CHANNEL/BRIDGE OF WORK SIZE CONTRACTOR: Date: 04/07/99 5402 RENE'S COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT SPRAYING OF CITY OWNED LOTS CITYWIDE CITYWIDE LOT SPRAYING CONTRACTOR: Date: 04/27/99 # 5401 PESTMASTER SERVICES 8 CITY MAINTAINED CHANNELS TOTAL COST $1,600.00 TREATMENT OF CHANNELS FOR WEED CONTROL ::CONTRACTOR'!":. Date: 04/09/99 # 5402 .: BECKER ENGINEERING CITYWIDE TOTAL COST $1,975.00 ASPHALT SAW CUTTING FOR PATCH TRUCK REPAIRS - 16 HOURS CONTRACTOR: Date: 04/99 # 5402 L. WILLIAMS LANDSCAPE CITYWIDE R.O.W. TREE TRIMMING TOTAL COST $3,684.00 :I:RIMMED ~:76 R.O.W. 'TREES REM~)'~2ED 7 STUMP GRIND 3 TREES CONTRACTOR: Date: 04/26/99 # 5402 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING CITYWIDE TOTAL COST $5,850.00 R.O.W. DIRT SHOULDER GRADING TOTAL COST $ 5,000.00 STREET MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS The following contractors have performed the following projects for the month of April, 1998 DATE DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST ACCOUNT STREET/CHANNEL/BRIDGE OF WORK SIZE CONTRACTOR: Date: 04/22/99 # 5402 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING JOHN WARNER ROAD REMOVAL OF 2 6ESILTING PONDS Date: 04/24/99 # 5402 CITYWIDE TOTAL COST $ 5,000.00 BACKFILLING OF ERODED R.O.W. Date: 04/28/99 # 5401 SANTIAGO CHANNEL TOTAL COST $4,500.00 REMOVAL OF 3 DESILTING PONDS Date: 04/19/99 # 5402 OLD TOWN TOTAL COST $5,000.00 WASHING OF DEBRIS FROM STREETS DUE TO HEAVY RAINS Date: 04/16/99 # 999-5402 SERVICE LEVEL "R" TOTAL COST $1,030.00 GRADING OF DIRT ROADS IN SERVICE LEVEL "R" AREAS TOTAL COST TOTAL COST TOTAL COST ACCOUNT//5401 ACCOUNT//5402 ACCOUNT//99-5402 TOTAL COST $11,975.00 $21,664.00 $ 2,304.00 $2,304.00 DATE RECEIVEI) 04;'02/99 04/05199 04105/99 04/06/99 04/06/99 04/06/99 04/0?/99 04/08/99 04/08/99 04/09/99 04/09/99 04109/99 04112/99 04113199 04/14/99 04/14/99 04/14/99 04/14/99 04/15/99 04/15/99 04/15/99 04/15/99 04/19/99 04/19/99 04/19/99 04/19/99 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION SERVICE ORDER REQUEST LOG MONTH OF APRIL, 1999 LOCATION 45584 OI.YMPIC WAY 30921 LOMA LINDA ROAD 42413 CORTE VILLOSA POOLE COURT 41065 AVENiDA VERDE NICHOAS ROAD AT CALLE MEDUSA 41138 PROMENADE 29490 VALLF. JO 30485 SIERRA MADRE 32032 MERLOT CREST 45584 OLYMPIC WAY 4TM STREET VIA RIO 42102 SWEET SHADE 31974 CALLE BALLENTINE 42572 MANZANO DRIVE 39340 LIEFER ROAD 39310 GREENWOOD LANE 41657 AVENIDA DE LA REINA 428 l I NORTH STAR COURT 43399 CALLE DE VELARDO DE PORTOLA AT VIA SAB1NO 39645 JUNE COURT RORIPAUGH ROAD AT NICHOLAS 29585 CALLE VIOLETA 29693 WIND WOOD CIRCLE .REQUEST 'FREE REMOVAL TREE REPLACEMENT STORM DRAIN CONCERN GRAFFITI TREE TRIMMING STREET PAVING STREET PAVING DEBRIS PICK-UP STORM DRAIN CLEANING SIGN REPAIR TREE REMOVAL