HomeMy WebLinkAbout082295 CC AgendaIn compliance with the Americana with Disabilities Act, if you need sl)ecial 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 enaure accessibility to that
meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Trtle I1|
AGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
A REGULAR MEETING
COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER
30875 RANCHO VISTA ROAD
AUGUST 22, 1995- 7:00 PM
At approximately 9:45 PM, the City Council will determine which of the remaining
agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 PM and may
continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting.
All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 PM.
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 95-12
Resolution: No. 95-70
CALL TO ORDER:
Invocation:
Mayor Jeffrey Stone presiding
Reverend Joan Rich Egea, Church of Religious Science
Flag Salute:
ROLL CALL:
Councilmember Birdsall
Birdsall, Lindemans, Parks, Roberts, Stone
PRESENTATIONS/ Proclamation - Kids Care Fair Day
PROCLAMATIONS Proclamation - Women's Suffrage Diamond Jubilee
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on
items that are not listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited
to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on an item not listed on the
Agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out
and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk
beforQ the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
R:V~enda%O82296 I
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at
this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Standard Ordinance Adootion Procedure
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in
the agenda.
Resolution Aoorovina List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
Combinina Balance Sheets as of June 30, 1995 and the Statement of Revenues.
Expenditures and Chanaes in Fund Balance. and the Statement of Revenues. Exoenses and
Changes in Retained Earnines for the Fiscal year ended June 30, 1995
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Receive and file the Combining Balance Sheets as of June 30, 1995 and the
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance, and the
Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings for the Fiscal
Year Ended June 30, 1995;
3.2 Approve the transfer of $47,570 in the Police Department budget from the account
#001-170-99-5288"Sworn Staff" to account #001-170-999-5234"Rent/Facilities
Charge";
3.3 Approve the transfer of $20,857 in the Police Department budget from account
#001-170-999-5288 "Sworn Staff" to account #001-170-999-5281 "Community
Service Officers";
3.4 Appropriate $10,000 in the General Fund Non-Departmental budget to account
#001-199-999-5276"Sales Tax Reimbursements";
R:',/~mde%082296 2
4
5
6
Contract Agreement for Street Address Numberino
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Approve a contract agreement with Mr. Bruce Stewart, renewing an existing
contract to provide address numbering services on an as-needed basis.
Professional Services Agreement- I-15/!-215 Joint (Temecula:-Murrieta) Corridor Planning
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Award Professional Services Contract for I-15/1-215 Joint (Temecula-~urrieta
Corridor Planning Study to JHK and Associates, Inc.
5.2 Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract and the City Clerk to attest.
Professional Services Agreement for Assessment Enaineerina Services for the Western
Bypass Corridor Assessment District
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1
6.2
Approve an agreement between the City and John Egan and Associates, Inc., to
provide Assessment Engineering Services for the Western Bypass Corridor
Assessment District in the amount of $47,000 and 10% contingency in the amount
of $4,700. The Agreement will be subject to the approval of the City Manager and
the City Attorney as to final form;
Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement and the City Clerk to attest.
7
Contact Amendment No. 9 to Community Facilities District 88-12 Engineerina Services
Contract with J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. for the Overland Drive Overcrossing
Improvement Proiect
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Approve Contract Amendment No. 9 to provide additional geotechnical and right-of-
way engineering services for CFD 88-12 by J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. (JFD) for
the Overland Drive Overcrossing Improvement Project in an amount not to exceed
$32,260.
R:%Agende~82296 3
8
9
10
11
Release Gradinq Bond in Tract No. 27690
(located at the northeast corner of Winchester and Ynez)
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Authorize release of the grading bond for Tract No. 27690 and direct the City Clerk
to so notify the developer and surety.
Release Warranty and Labor and Material Bonds in Tract No. 21820
(located at Kahwea Road Via Norte easterly)
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Authorize the release of Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor and Materials
Bonds in Tract No. 21820;
9.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the
Developer and the Surety.
Solicitation of Construction Bids and Aooroval of Plans and Soecifications for the FY 95-96
Slurrv Seal Project (Project No. PW 95-18)
RECOMMENDATION:
10. 1 Authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for Project No.
PW 95-18, FY 95-96 Slurry Seal Project.
Summary Vacation of a Portion of Canterfield Drive and a Portion of Temecula Lane
Subject to the Condition that a RealiQned Temecula Lane be Offered for Dedication
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO
SUMMARILY VACATE A PORTION OF CANTERFIELD DRIVE AND A PORTION OF
TEMECULA LANE WITHIN TRACT NO. 21067 PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY
PROVIDED BY CHAPTER 3, PART 3, DIVISION 9 OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAY
CODE, SUBJECT TO THE ASSOCIATED OFFER OF DEDICATION OF A REALIGNED
TEMECULA LANE
R:%Age~da~O8229E 4
12
13
14
15
Solicitation of Construction Bids and ADoroval of Plans and Soecifications for Winchester
Road at Interstate 15, Bridge Widenino and Northbound Ramo Improvements (PW 94-21 )
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1
Approve construction plans and specifications and authorize the Public Works
Department to solicit public construction bids for Project No. PW 94-21, Winchester
Road at Interstate 15, Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements
subject to the approval and certification of the right-of-way by Caltrans.
Comoletion and Acceptance of the Rancho California Road Benefit District ImDrovements,
Project No. PW 91-03
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Accept construction of Project No. PW91-03- RanchoCalifornia Road Benefit
District Improvements, as complete;
13.2 Direct the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion;
13.3 Direct the City Clerk to release the Performance and Materials and Labor Bonds;
13.4 Authorize the Mayor to execute the Hold Harmless Agreement with "The
Insco/Disco Group."
Completion and Acceptance of the Construction of the I-15/Rancho California Road
Interchanae Off-RamPS and Sianals, Project No. PW91-04
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1 Accept the construction of the 15/Rancho California Road Interchange Off-Ramps
and Signals, Project No. PW91-04 as complete;
14.2 Direct the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion;
14.3 Direct the City Clerk to release the Performance Bond and the Materials and Labor
Bond.
Professional Service Aareement for Geotechnical Observation and Testina with Soil Tech
Inc., for Project NO. PW93-09, Parkview Site Rouah Gradinc~ Improvements
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1 Approve a Professional Service Agreement between the City of Temecula and Soil
Tech, Inc. for Geotechnical Observation and Testing for Project No. PW 93-09,
Parkview Sire Rough Grading Improvements for $10,124;
R:%Agenda\082296 6
16
17
15.2 Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement and the City Clerk to attest;
15.3 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of $1,012.40, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount;
15.4 Approve a transfer from the General Fund of $11,136.40to the Capital Projects
Fund.
Aoorooriation of Funds to General Fund Emergency Relief Department Budaet
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1 Appropriate an additional $100,895 to the General Fund Emergency Relief
Department Budget for expenditures incurred for disaster relief from floods occurring
in March 1995.
Resolution to Establish Entertainment License Fees
RECOMMENDATION:
17.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ESTABLISHING ENTERTAINMENT LICENSE FEES FOR THOSE ENTERTAINMENT
ESTABLISHMENTS COVERED IN CHAPTER 9.10 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL
CODE
18
Unified Proaram Agency Designation for Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials
ManaGement
RECOMMENDATION:
18.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION 95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DESIGNATING THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH AS A UNIFIED PROGRAM AGENCY FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT
R:~Agend.~82296 6
19
Second Readina of Ordinance AdoDtina Conaestion Manaoement Program
RECOMMENDATION:
19.1 Adopt an Ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 95-11
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ADOPTING THE CMP LAND USE COORDINATION PROCESS
ADJOURNMENT TO TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
Closed Session of the City Council pursuant to Government Code Sections:' 54956.9, pending.
Litigation, Mittleman vs. City of Temecula "
RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public
hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of
the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court,
you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the
public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior
to, the public hearing.
R:~genda%082295 7
20
Planning ADOliCatiOn PA 95-0023, Development Aoreement for Van Daele 79 Venture,
LTD.
RECOMMENDATION:
20.1 Adopt the Negative Declaration for PA95-0023;
20.2 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO, 95-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF THE
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND VAN
DAELE 79 VENTURE, LTD. FOR FINAL TRACT MAPS NO. 22716-FINAL, 22716~2,
227164 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28122 WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199
21
ReQuest to Designate Prooertv at Lvndie Lane and Ynez Road as "No Skateboarding.
RollerbladinQ or Similar Activity
RECOMMENDATION:
21.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DESIGNATING PRIVATE PROPERTY AT 42145 LYNDIE LANE AND 27555 YNEZ
ROAD AS A "NO SKATEBOARDING, ROLLERBLADING OR SIMILAR ACTIVITY
AREA" PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 10.36 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE
COUNCIL BUSINESS
22
Old Town Specific Plan Amendments
RECOMMENDATION:
22.1 Receive report and provide direction to staff.
R:~AOende~082296 B
23
24
25
Commissioned Artwork for New Citv Hall
RECOMMENDATION:
23.1 Accept the donation of a commissioned original art piece for the new City Hall from
Mr. Preecha Nillpraphan and provide direction as to the content of this art work.
Proposed Keeo Temecula Clean "Adoot-A-Street" Acknowledc~ement Sian Size
RECOMMENDATION:
24.1 Re-evaluate the size of the Keep Temecula Clean "Adopt-A-Street"
acknowledgement sign and provide staff direction.
Beer and Wine Licenses
RECOMMENDATION:
25.1
Provide direction to staff as to the approval authority for Beer and Wine Licenses.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Special Workshop Meeting - Old Town Entertainment Project - August 31, 1995, Rancho
California Water District Board Meeting Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California
Next regular meeting: September 12, 1995, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875
Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California.
R:~.Oenda~)82286 I
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING ~ *'* .":~':; '...',"~..~
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. CSD 95-01
Resolution: No. CSD 95-09
CALL TO ORDER: President Ronald H. Roberts
ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Lindemans, Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Roberrs
PUBLIC COMMENT:
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Board of
Directors on items that are not listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers
are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Board of Directors on an
item not listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak'
form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak' form must be filed with the City Clerk
before the Board of Directors gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for
individual speakers.
Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors, should present a completed pink "Request to
Speak" to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your
name and address for the record.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1995 and the Statement of Revenues,
Expenditures and Chanees in Fund Balance for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1
Receive and file the Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1995 and the
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Fiscal
Year Ended June 30, 1995;
1.2
Approve an appropriation of $11,237 to Service Level A account #191-180-999-
5319 "Street Lighting ";
1.3
Approve an appropriation of $35,471 to Service Level B account #192-180-999-
5319 "Street Lighting".
R:~,~gende~082296 10
2 Rejection of Bids for Construction of Sam Hick Monument Park Improvements
RECOMMENDATION:
2o I Reject all bids and authorize staff to readvertise for construction of Sam Hicks
Monument Park Improvements;
2.2 Authorize the City Clerk to return bid bonds to all bidders.
Amendments to TCSD Landscaoe Maintenance Contracts
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Approve a contract amendment of $46,945. with California Landscape, Inc. to
provide landscape maintenance services for three (3) new park facilities.
4
Desion Services Contract - Duck Pond Proiect
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1
Award a design services contract of $23,150 to the Alhambra Group for the
preparation of schematic design drawings, construction documents and project
administration for the Duck Pond Project.
GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT - Bradley
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT - Nelson
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT: Next meeting: September 12, 1995, 8:00 PM, Community Recreation Center,
30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California.
R:~a~genda%082296 11
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING ,. "· '.., . ,:, .'
· ' ' Ne~ i~ Order:
Ordinance: No. RDA 95~1
Resolmion: No. RDA 95~6
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Ronald J. Parks presiding
ROLL CALL:
AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Roberrs, Stone, Parks
PUBLIC COMMENT:
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Redevelopment
Agency on items that are not listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers
are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Agency on an item not
listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink 'Request to Speak' form should
be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk
before the Agency gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
CombininQ Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1995 and the Statement of Revenues.
Expenditures and ChanQes in Fund Balance for the Fiscal ear Ended June 30.1995
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1
Receive and file the Combining Balance as of June 30, 1995 and the Statement of
Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Fiscal Year Ended
June 30, 1995.
R:~,ge~cle%082296 12
AGENCY BUSINESS
Authorization to Extend Aareement for RDA Consultina Services
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
Approve an extension of the agreement for consulting services with PMW
Associated and authorize the Chairperson to execute an amendment extending the
agreement, subject to the approval of the Executive Director and the General
Counsel.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'$ 'REPORT
AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT: Next Meeting:
Temecula, California.
September 12, 1995, 8:00 PM, 30875 Rancho Vista Road,
R:~Agendm\O82296 13
PROCLAMATIONS/
PRESENTATIONS
The City of Temecula
PROCLAMATION
WIn~EAS, Inland Valley Regional Medical Center, one of America' s 100 top hospitals,
is conducting its annual Kids Care Fair on Saturday, September 9, 1995; and
WHEREAS, Kids Care Fair is a children's health fair in Southwest Riverside County,
offering free immunizations and health checkups to children and health education to families to
promote a healthy start in fife; and
WHEREAS, Inland Valley Regional Medical Center, in cooperation with Kids Care Fair,
is committed to improving the health of children in California, to helping families obtain early
health care for their children, and to assisting families in finding the necessary resources for that
healthy care; and
WHEREAS, Kids Care Fair is sponsored by the American Red Cross, Kaiser
Permanente and KABC-TV;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor of the City of Temecula, hereby
proclaim September 9, 1995 to be:
"Kids Care Fair Day"
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City
of Temecula to be affixed this 22nd day of August, 1995.
Jeffrey E. Stone,
Mayor
June S. Greek, CMC,
City Clerk
The City of Temecula
PROCLAMATION
WIIEREAS, seventy-two years ago the woman suffrage movement began in the United
States; and
WHEREAS, women organized in the rnid-1800's to gain political power by securing the
vote; and
WHEREAS, this effort was eloquently guided by such gifted women as Lucretia Mott,
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Lucy Stone, Ida B. Wells-Barnett, Carfie Chapman
CaR, Mary Church Terrell and Alice Paul; and
WHEREAS, these visionaries conduced 56 campaigns of referenda, 480 legislative
campaigns, 47 campaigns to influence State constitutional conventions; 277 campaigns at State
party conventions and 19 campaigns with 19 successive Congresses; and
WHEREAS, the suffragists succeeded in their determined campaign without firing a
shot, throwing a rock or issuing a personal threat;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jeffrey E. Stone, on behalf of the City Council of the City of
Temecula, hereby proclaim 1995 to be,
"The Woman Suffrage Diamond Jubilee"
and call upon the citizens of Temecula to observe the 751h anniversary of woman suffrage with '-
appropriate programs, ceremonies and activities.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City
of Temecula to be affixed this 22nd day of August, 1995.
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
ITEM 1
ITEM 2
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C1TY
OF TEMF_L'ULA At,tOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEIvlr~"ULA DOES RESOLVE,
DETER_MINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in
the Office of the City Clerk, have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are
hereby allowed in the amount of $876,964.79.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
AlPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 22nd day of August, 1995.
ATrF_,ST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk
[SEAL]
R~sos\T3 I
STATE OF CALIFO~)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMF_,CULA)
I, June S. Greek City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 95- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Temecula on the 22nd day of August, 1995 by the following roll call vote:
COUNCILlV~MBERS:
NOES:
CO~CILMEMBERS:
COUNCIL1V~MBERS:
June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk
R~sos~.73 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
LIST OF DEMANDS
08/03/95 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
08/10/95 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
08/22/95 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
08/10/95 TOTAL PAYROLL:
TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 08/22/95 COUNCIL MEETING:
DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND:
CHECKS:
001 GENERAL
100 GAS TAX
120 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FUND
140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT
165 RDA-LOW/MOD
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 (CIP)
220 MARGARITA ROAD REIMB. DIST.
250 CAPITAL PROJECTS - TCSD
280 RDA-CIP
300 INSURANCE
310 VEHICLES
320 INFORMATIONS SYSTEMS
330 SUPPORT SERVICES
340 FACILITIES
380 RDA-DEBT SERVICE
390 TCSD DEBT SERVICE
PAYROLL:
001 GENERAL
100 GAS TAX
165 RDA-LOW/MOD
190 TCSD
191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A
192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B
193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D
280 RDA-CIP
300 INSURANCE
320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS
330 SUPPORT SERVICES
340 FACILITIES
TOTAL BY FUND:
'GENIE~OBERTS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE /
RONALD E. BRADLEY, CITY MANAGER
81,659,18
275,552.97
393,114.80
126,637.84
876,964.79
173,071.49
13,252.59
0.00
0.00
329.03
80,272.83
17,758.12
22,1 85.75
25,068.37
302.30
250,255.02
0.00
0.00
130,088.78
14,527.97
0.00
10,267.61
6,900.27
6,048.82
0.00
0.00
$ 750,326.95
73,472.68
12,094.23
412.14
30,487.20
616.99
637.26
1,862.36
366.09
1,716.47
564.82
1,537.57
737.07
2,132.96
126,637.64
876,964.79
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT
, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT
VOUCHRE:;'
10:57
CITY OF TEMEOULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REG]STER
FOR ALL PERZODS
PAGE
FUND TITLE
001 GENERAL FUND
100 GAS TAX FUND
165 RDA DEV- LCN/NOD 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
TOTAL
A!e3UNT
19,153.82
2,835.10
32.98
21,075.55
3,848.51
105.03
2,427.32
29.74
15,150,22
8,622.58
442.50
1,489.89
1,886.97
4,558.97
81,659.18
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TENECULA
08/04/95 10:57 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
PAGE I
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPT]ON NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
24717 07/S1/95 001995 CHR/STOPHER STUART PART RESEARCH SERVS-MARKETING PRGN 280-199-999-5264
24718 07/31/95 000925 SOUTHWEST SPECIALTIES POLICE MAGNETIC BUSINESS CARDS 001-170-999-5292
7,500,00
942.3~
7,500.00
942.~4
24719 07/31/95 000160 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT SECOND QTR UZ & ETT PNT 001-2~50
24719 07/31/95 000160 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT SECOND QTR UI & ETT PMT 100-2350
24719 07/31/95 000160 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT SECOND GTR UI & ETT PNT 190-2350
24719 07/31/95 000160 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT SECOND QTR UI & ETT PNT 300-2350
24719 07/31/95 000160 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT SECOND QTR UI & ETT PMT ' 330-2350
24719 07/31/95 000160 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT SECOND QTR U[ & ETT PMT 340-2350
24719 07/31/95 000160 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT SECOND QTR UI & ETT PMT 192-2350
2,835.49
252.96
2,268.03
e64.59
206.54
89.06
93.89
5,810.56
24721 08/01/95 000314 TEMECULA MUSEUM FOUNDAT NO SUPPORTING DOCtJMENTATION 210-190-808-5804
24721 08/01/95 000314 TEMECULA MUSEUM FOUNDAT DRAW #2 CHURCH/MUSEUH PROJECT 210'190-808-580~
3,010.15'
15,443.56
12,433.41
24724 08/03/95 000680 A M S - T M S DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE 001-100-999-5230
24724 08/03/95 000680 A M S - T N S DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE 001-110-999-5230
24724 08/03/95 000680 A M S - T M S DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE 001-120-999-5230
24724 08/03/95 00O680 A M S - T M S DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE 001-162-999-5230
24724 08/03/95 000680 A M S - T M S DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE 190-180-999-5230
24724 08/03/95 000680 A M S - T M S DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE 001-140-999-5230
24724 08/03/95 000680 A M S - T M S DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE 001-150-999-5230
24724 08/03/95 000680 A M S - T M S DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE 001-161-502-5230
24724 08/03/95 000680 A M S - T M S DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE 001-161-501-5230
24724 08/03/95 000680 A M S - T M S DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE 100-164-604-5230
24724 08/03/95 000680 A M S - T M S DEPOSIT FOR RESETTING POSTAGE 320-199-999-5230
.55
24.10
163.48
119.20
168.52
280.03
121.77
436.17
436.16
435.82
4.12
2,189.92
24725 08/03/95
ABC SEWING & VACUUM REPAIR & SERVICE CiTY HALL VAC 340-199-999-5212
72.88
24726 08/03/95 ADAMS, MELISSA DAY CAMP SUPPLIES 190-183-999-5340
34.28.
34.28
24727 08/03/95 001674 ADKINS, ROBERT STEVEN TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
190-183-999-5330
103.20
103.20
24728 08/03/95 001910 AMERITECH COMMUNICATION CONTRACT COVERAGE-RICOH COPIER 330-199-999-5217
217.18
217.18
24729 08/03/95 001323 ARROWHEAD WATER, INC. BOTTLE WATER FOR CITY HALL 340-199-999-5240
24729 08/03/95 001323 ARROI4HEAD WATER, INC. BOTTLED WATER FOR CITY YARD 100-164-601-5240
194.54
107.78
302.32
24730 08/03/95
ATTWELL, NICKY ANN REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION 190-183o4984
125.00
125.00
24731 08/03/95 001876 BEIJING LONGEVITY, INC. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
190-183-999-5330
120.00
120.00
24732 08/03/95 BONILLA, SILVIA REFUND-RC)ON RENTAL 190-2900
24732 08/03/95 BONILLA, SILVIA REFUND-ROOM RENTAL 190-183-4990
100.00
55.00
155.00
24733 08/03/95 BYRD, MONA
REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION 190-183-4982
41.00
41.00
24734 08/03/95 000588 C C A P A CONFERENCE STATE APA CONF:CR,GT,MF:8/5/95 001-161-502-5258
24734 08/03/95 000588 C C A P A CONFERENCE STATE APA CONF:CR,GT,MF:8/5/95 001-161-501-5258
24735 08/03/95 001374 CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF FILING UCC3 RDA BUSINESS LOAN 280-199-999-5250
260.00
570.00
35.00
830.00
VOUCHRE2
0,s~/95 10:57
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE
24~6 08/03/95
24737 08/0~/~
24738 08/03/95
24738 08/03/95
24738 08103195
24739 08/03/95
24740 08/03/95
24741' 08/03/95
24742 08/03/95
24743 08/03/95
24744 08/03/95
24745 08/03/95
\ 08/03/95
24747 08/03/95
24747 08/03/95
24747 08/03/95
24747 08/03/95
24747 08/03/95
24747 08/03/95
24747 08/03/95
24747 08/03/95
24748 08/03/95
24749 08/03/95
24750 08/03/95
24751 08/03/95
24752 08/03/95
24753 08/03/95
24754 08/03/95
24755 08/03/95
24755 08/03/95
24755 08/03/95
' '5 08/03/95
VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER NAME
000151 CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF C
001655 CAMERON gELDING SUPPLY
000387
000387
000387
CAREER TIL~CK SEMINARS M
CAREER TRACK SEMINARS M
CAREER TRACK SEMINARS M
000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC.
CASTLE AMUSEMENT PARK
000135 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER
001195 CENTRAL SECURITY SERVIC
000144 COSTCO W~OLESALE CORPOR
CRALL~ SHARI S.
002024 CRANER, ROB ROGERS
001636 CREGAR PRINTING
001393 DATA TICKET
001393 DATA TICKET
001393 DATA TICKET
001393 DATA TICKET
001393 DATA TICKET
001393 DATA TICKET
001393 DATA TICKET
001393 DATA TICKET
INC.
INC.
INC.
INC.
INC.
INC.
INC.
INC.