DEBRIS REMOVAL SIGN REPAIR ROOT PRUNE POTHOLE DEBRIS PICK-UP STREET GRADING STREET GRADING TREE REMOVAL ROOT PRUNE DEBRIS PICK-UP DEBRIS PICK-UP STANDING WATER CONTRACTOR CONCERN TREE TRIMMING CONTRACTOR CONCERN DATE WORK COMPLETED 04/02,'99 04/05/99 04/05/99 04/06/99 04/06/99 04/06/99 04/07/99 04/08/99 04/08/99 04/09/99 04/09/99 04/09/99 04/12/99 04/13/99 04/14/99 04/14/99 04/14/99 04/14/99 04/15/99 04/15/99 04/15/99 04/15/99 04/19/99 04/19/99 04/19/99 04//19/99 R:MMAINTAINXWKCMPLTD\SORS\99~XPRI L.99.DOCAPRIL.99 DATE RECEIVED 04/20/99 04/20/99 04/20/99 04/20/99 04/21/99 04/21/99 04/21/99 04/21/99 04/21/99 04/21/99 04/21/99 04/21/99 04/21/99 04/22/99 04/22/99 04/24/99 04/26/99 04/26/99 04/27/99 04/27/99 04/27/99 04/28/99 LOCATION 32044 CORTE ESCOBAR 42102 SWEET SHADE MARGARITA AT SOLANA WAY MARGARITA AT VVINCHESTER 32055 CORTE ESCOBAR MARGARITA ROAD AT SPARKMAN SCHOOL 43771 JOHN WARNER ROAD CALLE RESACA 45504 OLYMPIC WAY 31888 CORTE MENDOZA 45504 OILYMPIC WAY 30526 MILKY WAY 29734 CALLE PANTANO BUTTERFIELD STAGE NORTH OF 79 SOUTH 39645 JUNE COURT 42992 CALLE REVA 24474 NEW HAVEN DRIVE 42030 MAIN STREET 30559 1RON BARK 31345 AVENIDA DEL REPOSO LAKE VILLAGES 41526 AVEDENIDA DE LA REINA REQUEST SLURRY SEAL CONCERN ROOT PRUNiNG MISSiNG TRAFFIC SIGN FADED LEGENDS SLURRY SEAL CONCERN SPILLED PAiNT GRADING CONCERN POTHOLE TREE STUMP REMOVAL TREE ROOT CONCERN TREE STUMP REMOVAL TREE DYiNG TRENCH FAILURE EROSION IN SLOPE WATER LEAK DEBRIS PICK-UP DEBRIS REMOVAL VALVE LID MISSING ROOT PRUNING STANDING WATER GRAFFITI CATCH BASIN CLEANING DATE WORK COM PLETEI) 04/20/99 04/20/99 04/20/99 04/20/99 04/21/99 04/21/99 04/21/99 04/21/99 04/21/99 04/21/99 04/21/99 04/21/99 04/21/99 04/22/99 04/22/99 04/24/99 04/26/99 04/26/99 04/27/99 04/27/99 04/27/99 04/28/99 TOTAL SERVICE ORDER REQUESTS R:\MAINTAIN\WKCMPLTD\SORS\99XAPRIL.99.DOCAPRIL.99 I)ATE ('M:"29,'9') CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION CATCH BASIN MAINTENANCE MONTH OF APRIL, 1999 LOCATION -I 152o ,\ \:l 'Z N l [ ),.\ 1')1: 1..\ RI'ZINA WORK COM PZLFTED CI.EANI!I) & C.'l IliCKI!I) 3 L',.\'['CII B..\.%IX.% TOTAL CATCH BASINS CLEANED & CHECKED 3 R:\MAINTAIN\WKCMPLETD\CATCttBAS\97LA, PRIL 99 04/05/99 04/13/99 04/15/99 04/19/99 04/20/99 04/26/99 04/28/99 04/29/99 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DMSION STENCILS / STRIPING MONTH OF APRIL, 1999 · LOCATION :'::' 6~ STREET AT SENIOR CENTER, OVERLAND AT COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE AND STATION #84 NICHOLAS AT NORTH GENERAL KEARNY AREA #4 RANCHO VISTA AT MEADOWS PAUBA AT MEADOWS PAUBA AT BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD PAUBA AT BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AREA #1 INSTALLED REPAINTED REPAINTED REPA1NTED REPAINTED REPAINTED REPAINTED