000155 DAVLIN
002008 DIAL COMMUNICATIONS
000523 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER
ELFELT, PENNY
001369 EURO DELl AND HONE CATE
000993 FREEDOM COFFEE, INC.
GARRETT, LESA
000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
CITY OF TENECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
95-9& MEMBERSHIP-CA SOC OF CPA
REFILL TANKS FOR CUT OFF TORCH
DESIGN ADS,RPT:BK,KB,RC:917195
DESIGN ADSwRPT:BK,KB~RC:9/7/g5
DESIGN ADS,RPT:BK~KB,RC:9/7/95
SO. CAL EDISON, 3/9/95
DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP
MISC HARDWARE & SIGNS/ST REPAI
JULY ALARM SERVS-CRC
DAY CAMP SUPPLIES
REFUND DEPOSIT FOR pARK RENTAL
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
CITY TOURIBM TENT TICKETS
CITATION PROCESSING ~ 1.50/CIT
CITATION PROCESSING ~ 1.50/CIT
ADMINISTRATION PROCESSING FEE
ADMINISTRATION PROCESSING FEE
CITATION PROCESSING ~ 1.50/CIT
CITATION PROCESSING a 1.50/CIT
ADMINISTRATION PROCESSING FEE
ADMINISTRATION PROCESSING FEE
BROADCASTING COUNCIL MTG 7/25
RADIO FOR POLICE MOTORCYCLES
PLAN CHECK FEE FOR PRK VIEW
REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION
CITY HALL DESIGN MTG-LUNCH
BEVERAGE SERVICE - CITY HALL
REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION
MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES
FILE FOLDERS W/POCKETS
CALCULATOR TAPE/24 ROLLS
MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
001-140-999-5226
100-1&4-601-5218
001-150-999-5261
001-161-501-5261
190-180-999-5261
300-199-999-5205
190-183-999-5340
100-164-601-5244
190-182-999-5250
190-183-999-5340
190-2900
190-183-999-5330
280-199-999-5264
001-140-999-5250
001-170-999-5250
001-140-999-5250
001-170-999-5250
001-140-999-5250
001-170-999-5250
001-140-999-5250
O01-170-ggg-5250
001-100-999-5250
001-170-999-5610
210-190-626-5802
190-183-4982
001-110-999-5260
340-199-999-5250
190-183-4982
001-162-999-5220
001-140-999-5220
001-140-999-5220
001-162-999-5220
ITEM
AMOUNT
75.00
25.21
125.00 ·
125.00
125.00
366.38
713.00
252.80
53.00
200.00
100.00
48.00
447.16
54.00
54.00
34.00
34.00
104.25
104.25
36.13
36.12
800.00
759.33
1,500.00
35.00
60.23
83.17
35.00
121.80
27.48
12.67
53.34
PAGE 2
CHECK
AMOUNT
75.00
25.21
375.00
366.38
713.0o
252.80
53.00
200.00
100.00
48.00
447.16
456.75
800.00
759.33
1,500.00
35,00
60.23
83.17
35.00
215.29
VOUCHRE2
08/04/95
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
24756
24757
24758
24759
24760
24761
24762
24763
24764
24764
24764
24764
24764
24765
24765
24766
24767
24768
24769
24770
24770
24771
24772
24773
24774
24775
24776
247'/7
24778
10:57
CHECK
DATE
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER NAME
HOLTMAN, RAY
HOUSE OF FABRICS
000806 HOWARD, BOBBY
001340 INNOVATIVE IMAGES
001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL
000860 JOCHUM, LORI
001871 JONES, DEE
001903 KELLEY BLUE BOOK
001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE
001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE
001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE
001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE
001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE
002023 KING, WENDE
002023 KING, WENDE
000206 KINKO'S OF RIVERSIDE,
000548 KiPLINGER WASHINGTON ED
001282 KNORR POOL SYSTEMS, INC
KOCEE, AMY
001329 KOHLHAAS, JEANETTE
001329 KOHLHAAS, JEANETTE
000384 LAW/CRANDALL, INC.
LAWLESS, KARYN
MARNELL, NAM CHEN
000219 MARTIN 1-HOUR PHOTO
002011 MARTIN, KATHY
001870 MENK, HELGA
MICHALKO, JO ANNE
001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS
CITY OF TEMEOULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERZOOS
ITEN
DESCRIPTION
REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION
ART SUPPLIES-- DAY CAMP
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
RESTORATION OF THE CITY FLOAT
CRC POOL CHEMICALS-BULK CHLORI
TCSD iNSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
TCSD iNSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
SUBSCRiPTiON-USE CAR GUIDE
TEMP HELP W/E 7/16 LUJAN
TEMP HELP W/E 7/23 EVANS
TEMP HELP W/E 7/2~ EVANS
TEMP HELP W/E 7/23 EVANS
TEMP HELP W/E 7/23 LUJAN
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
MISC STATIONERY PAPER SUPPLIES
12 NNTH SUBSCRIPTION
MISC POOL SUPPLIES FOR CRC
REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
TCSD iNSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
JAN PROF SERVS-WINCHESTER RD
REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION
REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION
PHOTO DEVELOPING-CIP
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION
2000 SHEETS- Z-PART NCR; BUS,
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
190-183-4986
190-18~-999-5340
190-183-999-5330
001-100-999-5214
190-182-999-5212
190-183--999-5330
190-183 - 999 - 5330
001-170-999-5261
001 - 140-999-5118
001-165-999-5118
001-165-999-5118
100-164-604-5118
001 - 140-999-5118
190-18~-999-5330
190 - 18~ - 999 - 5330
330-199-999- 5220
001 - 110-999-5228
190-182-999-5212
190 - 183 - 4982
190 - 183 - 999 - 5330
190 - 183 - 999 - 5330
210-165-641-5804
190 - 183 - 4982
190 - 183 - 4980
001 - 165-999-5250
190-183-999-5330
190 - 183 - 999 - 5330
190-183 - 4982
001 - 140-999- 5222
ITEM
AMOUNT
70.00
100.00
240.00 '
860.00
207.42
168.00
72.00
52.00
364,00
75.83
364.00
112,00
448.00
30.18
73.00
64.29
65.00
224.00
280.00
390.00
30.00
6.00
13.80
156.00
48.00
20.00
234.40
PAGE 3
CHECK
AMOUNT
70.00
IO0.OO
240. O0
860. O0
207.42
168.00
72.00
52.00
955.50
/
5~
30.18
73.00
64.29
65.00
504.00
390.00
30.00
6.00
13.80
156.00
48.00
20.00
VOUCHRE2
o~-~4/95
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
24778
24778
24778
24779
24780
24780
24781
24782
24783
2478~
24783
24783
24783
24783
24783
24783
2_4783
~3
J3
24783
24783
24783
24783
24783
24783
24783
24783
24783
24783
24783
24783
24783
24783
24783
24783
24783
24783
24783
24783
24783
24785
24785
24785
' "86
10:57
CHECK
DATE
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
VENDOR
NUHBER
001384
001384
001384
001868
001438
001438
001676
001243
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000249
000254
000254
000254
000255
VENDOR
NAME
NINUTENAN PRESS
MINUTEMAN PRESS
MINUTEMAN PRESS
MIYANOTO, SUSAN
MO~REY, JOD[
MO~REY, JOOI
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS,
PALMQUIST, MARY
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PRESS-ENTERPRISE CONPAN
PRESS-ENTERPRISE CONPAN
PRESS-ENTERPRISE CONPAN
PRO LOCK & KEY
CITY OF TENEOULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIOOS
ITEN
DESCRIPTIOR
TAX
CONTINOUS LETTERHEAD 4PT-I~
TAX
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
DISPATCH RADXOS MORZLE SERVS
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARN]NGS
PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT
PEI'TY CASH RE|MBURESMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT
PETTY CASH RE]MBURESNENT
PETTY CASH RE1NBURESHENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBUR~SMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT
PETTY CASH RE]MBURESMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT
PETTY CASH RE]MBURESMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT
CONNUNITY SERV FUND PRGN ADVER
CONNUNITY SERV FUND PRON ADS
ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION UPDATE AD
TCSD- DUPLICATE KEYS
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
001-140-999-5222
001-163-999-5222
001-163-999-5222
190-183-999-5330
190-183-999-5330
190-183-999-5330
320-199-999-5209
190-18~-999-5330
001-100-999-5250
001-110-999-5260
001-110-999-5260
320-199-999-5260
001-150-999-5260
001-110-999-5220
100-164-604-5260
001-140-999-5220
100-164-601-5242
100-164-604-5260
190-180-999-5214
001-162-999-5260
190-183-999-5320
190-183-999-5320
190-183-999-5320
190-183-999-5320
190-183-999-5320
001-150-999-5260
001-150-999-5260
001-110-999-5260
001-100-999-5280
320-199-999-5242
190-180-999-5260
190-181-999-5301
190-182-999-5301
190-180-999-5260
190-183-999-5320
320-199-999-5220
320-199-999-5220
190-183-999-5340
190-180-999-5260
190-180-999-5260
001-140-999-5254
001-140-999-5254
001-165-999-5254
190-180-999-5212
ITEM
AMOUNT
18..18
747.50
57.93
138.40
364.00
36.00
98~.00
260.00
6.47
2.20
10.00
16.73
5.98
8.59
5.25
5.50
25.82
30.00
8.15
21.00
50. O0
5.58
21.52
14.00
.20
3.79
8.74
40.00
36.49
8.06
18.43
45.42
20.99
36.48
12.00
32.17
17.19
39.60
47.66
33.25
209,98
107.38-
80.00
3.23
PAGE 4
CNECK
ANOUNT
1,058.01
138.40
4O0.00
984.00
260.00
637.26
182.60
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA
08/04/95 10:57 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
PAGE 5
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK - VENDOR VENDOR /TEN ACCOUNT
N.UMBER DATE NUMBER NAHE DESCRIPTION NUMBER
/TEM
AMOUNT
CHE~
AMOUNT
24787 08/0)/95 001988 PRODUCTION CONSULTING & CAL DISABLED ACCESS GUIDEBOOK 001-162-999-5228
24787 08/0~/95 001988 PRODUCTION CONSULTING & FREIGHT 001-162-999-5228
24787 08/03/95 001988 PRODUCTION CONSULTING & TAX 001-162-999-5228
53.95
15.00
4.18
73.13
24788 08/03/95 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C BLUEPRINTS-SAM HICKS PRK 280-199-8,05-5804
24788 08/03/95 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C BLUEPRINTS-PRK VIEW 210-199-128-5802
24788 08/03/95 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C BLUEPRINTS FOR WALCOTT CORR 210-165-637-5804
135.77
21.33
465.48
622.58
24789 08/03/95 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER 02-79-10100-1 VATER SERVS 190-180-999-5240
55,66
55
24790 08/03/95 000426 RANCHO INDUSTRIAL SUPPL KLEEN MIST DISPENSER 340-199.-999-5212
24790 08/03/95 000426 RANCHO INDUSTRIAL SUPPL TOILET TISSUE/SOAP/TOWELS 340-199-999-5212
24790 08/03/95 000426 RANCHO INDUSTRIAL SUPPL MULTI FOLD TOWELS/TOILET TISSU 190-180-999-5212
47.41
218.78
112.53
378.72
24791 08/03/95 001241 REED, JiM BOOT REIMBURSMENT 190-180-999-5243
95.00
95.00
24792 08/03/95 RHODES, DEBRA
REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION 190-183-4982
28.00
28.00
24793 08/03/95 000266 RIGHTWAY PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL 190-180-999-5238
24793 08/03/95 000266 RIGHTWAY PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL 190-180-999-5238
24793 08/03/95 000266 RIGHTWAY PONTABLE TOILET RENTAL-RIVERTO 190-t80-999-5238
24793 08/03/95 000266 RIGHTWAY PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL 190-180-999-5238
24793 08/03/95 000266 RIGHTWAY PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL-RIVERTO 190-180-999-5238
62.89
125.78
62.89
220.10
22.50
24794 08/03/95 RIOS, RODOLFO
REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION 190-183-4982
65.00
65.00
24795 08/03/95 000269 RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY PAPER SUPPL FOR COPIERS 330-199-999-5220
24795 08/03/95 000269 RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY 11X17 WHITE COPY PAPER 330-199-999-5220
24795 08/03/95 000269 RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY TAX 330-199-999-5220
171.86
172.50
13.37
357.73
24796 08/03/95 000815 ROWLEY, CATHERINE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330
192.00
192.00
24797 08/03/95 RUSTLERS INC; REFUND-SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900
IO0.00
100.00
24798 08/03/95 000704 s K S, INC/INLAND OIL FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 100-164-601-5263
24798 08/03/95 000704 S K S, ZNC/INLAND OIL FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-163-999-5262
24798 08/03/95 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-165-999-5263
24798 08/03/95 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES ~90-180-999-5263
24798 08/03/95 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-170-999-5262
24798 08/03/95 000704 S K S, IHC/INLAND OIL FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-110-999-5263
24798 08/03/95 000704 S K S, INC/IHLAND OIL FUEL FOR CiTY VEHICLES 001-162-999-5263
299.36
142.55
44.70
191.38
77.21
12.15
92.03
859.38
24799 08/03/95 SAWYER, JO ANNE
REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION 190-183-4982
20.00
20.00
24800 08/03/95 002022 SHAFER, SHARON TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330
24801 08/03/95 SILVETT, TONI REFUNO-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION 190-183-4984
24802 08/03/95 001994 SNYDER PUBLISHING CO. ART OF TAKING MINUTES BOOK 001-120-999-5228
24802 08/03/95 001994 SNYDER PUBLISHING CO. TAX 001-120-999-5228
518.40
240.00
21.00
1.63
518.40
240.00
22.63
VOUCHRE2
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
24803
24803
24803
24803
24803
24803
24803
24804
24804
24805
24806
24807
24807
24807
24807
24807
24807
24~07
24807
24807
24807
24807
24807
24808
24809
24810
24810
24810
24810
24811
24812
24812
24813
24814
24815
10:57
CHECK
DATE
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
08/03/95
VENDOR
NUMBER
000537
000537
000537
000537
000537
000537
000537
001589
001589
000282
002015
000294
000294
000294
000294
000294
000294
000294
000294
000294
000294
000294
000294
000294
000294
000465
001546
000825
000825
000825
000825
000307
000320
000320
000420
001921
000326
001437
VENDOR
NAME
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON -
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON -
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON -
SOUTHERN CALZF EDISON '
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON -
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON -
SOUTHERN CALIF'EDISON -
SOUTHERN CAL]F TELEPHON
SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON
SOUTHERN CALIF. MUNICIP
STAR WAY PRODUCTIONS
STATE FUND - SAN FRANC]
STATE FUND - SAN FRANC]
STATE FUND - SAN FRANC]
STATE FUND - SAN FRANCI
STATE FUND - SAN FRANC[
STATE FUND - SAN FRANCI
STATE FUND - SAN FRANCI
STATE FUND - SAN FRANCI
STATE FUND - SAN FRANC[
STATE FUND - SAN FRANC[
STATE FUND - SAN FRANC]
STATE FUND - SAN FRANC]
STATE FUND * SAN FRANC]
STATE FUND - SAN FRANCI
STRADLEY, MARY KATHLEEN
STRAIGHT LINE GLASS
TEMECULA CYCLES
TEMECULA CYCLES
TEMECULA CYCLES
TEMECULA CYCLES
TEMECULA TROPHY CO.
TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS
TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS
TRANS-PACIFIC CONSULTAN
TRANSAMERICA INFORMATIO
UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE,
VIRACK, MARYANN
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PER/ODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
2-00-397-5026 ELECT SERVS
2-00-397-5059 ELECT SERVS
2-00-397°5042 ELECT SERVS
2-00-397-5067 ELECT SERVS
~-77-795-0002-01 ELECT SERVS
66-77-795-8082-01 ELECT SERVS
~-~-584-8087-02 ELECT SERVS
INSTALLED CELLULAR PHONE
HANDHELD CELLULAR PHONE-TCSD
LEAGUE REGISTRATION-SOF B/VOLB
SPRING JITTERBUG DANCE CONTEST
~ORKERS' CONP-JULY 95
WORKERS~ CUMP-JULY 95
I~ORKERS~ COMP-JULY 95
~a3RKERS' COMP-JULY 95
~/ORKERS' CONP'JULY 95
I~C)RKERS' CONP-JULY 95
WORKERS' CONP-JULY 95
WONKERS' COMP'JULY 95
~/ORKERS~ CONP-JULY 95
WORKERS~ CONP-JULY 95
WORKERS~ CONP'JULY 95
~ORKERS~ CONP-JULY 95
~ORKERS~ COMP'JULY 95
WORKERS~ COMP-JULY 95
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
IMPROVEMENTS TO MEET HEALTH
36,000 MILE SERVICE ON CYCLE
PARTS REPLACEMENT/LABOR;MOTORC
REPAIRS ON POLICE MOTORCYCLE
TUNE UP & SERVICE ON CYCLE
ACRYL]C BOX ~/C]TY LOGO
MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES-PLANNING
MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES
PROF SVCS FOR JUNE 1995
METROSCAN SOFT~ARE-SUBSCRIPTIO
UNIFORM MA]NT. FOR TCSD
TCSD XNSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
191-180-999-5319
190-18Q-999-5240
:~.0-199-999-5240
193-180-999-5240
191-180-999-5319
190-181-999-5240
340-199-999-5240
190-180-999-5242
190-180-999-5242
190-183~999-5380
190-180-999-5250
001-2370
100-2370
165-2370
190-2370
191 - 2370
192 - 2370
193 - 2370
194 - 2370
280-2370
300-2370
320-2370
330-2370
340-2370
001-1182
190-183-999-5330
190-180-999-5212
001-170-999-5214
001-170-999-5214
001-170-999-5214
001-170-999-5214
001-100-999-5250
001-161-999-5220
001-161-999-5220
210-165-655-5802
320-199-999-5211
190-180-999-5243
190-183-999-5330
ITEM
AMOUNT
3,670.74
3,6~0.46
3,507.30
2,321.38
95.35
1,31,0.27
32.22
171.32
273.69
504.00
100.00
4,076.08
1,324.26
32.98
2,586.96
82.42
11.14
105.94
29.74
104.65
11.53
30.12
11.21
313.61
8~.43
384.0O
635.00
215.45
322.87
332.73
215.45
697.68
171.01
500.00
190.00
397.50
20.85
192.00
PAGE 6
CHECK
AMOUNT
14,607.~
445.01
504.00
100.00
8,805.07
38~.00
635.00
1,086.50
697.68
671.01
190.00
397.50
20.85
192.00
VOUCHRE2
08/04/95 10:57
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE
24817 08/03/95
24817 08/03/95
24818 08/03/95
24819 08/03/95
24820 08/03/95
24821 08/03/95
24821 08/03/95
24822. 08/03/95
24823 08/03/95
24823 08/03/95
VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER NAME
000379 i~ DEAN DAVIDSON CO,
000379 W DEAN DAVIDSON CO.
00134~2 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY,
WERNET, STEPHANIE
000466 WHITEHEAD, RHONDA
001601 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
001601 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
001874 WILLIANS, KAREN
000345 XEROX CORPORATION B]LLI
000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI
CITY OF TEMEOULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
KITCHEN EQU/PNENT ]NSTALLATION
RESTROOM FACILITY F]NAL PNT
BLDG. MAINT. SUPPLIES-CRC
REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION
TCSD ZNSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
JUN SERVS-OLD T(311 SPECIFIC PL
JUN SERVS-OLD TOteM SPECIFIC PL
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
METER USAGE FOR 4/26-5/26/95
5021 COPIER LEASE-JULY 95 CRC
TOTAL CHECKS
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
190-180-999-5250
210-190-136-5802
190-182-999-5212
190-183-4982
190-183-999-5330
280-199-999-5248
280-1270
190-183-999-5330
330-199-999-52~9
190-182-999-5239
ITEM
AMOUNT
675 .,00
150,00
185.38
23.00
128,00
200. O0
200.00
196.00
1,064.13
117.8~
PAGE 7
CHECK
AMOUNT
825.00
185.38
23.00
128.00
400.00
196.00
1,181.97
81,659.18
VOUCHRE2 PAGE 12
¢'~q/95 13:51
CXTY OF TENECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGXSTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
FUND TITLE
001 GENERAL FUND
100 GAS TAX FUND
165 RDA DEV- LOU/NOD SET ASIDE
190 CONHUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A
192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B
193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D
210 CAPITAL INPROVENENT PROJ FUND
280 REDEVELOPNENT AGENCY - CIP
300 INSURANCE FUND
320 INFORNATION SYSTENS
330 SUPPORT SERVICES
340 FACILITIES
TOTAL
ANOtJNT
80,983.48
10,417.49
296.05
30,779.51
13,094.03
22,080.72
3,969.72
272.56
733.15
103,119.80
387.73
6,203.57
1,725.31
1,489.85
275,552.97
VOUCHRE2
08/11/95 13:51
CITY OF TENECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGXSTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
PAGE 1
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME
ITEM ACCOUNT ]TEN CHECK
DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
24825 08/03/95 SILVETT, TONI
REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION 190-183-4984
240.00
240.00
570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 001-2070
570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 00028~ FEDERAL 100-2070
570858 08/10/95 00028~ FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 165-2070
570858 08/10/95 00028~ FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 190-2070
570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS)' 000283 FEDERAL 191-2070
570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 192-2070
570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 193-2070
570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 00028~ FEDERAL 194-2070
570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (]RS) 00028~ FEDERAL 280-2070
570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (iRS) 000283 FEDERAL 300-2070
570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (]RS) 000283 FEDERAL 320-2070
570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 330-2070
570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (]RS) 000283 FEDERAL 340-2070
570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 NED]CARE 001-2070
570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 00028~ MEDICARE 100-2070
570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 165-2070
570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 190-2070
570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (iRS) 000283 NEDICARE 191-2070
570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (]RS) 000283 NEDICARE 192-2070
570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 NED]CARE 193-2070
570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 NEDICARE 194-2070
570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 00028~ MEDICARE 280-2070
570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 300-2070
570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 320-2070
570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 00028~ MEDICARE 330-2070
570858 08/10/95 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 340-2070
585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX CEDD)
585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX CEDD)
585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
585871 08/10/95 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
24830 08/10/95 000724
A & R CUSTOM SCREEN PRI
000444 SDI 001-2070
000444 SOI 100-2070
000444 SDI 190-2070
000444 SD] 280-2070
000444 STATE 001-2070
000444 STATE 100-2070
000444 STATE 165-2070
000444 STATE 190-2070
000444 STATE '191-2070
000444 STATE 192-2070
000444 STATE 193-2070
000444 STATE 194-2070
000444 STATE 280-2070
000444 STATE 300-2070
000444 STATE 320-2070
000444 STATE 330-2070
000444 STATE 340-2070
SPTS AWARDS-SWEATSHIRTS/T-SHIR
190-183-999-5380
11,548.70
1,908.40
3,850.77
92.14
?3.80
246.05
64.54
174.93
124.14
344.39
105.98
135.09
2,769.67
442.31
13.44
1,069.42
21.39
23.58
63.85
13.36
54.55
21.62
57.94
23.38
69.80
68.05
8.00
150.49
2.17
3,065.79
442.11
8.72
740.65
17.52
9.33
43.05
14.00
37.95
36.50
87.69
18,97
16.18
951.91
23,348.28
4,767.17
951.91
24831 08/10/95 001625 A BETTER CONFERENCE, IN CONFERENCE FEES 001-110-999-5260 178.92 178.~92
VOUCHRE2
i:)-'~'4/95
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUfiBER
24832
24832
24832
24833
24834
24835
24835
24835
24835
24835
24835
24835
24835
24835
24835
24836
24839
24840
24841
24841
24842
24843
24844
24845
24846
24847
24848
24849
24850
24850
~0
13:51
CHECK
DATE
08110195
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
VENDOR
NUMBER
000534
000534
000534
001515
001895
000116
000116
000116
000116
000116
000116
000116
000116
000116
000116
001281
001375
000747
001947
001947
001943
001998
001006
001006
001006
VENDOR
NAME
A F JOHNSON CO., INC.
A F JOHNSON CO., INC.
A F JOHNSON CO., INC.
A S A P TRUCK TRACTOR &
A T & T - VAN NUYS
A V P VISION PLANS
A V P VISION PLANS
A V P VISION PLANS
A V P VISION PLANS
A V P VISION PLANS
A V P VISION PLANS
A V P VISION PLANS
A V P VISION PLANS
A V P VISION PLANS
A V P VISION PLANS
AGNIHOTRI, VARSHA
ALHAMBRA GROUP
AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC
AMERICAN RED CROSS
AMERIGAS
AMERI'GAS
B R W, INC.
BECKER, LYNN
BLYSMA, SHIRLEY
BONETTI, PATRICIA
BORTON, MAX
BOYD, CAROL
BRANDT, JULIE
BRANUMo MELISSA
BURTRONICS BUSINESS SYS
BURTRONICS BUSINESS SYS
BURTRONICS BUSINESS SYS
CITY OF TEMEOULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PER/OOS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
6 - XL 726 BTF RAIN GEAR
10 - XL 726 AHS RAIN GEAR
TAX
WEED ABATEMENT SERVS FY 94-95
7'30 375 7992 001 LONG DIST SER
000116 AVP
000116 AVP
000116 AVP
000116 AVP
000116 AVP
000116 AVP
000116 AVP
000116 AVP
000116 AVP REVE
AUG 95 COeRA PAYMENT
REFUND- TCSD CLASS CANCELATION
DESIGN SERVICES PER CONTRACT
EARTH~RKS CONF:MIKE WOLFF:8/19
MEMBERSH I P -M. FAGAN: 7/95 - 7/96
REFUND- TCSD CLASS CANCELATION
PROPANE FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES
PROPANE FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES
APR PROGRESS PMT-TRAFF]C SIGMA
REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION
REFUND- TCSD CLASS CANCELATION
RE - l SSUE/TCSD ]NSTRUCTOR EARN I
REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS CANCEL
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
COPIER MAINT CONTRACT/#5671
MT TONER 611 FOR RP6092
FREIGHT
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
100-164-601-5218
100-164-601-5218
100-16~-601-5218
001-162-999-54~0
320-199-999-5208
001-2310
100-2310
165-2310
190-231'0
280-2310
300-2310
340-2310
001-2310
001-2310
001-1180
190-183-4975
280-199-805-5802
001-165-999-5261
001-161-501-5226
190-18~-999-5310
001-162-999-5263
190-180-999-5263
210-165-645-580~
190-183-4984
190-183-4982
190-183-999-5330
190-183-4980
190-183-4975
190-183-4975
190-183-4975
330-199-999-5217
330-199-999-5220
330-199-999-5220
ITEM
AMOUNT
69.80
72.80
11.05
18,902.00 .-
5.16
·
465.02
79.97
4.18
72.40
13.49
2.44
16.70
1.52
1.52-
9.75
50.00
614.43
75.00
82.00
105.28
2 08.04
161.75
338. O0
82.12
4 Z. O0
80. O0
38.0 0
75.00
25.00
25.00
92.98
82.00
4.27
PAGE 2
CHE~
AMOUNT
153.65
18,902.00
5.16
663.95
50.00
614.43
75.00
82.00
105.28
369.79
338.00
82.12
42.00
80.00
38.00
75.00
25.00
25,00
VOUCHRE2
08/11/95
13:51
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIOOS
PAGE 3
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NL~qBER
24850
24851
24852
24853
24854
24854
24855
24855
24855
24855
24855
24856
24856
24857
24857
24857
24858
24859
24859
24860
24860
24860
24860
24860
24860
24860
24860
24860
24861
24862
24862
24863
24864
24864
24864
24864
24864
CHECK
DATE
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
VENDOR
NUMBER
001006
000134
000413
0O2000
002000
002000
002000
002000
000135
000135
000138
000138
000140
000140
000140
000140
000140
000140
000140
000140
000140
002030
001193
001193
001275
001535
001535
001535
001535
001535
VENDOR
NAME
BURTRONICS BUSINESS SYS TAX
BYRNE, CAROL
C B C ] PROFESSIONAL DE
CALIFORNIA DEPT OF FISH
CALVARY CHAPEL
CALVARY CHAPEL
CARTER COMleJNICATION PR
CARTER COMMUNICATION PR
CARTER COMMUNICATION PR
CARTER COMMUNICATION PR
CARTER CUMNUNICATION PR
CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER
CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER
CENTRE, THE
CENTRE, THE
CENTRE~ THE
CHAPMAN, LEE
CITICORP NORTH AMERICA
CITICORP NORTH AMERICA
COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDEN
COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDEN
COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDEN
COLONIAL LIFE& ACCIDEN
COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDEN
COLONIAL LiFE & ACCIDEN
COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDEN
COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDEN
COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDEN
COLTON COURIER
CONP USA, INC.
COMP USA, INC.
COMPUSERVE, INC.
CREEKSIDE TEXACO, INC.
CREEKSIDE TEXACO, iNC.
CREEKSIDE TEXACO, INC.
CREEKSIDE TEXACO, INC.
CREEKSIDE TEXACO, INC.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
REFUND- TCSD CLASS CANCELATION
STATE LAWS/BUILD DEPT:T.ELMO
1ST BRIDGE EXTENSiON:LD95-O03S
REFUND-SECURITY DEPOSIT
REFUND-ROOM RENTAL
MICROPHONE, BLACK
CABLE ASSY, HELMET, MOTORCYCLE
WINDSCREEN FOR DYNAMIC NICROPH
FRE I GHT
TAX
ADOPT A STREET PROGRAM
NO PARKING SIGN FOR FIRE DEPT
WKSHP:WXNDONS FOR CITY HALL
WKSHP:~INDOWS FOR CITY HALL
WKSHP:~INDCY,,/S FOR CITY HALL
REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION
LEASE PMT FOR TELEPHONE SYSTEM
LEASE PMT FOR TELEPHONE SYSTEM
000140 600 A&S
000140 600 A&S
000140 800 A&S
000140 800 A&S
000140 CANCER
000140 CANCER
000140 CANCER
000140 CANCER
000140 CANCER
NOTICE OF INVITING BID AD
MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES
MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES
SUBSCRIPTION-COMPUTER MAGAZINE
RE-ISSUE/CITY VEHICLE MAINT
RE-ISSUE/CITY VEHICLE NAINT
RE-ISSUE/CITY VEHICLE MAINT
RE-ISSUE/CITY VEHICLE MAINT
RE-ISSUE/CITY VEHICLE MAINT
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
330-199-999'52Z0
190-18]-4975
001-162-~-5261
280-199-807-5802
190-2900
190-183-4990
001-170-99~-5214
001-170-~-5214
001-170-~9~-5214
001-170-~-5214
001-170-999-5214
100-164-601-5244
100-164-601-5244
001-150-999-5261
320-199-999-5261
001-161-999-5261
190-183-4982
320-2800
320-199-999-539!
001-2330
190-2330
001-2330
190-2330
001-2330
100-2330
165-2330
190-2330
~8o-233o
001-120-999-5254
320-199-999-5221
320-199-999-5221
320-199-999'5228
001-163-999-5214
001-163-999-5214
001-163-999-5214
100-164'601-5214
100-164-604-5214
ITEM
AMOUNT
6.36
25.00
110.00
1,191.00
ZO0.O0
100.00
26.00
75.75
22.50
2.81
9.63
188.56
80.81
25.00
25.00
25.00
60.00
1,306.35
121.22
39.75
39.75
18.75
162.00
154.74
33.53
6.47
89.64
6.47
242.00
362.88
182.79
16.67
80.35
18.50
452.15
31.83
93.00
CHECK
AM{XJNT
185,61
110.00
1,191.00
300.00
136.69
269.37
60.00
1,427.57
551.10
Z4Z.O0
545.67
16.67
VOtJCHRE2
"95
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
24864
24865
24865
24865
24866
24866
24866
24866
24866
24867
24868
24869
24870
24871
2
24873
24874
24874
24875
24876
24876
24877
24878
24879
24879
24879
24880
24881
24881
24881
24881
24881
13:51
CHECK
DATE
08/10/~5
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
VENDOR
NUMBER
001535
000155
000155
000155
000156
000156
000156
000156
000156
001922
000395
000161
001056
000478
000165
000165
001135
001002
001002
001989
000993
000184
000184
000184
000177
000177'
000177
000177
000177
CITY OF TENECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VENDOR %TEN
NAME DESCR]PTZON
CREEKSIDE TEXACO, INC. LUBE, OIL AND FILTER SERVICE
DAVLIN
DAVL]N
DAVL]N
BROADCASTING OF COUNC%L MTGS.
RECORDINGS OF PC MEETINGS
RECORDINGS OF PC MEETINGS
DENTICARE OF CALIFORNIA 000156
DENTICARE OF CALIFORNIA 000156
DENTICARE OF CALIFORNIA 000156
DENTICARE OF CALIFORNIA 000156
DENTICARE OF CAL]FORNIA 000156
DEN-ANIN
DENT-ADV
DENTICAR
DENT-REV
DENTICAR
DIEGEL, CHAD
REFUND-FORFEIT FEE/BASKETBALL
DILLON TELEPHONE CONPAN PAY-PHONE RENTAL-CITY HALL
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CO PROVIDE COMM SERVS-PER AGRMNT
EDEN SYSTEMS, INC.
CREATE COMPUTER REPORT
ELITE ELECTRIC
ELITE ELECTRIC
REFUND- PARK RESERVATION FEE
REFUND- PARK RESERVATION FEE
EXCEL LANDSCAPE
REPAIRED BROKEN MAIN-SPT PRK
FAST SIGNS
SIGNS FOR 4 JULY PARADE
FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC.
FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC.
EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES
EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES
FIRST CARE INDUSTRIAL M PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS
FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 5473 6664 0391 012.$ GT
FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 5473 6664 0391 0125 GT
FOX NETWORK SYSTEMS, IN CHARGED 7~ TAX-S/B 7.75X
FREEDOM COFFEE, INC. BEVERAGE SERVICE - CITY HALL
G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 699-0128 GEN USAGE
G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 699-2509 GEN USAGE
G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 699-9159 GEM USAGE
GLANTON, JANE
REFUND- TCSD CLASS CANCELATION
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES FOR CRC
GENERAL SUPPLIES FOR CRC
MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES; FINANCE
KEI CALENDAR, PAD CRC
MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES; FINANCE
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
100-16~-601-5214
001-100-999-5250
001-161-501-5250
001-161-501-5250
001-2.~0
001-1180
001-2'340
001-1180
001-2..'~
190-18~-4994
320-199-~-5208
280-199-999-526~
320-199-999-5211
190-2900
190-183-4988
190-180-999-5415
190-183-999-5370
001-161-502-5250
001-110-999-5230
001-150-999-5248
001-161-999-5261
001-161-999-5272
320-1970
340-199-999-5250
320-199-999-5208
320-199-999-5208
190-18~-4975
190-182-~-5220
190-182-~-5220
001-140-999-5220
190-182-999-5220
001-140-999-5220
I TEN
A!I3UNT
27 .-~
796.25
80.17
153.24 -
15.00
8.39
8.39
7.84
40.00
ZO0.O0
55,000.00
405.00
100.00
50. O0
40.78
216.25
20.25
15.25
15.00
395. O0
216.00
53.08
88.17
1,105.02
28.57
354.78
Z2. O0
381.82
15.44
81.95
4.01
107.89
PAGE 4
CHECK
AM(XJNT
1,029.64
31.78
40.00
200.00
55,000.00
405.00
150.00
40.78
216.25
35.48
15.00
611.00
53.08
88.17
1,488.37
22.00
591.11
VOUCHRE2
08/11/95
13:51
C/TY OF TENECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIOOS
PAGE 5
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
24882
24883
24884
24884
24884
24884
24884
24884
24884
24884
24884
24884
24884
2488~
24885
24885
24885
24885
24885
24885
24885
24886
24887
24888
24889
24890
24890
24890
24890
24890
24891
24891
24892
24892
24893
24893
24893
24894
CHECK
DATE
08/10/95
08/10/~5
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
VENDOR
NUMBER
000178
001609
000430
000430
000430
000430
000430
000430
000430
000430
000430
000430
000430
000430
000186
000186
000186
000186
000186
000186
000186
001517
000963
000806
000194
000194
000194
000194
000194
000199
000199
001667
001667
001667
VENDOR
NAME
GOLDEN STATE TRADING CO
GREATER ALARM COMPANY,
GROUP AMERICA" VOLUNTA
GROUP ANER I CA ' VOLUNTA
GROUP AMERICA - VOLUNTA
GROUP AMERICA - VOLUNTA
GROUP AMERICA - VOLUMTA
GROUP AHERICA - VOLUNTA
GROUP AHER]CA - VOLUNTA
GROUP AMERICA - VOLUNTA
GROUP AMERICA - VOLUNTA
GROUP AMERICA" VOLUNTA
GROUP AHERICA - VOLUNTA
GROUP AMERICA - VOLUNTA
HANKS HARDWARE, INC.
HANKS HARDWARE, INC.
HANKS HARDWARE, INC.
HANKS HARDWARE, INC.
HANKS HARDWARE, INC.
HANKS HARDWARE, INC.
HANKS HARDWARE, INC.
HEALTH & HUMAN RESOURCE
HERMRECK, JAHES
HOGAN, DAVID
HOWARD, BOBBY
I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS
I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS
I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS
I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS
I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS
INNERARITY, MONIKA
INNERARITY, MONIKA
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVIC
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVIC
KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE
KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE
KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE
KELLY, LANA
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
NISC COffi>UTER SUPPLIES
ALARM NONITORING/JUL-AUG/STORG
000430 VL ADVAN
000430 VOL LIFE
000430 VOL LIFE
000430 VOL LIFE
000430 VOL LIFE
000430 VOL LIFE
000430 VL REVER
000430 VOL LiFE
000430 VOL LIFE
000430 VOL LIFE
000430 VOL LIFE
000430 VOL LIFE
SUPPLIES FOR THE CRC
MISC HARDWARE SUPPLIES
MISC SUPPLIES FOR PLANNING DEP
NAINTENANCE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL
SUPPLIES FOR THE CRC
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES-PARKS
SPORTS PROGRAMS SUPPLIES
EAP SERVZCES
REFUND- TCSD CLASS CANCELATION
STATE CONF/REIMB:HOGAN:7/13-16
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
000194 DEF COMP
000194 DEF COMP
000194 DEF COMP
000194 DEF COMP
000194 DEF COI4P
REFUND- TCSD CLASS CANCELATION
REFUND- TCSD CLASS CANCELATION
000199 IRS GARN
000199 IRS GARN
TEMP HELP W/E 7/30 EVANS
TEMP HELP W/E 7/30 EVANS
TEMP HELP W/E 7/30 EVANS
REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
320-1~-~R-522.1
:~.0-1~-~-5250
001-2510
001-2510
100-2510
190-2510
192-2510
::~.0-2510
001-25~0
001-25i0
100-2510
190-2510
192-2510
340-2510
190-182-~<~-5301
001-161-502-5242
001-161-gg9-5242
340-199-9~-5212
190-182-999-5301
190-180-9~-5212
190-183-~9-5380
001-150-~99-5250
190-183-4982
001-161-502-5258
190-183-999-5330
001-2080
100-2080
190-2080
192-2080
280-2080
190-183-4982
190-183-4980
001-2140
100-2140
001-165-999-5118
001-165-999-5118
100-164-604-5118
190-18~-4982
TEN
AMOUNT
4372'{
35.00
B0.40-
156.85
19.15
,47.71
6.00
.69
184.05-
136.55
11.40
29.41
6.00
.69
3.98
21.26
80.46
73.98
111.08
408.8.$
217.81
338.35
24. O0
158.43
240.00
1,289.36
86.44
561.00
75.00
29.18
ZO.O0
22.00
125.(:G
125.62
72.80
72.80
72.80
28.60
CHECK
AMOUNT
~7.~
35.~
460.80
~ J
338.35
24.00
158.43
240.00
2,040.98
42.00
251.25
218.40
28.60
VOUCHREZ
C-""1/95 13:51
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER
24895 08/10/95 000206
24896 08/1~/95 000209
24896 08/10/95 000209
24897 08/10/95 000945
24897 08/10/95 000945
24898 08/10/95 001534
24898 08/10/95 001534
24899 08/10/95 001671
· 24900 08/10/95 000380
24901 08/10/95
24902 08/10/95 001690
24902 08/10/95 001690
24903 08/10/95
~ 08/10/95
24905 08/10/95
24906 08/10/95 001384
24906 08/10/95 001384
24906 08/10/95 001384
24906 08/10/95 001384
24906 08/10/95 001384
24906 08/10/95 001384
24907 08/10/95 001654
24908 08/10/95 001214
24909 08/10/95 000239
24909 08/10/95 000239
24909 08/10/95 000239
24909 08/10/95 000239
24909 08/10/95 000239
24910 08/10/95 001354
24911 08/10/95 001151
24912 08/10/95
24913 08/10/95 000246
'3 08/10/95 000246
VENDOR
NAME
KINKO'S OF RIVERSIDE, I
L & M FERTILIZER, INC.
L & M FERTILIZER, INC.
L P S COMPUTER SERVICE
L P S COMPUTER SERVICE
LA K~STERS OF FINE TRAV
LA MASTERS OF FINE TRAV
LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL S
LAIDLA~ TRANSIT, INC.
LAMBERT,.LORETTA
LAUTZENHISERtS STATIONE
LAUTZENHISER'S STATIONE
MAIORANO, YVONNE
MARNELL, NAN CHEN
MCKOY, CYNTHIA
MINUTEMAN PRESS
MINUTEMAN PRESS
MINUTEMAN PRESS
MINUTEMAN PRESS
MINUTEMAN PRESS
MINUTEMAN PRESS
MONTEREY SYSTEMS~ INC.
MORNINGSTAR MUSICAL PRO
OLSTEN STAFFING SERVICE
OLSTEN STAFFING SERVICE
OLSTEN STAFFING SERVICE
OLSTEN STAFFING SERVICE
OLSTEN STAFFING SERVICE
P c MAGAZINE
PACIFIC EQUIPMENT & IRR
PEREZ, PATRICK
PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOtJCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
I TEN
DESCRIPTION
NISC COPY SUPPLIES
NISC VEHICLE IqAINT.
NISC. I~AINTENANCE SUPPLIES
REPAIR OF HP LASERJET IIisi
MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES
ADDITIONAL CHRGS:MJM/GFOA CONF
ADDITIONAL CHRGS:MJN/GFOA CONF
HAZ-NAT STORAGE/DISPOSAL
BUS TRANSPORT TO SEA WORLD
REFUND-S~/IMMING LESSONS
CUSTC)M MINUTE BOOKS
CtJSTON MINUTE BODKS
REFUND- TCSD CLASS CANCELATION
REFUND-S~/IMMING LESSON
REFUND-St41MMING LESSONS
BUSINESS CARDS-M,BERG
500 QTY BOX BUS. CARDS;
TAX
CORRECTION NOTICE - NCR
TYPESETTING FEE
TAX
MICROFILMING SERVS & STORAGE
SOUND SYSTEMS ALONG PARADE RT
TEMP HELP W/E 6/4 GRAGE
TEMP HELP W/E 6/04 GRAGE
TEMP HELP W/E 6/25 GRAGE
TENP HELP t~/E 6/25 GRAGE
TEMP HELP-VICKI GRAGE $9.00/hr
SUBSCRIPTION:4 QTRS
TCSD CUSHMAN VEHICLE REPAIR.
RE FUND - FOR FE I T FEE - BASKETBALL
000246 PER REDE
000246 PER REDE
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
330-199-999-5220
100-164-601-5218
100-164-601-5218
320-199-9~9-5250
320-199-9q~-5221
001-110-999-5258
001-1170
100-164-601-5430
190-183-999-5340
190-18'3-4975
001-120-~99-5220
001-120-999-5220
190-183-4980
190-183-4975
190-183-4975
001-162-999-5222
001-162-999-5222
001-162-999-5222
190-180-999-5222
190-180-999-5222
190-180-999-5222
330-199-999-5277
190-183-999-5370
001-162-999-5118
001-161-999-5118
001-161-999-5118
001-162-999-5118
001-161-999-5118
320-199-999-5228
190-180-999-5214
190-183-4994
001-2130
100-2130
ITEM
AMOUNT
144.71
55.82
10.42
369.15
70.00
60. O0
450.00
398.47
12.50
753.30
17.13
22. O0
22.00
25.00
41.21
38.25
2.96
60.92
30.00
7.05
838.05
900.00
637.20
302.40
291.60
203.52
378. O0
49.95
290.93
40.00
202.31
65.19
PAGE 6
CHECK
AMOUNT
144.71
459.83
130.00
450.00
398.47
12.50
77'0.43
22.00
22.00
25.00
180.39
838.05
900.00
1,812.72
49.95
290.93
40.00
VOUCHRE2
08/11 / 95
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
13:51
CHECK
DATE
VENDOR
NUMBER
VENDOR
NAME
CITY OF TENECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
]TEN
DESCRIPTION
24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEESt RETIRE 0002/,6 PER REDE
24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 0002/,6 PER REDE
24913 08/10/95 0002~6 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 0002/,6 PERS RET
24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 0002~6 PERS RET
24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET
24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET
24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET
24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET
24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 0002~6 PERS RET
24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET
24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET
24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS CENPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET
24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET
24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS CEMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET
24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS CEMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET
24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR
24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR
24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR
24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR
24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR
24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR
24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS CEMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR
24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS CEMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR
24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR
24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR
24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR
24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR
24913 08/10/95 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 AETNA SO
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 AETNA SO
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 AETNA SO
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 AETNA SO
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 CIGNA
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 CIGNA
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 CIGNA
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH ]NSUR. PRE 000245 HELTHNET
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 HELTHNET
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 HELTHNET
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 HELTHNET
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 HELTHNET
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH ]NSUR. PRE 000245 HELTHNET
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 HELTHNET
24915 08/10/95 OO0245 PERS (HEALTH IHSUR. PRE 000245 KAISERSO
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 KAISERSO
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 KAISERSO
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 KAISERSO
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH iNSUR. PRE 000245 PACIFICR
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PACIFICR
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PACIFICR
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PACIF[CR
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
190-2130
280-2130
001-2390
100-2390
165-2390
190-2390
191-2390
192-2390
19~-2390
194-2390
280-2390
300-2390
320-2390
330-2390
340-2390
001-2390
100-2390
165-2390
190-2390
191-2390
192-2390
193-2390
194-2390
280-2390
300-2390
320-2390
330-2390
340-2390
001-2090
100-2090
165-2090
280-2090
001-2090
100-2090
300-2090
001-2090
100-2090
190-2090
193-2090
280-2090
330-2090
340-2090
001-2090
100-2090
190-2090
340-2090
001-2090
100-2090
190-2090
192-2090
ITEM
AMOUNT
3.3~
1.00
12,018.71
2,047.56
76.42 -
2,927.21
84.61
294.08
68.91
232.65
102.60
268.09
333.89
52.71
9.48
13,49
,46
.93
1.40
.23
.78
.46
.9~
.93
2.09
922.05
39.21
57.49
57.49
398.07
22.96
38.27
3,828.32
1,234.83
1,853.27
296.00
185.90
148.00
381.12
753.96
565.42
349.60
65.24
683.42
381.39
619.24
156.77
PAGE 7
CHECK
AMOUNT
19,010.15
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TENECULA
P""'~/95 13:51 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
PAGE
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AIKXJNT
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PAC]F]CR 194-2090
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PERS CHO 001-2090
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PERS CHO 100-2090
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH ZNSUR. PRE 000245 PERS CHO 190-2090
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PERS CHO 280-2090
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR, PRE 000245 PERS DED 001-2090
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PERS-ADN 001-2090
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 TAKECARE 001-2090
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 TAKECARE 100-2090
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR, PRE 000245 AETNA SO 001-2090
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH [NSUR. PRE 000245 BLSNIELD 001-2090
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR, PRE 000245 HELTHNET 001-2090
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH ]NSUR, PRE 000245 HELTHNET 100-2090
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH ]NSUR, PRE 000245 HELTHNET 190-2090
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 HELTHNET 280-2090
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 HELTHNET 340-2090
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 KAISERSO 001-2090
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 KAISERSO 190-2090
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 KAISERSO 340-2090
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PAClFICR 001-2090
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PACIFICR 100-2090
'~-015 08/10/95 000245 PERS CHEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PC 001-2090
5 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PERS CHO 001-2090
e5 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PERS REV 001-2090
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 TAKECARE 001-2090
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 TAKE(ARE 100-2090
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 TAKECARE 165-2090
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 TAKECARE 190-2090
24915 08/10/95 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 TAKE(ARE 280-2090
101.90
2,560.01
38.40
.17
.05'
943.56
98.82
1,085.45
643.26
121.17
20.45
275.88
13.46
55.18
9.76
8.10
5.92
15.77
5.25
35.26
121.24
43.05
822.98-
34.10
12.90
9.97
2.24
9.96
18,509.64
24916 08/10/95 001958 PERSLONG TERM CARE PRO 001958 PERS L-T 100-2122 51.70 51.70
24917 08/10/95 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURESNENT 001-161-502-5260
24917 08/10/95 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT 001-110-999-5260
24917 08/10/95 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT 001-199-4070
24917 08/10/95 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT 190-180-999-5260
24917 08/10/95 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT 190-183-999-5320
24917 08/10/95 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT 190-18~-999-5340
24917 08/10/95 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT 100-164-601-5215
24917 08/10/95 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT 001-140-999-5258
24917 08/10/95 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURESMENT 001-140-999-5220
25.79
57.03
1.48
41.75
11.24
4.56
11.79
57.15
25.86
2~6.65
24918 08/10/95 000580 PHOTO WORKS FILM & PHOTO DEVELOPING 001-161-502-5224
24918 08/10/95 000580 PHOTO ~/ORKS FILM & PHOTO DEVELOPING 001-161-502-5224
24918 08/10/95 000580 PHOTO 14C)RKS FILM PROCESS]NG FOR REC DIV 190-180-999-5301
53.83
64.59
15.56
133.98
24919 08/10/95 002009 POOR SPORTS TEAM SALES DEBEER TCZ90-RF SOFTBALLS 190-183-999-5380
24919 08/10/95 002009 POOR SPORTS TEAM SALES TAX 190-18~-999-5380
897.00
62.79
959.79
24.__920 08/10/95 PORTER, STEVEN REFUND- TCSD CLASS CANCELATION 190-18~-4982 70.00 70.00
VOUCHRE2
08/11 / 95
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
24921
24921
24922
24922
24922
24922
24923
24923
24923
24923
24923
24923
24923
24923
24923
24924
24925
24926
24927
24928
24929
24929
24929
24929
24929
24929
24929
24930
24930
24930
24930
24930
24930
24931
24932
24933
24934
13:51
CHECK
DATE
08/10/95
08/1~/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
VENDOR
NUMBER
000254
000254
001938
001938
001938
001938
001537
001537
001537
001537
001537
001537
001537
001537
001537
000255
001695
000382
000947
000262
000262
000262
000262
000262
000262
000262
000907
000907
000907
000907
000907
000907
001680
001365
001675
000271
VENDOR
NAHE
PRESS-ENTERPRISE CONPAN
PRESS-ENTERPRISE CONPAN
PRICE, JOAN F.