REPAINTED , WORK COM I'LETEI) 405 L.F. OF RED CURB 30 LEGENDS 42 LEGENDS 13 LEGEND S 30 LEGENDS 52 LEGENDS 16 LEGEND S 5,479 L.F. OF RED CURB TOTAL NEW & REPAINTED LEGENDS NEW & REPAINTED RED CURB & STRIPING L.F. 183 5,884 R:\MAINTAIN\WKCMPLTD\STRlPING\99M~.PRIL,99.DOCAPRIL99 DATE 04/07/99 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE TRIMMING MONTH OF APRIL, 1999 !.,OCATION DEL REY AT AVENIDA VERDE WORK COM I'I.,!;TED TRIMMED 2 R.O.W. TREES TOTAL R.O.W. TREES TRIMMED 2 \\TEMEC_FS201\DATAXDEPTS\PWXMAINTAINXWKCMPLTD\TREES\99X. APRIL.99,DOC [] I.u [] c 0 [] u.I - I- --,) 0 !)ATE 04/01/99 04/0~/99 04/06/99 04/0~/99 04/08/99 04/08/99 04/16/99 04/16/99 04/19/99 04/21/99 04/26/99 04/27/99 04/27/99 04/27/99 04/28/99 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION GRAFFITI REMOVAL MONTH OF APRIL, 1999 I ,OC:XTION SOLANA WAY AT RYCREST 31755 CORTE PADRERA LA SERENA AT CALLE MEDUSA LONG VALLEY AT HUMBER CHANNEL 28550 PUJOL STREET VIA GILBERTO PARK RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT HOPE WAY NICHOLAS AT NORTH GENERAL KEARNEY ROAD VIA RIO TEMECULA MARGARITA COMMUNITY PARK 31633 DIE I~ORTOI.A ROAD I~'XNCHO CAI.IFORNIA ROAD AT TOWN CENTER RANCHO VISTA WEST OF VIA EL GRECO RANCHO VISTA AT MWD SPILLWAY LA SERENA AT WILLOW RUN WORK COM P! ,E'I'!".I) REMOVED 7 S.F. OF GILzXFFITI REMOVED 6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI REMOVED 14 S.F. OF GRAFFITI REMOVED 187 S.F. OF GRAFFITI REMOVED 100 S.F. OF GRAFFITI REMOVED 45 S.F. OF GRAFFITI REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI REMOVED 10 S.F. OF GRAFFITI REMOVED 75 S.F. OF GRAFFiTI REMOVED 40 S.F. OF GRAFFITI REMOVED 955 S.F. OF GRAFFiTI REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI REMOVED 3 S.F. OF GRAFFITI REMOVED 355 S.F. OF GRAFFITI REMOVED 6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TOTAL S.F. GRAFFITI REMOVED 1,806 TOTAL LOCATIONS 15 \\TEMEC_FS201\DATAXDEPTS\PWXMAINTAINNWKCMPLTD\GRAFFITI\99~APRIL.99.DOC lI-- DATE , CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION ASPHALT (POTHOLES) REPAIRS MONTH OF APRIL, 1999 IX)CA'I '1 ON SCOI~E OF WORK 04/05/99 04/07/99 04/12/99 04/13/99 04/14/99 04/15/99 04/19/99 04/20/99 04/21/99 04/22/99 04/26/99 04/29/99 2785 1 DIAZ CITYWIDE "RAIN" CITYWIDE "RAIN" 28615 FRONT STREET 30401 DE PORTOLA 27941 JEFFERSON 29251 YNEZ JEFFERSON SOUTH OF LAS HACIENDAS 28145 JEFFERSON 28622 FRONT STREET SANTIAGO WEST OF "C' STREET VINCENT MORAGA AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD R&R A.C. F~LPOTHOLES F~LPOTHOLES R&R A.C. R&R A.C. R&R A.C. OVERLAYA.C. R&R A.C. R&R A.C. R&R A.C. R&R A.C~ R&R A.C. 61 145 81 115 168 205 624 162 135 240 236 98 TOTAL TONS 2.5 TEMP A.C. TEMP A.C. 4.5 5.5 6.5 3.5 6.5 4.5 7.5 7.5 3.5 TOTAL S.F. OF REPAIRS TOTAL TONS 2,270 52 