PRICE, JOAN F.
PRICE, JOAN
PRICE, JOAN F.
PRINCIPAL HUTUAL, INC.
PRINCIPAL MUTUAL, INC.
PRINCIPAL MUTUAL
PRINCIPAL MUTUAL
PRINCIPAL MUTUAL
PRINCIPAL MUTUAL
PRINCIPAL MUTUAL
PRINCIPAL MUTUAL
PRINCIPAL HUTUAL
PRO LOCK & KEY
PRO-CIVIL ENGINEERING,
QUERIDO, RAYMOND
RAGING WATERS
RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER
RANCHO CAR WASH
RANCHO CAR WASH
RANCHO CAR WASH
RANCHO CAR WASH
RANCHO CAR WASH
RANCHO CAR WASH
RAY GRAGE AND ASSOCIATE
RIVERSIDE CO. DEPT. OF
RIVERSIDE CO./GSA BUILD
ROBERT BEIN, WH FROST &
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
RECRUITHENT ADS-RECREATION
NEWSPAPER SUBSCRIPTION 1YR
MINUTE CLERK; COI4HITTEE NTGS.
MINUTE CLERK; COltlTTEE MTGS.
MINUTE CLERK; COIq4[TTEE HTGS.
MINUTE CLERK; COMHITTEE MTGS,
001537 DENTALPM
001537 DENTALPM
INC. 001537 DENTALPM
INC. 001537 DENTALPM
INC. OO1537 DENTALPM
INC, 001537 DENTALPM
INC, 001537 DENTALPM
INC. 001537 DENTALPM
INC, AUG 95 COBIL~ PAYMENT
TCSD LOCKSMITH SERVICES
RETENTION PAYABLE-PALA RD PRJT
REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION
TEEN EXCURSION:RI3MISSION TICKE
MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES
01-05-61906-1 WATER SERVS
01-06-84300-1 WATER SERVS
WATER SERV 6/19-7/19/95
WATER SERV 6/19-7/19/95
WATER SERV 6/19-7/19/95
WATER SERV 6/19-7/19/95
WATER SERV 6/19-7/19/95
CITY VEHICLES WASHING SERVS
CITY VEHICLES WASHING SERVS
CITY VEHICLES WASHING SERVS
CITY VEHICLES WASHING SERVS
CITY VEHICLES WASHING SERVS
CITY VEHICLES WASHING SERVS
JUN 95 PLAN CHECK SERVS
JUN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVS
RIGHT OF WAY SVC- AGREEMENT
MAY 95 PLAN CHECK SERVS
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
001-150-999-5254
190-180-999-5228
001-161-999-5250
100-164-602-5250
280-199-999-5250
001-100-999-5250
001-2340
100-2340
165-~
190-2340
280-2340
300-2340
330-2340
340-2340
001-1180
340-199-999-5212
210-2035
190-183-4982
190-183-999-5350
001-120-999-5220
340-199-999-5240
100-164-601-5240
190-180-999-5240
190-181-999-5240
190-182-999-5240
191-180-999-5240
193-180-999-5240
001-162-999-5214
'001-162-999-5263
001-165-999-5214
190-180-999-5214
100-164-603-5214
100-164-603-5214
001-162-999-5248
001-162-999-5250
280-199-602-5700
001-162-999-5248
ITEM
AHOUNT
332,01
102.45
100.00
50.00'
50,00
50.00
1,467.14
461.34
14.59
386.35
43.75
14.58
22.11
72.92
124.64
25.00
395.15
35.00
203.88
21,55
9.94
15.63
4,324.71
105.79
2,242,845
172.17
2,820.59
20.00
61.24
95.00
4.00
96.62
.02
214.07
125.00
283.53
268.00
PAGE 9
CHECK
AI4OUNT
250.00
2,607.42
25.00
395.15
203.88
21.55
9,691.69
276.88
214.07
125.00
283.53
266_00
VCXJCHRE2
P'~4/95 13:51
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
PAGE 10
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME
ITEM ACCOUNT XTEM CHECK
DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
24935 08/10/95 ROBILOTTA, CAROL
24936 08/10/95 SAMPSON, BRIAN
REFUMD-TCSO CLASS CANCELLATION 190-183-4980
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSON CANCEL 190-183-4975
22.00
22.00
22.00
22.00
24937 08/10/95 002034 SAN DIEGO, CITY OF
24937 08/10/95 002034 SAN DIEGO, CITY OF
MAINT & INSTALL POLICE RADIOS 001-170-999-5250
MAINT & INSTALL POLICE RADIOS 001-170-999-5250
571.61-
19.11
590.72
24938 08/10/95 SCOTT, CAROL
REFUND- TCSD CLASS CANCELATION 190-183-4975
25.00
25.00
24939 08/10/95 SHOFFEITT, PATTI
24940 08/10/95 000751 SKILLPATH, INC.
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSORS 190-183-4975
GRAMMAR SEMINAR:HOGAN:9/18/95 001-16i-502-5261
25.00
99.0O
25.00
~.00
24941 08/10/95 000537
24941 08/10/95 000537
24941 08/10/95 000537
24941 08/10/95 000537
24941 08/10/95 000537
24942 08/10/95 001589
24942 08/10/95 001589
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON -
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON -
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON -
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON -
SOUTHERN CALXF EDISON -
SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON
SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON
08/10/95 000303 SYSTEM 2/90
ELECT SERVS FOR ST LIGHTS
ELECT SERVS FOR ST LIGHTS
ELECT SERVS FOR ST LIGHTS
Z-01-202-T530 ELECT SERVS
2-01-202-7603 ELECT SERVS
CELLULAR PHONE-BUILD & SAFETY
PAID TWICE/CK 24804 & 24316
WALL PLATES FOR EMP ~ORK AREAS
191-180-999-5319
192-180-999-5319
193-180-999-5240
192-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
001-162-999-5208
190-180-999-5242
190-180-999-5220
8,937.39
13.97
186.20
21,615.61
3,768.35
228.43
171.32-
75.60
34,521.52
57.11
73.60
24944 08/10/95 000305 TARGET STORE
MISC SUPPLIES FOR REC CLASSES 190-180-999-5301
109.29
109.29
24945 08/10/95 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 001-2125
24945 08/10/95 001547 TEAHSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 100-2125
24945 08/10/95 0O1547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 190-2125
24945 08/10/95 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES. 193-2125
24945 08/10/95 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 194-2125
24945 08/10/95 001547 TEAHSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 280-2125
24945 08/10/95 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 300-2125
24945 08/10/95 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 320-2125
433.83
86.95
143.38
18.50
4.62
11.10
4.62
18.50
721.50
24946 08/10/95 000825 TEMECULA CYCLES
REPAIRS TO POLICE MOTORCYCLE 001-170-999-5214
437.26
437.26
24947 08/10/95 000168 TEMECULA FLOWER CORRAL FLOWERS FOR EMPLOYEES
· 001-2170
97.52
97.52
24948 08/10/95 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY CO. PLAQUES SOFTBALL PROGRAM 190-183-999-5380
24948 08/10/95 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY CO. TAX 190-183-999-5380
872.39
67.61
940.00
24949 08/10/95 000515 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER PROVIDE COMM SERVS-PER AGREEMN 280-199-999-5264
24950 08/10/95 000642 TEMECULA, CITY OF - FLE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX 001-1020
24950 08/10/95 000642 TEMECULA, CITY OF - FLE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX 190-1020
24950 08/10/95 000642 TEMECULA, CITY OF - FLE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX 300-1020
24950 08/10/95 000642 TEMECULA, CITY OF - FLE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX 280-1020
24950 08/10/95 000642 TEMECULA, CITY OF - FLE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX 340-1020
24_..._950 08/10/95 000642 TEMECULA, CITY OF - FLE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX 165-1020
45,000.00
3,759.62
644.16
37.50
72.75
62.50
68.75
45,000.00
4,645.28
VOUCHRE2
08/11/95
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
24951
24952
24952
24952
24952
24952
24952
24952
24952
24953
24953
24953
24953
24954
24954
24954
24954
24954
24955
24955
24955
24955
24955
24956
24956
24956
24956
24957
24958
24959
24960
24961
24962
13:51
CHECK
DATE
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
08/10/95
VENDOR
NUMBER
001065
001065
001065
001065
001065
001065
001065
001065
000389
000389
000389
000389
000325
000325
000325
000325
000325
000326
000326
000326
000326
000326
002003
002003
002003
002003
000409
001209
000345
VENDOR
NAME
TIDNUS, CAROLYN
U S C N/PEBSCO (DEF. C
U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF. C
U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF. C
U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF, C
U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF. C
U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF, C
U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF. C
U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF. C
U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA)
U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA)
U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA)
U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA)
CITY OF TENEOULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
REFUND' TCSD CLASS REFUND
001065 DEF CONP
001065 DEF r.,13qP
001065 DEF CUMP
001065 DEF CUMP
001065 DEF CUMP
001065 DEF COMP
001065 DEF CONP
001065 DEF CONP
000:589 PT RET/R
000]89 PT RETIR
000389 PT RETIR
000389 PT RETIR
UNITED MAY OF THE INLAN 000325 U~
UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN 000325 UW
UNITED WAY OF THE [NLAN 000325 UW
UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN 000325 UW
UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN 000325 UW
UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE,
UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE,
UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE°
UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE,
UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE,
UNITROL CORPORATION
UN[TROL CORPORATION
UN[TROL CORPORATION
UN[TROL CORPORATION
VALLEN SAFETY SUPPLY, [
VAULT INC., THE
WELLING, DEBRA
WOOOING, BERYL
XEROX CORPORATION BILLI
YANTIS, EVELYN
UNIFORMS FOR PUBLIC WORKS
UNIFORM MAINT, FOR TCSD
FLOOR MAT RENTAL AND CLEANING
FLOOR MAT RENTAL AND CLEANING
FLOOR MAT RENTAL AND CLEANING
100 WATT SIREN DRIVER
80104 AMPLIFIER/EXCHANGE FOR
FREIGHT
TAX
2 FILTERS FOR TMX-410
STORAGE FOR MICROFILM
REFUND-TCSD CLASS CANCELLATION
REFUND- TCSD CLASS CANCELATION
12 MONTH MAINT. CONTRACT 5012
REFUND- TCSD CLASS CANCELATiON
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
190-183-4982
001-2080
100-2080
190-2080
194-2080
280-2080
300-2080
320-2080
~.0-2080
001-2160
100-2160
190-2160
280-2160
001-2120
100-2120
165-2120
190-2120
280-2120
100-164-601-5243
190-180-999-5243
190-181-999-5250
190-182-999-5250
190-181-999-5250
001-170-999-5214
001-170-999-5214
001-170-999-5214
001-170-999-5214
100-164-601-5218
330-199-999-5277
190-183-4982
190-183-4975
330-199-999-5217
190-183-4975
ITEN
AMOUNT
48.00
2,16~.98
105.58
387.00
5.00
19.70
5.00
312.50
87.50
510.30
60.00
1,128.48
16.26
56.80
6.50
.75
17.00
.95
23.50
20.85
34.50
38.23
25.12
109.00
50.00
4.82
12.32
28.71
20.0O
20.00
25.00
117.84
25.00
PAGE 11
CHECK
AMOUNT
~8.00
3,087.26
1,715.04
8Z.00
142.20
176.14
28.71
20.00
20.00
25.00
117.84
25.00
TOTAL CHECKS
275,552.97
VOUCHRE2 PAGE 3
QB..z'11/95 1A:38
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
FUND TITLE
001 GENERAL FUND
1'~3 CONNUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A
193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
210 CAPITAL INPROVENENT PROJ FUND
280 REDEVELOPNENT AGENCY - CIP
300 INSURANCE FUND
320 ZNFORNATION SYSTENS
SUPPORT SERVICES
AIKIUNT
72,956.19
28,617.77
815.58
18,669.:~
2.~,371.65
18,3A6.40
13,697.74
2,574.15
TOTAL 393,114.80
VOUCHRE2
08/11/95
14:38
CITY OF TENECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIOOS
PAGE
VOUCHER/
CHECK
.NUMBER
24965
24966
24966
24967
24967
24969
24969
24969
24969
24969
24969
24969
24969
24970
24970
24970
24971
24971
24971
24971
24972
24973
24973
24974
24974
24975
24976
24976
2497'7
2497'7
24978
24978
24979
24980
24980
CHECK
DATE
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08122195
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/Z2/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM
NUMBER NAME DESCR]PTIOR NU!iER AMOUNT
001281
0019/,3
001943
001516
001516
000123
000123
000123
000123
000123
000123
000123
000123
000638
000638
000638
000126
000126
000126
000126
001996
001924
001924
001945
001945
001693
000164
000164
001056
001056
000820
000820
001207
001207
ALHAMBRA GROUP
B R ~, INC.
B R g, INC.
BARTOR-ASCHNAN ASSOCIAT
BARTOR-ASCHNAN ASSOCIAT
BURI(~ WILLIANS & SO!lENS
BURKE MILLIANS & SORENS
BURICE MILLIAMS & SORENS
BURKE MILLIAMS & SORENS
BURICE glLLIAI4S & SOREMS
BURKE MILLIAI, IS & SOREMS
BURKE ~ILLIAIqS & SORENS
BURKE MILLIANS & SORENS
CALIFORNIA DEPT OF CONS
CALIFORNIA DEPT OF CONS
CALIFORNIA DEPT OF CONS
CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA
CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA
CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA
CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA
CONP PLUS
DAVID M. GRIFFITN & ASS
DAVID M. GRIFFITH & ASS
E. A. MENDOZA CONTRACTI
E. A. MENDOZA CONTRACTI
EDMONDSON CONSTRUCTION
ESGIL CORPORAT%ON
ESGIL CORPORATION
EXCEL LANDSCAPE
EXCEL LANDSCAPE
K R W & ASSOCIATES
K R ~ & ASSOCIATES
KINDER CARE LEARNING CE
HARTIN J. JASKA, INC.
HARTIN J. JASKA, ]NC.
DESIGN SERVICES-NARGARITA PARK 210-190-119-5802
HAY PROGRESS PNT-TRAFFIC SIGMA 210-165-645-5804
JON PROF SERVS-TRAFFIC SIGNAL 210-165-6~5-5804
JUN SERVS-TRAFF]C ]lIPACT STUDY 280-199-999-5248
JUN SERVS-TRAFF]C litPACT STUDY 280-1270
JUN 95 LEGAL SERV$
JUR 95 LEGAL SERVS
JUN 95 LEGAL SERVS
JUN 95 LEGAL SERVS
SERVICE FEES THROUGH
MAR 95 PROF SERVS-CLAIMS
SERVICE FEES THRU 04-30-95
HAy 95 PROF SERVS-CLA]MS
001-1280
001 - 130-999-52~6
190-180-999-52~6
280-199-999-5246
300-199-999-52O7
300-199-999-5207
300 - 199 - 999 - 5207
300-199-999-5207
COLLECTED SMl FOR STATE
COLLECTED Slql FOR STATE
COLLECTED SHI FOR STATE
001-2280
001-2290
001-162-4229
AUG LANDSCAPE HAINT-PARKS
AUG LANDSCAPE HAINT-SR CNTER
AUG LANDSCAPE HAINT-C.R.C.
AUG LANDSCAPE HAZNT-MEDIANS
190-180-999-5415
190-181-999-5415
190-182-999-5415
191-180-999-5415
COMPENSATION STUDY
001-150-999-5248
DIF STUDY HAY/JUNE 1995
DIF STUDY - EXPENSES
001-140-999-5248
001-140-999-5248
JUL PROGRESS PMT-SPT PRK PRJT 210-190-137-5804
JULY PROGRESS PNT-IOX RETENTIO 210-2035
RETENTION DUE-WINCHESTER PRJT 210-2035
MAY 95 PLAN CHECK SERVS
JUN 95 PLAN CHECK SERVS
JUL LANDSCAPE HAINT-SLOPE AREA
JUL LANDSCAPE HAINT-SPT PRK
001-162-999-5248
001-162-999-5248
193-180-999-5415
190-180-999-5415
JUN PLAN CHECK SERVS 001-163-999-5249
k'ORKERS' CONP CHARGE INV 95.30 001-1182
REFUND OF GRADING SURIETY
001-2670
JUL PRGSS PNT-PALA CONN PRK
RETENTION W/H DRAW # 11
210-190-120-5804
210-2035
4,100,00
3,3~5.32
1,470.27
6]7.40
637.40
182.78
23,478.78
141.75
10,132.67
4,668.07
2,211.50
2,786.98
4,031,19
1,265.05
2,765.10
201.51-
13,547.61
242.52
1,670.81
815.58
8,690.00
388.62
133,500.00
13,350.00-
30,168.71
4,714.24
12,0~3.05
18,669.33
7,605.64
2,600.00
84.43-
1,500.00
9,762,00
976.20-
CHECK
AJ4OUNT
4,100.00
6,815.59
1,274.80
47,633.72
3,828.6~
16,2/o.52
2,166.66
9,078.62
120,150.00
30,168.71
16,757.29
26,274.97
2,515.57
1,500.00
8,785.80
VOUCHRE2
0~z11/95
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
24981
24981
24982
24982
24983
24984
24984
24985
24985
24985
24986
24987
24988
24988
24988
,8
24988
24989
24990
24990
24991
24991
24991
24991
24991
24991
24991
24992
24993
24994
24994
24994
24994
24995
14:38
CHECK
DATE
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
08/22/95
CITY OF TENECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM
NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT
001067
001067
000230
000230
001713
000235
000235
001383
001383
001383
001585
001675
000269
000269
000269
000269
000269
000269
000271
001897
001897
001990
001990
001990
001990
001990
001990
001990
000314
0019~
000332
000332
000332
000332
000621
NITY'L[TE, INC.
NITY'LZTE, INC.
GREY TABLES 36' X 72'
FREIGHT
NUNI FINANCIAL SERVICES FY 93/95 ASSlIT NAIL NOTICE
NUNI FINANCIAL SERVICES OVRPNT-INV 933916
NORRIS-REPKE, INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES
0 C B REPROGRAPH]CS, IN BLUEPRINTS-PARIS/JEW
0 C B REPROGRAPH]CS, IN OVER-CHARGE-PER AGREEMENT
P M W ASSOCIATES, INC.
P M W ASSOCIATES, INC.
P M W ASSOCIATES, INC.
STAFF DEVEL WKSHP:JULY 13
STAFF DEVEL ~tCSHP:JULY 13
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
PAUL GARDNER CORPORATIO RETENTION PAYABLE-WINCHESTER R
RIVERSIDE CO./GSA BUILD RIGHT OF WAY SERVICES AGREEMEN
RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY
RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY
RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY
RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY
RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY
RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY
WHITE COPY PAPER
PINK COPY PAPER
BLUE COPY PAPER
BUFF COPY PAPER
GREEN COPY PAPER
TAX
ROBERT BEIN, WM FROST & JUN PRGSS PMT-WALCOTT CORRIDOR
RONALD L. HARRIS CONSTR JUL PRGSS PMT-MORAGA RD WIDENI
RONALD L. HARRIS CONSTR RETENTION W/H INVOICE 2
SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNAT
SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNAT
SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNAT
SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNAT
SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNAT
SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNAT
SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNAT
HP SCANJET 3C SCANNER
HP AUTO DOC FEEDER
TAX
COMPLAINTS DESK FOR WIND(3~S
MISCROSOFT PROJECT V4
MICROSOFT PROJECT V4-UPGP, ADE
TAX
TEMECULA VALLEY MUSEUM MUSEUM & ST.CATHERINE DRAW if3
TRANSTECH ENGINEERS, IN JUN SERVS'TRAFFIC SIGNAL DESIG
VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATI
VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIAT/
VANDORPE CHOU ASSOC/ATI
VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATZ
NAY 95 PLAN CHECK SERVS
JUN 95 PLAN CHECK SERVS
PLAN CK SERVS-FIRE STATION
JUL 95 PLAN CHECK SERVS
WESTERN R/VERSIDE COUNC AGRMNT-CONSULT SERVS SWAPD NOD
190-180-999-5220
190-180-999-5220
190-180-999-5250
190-180-999-5250
280-199-807-5802
210-190-626-5802
210-190-626-5802
001-150-999-5261
001-110-999-5261
001-150-999-5248
210-2035
280-199-602'5700
330-199-999-5220
330-199-999-5220
330-199-999-5720
330-199-999-5220
330-199-999-5220
330-199-999-5220
210-165-637-5802
210-165-625-5804
210-2035
320-1970
320-1970
320-1970
320-199-999-5221
320-199-999-5221
320-199-999-5221
520-199-999-5221
210-190-808-5804
210-165-659-5804
001-162-999-5248
001-162-999-5248
210-190-626-5802
001-162-999-5248
210-165-633-5802
1,0~8.00
52.00
4,359.10
249.66~
5,727.50
1:065.83
91.34'
606.70
606.70
1,452.40
6,/di2.20
1,211.43
2,632.00
167.80
83.90
83.90
83.90
236.49
3,413.00
33,764.00
3,376.40'
909.00
435.00
104.16
148.00
772.00
125.00
80.99
1,770.00
1,186.81
8,575.24
1,140.51
1,000.00
12,500.00
PAGE 2
CHECK
AMOUNT
1,100.00
4,109.Z~
5,727.50
974.49
2,665.80
6,482.20
1,211.43
3,287.99
3,413.00
'30,387.60
2,574.15
9,683.75
1,770.00
11,900.56
12,500.00
TOTAL CHECKS 393,114.80
ITEM 3
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Manager/City Council
Genie Roberrs, Director of Finance
August 22, 1995
Combining Balance Sheets as of June 30, 1995 and the Statement of
Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance, and the Statement of
Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings for the Fiscal Year
Ended June 30, 1995.
PREPARED BY:
Tim McDermott, Assistant Finance Director
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
Receive and file the Combining Balance Sheets as of June 30, 1995 and the Statement
of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance, and the Statement of
Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings for the Fiscal Year Ended June
30, 1995.
Approve the transfer of $47,570 in the Police Department budget from account//001-
170-999-5288"Sworn Staff" to account #001-170-999-5234"Rent/Facilities Charge".
Approve the transfer of $20,857 in the Police Department budget from account #001-
170-999-5288 "Sworn Staff" to account #001-170-999-5281 "Community Service
Officers".
Appropriate $10,000 in the General Fund Non-Departmental budget to account #001-
199-999-5276 "Sales Tax Reimbursements".
DISCUSSION:
The attached financial statements reflect the unaudited activity of the City for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 1995. These statements may not reflect all year end closing
entries. Please see the attached financial statements for analytical review of financial
activity.
Over the past several months an analysis has been performed of amounts that were
charged to the County in during 1992 and 1993 for the Police Department's use of
City office space. The result of this analysis showed that the City had overcharged the
County by approximately ~43,000. A budget transfer is thus required for this amount
due back to the County.
3. One Community Service Officer was added in the beginning of the fiscal year to
provide additional police services in areas such as parking enforcement and business
outreach. The Police Department finds it more cost effective to carry out these
programs using a Community ServiCe Officer rather than Sworn Staff.
4. Due to a 5.4% increase in sales tax generated within the area covered by the CFD 88-
12 sales tax reimbursement agreement, the amount of reimbursement owed to property
owners for 1994-95 is slightly higher than originally projected. As such, an additional
appropriation of ~10,000 is required.
FISCAL IMPACT: As is presented in the attached financial statements, there are adequate
funds available in the Police Department budget to cover the two requested transfers. There
are also adequate General Fund reserves available for the $9,863 appropriation request.
ATTACHMENTS:
Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1995
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund
Balance for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995
Combining Balance Sheet (Internal Service Funds) as of
June 30, 1995
Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Retained
Earnings for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995
b", o Xr""~
X
c m.ul-- m.uI-.
E
o 's
E E
E,- = ~
.=e ,> .'-
<<
ITEM 4
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL:
CITY ATI'ORNEY
City Council/City Manager
Anthony Elmo, Chief Building Officia~
August 22, 1995
Contract Agreement for Street Address Numbering
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve a contract agreement with Mr. Bruce
Stewart, 3155 Mr. Vernon Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501, (909) 784-8484, which renews an
existing contract to provide address numbering services on an as-needed basis.
DISCUSSION:
The Building and Safety Department has utilized the services of a consultant to provide the
City with the service of assigning street address numbers for new development projects. Staff
has utilized Mr. Bruce Stewart to perform these services and recommends this contract be
renewed for Fiscal Year 1995-1996. Mr. Bruce Stewart has agreed to provide this
supplemental service on an as-needed basis for compensation at the rate of twenty ($20)
dollars per hour, the same compensation awarded in the previous contract. Mr. Bruce Stewart
has had experience with the County of Riverside and has provided street addressing under the
program which has also been established in the City.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Monies have already been appropriated in the Fiscal Year 1995-1996 budget in Account
#001-162-999-5250, Other Outside Services, for this service. Sufficient funds exist to
complete this project within this existing account.
V:\TONY~AGENDA~94-95.STW 8/3/95 Ma .'
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement was made and entered into this 1st day of Iuly 199~, by and
between the City of Temec~dn ("City"), a municipal corporation, and Bruce Stewart, an
address numberin~ service ("Consultant").
The parties herao mutually agree as follows:
1. Services. Consnltant shrill perform the t~nh set forth in Exhibit A attached
hereW. Consultant shall complete the m.dc~ accoxding to the schedule set forth in E~ch~it A.
2. Performance. Consultant sbnll at all times, fajth~xlly, industri nlly and to the
best of his ability, experience and talent, perform all m.~lc~ described herein.
3. Payment. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, rates set forth in
Exhibit B attached hereto.
Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall
be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for services provided in the
previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice. '
4. Amendments. This Agreement may be mended so long as such amendment is
in writing and agreed upon by both the City Council and Consultant.
5. Ownership Of Documents. Upon satisfactory completion of, or in the event of
termination, suspension or abandonment of, this Agreement, all original documents, designs,
drawings and notes prepared in the course of pwviding the services W be pe~ormed pursuant
w this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, roused or
otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant.
6. Termination. The City may terminate this Agreement without cause so long as
wriRen notice of intent to terminate is giv6n to Consultant at least ten (10) working days
prior to the termination date. In the event of termination,
Consultant shall be paid for the services performed.
7. Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless the
City of Temecula, its officers, officinls, employees and volunteers from and agnin~ any and
all claims, demands, losses, defense cost, 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 Consultants acts or
omissions under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the sole
negligence of the City.
V:~V/I~AOR.4B.STB
8. Stares of Consultant. Consultant is an indepeMem contractor in all respects in
the performance of thi.~ Agreement and shall not be ¢xmsidered an employee of the City for
any purpose. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the
pe~ormance of thi~ Agreement.
Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay ~lsries, wages, or other
compensation to Consultant for perfoming 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.
9. Term. This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 1995, and shall remain
and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than
June 30,19¢26.
10. Subcontracts. The Consultant shah not enter into any' subcontram for services
to be rendered toward the completion of the Consultant's portion of thi.~ Agreement without
the consent of the City. At all times, Bruce Stewart shall be primarily responsible for the
performance of the tasks described herein.
11. Default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of
this Agreemere, the City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating
Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Default shall include not
performing the tasks described herein to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Manager of
the City. Failure by the Consultant to make pwgress in the performance of work hereunder,
if such failure arises out of causes beyond his control, and without fault or negligence of the
Consultant, shall not be considered a default.
Any disputes regarding performance, default or other matters in dispute
between the City and the Consultant arising out of this Agreement or breech thereof, shall be
resolved by arbitration. The arbitrator's decision shall be final.
Consultant shall select an arbitraWr from a list provided by the City of three
retired judges of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. The arbitration
hearing shall be conducted according to California Code of Civil Proc~ure Section 1280, et
seq. City and Consultant shall share the cost of the arbitration equally.
12. Notices. Notices shall be given pursuant to this Agreement by personal service
on the party to be notified, or by written notice upon such party deposited in the custody of
the United States Postal Senrice addressed as follows:
V:~Wi~AOR~B.~FE
a. city:
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecnla, CA 92590
Bnsce Stewart
3155 ML Vernon Avenue
Riverside, CA 92501
The notices shall be deemed to have been given as of the date of personal
service, or three (3) days after the date of deposit of the same in the custody of the United
States Postal Senrice.
13. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and any documents or instrument attached
hcreto or refcrred to herein integrate nil terms and conditions mcntioned hcrein or incidental
hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect to the subject matter hereof.
In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of thk
Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this Agreement
shall prevail.
14. Liability. Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay .~laries,
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.
Consultant shall maintain limits of insurance no less than as listed below. In
addition, insurance certificates and endorsements must be completed and attached.
Automobile Liability: $300,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily
injury and property damage.
V:%WP~A~3R-~5.5'I~
The parties hereto have executed thi.~ Agreement on the date and year above written.
CONSULTANT
Title
ATTEST:
CITY OF TI~viECULA
By:
Jeffx~ E. Stone, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter Thorson, City Attorney
V:~WP~AGR-~.STE
~ITA
TASKS TO BE PHRFO~
It is agreed that Mr. Bruce Stewart will provide address numbering on an u-needed basis for
residenti:~l and comm61'cial development throughout the City of Temecula.
EXtlmITB
PA~ SC~-~UL~
It is agreed that Mr. Bruce Stewart, 3155 Mt. Vernon Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501, (714)
784-8484, will provide address numbering on an E-needed basis for residentinl and
commercial development throughout the City of Temecula at the rate of twenty ($20.00)
dollan per hour.
V:\Wl%~OR-OS.STE
ITEM 5
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
(~Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
August 22, 1995
I-15/I-215 Joint (Temecula-Murriete) Corridor Planning Study'- Contract
Award to JHK and Associates, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council award Professional Services Contract for I-15/I-215 Joint (Temecula-
Murrieta) Corridor Planning Study to JHK and Associates, Inc.
DISCUSSION:
On May 11, 1995, the Joint (Temecula-Murrieta) Transportation Committee voted
unanimously to recommend the City Councils of the two cities enter into a contract with JHK
and Associates, with the amount no to exceed $74,991. Their recommendation was based
on the recommendation of the interview panel composed of the representatives of the two
cities, Caltrans and WRCOG.
The City of Temecula is the lead agency in this project. The source of funding for the
proposed project is the Federal STP Planning funds of 88.53%, with the balance of 11.47%
being shared equally by the two cities, or $4,300.74 by each City.
The purpose of the study is to determine the most efficient way of moving traffic along the
corridors of the two Interstate Routes and to establish a priority list of projects to accomplish
this goal. Investigation of sources and the availability of funding for these projects are
likewise within the scope of this study.
An Agreement for the Federal funding of the study has been previously approved by the City
Council as well as Caltrans, and is on file with the City Clerk.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The City of Temecula's pro-rata shares of the cost of this project is included in this year's
Capital Improvement Program recently approved by the City Council. The Federal portion of
- 1 - r :\agd rpt\95~0822~jhk.psa
the cost are likewise included in the budget for this project and will be received as
reimbursement for the expenditures.
Attachments:
1. Exhibit A - Study Area Map
2. Exhibit B - Agreement for Professional Services
- 2- r:%agd rpt%95~0822~jhk.pse
AGI~h'~-MENT
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of ,19._
· between the Cities of Murrieta and Temec~j!a, municipal corporations, herei,~r referred to as
"Cities" and the following consultant: JHK &Associates. Inc..
hereinafter referred to as JHK
The parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
SERVICES, Consultant f ~ I shall
perform the tasks set forth in Exh~it A attached hereto which describes 1-15/I-2~5 Corridor
Study. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule set forth in Exhibit A. JHK
will be responsible for the completion of Engineering Services as set forth in F. xhibit A.
PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the best of his
ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein.
PAYMENT. The Cities agree to pay Consultant monthly at the hourly rate set forth in Exhibit 'B "
attached hereto, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount will not exceed
SEVENTY FOUR THOUSAND. NINE HUNDRED. NINETY ONE ($74.991) for
the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved by the Cities.
Consultant will submit involves monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shah be submitted
on or about the first business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month.
Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice.
SUSPENSION. TERMINATION OR ABANDONMENT OF AGREEMENT. The Cities may,
at any time, suspend, terminate or abandon 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. Within thirty-five (35) days after receiving an invoice from the Consultant, the Cities
shall pay Consultant for work done through the date that work is to be ceased based upon the
hourly rate set forth in the Exbihit
If the Cities suspend, terminate or abandon a portion of this Agreement such suspension,
termination or abandonment shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
BREACH OF CONTRACT. In the event that Consultant is'in default for cause under the terms
of this Agreement, the Cities shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant
for any work performed after the date of default. Default shall include not performing the tasks
described herein to the standard of care of the Industry. Failure by the Consultant to make
progress in the performance of work hereunder, if such failure arises out of causes beyond his
control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, shall not be considered a default.
lof6
EXHIBIT B
6:
s
10.
ff the Cities determine that the Consultant defaults in the performance of any terms or conditions
of this Agreement, the Cities shall serve the Comultant with written notice of the default. The
Consultant shall have ten (10) days af~ 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 Cities shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of
this Agreement, to termlna,~ this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any
other remedy to which it may entitle at law, in equity or under this Agreement.
TERM. This Agreement shall commence on . and shall remain and
continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than ,19._,
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUlV~.NTS. Upon satisfac~ry completion of, or in the event of
terminstion, suspension or abandonment of this Agreement, all instruments of service, including
original documents, designs, drawings and notes prepared in the course of providing the services
to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the Cities and may
be used, rensed or otherwise disposed of by the Cities without the permi-~sion of the Consultant.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the Cities
a wholly independent contractor. Neither the Cities nor any of their officers, employees or agents
shall have control over the conduct of the Consultant or any of the Consultant's officers, employees
or agents, except as herein set forth. The 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 Cities.
No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this
Agreement. Except as provided in the Agreement, Cities shall not pay salaries, wages, or other
compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for Cities. Cities shall not be liable
for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing
services hereunder.
LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep informed of State and Federal laws and
regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance .'
of its services pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply
with all such laws and regulations. The Cities, and their officers and employees, shall not be liable
at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section.
NOTICE. Whenever it shall be necessary for either party to serve notice on the other respecting
this Agreement, such notice shall be served by certified mail, postage prepaid, and return receipt
requested, addressed to the Directors of Public Works, of the Cities of Murrieta located at 26442
Beckman Court, Murrieta, California 92562 and Temecula located at 43174 Business Park Drive.
Temecula, CA 92590 and Serop Der-Boghossian at 1650 Iowa Avenue. Suite 100. Riverside.
CA 92507-2472 unless and until different addresses my be furnished in writing by either party
to the other. Notice shall be deemed to have been served seventy-two (72) hours after the same
has been deposited in the United States Postal Services. This shall be valid and sufficient service
of notice for all purpose.
2of6
11.
12.
ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any pan
thereef, nor any monies due hereunder, without the prior written consent of the Cities.
Upon termination of _this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be for satisfactory
services rendered pursuant m the terms herein prior to termlnntiOn.
LIABILITY INSURANCI:-. The Consultant shall msimnin insurance acceptable to the Cities by
an admitted insured, in full force an effect throughout the term of this contract, against clnim.~ for
injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from the performance of the work
hereunder by the Consultant, his agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Insurance
is to be placed with insurer with a Best's rating of no less that A:VII. The cost of such insurance
shall be included in the Consultant's bid. The Consultant shall provide the following scope and
limits of insurance:
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad
Insurance Services Office form Number GL 0002 ('F_..,d. 1/72) covering
Comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office form number GL
0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability; or Insurance
Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage ("occurrence" form CG
0001)o
Insurance Services Office form no. CA 0001 (Ed. 1/78) covering Automobile
Liability, code I "any auto' and endorsement CA 0025.
Worker's Compensation Insurance as required by Labor Code of the State of
California an Employer's Liability insurance.
4. Errors and Omissions insurance.
Minimum Limits of Insurance, Consultant (
shall maintain limits of insurance no less than:
JHK )
General Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily
injury and property damage.
Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily
injury and property damage.
Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Worker's compensation as
required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers Liability
litnits of $1,000,000 per accidenL
4. Errors and Omissions Insurance: $1,000,000 per occurrence.
3of6
Cs
Other Insurance Provisions. Insurance policies required by this contract shall contain or
be endorsed to contain the following provisiom:
a.
All Policies. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to
siaie thin coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party,
reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice
to the Cities via United Stses First Class Mail.
be
General 1 .iability nnd Automobile ! iability Cover'4ge. The Cities of Murrieta and
Temecula, their officers, officials, employees and volumeera are to be covered as
insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by the Consultant;
products and completed operations of the Consultant; premiges owned, occupied
or used by the Consultant, or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by
the Consultant. The coverage ghal] contain no special ]imitations on the scope of
protection afforded to the Cities, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
With regard to claims arising from the Consultant"s performance of the work
described in this contract, the Consultaat's insurance coverage shall be primary
insurance as respe~-'ts the Cities of Murrieta and Temecula, their officers, officials,
employees and volunteen. Any insurance or self-insurance mnintained by the
Cities, their offic~Ts, officials, employees and volunteers shall apply in excess of,
and not contribute with, the Consultaat's insuraace.
Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect
coverage provided to the Cities, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers.
The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom
claim is made or suit is brought, within the limits of the insurer's liability.
Worker's Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. The insurer shall
agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Cites of Murrieta and
Temecula, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers for losses arising
from work performed by the Consultant for the Cities.
Verification of Covera2e. Consultants shall furnish the Cities with certificates of
insurance effecting coverage required by this clause. The certificates for each
insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind
coverage on its behalf. The certificates are to be on forms provided by the Cities
and are to be received and approved by the Cities before work commences. The
Cities reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required
insurance policies, at any time.
Consultants shall include all subconsultants as insureds under its policies or shall
furnish separate certificates for each subcontractor. All coverage for
subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein.
4of6
Any deduc~bles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the
Cities. At the option of the Cities, either: the insurer shall reduce or elimin~,,.
such deductibles or self imured retentions as respects the Cites of Murrieta and
Temecula, their officers, officials, employees; or the Consultant shall procure a
bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim
adminisWdfion and defense expenses.
13.
INDI~.MNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless the Cites of
Murrieta and Temecula, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any
and all claims, demands, losses, defense cost, or liability of any kind or nature which the Cites,
their officen, 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 wrongful or
negligent performance under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of
the sole negligence of the Cities.
14.
ENTIRE AGRF. EMENT. This Agreement and any documents or instrument attached herew or
referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto supersede
all negotiations and prior writing in respect to the subject mn__._er hereof.
In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of this Agreement and any
such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall prevail.
EFFECTIVE DATE AND EXECUTION: This Agreement shall be effective from and after the
date it is signed by the representatives of the Cities. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts.
5of6
IN W1TNF~S WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused thi~ Agreement to be executed the day
and year first above written.
CONSULTANT
By:
Serop Der-Boghossian
Associated Vice Presidem
Regional Offices
City of Murrieta
City of Temecula
, Mayor
, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
, City Attorney
, City Attorney
ATTEST:
ATIEST:
, CityClerk
, City Clerk
6of6
ITEM 6
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
---'Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
August 22, 1995
Professional Services Agreement for Assessment Engineerin~ Services
for the Western Bypass Corridor Assessment District
PREPARED BY:
John Pourkazemi, Assistant Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve and authorize the Mayor to execute an Agreement between the
City and John Egan and Associates, Inc., to provide Assessment Engineering Services for the
Western Bypass Corridor Assessment District in the amount of $47,000and 10% contingency
in the amount of $4,700. The Agreement will be subject to the approval of the City Manager
and the City Attorney as to final form.
BACKGROUND:
The scope of work for John Egan and Associates, Inc. is described in the attached proposal.
Construction of the Western Bypass Corridor is included in the current Capital Improvements
Program. John Eagan and Associates, Inc. with Noel Christianson have a total combined more
than 60 years experience with Assessment Districts. Based on the Request For Proposals
process with five (5) respondents, they were considered the most qualified for the project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The total cost for the Assessment Engineering for Western Bypass Corridor shall be paid for
by properties within the proposed Assessment District.
Attachment:
1. John Egan and Associates, Inc. Contract
r:\agdrpt%95\0822\egan.agr
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
John Egan And Associates, Inc. Contract
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement was made and entered into this 22nd day of August, 1995, by and
between the City of Temecula ("City"), a municipal corporation, and John Egan and
Associates, Inc,, an individual ("Consultant").
The parties her·to mutually agree as follows:
Services. Consultant shell perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
her·to. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule set forth in
Exhibit "A".
Performance. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the best of
his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described her·in.
Payment. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, at the hourly rates set forth
in Exhibit "B" attached her·to, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks.
This amount will not exceed $47,000.00for the total term of the Agreement unless
additional payment is approved by the City Council; provided that the City Manager
may approve additional payment not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the
Agreement; but in no event more than $10,000.
Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices
shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for services
provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of
receipt of each invoice.
e
Amendments. This Agreement may be amended so long as such amendment is in
writing and agreed upon by both the City Council and Consultant.
e
OwnershiD of Documents. Upon satisfactory completion of or in the event of
termination, suspension or abandonment of this Agreement, all original documents,
designs, drawings, and notes 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.
Termination. The City may terminate this Agreement without cause so long as
written notice of intent to terminate is given to Consultant at least three (3) days
prior to the termination date. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be paid
for the services performed.
e
Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify and save harmless the
City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all
claims, demands, losses, defense cost, 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 acts or omissions under the terms of this Agreement, excepting
only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City.
-1- r:\rfp%O32%jea.agr ekg
10.
11.
Status of Consultant. Consultant is an independent contractor in all respects in the
performance of this Agreement and shall not be considered an employee of the City
for any purpose. No employee benefits shall-be available to Consultant in
connection with the performance of this Agreement.
Except 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.
Term, This Agreement shall commence on August 22, 1995, and shall remainand
continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later
than June 30, 1996.
Default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this.
Agreement, the City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating
Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Default shall include
not performing the tasks described herein to the reasonable satisfaction of the City
Manager of the City. Failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance
of work hereunder, if such failure arises out of causes beyond his control, and
without fault or negligence of the Consultant, shall not be considered a default.
Any disputes regarding performance, default or other matters in dispute between
the City and the Consultant arising out of this Agreement or breech thereof, shall
be resolved by arbitration. The arbitrator's decision shall be final.
Consultant shall select an arbitrator from a list provided by the City of three retired
judges of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, inc. The arbitration
hearing shall be conducted according to California Code of Civil Procedure Section
1280, et sea. City and Consultant shall share the cost of the arbitration equally.
Notices. Notices shall be given pursuant to this Agreement by personal service on -
the party to be notified, or by written notice upon such party deposited in the
custody of the United States Postal Service addressed as follows:
City:
Attention: City Manager
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Consultant: John Egan And Associates, Inc.
Attention: John Egan, POE., Principal
25814 Business Center Drive, Suite A
Redlands, California 92374
The notices shall be deemed to have been given as of the date of personal service,
or three (3) days after the date of deposit of the same in the custody of the United
States Postal Service.
-2- r:%rfp%032%jee.agr ekg
12.
13.
14.
15.
Entire Aoreement. This Agreement and any documents or instrument attached
hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions mentioned herein or
incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect to the
subject matter hereof.
In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of this
Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this
Agreement shall prevail.
Leoal Resoonsibilities. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of State and
Federal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in
any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The
Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations.
The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity
occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section.
Assignment. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement,
nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without the prior written
consent of the City.
Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be the
value to the City of the services rendered.
;.
LiabiliW Insurance. The Consultant shall maintain insurance acceptable to the City
in full force and effect throughout the term of this contract, 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, his agents,
representatives, employees or subcontractors. Insurance is to be placed with
insurer with a Beets' rating of no less than A:VII. The costs of such insurance shall
be included in the Contractor's bid. The Consultant shall provide the following
scope and limits of insurance:
A. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
Insurance Services Office Form No. GL-0002 (Ed. 1/73) covering
Comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office Form No.
GL-0404 covering Board Form Comprehensive General Liability; or
Insurance Services office Commercial General Liability coverage
("occurrence" Form No. CG-0001 ).
2. Insurance Services Office Form No. CA-0001 (Ed. 1/78) covering
Automobile Liability, Code 1 "any auto" and Endorsement CA-0025.
Workers' Compensation insurance as required by Labor Code of the
State of California and Employers' Liability insurance·
4. Errors and Omissions insurance.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits of insurance no
less than:
-3- r:~rfp~O32~jee.agr skg
General Liability: el ,000,000combined single limit per occurrence for
bodily injury and property damage.
Automobile Liability: $1,000,000combined single limit per accident for
bodily injury and property damage.
Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability: Workers'
Compensation as required by the Labor Code of the State of California
and Employers' Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident.
4. Errors and Omissions Insurance: $1,000,000 per occurrence.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductible in excess of $1,000
must be declared to and approved by the City.
Other Insurance Provisions. Insurance policies required by this contract shall
contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions:
All Policies. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be
endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided,
concealed by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after
thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City via United States First
Class Mall.
be
General Liability and Automobile Liability Coverages. 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, lease, 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.
With regard to claims arising from the Consultant's performance of the
work described in this contract, the Consultant's insurance coverage
shall be primary insurance as respects the City its officers, officials,
employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained
by the City, its officers, officials, employees or employees or volunteers
shall apply in excess of, and not contribute with, the Consultant's
insurance.
Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies 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.
Workers' Comoensation and Emolovers' Liability Coverage. The insurer
shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its
-4- r:\rfp%O32%jea.agr ekg
officers, officials, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work
performed by the Consultant for the City.