R:\MAINTAINlWKCMPLTDLASPIlALT.RPR\98XAPRIL,99 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT MONTH OF APRIL, 1999 DATE: LOCATIO ' 04/01/99 MARGARITA AT RORIPAUGH 04/19/99 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT YNEZ 04/19/99 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT HUMBER 04/20/99 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD EAST OF HUMBER 04/21/99 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD EAST OF MARGARITA WOR'K COIMPLZETED . :::2 ABATED 50 S.F.R.O.W. WEEDS ABATED 700 S.F.R.O.W. WEEDS ABATED 1,200 S.F.R.O.W. WEEDS ABATED 6,500 S.F.R.O.W. WEEDS ABATED 3,000 S.F.R.O.W. WEEDS TOTAL S.F. R-O-W WEEDS ABATED 11.450 \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\P\VXMAINTAINXWKCMPLTD\WEEDS\99kAPRIL.99,DOC DATE o4/ol/99 04/05/99 04/06/99 04/07/99 04/07/99 04/08/99 04/09/99 o4/12/99 od/13/99 o4/13/99 o4/14/99 o4/14/99 04/20/99 04/20/99 04/20/99 04/23/99 04/23/99 04/23/99 04/23/99 04/23/99 04/26/99 od/26/99 od/27/99 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION SIGNS MONTH OF APRIL, 1999 LOCATION YNEZ AT PALM PLAZA YNEZ AT RANCHO VISTA ROAD WINDSOR AT CALLE KATHERINE VIA NORTE AT DEL REY 42140 LYNDIE LANE PASEO BRILLANTE, E/O VIA PUESTA DEL SOL DE PORTOLA FROM J. SMITH TO MARGARITA 3~ STREET AT END OF CUL DE SAC YNEZ AT RANCI10 VISTA BUTTERFIEL1) STAGE AT PAUBA YNEZ AT SOLANA JEFFERSON N & S/O RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD MERLOT CREST VIA ASTURIAS RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD EASE OF YNEZ PAUBA EAST OF MEADOWS PAUBA AT MARGARITA F.E.W.B.T. SOLANA AT CALLE ARANDA MARGARITA AT SOLANA FRONT STREET AT MORENO RANCHO CAI,1FORNIA ROAD E/O FRONT STREET MAI>,GARITA AT DE PORTOLA PAUBA AT BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD WORK COMPLETED INSTALL R- 19 REPLACED 9 R-26 R~81 COMBO "FADED" INSTALLED W-53 REPLACED W-17 "T.C." INSTALLED APARTMENT WATCH SIGN INSTALLED W-53 REPLACED 12 R-26 R-81 COMBOS "FADED" INSTALLED 2 TYPE N W-31 INSTALLED R-81 - R-26D COMEO REPLACED 9 R-81 - R26D COMB O "FADED" REPLACED R- 10 INSTALLED 4 S.N.S. INSTALLED W-53 REPLACED R- 1 "GRAFFITI" REPLACED 6 TYPE "K .... MISSING" REPLACED W-66A "GRAFFITI" REPLACED W-17 R-1 "T.C." REPLACED R- 1 GRAFFITI REPLACED R2 45 T.C. REPLACED R- 17 T.C. REPLACED 22 R-81 - R-26D COMBOS FADED REPLACED 3 R-81 - R-26D COMBOS FADED REPLACED NO R.V. PARKING MISSING R:WIAINTAINXWKCMPLTD\SIGNS\98XAPRIL.99 :,:DATE t,OCA T I 0 N 04/27/99 MARGAI~,ITA AT WINCHESTER 04/28/99 STONEWOOl) APARTMENTS 04/29/99 LA SERENA AT SO. GENERAL KEARNY WORK COMI'I,ETED ::... .:::... REPLACED R-18-21 T.C, INSTALLED 4 APARTMENT CRIME FREE SIGNS REPLACED 24 R-81 R260 FADED TOTAL SIGNS REPLACED TOTAL SIGNS INSTALLED TOTAL SIGNS REPAIRED 96 17 4 R:~vlAINTAINXWKCMPLTD\SIGNS\98~'kpPdL99