Verification of Coveraoe. Contractor shall furnish the City with
certificates of insurance effecting coverage required by this clause. The
certificates for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person
authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The
certificates are to be on forms provided by the City and are to be
received and approved by the City before work commences. The City
reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required
insurance policies, at any time.
Consultant shall include all subconsultants as insureds under its policies
or shall furnish separate certificates for each subcontractor. All
coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements
stated herein.
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and
approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall
reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as
respects the City, its officers, officials and employees; or the Consultant
shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related
investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
16.
Licenses. Consultant and subconsultant shall obtain all necessary licenses,
including but not limited to, City Business Licenses.
The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above
written. .'
CONSULTANT
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
By
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
-5- r:~,rfp~O32~jee,agr ekg
EXHIBIT "A"
TASKS TO BE PERFORMED
r:~.rfp%O32~jea.agr skg
Project Description
The City of Temecula desires to form assessment district(s) for the proposed
Western Bypass Corridor. The Corridor is an 88-foot, full-width fight-of-way
secondary highway which extends from Cherry Street to Interstate 15. The
provisions of the 1913 Municipal Improvement ~,ct are to be utilized with
funding through the Improvement Bond Act of I915. The project is to be
divided into phases. Phase I is from Interstate 15 to Vincent Moraga Drive
including the bridge crossing over Murrieta Creek. Phase II will be from ~
Vincent Moraga Drive to Cherry Street. Current direction from the City is
that the assessment district shall be formed for Phase I. Completion of all
assessment proceedings for Phase I is anticipated, however, the City has
reserved the right to delete Phase II from the assessment district proceedings
and the scope of work. At this point, the contract is'to include preparing the
boundary maps, assessment district diagrams and Engineer's Report for Phase
II, but not proceeding with notices and public hearings.
Project Goals and Objectives
The goal in the formation of this proposed district is to fai~y and equitably
assess the proposed users of the Western Bypass Corridor who will derive
benefit from its construction. The district is to cover all costs associated with
the design, construction and assessment district formation, as well as all
incidental costs including bond discount and reserve funds. Since under the
1913 Act the assessment is levied before the work is done, it is very important
that the engineer as well as bond counsel pay extra attention during the
formation of the district so the project can be accomplished within the mount
of the assessment. This also requires the attention of the design engineer as
well as the City in contract administration and inspection so it can be assured
that completion of the project is within the assessment amount and does not
exceed the contingencies provided for.
The establishment of the district boundaries requires an experienced assessment
engineer free of outside prejudices who can independently and objectively
establish the area of benefit for the district as required by the 1913 Act.
As assessment engineers, we feel the key will be communication with City
staff as well as design engineers and bond counsel and other members of the
finance team in analyzing the project and establishing the district boundaries.
We commit to providing an equitable assessment district boundary on a basis
that is fully defensible by the City in accordance with the benefit provided by
the proposed bypass corridor. With this goal in mind, and in working with the
professionhis included on the City's team, a successful formation of this
assessment district will be realized.
Scope of Services
As the selected consultant, JEA will assist the City of Temecula in ~nalizing
the scope of services to be performed under this contract.
The following detailed items of work are proposed to be accomplished in
accordance with the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 and the 1915
Improvement Bond Act.
Initial Scoping Session - This is proposed to be a meeting with
City staff as well as finance team members to confirm the
project schedule, financial considerations and details as well as
procedural requirements. This meeting will also serve to clarify
the specific responsibility of each party. It is obviously very
important for the City to have a financial consultant and bond
counsel selected well in advance of this session. Our past
experience with differing bond counsels indicates that each bond
counsel may have slightly varying preferences to such items as
the boundary maps or assessment diagrams, and it is very
important that the assessment engineer and the bond 'counsel
work in concert so that the work products are in a format that
are in accordance with the requirements of each party.
be
Review Existing Data - JEA proposes to review the preliminary
cost estimate and construction plan as well as the existing traffic
model in order to provide the basis for establishing the
assessment district boundary. A typical traffic model wil/'
contain zones. A printout matrix of the zones would be
obtained to determine the origin and destination of trips within
the area covered by the model. This would be an equitable way
of not only projecting expected traffic volumes on the Western
Bypass Corridor, but also the assignment of benefit based on the
amount of trips from and to each zone potentially utilizing the
corridor.
Proposed Boundary - The third step would be to establish a
proposed district boundary both for Phases I and II. 'Subsequent
to the establishment of the proposed boundary, we would
propose to meet with the bond counsel to review the
methodology of arriving at the proposed boundary and the
assumptions made to ensure his/her concurrence.
Obtain Assessment Rolls and Mapping - Following concurrence'
from bond counsel, the next step would be to obtain tapes from
the County of Riverside of the o~nership rolls for both Phases I
and II for the parcels within the proposed boundary. In
addition, we propose to obtain the record maps and assessors
maps of the proposed area from the County of Riverside. In
addition, we will obtain the GIMS mapping for this area as we
propose to use these County maps as a base for the district
boundary maps and for our overall assistance in preparing the
assessment diagrams. We also generally obtain copies of the
City's general plan and zoning information maps to assist uS in
the precise establishment of the assessment district boundaries.
We assume this general plan information is available from the
City of Temecula.
Maps and Diagrams - The next task iS preparation of the
proposed boundary maps, assessment diagram and debt
limitation report for Phases I and II. The boundary maps are
projected to be on a base of the County GIMS maps cut to
approximately 18" x 26" sheets. The mapping title sheet will
include an index map, the required signature spaces and
certificates. An index map will be prepared showing both
Phases I and II assessment districts for easy reference. It is
possible, based on the proposed project, that there will be some
overlap from Phase II district onto Phase I district. However,
this will be dependent upon the final determination of the
assessment engineer in conjunction with the bond counsel. The
debt limitation report will be prepared in spread sheet format for
both Phases I and II.
Engineer's Report - Finally, the Preliminary Engineer's Report
for both Phases I and II will be prepared in accordance with the
provisions of the 1913 Act. This report preparation will be
under the direction of the assessment engineer. As stated
previously, this phase of the work is of utmost importance from
the standpoint of being accurate, equitable and defensible. Our
past experience with assessment district public hearings has
shown that the fate and success of a district often times hinges
on the assessment engineer's abilities to explain methodologies
used to determine the assessment district boundaries and
proposed assessments at the public hearing and to demonstrate
the "fairness" of said methodology. The report will consist of
the plans and specifications of the proposed improvements, maps
and descriptions of the lands, easements and property necessary
to be acquired, the itemized estimate of improvements,
acquisitions and incidental expenses, diagram of the district
showing lots and parcels as they exist at the time of adoption of
the Resolution of Intention, and the proposed assessment of the
estimated cost and expenses against the properties benefitting, as
well as a listing of the parcels cross-referenced by the number
shown on the assessment diagrams and further described by
description. In addition, the Notices of Improvement which
must be published will also be prepared and submitted along
with the Engineer's Report.
Public Meetings and Hearings - The assessment engineer will
attend three public hearings required by the Act to confirm the
assessment district. In addition, this proposal includes
attendance at three "all-hands" meetings in accordance with
Addendure No. 1 of the RFP and a property owners meeting.
We propose that the "all-hands" meetings be broken down as'
follows.
A kick-off meeting with staff and fmancial consultants
prior to beginning of the work.
A meeting with bond counsel to review proposed
methodology and boundary.
A meeting with staff and financial consultants prior to
the first public hearing.
In addition to these meetings, we'have found it beneficial for
assessment districts of some magnitude to have the agency hold
a special property owners meeting, either on a Saturday or in
the evening. If held on a weekend, this could be in the form of
an open-house type meeting where the property owners are free
to come in and discuss certain aspects of the district on an
informal basis with 'the assessment engineer and get all questions
answered prior to the actual public hearing. We have found that
this method reduces protest time in the public hearing by
answering the detailed questions of the assessment district
procedures and methodology prior to the hearing.
Unpaid Assessments - The final step after recording of the
diagrams and assessments is the preparing and filing of the
unpaid assessment lists with the City Treasurer or other
designated staff member. This occurs 30 days subsequent to the
recording of the assessment.
D. CONCLUSION AND PROPOSED FEE
Attached at the conclusion of this proposal is a graphic schedule of all tasks required to
accomplish the project as proposed herein with the accompanying hours for each task. The
time estimate presumes immediate staff review of data submitted to the City staff or their
consultants. Time is not included for bond counsel review, nor for advertising and public
hearing for the 1931 Debt Limitation Report. The following assumptions are made and
hereby incorporated in this proposal to the City of Temecula.
1. The bond counsel is proposed to prepare all resolutions.
2. There is to be no petition preparation or circulation for this 1913 Act.
The bond amortization tables for all parcels are to be provided by the bond '
underwriter.
The Construction, engineering, and right-of-way costs are to be provided to the
assessment engineer at no cost.
5
City staff will perform all necessary advertising and posting in accordance with
requirements of the Act(s).
City staff will perform al/necessary mailings of notices and recording of
documents.
In accordance with the previously mentioned graphic schedule, and the work mentioned
under scope of services in this proposal, JEA proposes to complete all services referred
herein on a time and materials basis in accordance with our current Schedule of Fees for a
tota/cost not to exceed. $47,000.
For purposes of estimating costs, a rough preliminary district boundary was assumed. The
initial rough size included those parcels bounded by the city limit on the east, Murrieta Creek
and 1-15 on the east and south, and the Cherry Street city limits on the north. This area
incudes 300-400 parcels with a direct benefit. Different tiers of benefit would most Likely
be established for a project of this magnitude due to the fact that a large roadway does
benefit a large area (although to varying degrees). A/so for a project of this magnitude to be
financed, the costs to the various parcels must be such that the property can support the
burden. The rough boundary area for purposes of this proposa/was enlarged to include the
axea west of 1-15 and east of Murrieta Creek which includes 600-700 parcels. The actual
district boundaries will be established from the research and data obtained and could vary
greatly from the above assumptions. These assumptions are pregnted only as a basis for
proposing the engineering costs which are based on the above mentioned enlarged area.
Enclosed in the Appendices heroin is our current Schedule of Fees, our current insurance
policy coverages, copies of current resumes for key personnel, and Addendure No. 1.
EXHIBIT "B"
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
r:\rfp~O32\jea.agr skg
JOHN EGAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
SCHEDULE OF FEES
IU'LY, 1994
pRINCIPAL ENGINEER
SENIOR ENGINEER
PROJECT ENGINEER
SENIOR DESIGNER/PLANNER
ASSOCIATE ENGINEER
DESIGN ENGINEER
DESIGNEPUDKAFTER
DRAFTER/ENGINEERING ASSOCIATE
CADD OPERATOR
DRAFTER I/ENGINEERING AIDE
COMPUTER OPERATOR/PROGRAMMER
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISOR
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
CLERICAL
LrrILITY CLERK/TECHNICAL AIDE
RESIDENT ENGINEER
INSPECTOR
LICENSED SURVEY SUPERVISOR
SURVEY CREW, 2-MAN
SURVEY CREW, 3-MAN
MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES
COMPUTER SERVICES
MILEAGE
DIRECT EXPENSES
IN-HOUSE REPRODUCTION
SUBCONTRACT SERVICES & FEES
NOTE: FEES SUBJECT TO REVISION IULY 1ST OF EACH YEAR
$118.00fHOUR
$ 95.001HOUR
$ 90.00fHOLrR
$ 75.00/HOUR
$ 66.00/HbUR
$ 57.00/HOUR
$ 57.00/HOUR
$ 50.00/HOUR
$ 50.00/HOUR
$19.00/HOUR
$ 61.00/HOUR
$ 55.00/HOUR
$ 50.00/HOUR
$ 30.00/HOUR
$ 20.00/HOUR
$ 95.00/HOUR
$ 66.00/HOUR
$ g7.00/HOUR
$150.00/HOUR
$195.00/HOUR
$70.00/HOUR
$0.30/MILE
AT COST
COST + 10~
ITEM 7
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE DIRECR~
CITY MANAGE
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
August 22, 1995
Contract Amendment No. 9 to Community Facilities District 88-12
Engineering Services Contract with J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. for
the Overland Drive Overcrossing Improvement Project
PREPARED BY:(~ Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve Contract Amendment No. 9 to provide additional geotechnical
and right-of-way engineering services for CFD 88-12 by J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. (JFD)
for the Overland Drive Overcrossing Improvement Project in an amount not to exceed
$32,260.
BACKGROUND:
Caltrans( Division of Structures) requested a geotechnical investigation to include additional
borings to aid in the design of the bridge because' of the following conditions: 1 )The bridge,
specified in the Project Study Report, was scheduled to be 700 feet in length, however,
Caltrans extended the bridge length by 150 feet during the final design stage. 2)Additionally,
the soil conditions are extremely variable which would require a more detailed geotechnical
analysis.
A special meeting was held to discuss eliminating the need for additional borings by requesting
that steel piles should be used in lieu of concrete piles. The meeting was artended by JFD,
Geofon(Soils Engineer), McDaniel Engineering Company, Inc.(Structural Engineer), and
Caltrans. Caltrans reviewed the structural report and still requested additional borings due to
the extended length of the bridge and the extreme variability in the soil conditions (See
attached memo).
Caltrans has also requested that right-of-way mapping be performed as part of the project
requirements. The required right-of-way mapping includes: four(4) fee parcels for the State,
two (2) fee parcels that are located on the easterly side of I-15 and two (2) fee parcels on the
westerly side of I-15; four (4) fee parcels for the City for Overland Drive, two (2) fee parcels
that are located between Jefferson Road and I-15 and two (2) fee parcels between Ynez Road
and I-15 (See attached maps). It should be noted that the scope of services within the original
contract for Overland Drive Overcrossing Improvement Project did not include the number of
fee parcels for right of way mapping or the production of legal description and plats.
The following items of work are necessary to complete the engineering plans and
specifications for the Overland Drive Overcrossing:
-1- r.\agdrpt%95%O822~CFD88-12.Ad9tajp
ITEM 1: RIGHT-OF-WAY MAPPING
Prepare an updated version of the current Caltrans right of way map depicting the area of the
proposed Overland Drive Overcrossing. At this crossing, acquisition of right-of-way is required
from four (4) separate and existing parcels. Partial boundary surveys will be required in order
to accurately tie the proposed right-of-ways to the existing property lines. The results of the
field survey will be shown on the State right-of-way maps.
Subtotal: $6,170
ITEM 2:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION and PLATS
Legal descriptions and plats will be prepared for processing by the City for each of the parcels
described below.
A. Four (4) fee parcels for I-15 right-of-way.
B. Four (4) fee parcels for Overland Drive right-of-way.
One (1) easement parcel of the proposed parking area under the bridge on the easterly
side of I-15.
One (1) storm drain easement for the proposed channel on the easterly side of I-15.
E. Four (4) bridge pile maintenance and access easements.
EMWD sewer re-alignment to include quitclaim of existing alignment, description of
new alignment and access from the southerly side of Overland Drive on the westerly
side of I-15.
Subtotal: $10,500
Item 3:
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
The underground soil in the vicinity of the columns supporting the bridge is extremely variable.
Caltrans has requested and required that additional borings be conducted at each column
location within Caltrans right-of-way. The work will be performed by the project soils
consultant and include four (4) additional borings, laboratory analysis and traffic control.
Subtotal: $15,590
TOTAL AMOUNT: $32,260.00
-2- r,~agdrpt%95~0822%Cl=D88-12.Adglajp
FISCAL IMPACT:
All of the above costs are eligible for funding through Community Facilities District 88-12.
Adequate funds are available within the budget of the District. The total cost of this element
of the project is summarized below:
A. Approved Contract $ 622,534
B. Amendment per CO #424 17,800
C. Amendment No. 4 9,320
D. Amendment No. 7 106,888
E. Proposed Amendment No. 9 32.260
Total: $ 788,802
Funds are available from Account No. 600-165-999-6201
Attachment: Amendment No. 9, J.F. Davidson Associates
r.%egdrpt~95\0822~CFD88-12.Adg/ajp
AMENDMENT NO. 9
J.F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES
CONTRACT ORDER NO. 0155
The Agreement dated December 13, 1990 between the City of Temecula, and J.F. Davidson
Associates (herein referred to as "Agreement") is hereby amended as follows:
RE: Professional Design Service for CFD 88-12, Overland Drive Overcrossing
Section I
The Scope of Work is hereby amended by adding the following activities:
I. Scope of Services
The following work will be performed as a result of a change in the right-of-way mapping and
geotechnical requirements. The following items of work are necessary to complete the
engineering plans and specifications for the Overland Drive Overcrossing.
ITEM 1:
RIGHT-OF-WAY MAPPING
Prepare an updated version of the current Caltrans right-of-way map depicting the area of the
proposed Overland Drive Overcrossing. At this crossing, acquisition of right-of-way is
required from four (4) separate and existing parcels. Partial boundary surveys will be required
in order to accurately tie the proposed right-of-ways to the existing property lines. The results
of the field survey will be shown on the State right-of-way maps.
'Subtotal: $6,170
ITEM 2: LEGAL DESCRIPTION and PLATS
Legal descriptions and plats will be prepared for processing by the City for each of the parcels
described below.
A. Four (4) fee parcels for I-15 right-of-way.
B. Four (4) fee parcels for Overland Drive right-of-way.
C. One (1) easement parcel of the proposed parking area under the bridge on the easterly
side of I-15.
D. One (1) storm drain easement for the proposed channel on the easterly side of I-15.
E. Four (4) bridge pile maintenance and access easements.
F. EMWD sewer re-alignment to include quitclaim of existing alignment, description of
new alignment and access from the southerly side of Overland Drive on the westerly
side of I-15.
Subtotal: $10,500
-4- r.%agdrpt~95%O822%CFD88-12.Ad91ajp
ITEM 3: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
The underground soil in the vicinity of the columns supporting the bridge is extremely variable.
Caltrans has requested and required that additional borings be conducted at each column
location within Caltrans right-of-way. The work will be performed by the project soils
consultant and include four (4) additional borings, laboratory analysis and traffic control.
Subtotal: $15,590
TOTAL AMOUNT: $32,260.00
Section 2
Compensation shall be for all services described in this Amendment and shall not exceed.
Thirty Two Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Dollars ($32,260).
All of the above costs are eligible for funding through Community Facilities District 88-12.
Adequate funds are available within the budget of the District. The total cost of this element
of the project is summarized below:
A. Approved Contract $ 622,534
B. Amendment per CO #424 17,800
C. Amendment No. 4 9,320
D. Amendment No. 7 106,888
E. Proposed Amendment No. 9 32,260
Total: $ 788,802
Section 3
All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain the same.
The parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 9 to the Agreement on the Date and
year above written.
.rj. r,%agdrpt%95%0822~CFD88-12.Adglajp
CONSULTANT
CITY OF TEMECULA
Y' / J.F. Davidson Associ~es, ~-c
By:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney, Peter M. Thorson
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
-6- r.\agdrpt~95~0822~,CFD88-12.Ad91ajp
3L!'h-e~-19cJ5 15:42 FRDrl
Memorandum
~R- D~NWEAVBR- 8
ProjeCt DeveloJm~nt
Riverside Co.
ACtn: Frank Lehr
6941999 P. 82
Qste: June 2, 1995
FIle:
900.10.08
08-Riv-15- 6.2 5
Overland Drive 0C
Br. No. 56-0792 &
~r. No. 56C-0449
EA 35a601
From: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEERING SERVICE CENTER
DIVISION OF STRUCTURES
Subject: Revised GeotechnicaZ Report {without aclditlonal borings}
We have completed a cursory review of r3~e revised Geotecbnical
· Report and met with the consultants involved with the proposed
geoCechnical reccm~nendations- After fur~herdiscussionswith the
Office of Structures Construction end the Office of Structural
-----~,oundaCions, we cannot concur with the recommeadation that no
additional borings are necessary with the switch to steel piles
and revised lengths.
potential for erratic pile driving, lack of boring information at
all structure support locations, and lack of boring information
extending below pile tip elevations- While we concur with the
application of steel piles for erratic driving conditions, we feel
i= is unacceptable to drive any piles a~ this site without
additional boring information.
Depending on the pile driving contractor and the actual
equipmen~ used, there is still the potential for steel ~iles to be
driven either below the proposed specified pile tip elevations and
into uncharted ground, or ~o be stopped high due to unplanned
friction- The difficulty of knowing if the driven steel piles
have achieved adequate support, witbout subjecting the projec~ Co
construction deltys, contract change orders, and ~otential claims,
appears to be a significant problem.
The Division of Structures reoontaends thaC additional borings
be taken to provide boring information 6~ all structure support
locations- At the very least, additional borings shall be
provided within Calcrans R/W limits at Abutment 1, Bent 3, and
Ben~ 5. These borings shall be of adequate depth co provide
information at leas~ 10 feet below the specified pile tip
elev~Cions-
JL1~-19c35 15:43 FRO~
Don Weaver
June 2, 1995
Page Two
J. F. DAUII~ I:~IATES TO
6941999 P. 83
Please contact CraigChetelainat (916) 227-8374 if you have
any questions.
TSCMASM- RUT, Chief
Externally Financed~ojects Branch
Craig Chatelain
Liaison Engineer
jack Abcarious - McDaniel Engr.
John Canty - J.F. ~avidson AsSOC.
M DeSalvatore - OSF
M Beaucham~ - OSC
File
June 15, 1995
J. F. Davidson Associates
3880 Lemon st., Ste 300
Riverside, California 92501
- GEOFON
~ .
""" f t,J C O ~t 15 ~j S~ A T E 0
5552 CF=RRff0~ AVE.. SUITE B, CYPi:tt~S$. CA 90630
?r-LEPI-iONE. (714)220-2777 · (330} 926-7582
FAX- (7141220-1208
Attention:
Subject:
Dear John:
.Mr. John Canty
Caltrans' Jtme 2, 1995 Letter
Overland Drive Geotechaic. al Report
Cost EstLmate for Additional Borings
GEOFON Project No. 90-339.10
We completed our geotechmcal report on the Overland Crossing in accordance
~vith our scope of work and submi~ed our final revision on may 27, 1995. Our
borings z. ud cone penetration te~s indicate that the soil conditions across the
850 ft long bridge are extremely variable.
In their June 2, 1995 memorand,tun providing a review of the final
geotechnical repo~, Ca!trans recommended that additional borings be
perfomed at each of the suppo~ locations due to the extremely variable soft
conditions. This letter provides revised cost estimate for additional
geotechrdcal work required by Caltrans.
COST ESTLMATE
Due to extreme!y variable conditions, Caltrans recommends one bor'mg at
each support location. Due to changes in bent/abutment locations the
fo!iowlmg additional bo_dngs are proposed. Locations of the proposed borings
are shown m Fi~2re 1. Cost estimate to peffo~.'m the additional work required
by Caltrans is as follows:
Caltrsn~ PenmAt / Utility Check
Mob-Demob
Drill 4 borm~ to 70 feet
Mud, s~mpling tubes, mi~.
Engineer Log Borings
Tr~ic Control
Laborator), Testing
,~_ualysis / Report.
Auto Cad (Log of Test Bori~.~)
Total
30 hrs drill rig @ $150/hr
30 hrs ¢j' $60 / hr
I day @ $I ,890
$1,000
500
4,500
300
i ,800
1,890
1,100
3,500
!,000
$15,590
le~b.d~
Mr. Joh~ Canty
J. F. Davidson, Inc.
GEOFON Project No. 90-339
page-2
Appro.~imately lialf of the total cost is outside costs, which includes a portion
of the mob-demob, d-'il[ing, tr_~c control and Auto Cad work. The quo.tation
for shoulder closure from Traffic Control Service is enclosed- The cost
estimate ~ based on the .~sumption that no hazardous materials are present
and all permitls are obt_~ined before the start of the field work so that the
drilJing can be completed in one mobilization. GEOFON will apply for
Celttans permit. However, the City will be res~ponsible for obtaining
landowners' permission.
We can sr, n-t the work on yO'.Lr -~ritten authorization. The drilling can be
performed within one week of obtaining Caltrans and lando~mers' permission.
Obtaining of Cal~ans' per,FA~ may take up to 2 to 3 weeks. Landowners'
permission may take longer ;~,~]ess the 1993 permi-~sion can be used, We can
complete the laboratory ~esting, analyses and report within four weeks of
completion of the field work
We request a change order of $15,590 to..co_mplete this work.
the opport~mi~y to se.n,e on your design team for this project.
questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
We appreciate
If you have any
Yours Sincerely.
GEOFON, INC.
Shah Ghanbari, P.E.
Chief Operating Officer
Figure 1
Quotation from Traffic Control Service, Inc.
cc: Ja~k .AZscarius, McD,r, ie!s Engineering
let, Sb.d~Jc
TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE, inc.
RENTAL & SALES SAFETY EQUIPMENT
GATE
FAX
"'1
'i'raf.fic Co:~.:roi Se~'v~cs. Inc. is D193sed to ~ffer our quote for the followinG equlDment:
..
I
.............. J ,,t,e ~
./
have ~.y qu~-','6oas, please do no~ besi-~t¢ to Bive me a call.
TRAFHC CONTROL SEeKVICE. iNC.
' ANAltEl,%1 1881 g~u r Lr,., An~¢im, CA 92805
. no
_; _RiVE,'dSIDI'.' 1155 W. ~ Caa~na Dr., ~v~f:~dc, CA 925G2
~AN MARCOS 92~ _R~ch~fol Dr, S~ Marcos. CA 92069
'J NE~Vt~LL 23925 San Fern,rode R4, iqewha~, CA 91321
, ~ ~ACI~MENTO gSg5 'FhSs Ct, Sacramento, CA95828
71a!937-0422 Fax 714/937-1070
909/693-7575 FaX 909t683-2306
619/480-1177 Fax 6t9/4g0-478,1
g05/255-8'733 Fax 8051255-1955
916/387-9733 Fax 916/387-973'I,
In Southern Californi~ 8001222-TCSI
r_n Nonhem California SO0,'g84-TCSI
!l II
i
I
I
Iii
: i
ITEM 8
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNE~~C~~
FINANCE DIRE
CITY MANAG
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
City Council/City Manager
//Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
August 22, 1995
SUBJECT:
Release Grading Bond in Tract No. 27690
PREPARED BY:/~lbert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council AUTHORIZE release of the grading bond for Tract No. 27690, and
DIRECT the City Clerk to so notify the developer and surety.
BACKGROUND:
On April 6, 1994, the City Council approved Tract Map No. 27690, a one (1) lot commercial
subdivision for condominium purposes. This map is a re-subdivision of Parcel 2, of Parcel Map
No. 23335. The site is occupied by a medical office building and the requisite street
improvements were constructed under Assessment District No. 161. The developers are:
Temecula Medical Park Development, G. P.
Existing drainage facilities were deficient and the conditions of approval of Final Tract Map No.
27690 included the recording of an Agreement for Payment of Drainage Improvement Fees
and the posting of a $20,000 bond. The agreement was recorded with the County Recorder
as Instrument No. 198078 on May 13, 1994 and American Motorists Insurance Company
posted Bond No. 3SM 801 370 00 for $20,000 per the development conditions of approval.
This bond shall remain in place until the conditions of the agreement are met and the City
Council authorizes release of the bond.
As a condition of the approval of the precise grading plan for this site, American Motorists
Insurance Company posted Bond No. 3SM 798 374 00 for $25,000 on behalf of the
developer. The site was described as "Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 23335".
Public Works Staff has inspected the site for conformance with the approved precise grading
plan and an offsite driveway approach and recommends the release of this grading bond only.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map
r. ~rpe\g5 ~OS22VT~rTSgOS. m~
VICINITY MAP
&'r~ ~
_.---.---- ~ - ~TsLo-t_,~
0
(N~l~
874,7f
WINCHESTER ROAD`,?
( State HIghway 79 )
TRACT NO. 27690
Location Map
ITEM 9
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
' FINANCE DIREC
CITY MANAGER~~
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
.,Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
August 22, 1995
Release Warranty and Labor and Material bonds in Tract No. 21820
PREPARED BY: ~t Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council AUTHORIZE the release of Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor and
Material bonds in Tract No. 21820, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of tile
Board of Supervisors, the Developer and the Surety.
BACKGROUND:
On June 13, 1990, the City Council approved Final Tract Map No. 21820 and accepted
Improvement Agreements and Faithful Performance and Material Labor Bonds as filed by:
Mesa Homes
27555 Ynez Road, Suite 201
Temecula, CA 92591
for the installation of street improvements and water systems, and subdivision
monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by
Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company as follows:
1. Bond No. 3S 741 681 00 in the amount of $153,500to cover street improvements.
2. Bond No. 3S 741 784 00 in the amount of $44,500 to cover water system
improvements.
3. Bonds No. 3S 741 681 00 and 3S 741 784 00 in the amounts of $56,750 and
$22,2500, respectively, to cover material and labor amounts for street and water
system improvements.
4. Bond No. 3S 741 682 00 in the amount of $11,000 to cover subdivision
monumentation.
- 1 - r: ~aidrpt~95\O822~tr21820. ~ n
The following items were completed by the developer in accordance with the approved plans:
1. Required street and water system improvements.
2. Required Subdivision Monumentation.
On December 17, 1991, the City Council accepted the public improvements, initiated the one-
year warranty period authorized reduction in the Faithful Performance Bond amounts to the
10% warranty level as follows:
Streets:
$15,350
Water System:
4,450
Total: $19,800
The warranty period has run, any required repairs to the public improvements have been made,
and no claims for labor and materials have been filed. Therefore Public Works Staff
recommends release of the Faithful Performance warranty amounts as follows:
Street and water system improvements
$19,800
Also recommended for release are the Labor and Material bonds as follows:
Street Improvements:
Bond No. 3S 741 681 O0
$56,750
Water System:
Bond No. 3S 741 784 O0
$22,250
The affected streets for this development are portions of Via Norte and Kahwea Road. Via
Norte was included in the Riverside County Maintained-Road System prior to incorporation and
accepted into the City Maintained-Street System by and at incorporation. Kahwea Road will
be accepted into the City Maintained-Street System with several other streets by resolution
over the several upcoming City Council meetings.
Fiscal Impact:
None
Attachment:
Location Map
-2- r:~agdrpt\95\Og22\tr21820.fm
WCINITY M.4P
NO
~on~
Sc~,E
PARCEL
MAP
NO®
21820
^:\
Location
Map
ITEM 10
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Manager/City Council
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
August 22, 1995
Solicitation of Construction Bids and Approval of
Specifications for the FY95-96 Slurry Seal Project
(Project No. PW-95-18)
the Plans and
PREPARED BY: ~ Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the
Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for Project No. PW95-18, FY95-96
Slurry Seal Project.
BACKGROUND:
With the Pavement Management System (PMS) in place, a five (5) year Siurry Seal Program
has been formulated. Slurry Seal is used primarily as a preventive maintenance measure
where an asphalt concrete surface has become dry or brittle. A slurry seal placed over A.C.
pavements in this condition replace the fine materials and oil's. This treatment will prolong
the life of the existing asphalt from five (5) to seven (7) years.
All streets within the City were physically inspected, evaluated and prioritized during the
implementation of the Pavement Management System. Based on these priorities, streets were
grouped into areas that would provide for the most cost effective projects while providing
maintenance where it would be most beneficial. The following projects represent the five year
Slurry Seal Program.
FY94-95 See Attachment "A" 20.3 Miles
FY95-96 See Attachment "B" 18.9 Miles
FY96-97 See Attachment "C" 25.0 Miles
FY97-98 See Attachment "D" 22.0 Miles
FY98-99 See Attachment "E" 22.0 Miles
108.0 Miles
Completed
The work to be performed will also include crack sealing; treating of all oil stains and
replacement of all striping and street legends.
r:~agdrpt\95\O822~pw95-18S.bid/ajp
Upon authorization and approval, Project No. PW95-18, will be advertised for twenty-one (21)
days, with the bid opening on September 13, 1995. This project has an estimated
construction time of sixty (60) working days to complete.
The Plans, Specifications and Contract Documents have been completed and the project is
ready to be advertised for construction. These Plans and Specifications are available for
review in the City Engineer's office. All plans used in the construction of this project are City
of Temecula Standard Plans approved by the City Council in November, 1991.
The Engineer's estimate for this project is $250,000.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funds are available in the Public Works Department Street Maintenance Account 100-164-
601-5402.
r:~agdrpt\95\O822~pw95-18S .bid/nip
A TTA CHMENT A
Slurried Streets
..... ATTACHMENTB
A TTA CHMENT C
s ~ Slurried Streets
A TTA CHMENT D
~ Slurried Streets
A TTA CHMENT E
.,-Z
Slurried Streets
ITEM 11
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
August 22, 1995
Summary Vacation of 8 Portion of Canterfield Drive and a Portion of
Temecula Lane Subject to the Condition that a Realigned Temecula Lane
be Offered for Dedication
PREPARED BY.' ~, Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, TO SUMMARILY VACATE A
PORTION OF CANTERFIELD DRIVE AND A PORTION OF
TEMECULA LANE WITHIN TRACT NO. 21067 PURSUANT TO
THE AUTHORITY PROVIDED BY CHAPTER 3, PART 3, DIVISION
9 OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAY CODE, SUBJECT TO THE
ASSOCIATED OFFER OF DEDICATION OF A REALIGNED
TEMECULA LANE.
BACKGROUND:
On October 26, 1993 the City Council awarded the construction contract for Pala Community
Park to Martin J. Jaska, Inc. The 28.6 acre park is located along the Southerly side of
Temecula Creek approximately 1500 feet north .of the intersection of Pala Road and Loma
Linda Road. The Park has been designed such that access and water service will be
constructed within portions of Temecula Lane and Loma Linda Road that were previously
dedicated.
The proposed vacated portions of Canterfield Drive and Temecula Lane were accepted for
right-of-way purposes on November 23, 1993, but not accepted into the City-maintained
street system. The original street alignment for Canterfield Drive and Temecula Lane was
dedicated as part of Tract 21067, however, Pala Community Park was designed after the
streets were recorded.
Therefore, the vacation of a portion of Canterfield Drive and Temecu|a Lane and the offer of
dedication of a realigned Temecula Lane are required before the acceptance of the Pala
Community Park by the City. Upon acceptance of the Pala Community Park by the City, staff
will recommend acceptance of the realigned Temecula Lane into the City maintained street
system.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 95-
with Exhibits "A-D", Inclusive
r:XsgthlatX95\Og22~nlan~.va~
RESOLUTION NO. 9~-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY
OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, TO SUMMARILY
VACATE A laORTION OF CANTk;RFI~:f-r} DRIVE AND A
PORTION OF ~ LANE WITHaN TRACT NO.
21067 IrtlRSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY PROVIDED BY
CHAFFER 3, PART 3, DIVISION 9 OF THE STREETS AND
HIGHWAY CODE, SUBJECT TO THE ASSOCIATED
OFFER OF DI~BICATION OF I~ALIGNED ~
The City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and order as follows:
WItERF~AS, Streets and Highway Code Section 8330 ~ provides for a method by which
City streets may be summarily vacated; and
WHEREAS, Streets and Highway Code Section 8333 provides that the City Council may
summarily vacate a street easement if the easement has been superseded by relocation and there
are not other public facilities located within the easement and said circumstances apply to the
easement in the present case; and
WHEREAS, the legal description for these portions of Canterfield Drive and Temecula Lane
are set forth in Exhibit "C" , attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the map for these portions of Canterfield Drive and Temecula Lane are set forth
in Exhibit "D", attached hereto; and
WtlEREAS, the portions of Temecula Lane as depicted in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached
hereto, has been offered for dedication to the City of Temecula on Tract No. 21067;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Temecula as
follows:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds as follows:
(a) That the City Council intends to summarily vacate that portion of a street
easement in the City of Temecula, described as follows:
That portion of the streets shown as Canterfield Drive and Temecula Lane
westerly of Loma Linda Road between Pala Road and Little Ranch Road, as shown
on Tract No. 21067 on file in the office of the County Recorder of Riverside
County. That portion is more particularly described in Exhibits "C" and 'D'
which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
(b) Said easement is no longer necessary because the street has been relocated; and
(c) Vacating the street easement is consistent with the General Plan adopted by the
City of Temecula on November 9th, 1993.
Section 2:
The easement described in Exhibits *C* and *D" which arc attached hcrcto and
incorporated herein by this reference is hereby vacated and shall no longer
constitute an casement or right-of-way of the City of Tcmccula and shall revert
back to the property owner.
Section 3:
This vacation is subject to the condition that the ~ owner offer for dedication
for a public street and right-of-way the land described in Exhibits *A' and 'B*,
attached hereto.
Section 4: The City Clerk shall cc~ify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROV!~, AND ADOFrED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at
a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of August, 1995.
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
ATFF, ST:
June S. Greek
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby ccrtif-y that
Resolution No. 95- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of August, 1995, by the following
vote:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMF, MBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL1VfF-MBF3,S:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
r:.~agdxpt~95\0S22~xemlam:.vac
EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION NO. 95-
SUBJECT OFFER OF DEDICATION - ROAD PURPOSES
(Legal Description attached)
r:.~a~lrpt~95~O822~mlan~.va~
ETTTBZT
LBGAL DESCR]:F~ZON
C,~FTERFIELD DRIV~ ~ TEI~CUL~ L~rE
PARCEL 1 (CANTRRFIELD DRIVE]
AN EASEMENT FOR STREET, DRAINAGE, SANITARY SEWER AND PUBLIC UTILITY
PURPOSES IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, LYING OVER A PORTION OF LOT 88 OF TRACT NO. 21067; AS
FILED IN BOOK 231, PAGES 41 TO 48 INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF SAID
RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF LOT riD"
(CANTERFIELD DRIVE) AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 88 AS SHOWN
ON SAID MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE N03°24'06"E 4.33 FEET
TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY AND HAVING A
RADIUS OF 270.00 FEET, A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS
S06°52'08"E; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 10'50'52"; AN ARC DISTANCE OF 51.12 FEET TO A TANGENT
LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE N72'17'00"E 51.79 FEET TO A POINT ON
A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 392.50
FEET, A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS S76 ' 40 ' 01 "W; THENCE
SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05'42'12" AND
ARC DISTANCE OF 39.07 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT LINE, BEING
THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT "D", A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS
S70 ° 57 ' 49"W; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE, N86 ° 35"54"W 110.54 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 2 (TEMECULA LANE)
AN EASEMENT FOR STREET, DRAINAGE, SANITARY SEWERAND PUBLICUTILITY
PURPOSES IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, LYING OVER A PORTION OF LOT 87 OF TRACT NO. 21067 AS
FILED IN BOOK 231, PAGES 41 TO 48 INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF SAID
RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT "D"
(CANTERFIELD DRIVE) AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 87 AS SHOWN
ON SAID MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF LOT "D", S86°35'54"E
141.61 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY
AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 392.50 FEET, A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT
BEARS S61°05'18"W, SAID POINT BEING THE T.P.O.B.; THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
12°44'54'', AN ARC DISTANCE OF 87.33 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-
TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 330.00 FEET
SAID CURVE ALSO BEING THEWESTERLY LINE OF LOT "H" (TEMECULALANE)
AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP. A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT FOR THE 392.50
FOOT RADIUS BEARS S48°20t24"W AND THE 330.00 FOOT RADIUS BEARS
S75°39'37"W; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID 330.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 21°55'08"; AN ARC DISTANCE OF 126.24
FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 87, A RADIAL
THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS S53 ' 44 ' 29"W; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE
N53'36'08"W 119.07 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE
NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 452.50 FEET, A RADIAL THROUGH
SAID POINT BEARS S47'50'46"W; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17'52'53", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 141.22
FEET TO A POINT ON SAID SOUTH LINE OF LOT "D", A RADIAL THROUGH
SAID POINT' BEARS S65 ' 46 ~ 39"W; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE
S86°35'54"E 69.20 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
o~n E. Stevenson, R.C. E.
Doc: 94022CFD.LEG
#22446
Expires 9/30/97
No. 22446
*~~?~,~7~'L
EXHIBIT "B" TO RESOLUTION NO. 95-
SUBJECT OFFER OF DEDICATION - ROAD PURPOSES
(Map attached)
r:xagdrpt~95\OS?..2~zmlmm.v~
~fi.YU~EOFL~T881
LOT 88
\
w'LY UNE OF LOT e7 I
\'
CL EX. 30' EASEMENT TO R.C.W.D
CURVE DELTA RADIAL TAN
1 1 [r50'52' 270.00 25.64
2 0~42'12" 392.50 19.55
3 12'44'54" 392.50 43.85
¢ 21'55'08' 330.00 63.90
~ 1752'53' 452.50 71.19
L-ARC
51.12
39.07
87.33
126.24
141.22
UNE BEARING LENGTH
1 N0~24'06'E 4.33
2 N7~17'00'E 51.79
3 N86'35'54" W 110.54
4 N86'35'54'W 69.20
5 N5,.,t'36'OS"W 119.07
ES e/3o/e7
EXHIBT PREPARED BY,
16165 Mc!XINOTT EAST. $1.IE C
SCALE: 1": 100' DRAWN BY: KH. ABDO DATE:
SUBJECT,
TI~AC'r NO 21 O67
CHECKED BY:
3F SHEET
w.o.#
EXHIBIT "C" TO RESOLUTION NO. 95-
Subject Summary Vacation - A Portion of Canterfield DHve and
a Portion of Temecula Lane.
{Legal description attached)
EXHIBIT
LE~ DESCRII~ION
VACATION OF A PORTION OF-~RFIELD DRIV~
VACATION OF ~ PORTION OF TF,!~CUL~ L~NE
PARCEL A (CANTERFIELD DRIVE):
BEING THAT CERTAIN PORTION OF LOT "D" IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN AND DEDICATED
FOR STREET PURPOSES PER TRACT NO. 21067 ON FILE IN BOOK 231, PAGES
41 TO 48 INCLUSIVE RECORDS OF SAID RIVERSIDE COUNTY, AND MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF CANTERFIELD DRIVE AND
TEMECULA LANE, AS SHOWN IN SAID TRACT NO. 21067; THENCE ALONG THE
CENTERLINE OF CANTERFIELD DRIVE S86'35'54"E 49.45 FEET TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S03 ' 24 ' 06"W 30'. 00 FEET; THENCE
S43'01'49"W 23.11 FEET; THENCE S82°39'31"W 30.00 FEET TO A POINT ON
A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00
FEET, A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS S 82 ' 39 ' 31 "W; THENCE
NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLF. OF 02'49 '26", AN
ARC DISTANCE OF 14.79 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT LINE, A
RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS S85°28'57"W; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE
S85 ° 28 ' 57"W 30.00 FEET; THENCE N45 ° 33 ' 28"W 19.70 FEET; THENCE
N86°35'54"W 27.07 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE
NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 392.50 FEET, A RADIAL THOUGH
SAID POINT BEARS S61°05'18"W; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09'52'31", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 67.65 FEET
TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT LINE, A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS
S70 ° 57 ' 49"W; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE. S86 ° 35 ' 54"E 149.31 FEET; THENCE
S03°24'06"W 30.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL "B" (TEMECULA LANE]:
BEING THAT CERTAIN PORTION OF LOT "H" IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN AND DEDICATED
FOR STREET PURPOSES PER TRACT NO. 21067, ON FILE IN BOOK 231, PAGES
41 TO 48 INCLUSIVE RECORDS OF SAID RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF CANTERFIELD DRIVE AND
TEMECULA LANE AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT NO. 21067; THENCE SOUTHERLY
ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF TEMECULA LANE (BEING A CURVE CONCAVE
NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET) THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 10°15'33", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 53.72 FEET TO A POINT ON A
NON-TANGENT LINE, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE N82°39'31"E 30.00 FEET TO A POINT
ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF
270.00 FEET, A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS S82'39'31'W; THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 46' 15'32,
AN ARC DISTANCE OF 217.99 FEET TO A NON-TANGENT LINE; THENCE ALONG
SAID LINE N53 ° 36 ' 01"W 90.25 FEET TO A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE
NORTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 470.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY
ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11°26'47'', AN ARC
DISTANCE OF 93.90 FEET TO A TANGENT LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE
N42'09"14"W 22.45 FEET TO A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND
HAVING A RADIUS OF 392.50 FEET~ THENCE-NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID
CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00'29"38", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 3.38
FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND
HAVING A RADIUS OF 330.00 FEET, A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT FROM
RADIUS 392.50 FEET BEARS S48'20"24"W AND A RADIAL THROUGH SAID
POINT FROM RADIUS 330.00 FEET BEARS S75'39"37"W~ THENCE NORTHERLY
ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09'49"20", AN ARC
DISTANCE OF 56.57 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT LINE~ THENCE
ALONG SAID LINE N85°28 '57"E 30.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE
OF TEMECULA LANE AND A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A
RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET ~ THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND
CENTERLINE THOUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02°49"26, AN ARC DISTANCE OF
14.79 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Doc: 94022VAC.LEG
#22446
Expires 9/30/97
EXHIBIT 'D" TO RESOLUTION NO. 95-
SUBJECT SUMMARY VACATION A PORTION OF
CANTERFIELD DRIVE AND A PORTION OF TEMECULA LANE
(Map Attached)
r:%agdrpt%95\08?.2%temlane .vac
'!,'R.A.C.r NO 21067
M.B 231/41-4-8
W"LY UNE: OF LOT 87 ]
LOT 8B
B
UNE BEARING LENGTH
CURVE DELTA RADIAL L-ARC 1 N86.35'54"W 149.31
1 09'52'31" 392.50 67.65 2 N03'24.'06" E .,t:).00
2 46'15'32' 270.00 217.99 3 N4.,:T01 '49'E 23.11
3 11'26'47' 4.70.00 93.90 4. N5,.T'36'01'W 90.25'
00'29'38' 3.38 5
~. 392.50 N4.2'09'14"W 22.45
6 7 6
5 09'49'20' 330.00 5,5 N4.5"'33'28"W 19,70
6 02'4.9'26' 300.00 14.79 7 N86'35'54"W 27.07
7 10' 15'33' 300.00 53.72 8 N85'28'57" E 30.00
9 N82'39'31'E 30.00
10 N86'35'54"W 4.9.45
i I
-,.' t. STZ~~
'.-/ E:XPIRE:S 0/3O/67
EXHIBT PREPARED BY,
;t,FiJ!=CT,
TRACT NO 21067
M,B 231/4.1
STREET, DRAINAGE AHD
SCALE: 1': 100' DRAWN BY: KH. ABDO DATE:
CHECKED BY:
::IF SHEb
.w.o.t
ITEM 12
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
August 22, 1995
Solicitation of Construction Bids and Approval of the I~lans and
Specifications for the Winchester Road at Interstate Route 15, Bridge.
Widening and Northbound Ramps Improvements, (Project No. PW94-21 )
PREPARED BY: ~f Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve the construction plans and specifications and authorize the
Department of Public Works to solicit public construction bids for Project No. PW94-21,
Winchester Road at Interstate Route 15, Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements
subject to the approval and certification of the right-of-way by Caltrans.
BACKGROUND:
On December 18, 1990, and agreement was approved for professional engineering services
with J. F. Davidson Associates, Inc. for Community Facilities District 88-12 (Ynez Corridor).
The second major project of this agreement within the district is the design of Winchester
Road at Interstate Route 15, Bridge Widening and Northbound Ramp Improvements (Project
No. PW94-21 ). The general Items of work to be completed consist of the following: widen
Winchester Road Bridge at Interstate Route 15; a northbound loop entrance ramp; a
northbound exit ramp with auxiliary lane; relocation and reconstruction of existing utilities and
parking lot area in the Palm Plaza shol~ping center; and landscape and irrigation improvements.
The plans, specifications and contract documents have been completed and approved by
Caltrans and the project is ready to be advertised for construction. It is anticipated that the
right-of-way will be acquired and certification issued by Caltrans prior to awarding a contract
for the construction of the proposed improvements. The estimated construction cost for this
project is $3,500,000.
The plans are available for review in the City Engineer's office.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The project is being funded from the Redevelopment Agency and available State Funds.
r:.~agdtpt~95\O822~4-21.b/d/ajp
ITEM 13
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATI'ORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
August 22, 1995
Completion and Acceptance of the Rancho California Road Benefit
District Improvements, Project No. PW91-O3
PREPARED BY: ¢~ Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council accept construction of Project No. PW91-03- Rancho California Road
Benefit District Improvements, as complete and direct the City Clerk to:
1. File the Notice of Completion and release the Performance Bond, and;
2. Release the Materials and Labor Bond.
Authorize the Mayor to execute the Hold Harmless Agreement with the "The Insco/Dico
Group".
BACKGROUND:
On November 12, 1991, the City Council approved the Margarita Village Specific Pian/Rancho
California Road Reimbursement Agreement with the developers of the Margarita Village
Specific Plan (Bedford Properties, Marlborough Development Corporation, Margarita Village
Development Company and TAYCO) to reimburse the City of Temecula for construction of
improvements required by the Margarita Specific Plan. The cost incurred by the City of
Temecula for surveying, soils, inspection, and construction for the base bid shall be
reimbursed to the City through the approved agreement at the building permit stage.
On December 17, 1991, the City Council awarded a contract for the Rancho California Road
Benefit District Improvements, Project No. PW 91-03 to Oliver Brothers for $499,716.85. The
work included the construction of street, storm drain, and traffic signal improvements on
Rancho California Road between Ynez Road and Margarita Road.
On April 14, 1992, the City Council had also awarded a contract to Oliver Brothers for Project
No. PW91-04, I-15/Rancho California Road Ramps and Signals.
r,~aBdrpt~95'M)822~pw9 ! -03. acc/aj!~
In October of 1992, the Contractor completed the work for Project No. PW91-03 in
accordance with the approved plans and specifications, however, the Contractor filed
bankruptcy right after the construction was completed.
The City attorney finalized the takeover agreement with the Surety (The Insco/Dico Group) for
Project No. PW91-03 on July 7, 1993. However, delays in finalizing Project Nos. PW91-03
were caused by changes in project management within the Surety company.
The construction retention for this project will be released on or about thirty-five (35) days
after the Notice of Completion has been recorded.
The Hold Harmless Agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney. This Agreement holds
the City harmless, by the Surety, if any claims are filed as a result of this project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Contract amount for this project was $499,716.85. Contract Change Orders No. 1
through 9 were approved for a total amount of $94,056.10. The total construction cost is
$593,772.95. This project is funded through the Margarita Village Specific Plan
Reimbursement Agreement.
Attachments:
1. Notice of Completion
2. Contractor's Affidavit
3. Hold Harmless Agreement
r: ~agdrpt\95\O822~pw91-03 .acc/ajp
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND RETURN TO:
~ CLERK
CITY OF TEMECULA
43174 Bueineee Perk Delve
Temecula, CA 92590
SPACE ABOVE Tl'lt UNE FOR
RECORDER'S USE
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
1. The City of Temecula is the owner of the property hereinafter described.
2. The full address of the City of Temecula is 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California 92590.
3. A Contract was awarded by the City of Temecula to Oiiver Brothers to perform the
following work of improvement: PW91-03 - Rancho Califomia Road Benef~ District.
4. Said work was completed by said company according to plans and specifications and
to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works of the City of Temecula and that said work was
accepted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on August
1995. That upon said contract the INSCOIDICO Group was surety for the bond given by the said
company as required by law.
5. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of
Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, and is described as follows: PROJECT PW 91-03.
Dated at Temecula, California, this day of
,1995.
JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
CITY OF TEMECULA )
SS
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California and do hereby certify under penalty of
perjury, that the foregoing NOTICE OF COMPLETION is true and correct, and that said NOTICE OF
COMPLETION was duly and regularly ordered to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of
Riverside by said City Council.
Dated at Temecula, California, this day of
,1995.
JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk
R:\CIP~.PROIECTS~t91 ~w91-03~omHetn. not/a~
CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRACTOR'$ AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE
PROJECT NO. PW91-03
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD BENEFIT DISTRICT
This is to certify that i~D~i~ co~2ktr~ OF CkLIF0~IA , ( h · r · i n a f t e r t h ·
"CONTRACTOR") declares to the City of Temecula, under oath: that heat has paid in full for
all materials, supplies, labor, services, tools equipment, and all other bills contracted for by the
CONTRACTOR or by an of the CONTRACTOR's agents, employees or subcontractors used or
in contribution to the execution of it's contract with the City of Temecule, with regard to the
building, erection, construction or repair of that certain work of improvement known as
PROJECT NO. PW91-03 situated in the City of Temecula, State of California, more particularly
described as follows:
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD BENEFIT DISTRICT
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
Dollar Amount to Dispute
NONE -0-
Pursuant to Public Contracts Code §7200, the CONTRACTOR does hereby fully release end
acquit the City of Temecula and all agents end employees of the City, end 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 l~ayment by the City of Temecula of any contract amount
which the CONTRACTOR has not disputed above.
Dated:
CONTRACTOR
Signature
SUSAN M. MOORE, VICE PRESIDENT
(Print Name and Title)
HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT
TO:
THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
PROJECT:
PW91-03 I Rancho California Road Benefit District '
SURETY:
INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, Indemnity Company of California, as surety, executed that certain
Faithful Performance Bond, designated as Bond No. 229562P, naming Oliver
Brothers, as principal, and the City of Temecula, as obligee;
WHEREAS, Indemnity Company of California, pursuant to its bond, is
obligated to pay claims and demands for labor and materials ordered by Oliver
Brothers, and utilized in the performance of said work of improvement;
WHEREAS, Indemnity Company of California has received claims for labor
and materials utilized in connection with said project; and
WHEREAS, Indemnity Company of California contends that, upon receipt of
said claims, it is entitled, by virtue of its rights of subrogation and assignment
provisions of its General Indemnity Agreement with Oliver Brothers, to receive any
and all monies payable to the contractor in connection with said work of
improvement.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
The City of Temecula, not withstanding any claim to the contrary from Oliver
Brothers, or any other party, shall release all remaining contract retentions which
would otherwise be available to Oliver Brothers, and agrees to disperse said
retention in the amount of $58,435.26 directly to Indemnity Company of
California.
Indemnity Company of California agrees to defend and hold the City of
Temecula harmless from any claim demand or liability of any kind whatsoever,
including counsel fees, which may result from any claim against or on account of
the funds paid to Indemnity Company of California in consequence of this
agreement.
This agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the parties
with respect to the contract retentions pertaining to the work of improvement for
which the bond was posted, and this agreement may not be changed except by
writing executed by the parties hereto.
DATED:
BY:
INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA
Lee C. Fiebiger, Sr. VicEPresident
DATED:
THE CITY OF TEMECULA
BY:
TITLE:
ITEM 14
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
August 22, 1995
Completion and Acceptance of the Construction of the I-15/Rancho
California Road Interchange Off-Ramps and Signals,
Project No. PW91-04
PREPARED BY: f~f Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council accept the construction of the 15/Rancho California Road Interchange
Off-Ramps and Signals, Project No. PW91-04 as complete and direct the City Clerk to:
1. File the Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and;
2. Release the Materials and Labor Bond.
Authorize the Mayor to execute the Hold Harmless Agreement with the "The Insco/Dico
Group".
BACKGROUND:
On November 12, 1991, the City Council approved the Margarita Village Specific Plan/Rancho
California Road Reimbursement Agreement with the developers of the Margarita Village
Specific Plan (Bedford Properties, Marlborough Development Corporation, Margarita Village
Development Company, and TAYCO) to reimburse the City of Temecula for construction of
certain improvements to the I-15/Rancho California Road Interchange. The costs incurred by
the City of Temecula for surveying, soils, inspection, and construction of the project shall be
reimbursed to the City through the approved agreement at the building permit stage.
On April 14, 1992 the City Council awarded a contract for the construction of traffic signals,
ramp widening, median modifications, lane re-configuration, and landscape improvements at
the 1-1 5/Rancho California Road Interchange, Project No. PW91-04 to Oliver Brothers for
$526,681.36.
r:.~agdtpt~95~tO827.~pw91-O4.a~/ajp
Improvements constructed with this project include:
1. Widening the northbound and southbound off-ramps;
2. Installing traffic signals at the on and off-ramps intersections;
3. Re-paving and restriping the approach ramps to the bridge on Rancho California Road;
Median modifications on Rancho California Road to provide for increased turning lanes
at Ynez Road and Front Street;
Widening and installation of a free right turn lane from Rancho California Road to
southbound Ynez Road;
Modification of the traffic signals at Front Street and Ynez Road to accommodate
connection with the newly installed signals on the bridge; and
7. Landscaping of the shoulders and medians within the project limits.
In October of 1992, the Contractor filed bankruptcy before the construction was completed.
The remaining items of work that need be completed before the project could be finalized
consisted of a pedestrian access ramp and some associated concrete construction.
The City Attorney finalized the takeover agreement with the Surety (The Insco/Dico Group)
for Project No. PW91-03 and PW91-04 on July 7, 1993. However, delays in finalizing this
project were caused by changes in project management within the Surety company. The
remaining work items for were finally completed by the Contractor working on behalf of the
Surety on March 7, 1995.
The construction retention for this project will be released on or about thirty-five (35) days
after the Notice of Completion has been recorded.
The Hold Harmless Agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney. This Agreement holds
the City harmless, by the Surety, if any claims are filed as a result of this project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Contract amount for this project was $526,681.36. Contract Change Orders No. 1
through 23 were approved for a total amount of $130,310.39. The total construction cost
is $656,991.75. This project is being funded through Federal Aid Interstate (FAI) and the
Margarita Village Specific Plan Reimbursement Agreement.
Attachments:
1. Notice of Completion
2. Contractor's Affidavit
3. Hold Harmless Agreement
r:Xagdrpt\95\O822~pw91-04.-cc/ajp
RECOFIDING REQUESTED BY
AND RETURN TO:
CTrYCLERK
CITY OF TEMECULA
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SPACE ABOVE THIS UNE FOR
RECORDER'S USE
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
1. The City of Temecula is the owner of the property hereinafter described.
2. The full address of the City of Temecula is 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California 92590.
3. A Contract was awarded by the City of Temecula to Oliver Brothers to perform the
following work of improvement: PW91-04 - Construction of traffic signals, ramp widening, median
modifications, lane re-configuration, and landscaping improvements at the I-151Rancho California Road
Interchange.
4. Said work was completed by said company according to plans and specifications and
to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works of the City of Temecula and that said work was
accepted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on August 22,
1995. That upon said contract the INSCOIDICO Group was surety for the bond given by the said
company as required by law.
5. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of
Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, and is described as follows: PROJECT PW 91-04.
Dated at Temecula, California, this day of
· 1995.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California and do hereby certify under penalty of
perjury, that the foregoing NOTICE OF COMPLETION is true and correct, and that said NOTICE OF
COMPLETION was duly and regularly ordered to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of
Riverside by said City Council.
Dated at Temecula, California, this __ day of
· 1995.
JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk
R:\CIP~RO,IECTS~pw9 1 \pw~ 1 -O4\completn .not/ajp
BY:
4- .6-95 j 3:31t~,d; CITY OF T~'CtL~--, 7/7
_ :~
CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ~~,c~~/
CONTRACTOR'$ AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE
PROJECT NO. FW91-04 -
I-1 51RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD RAMPS AND SIGNALS
This is to certify that I~D~I~ cozeLm~ OF Ck~IFO~IA , { h · r · i n a f t e r .' t h e
"CONTRACTOR') declares to the City of Temecula, under oath, that he/it has paid in full for
all materials, supplies, labor, services, tools equipment, and all other bills contracted for by the
CONTRACTOR or by an of the CONTRACTOR's agents, employees or subcontractors used or
in contribution to the execution of it's contract with the City of Tsmecula, with regard to the
building, erection, construction or repair of that certain work:of improvement known as
PROJECT NO. PW91-04 situated in the City of Temecula, State of California, mo;e particularly
described as follows:
WIDENING OF OFF RAMPS AND INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS
' INTERSTATE 15 AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD '
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:
Descri pti on
Dollar Amount to Dispute
Pursuant to Public Contracts Code §7200,the CONTRACTOR does hereby fully release and
acquit the City of Temecula and ell 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 contract amount
which the CONTRACTOR has not disputed above.
Dated:
CONRAD WOZNEY, SR. CLAIMS ANALYST
(Print Name and Tit~s)
HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT
TO:
THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
PROJECT:
PW91-04 / I-15/Rancho California Road
Ramps & Signals
SURETY:
INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA'
WHEREAS, Indemnity Company of California, as surety, executed that certain
Faithful Performance Bond, designated as Bond No. 229562P, naming Oliver
Brothers, as principal, and the City of Temecula, as obligee;
WHEREAS, Indemnity Company of California, pursuant to its bond, is
obligated to pay claims and demands for labor and materials ordered by Oliver
Brothers, and utilized in the performance of said work of improvement;
WHEREAS, Indemnity Company of California has received claims for labor
and materials utilized in connection with said project; and
WHEREAS, Indemnity Company of California contends that: upon receipt of
said claims, it is entitled, by virtue of its rights of subrogation and assignment
provisions of its General Indemnity Agreement with Oliver Brothers, to receive any
and all monies payable to the contractor in connection with said work of
improvement.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
The City of Temecula, not withstanding any clai'm to the contrary from Oliver
Brothers, or any other party, shall release all. remaining contract retentions which
would otherwise be available to Oliver Brothers, and agrees to disperse said
retention in the amount of $155,623.34 directly to Indemnity Company of
California.
Indemnity Company of California agrees to defend and hold the City of
Temecula harmless from any claim demand or liability of any kind whatsoever,
including counsel fees, which may result from any claim against or on account of
the funds paid to Indemnity Company of California in consequence of this
agreement.
This agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the parties
with respect to the contract retentions pertaining to the work of improvement for
which the bond was posted, and this agreement may not be changed except by
writing executed by the parties hereto.
DATED:
INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA
BY:
Lee C. Fiebiger, Sr. Vice-President
DATED:
THE CITY OF TEMECULA
BY:
TITLE:
ITEM 15
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works\City Engineer
August 22, 1995
Professional Services Agreement for Geotechnical ObServation and
Testing with Soil Tech Inc., for Project No. PW93-09, Parkview Site
Rough Grading Improvements
PREPARED BY: Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects
<~Jim D. Faul, Assistant Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
Approve the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Temecula and Soil
Tech, Inc. for Geotechnical Observation and Testing for Project No. PW93-09,
Parkview Site Rough Grading Improvements for $10,124.00, authorize the Mayor to
execute the agreement;
Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency
amount of $1,012.40, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount; and
3. Approve a transfer from the General Fund of $11,136.40to the Capital Projects Fund. '
BACKGROUND:
On August 8, 1995, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved the award of a
construction contract for Project No. PW93-09, Parkview Site Rough Grading Improvements
to Kunze, Incorporated. These services are required in conjunction with the rough grading
improvements.
A request for proposal (RFP) for Professional Services was prepared for the Geotechnical
Observation and Testing portion of this project. The three (3) geotechnical firms that
submitted proposals were Soil Tech, inc., Leighton & Associates, and Geosoils.
The proposals were reviewed and a contract was negotiated with Soil Tech, Inc., who was
selected to provide the required services. The geotechnicai consultant will perform geological
mapping, slope stability analysis, grading observation and testing, and preparation of a final
report as stated in exhibit "A" of the contract.
-1- r:~aldq~t\95\0822~ow93-09 48n
FISCAL IMPACT:
This project is being funded through an operating transfer from the General Fund. The
subtotal amount for this portion of the project is ~11,136.40, which includes the contract
amount of $10, 124.00plus the 10% contingency amount of $1,012.40. For the geotechnical
services being provided as part of this contract, an additional $11,136.40 needs to be
transferred from the General Fund to the Capital Improvement Fund, account number 210-199-
128-5804.
ATTACHMENT:
Professional Services Agreement
-2- r:~agdrpt\95\0822~ow93-0t) .tin
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement was made and entered into this 22nd day of August, 1995, by and
between the City of Temecula {"City"), a municipal corporation, and Soil Tech, Inc., a
California Corporation ("Consultant").
The parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
Services. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
her.to. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule set forth in
Exhibit "A". '
Performance, Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the best of
his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein.
Payment, The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, at the hourly rates set forth
in Exhibit "B" attached hereto, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks.
This amount will not exceed $10,124,00for the total term of the Agreement unless
additional payment is approved by the City Council; provided that the City Manager
may approve additional payment not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the
Agreement; but in no event more than $10,000.
Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices
shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for services
provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of
receipt of each invoice.
e
Amendments. This Agreement may be amended so long as such amendment is in
writing and agreed upon by both the City Council and Consultant.
e
0wnershiD of Documents. Upon satisfactory completion of or in the event of
termination, suspension or abandonment of this Agreement, all original documents,
designs, drawings, and notes 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.
Termination. The City may terminate this Agreement without cause so long as
written notice of intent to terminate is'given to Consultant at least three (3) days
prior to the termination date. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be paid
for the services performed.
e
Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and save
harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against
any and all claims, demands, losses, defense cost, 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 acts or omissions under the terms of this Agreement,
excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City.
- 1 - r:\cip%projects~pw93\pw93-09\soiltech.agr/ajp
10.
11.
Status of Consultant. Consultant is an independent contractor in all respects in the
performance of this Agreement and shall not be considered an employee of the City
for any purpose. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultam in
connection with the performance of this Agreement.
Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other
compensation to Consultam for performing services hereunder for City. City shall
not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultam for injury or sickness
arising out of performing services hereunder.
Term. This Agreement shall commence on August 22, 1995, and shall remain and
continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later
than June 30, 1996.
Default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this
Agreement, the City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating
Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Default shall include
not performing the tasks described herein to the reasonable satisfaction of the City
Manager of the City. Failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance
of work hereunder, if such failure arises out of causes beyond his control, and
without fault or negligence of the Consultant, shall not be considered a default.
Any disputes regarding performance, default or other matters in dispute between
the City and the Consultant arising out of this Agreement or breech thereof, shall
be resolved by arbitration. The arbitrator's decision shall be final.
Consultant shall select an arbitrator from a list provided by the City of three retired
judges of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. The arbitration
hearing shall be conducted according t~ California Code of Civil Procedure Section
1280, et seq. City and Consultant shall share the cost of the arbitration equally.
Notices. Notices shall be given pursuant to this Agreement by personal service on
the party to be notified, or by written notice upon such party deposited in the
custody of the United States Postal Service addressed as follows:
City: City of Temecula
Attention: Ronald E. Bradley, City Manager
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Consultant: Soil Tech, Inc.
Attention: H. Wayne Baimbridge
41607 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula, California 92590
The notices shall be deemed to have been given as of the date of personal service,
or three (3) days after the date of deposit of the same in the custody of the United
States Postal Service.
-2- r:\cip\projects~pw93~pw93-O9\soiltech.agr/ajp
12.
13.
14.
15.
Entire Aareement. This Agreement and any documents or instrument attached
hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions mentioned herein or
incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect to the
subject matter hereof,
In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of this
Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this
Agreement shall prevail.
Leoal Resoonsibilities. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of State and
Federal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it-or in
any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The
Consultam shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations·
The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity
occasioned by failure of the Consultam to comply with this section·
Assianment. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement,
nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without the prior written
consent of the City.
Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be the
value to the City of the services rendered·
Liability Insurance. The Consultant shall maintain insurance acceptable to the City
in full force and effect throughout the term of this contract, 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, his agents,
representatives, employees or subcontractors. Insurance is to be placed with
insurer with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VII. The costs of such insurance shall
be included in the Contractor's bid. The Consultam shall provide the following
scope and limits of insurance:
A. Minimum Scooe of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
Insurance Services Office Form No. GL-0002 (Ed. 1/73) covering
Comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office Form No.
GL-0404 covering Board Form Comprehensive General Liability; or
Insurance Services office Commercial General Liability coverage
("occurrence" Form No. CG-0001 ).
Insurance Services Office Form No. CA-0001 (Ed. 1/78) covering
Automobile Liability, Code 1 "any auto" and Endorsement CA-0025.
Workers' Compensation insurance as required by Labor Code of the
State of California and Employers' Liability insurance·
4. Errors and Omissions insurance.
-3- r:\cip~projects\pw93~pw93-09\soiltech.agrlajp
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits of insurance no
less than:
General Liability: $1,000,000combined single limit per occurrence for
bodily injury and property damage.
Automobile Liability: $1,000,000combined single limit per accident for
bodily injury and property damage·
Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability: Workers'
Compensation as required by the Labor Code of the State of California
and Employers' Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident.
4. Errors and Omissions Insurance: $1,000,000 per occurrence.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductible in excess of $1,000
must be declared to and approved by the City.
Other Insurance Provisions. Insurance policies required by this contract shall
contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions:
All Policies. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be
endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided,
concealed by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after
thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City via United States First
Class Mall.
General Liability and Automobile Liability CoveraQes. 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, lease, 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.
With regard to claims arising from the Consultant's performance of the
work described in this contract, the Consultant's insurance coverage
shall be primary insurance as respects the City its officers, officials,
employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained
by the City, its officers, officials, employees or employees or volunteers
shall apply in excess of, and not contribute with, the Consultant's
insurence.
Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies 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.
-4- r:\ciP~Projects~pw93~pw93-09\soiltech.agrlajp
16.
Workers' Comoensation and Emolovers' Liability Coverage. The insurer
shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its
officers, officials, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work
performed by the Consultant for the City.
Verification of Coveraoe. Contractor shall furnish the City with
certificates of insurance effecting coverage required by this clause. The
certificates for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person
authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The
certificates are to be on forms provided by the City and are to be
received and approved by the City before work commences. The '-City
reserves the right to require complete, certified copies. of all required
insurance policies, at any time.
Consultant shall include all subconsultants as insureds under its policies
or shall furnish separate certificates for each subcontractor. All
coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements
stated herein.
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and
approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall
reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as
respects the City, its officers, officials and employees; or the Consultam
shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related
investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
Licenses. Consultant and subconsultant shall obtain all necessary licenses,
including but not limited to, City Business Licenses.
The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above
written.
-5- r:\cip~projects~pw93~pw93-Og\soiltech.agrlajp
CONSULTANT CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
By
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
-6- r:~cip~projects~pw93~pw93-O9\soiltech.egrlejp
EXHIBIT "A"
TASKS TO BE PERFORMED
r:\cip%projects~pw93~pw93-O9%soiltech.agr/ajp
EXHIBIT '~-
(ESTIMATED COST BREAKDOWN)
(Parkview Site Grading - PW93-O9)
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
Pre-Project Meeting
Project Geotechnical Engineer
Project Engineering Geologist
Senior Technician
,
Geologic Mapping & Inspection i Slope Stability Analysis
Certified Engineering Geologist (Field Mapping)
Staff Engineer (Calculations & Report of Findings)
Laboratory Testing
Direct Shear (In-situ, 3 pts. for cut slopes)
Direct Shear (Reinold, 3 pts. for fill slopes)
Compaction Testing During Grading Operations
Senior Soil Field Technician(s) Estimated 8 hours per day
20 Work Days, full-time Observation & Testing
(Rough Grading Operations) Reduced Rate
Laboratory Testing
Maximum Density Curve (ASTM-D-1557, Method A)
Expansion Index
Soluble Sulfate
R-Value Testing for Pavement Design
Final Grading/Geologic & Slope Stability Report Staff Engineer(Report Wdting and Data Collating)
Staff Geologist (Prepare Geologic Field Data for Drafting)
Drafting (Plot Plan Showing Cleanout and Test Locations)
Project Geotechnical Engineer (Review)
Project Engineering Geologist (Review)
Company Principal (Review)
Preparation of Final Report for Distribution
Hourly Rate/ E-Umatad
Unit Costs Hrs/Unit Costs Total Costs
$ 95.00 I $ 95.00
$ 85.00 I $ 85.00
$ 39.00 I $ 39.00
Pre-Project Meeting $219.00
Rates/Costa Hours/Units Total Co~ta
$ 85.00 8 $ 680.00
$ 75.00 4 $ 300.00
$ 120.00 I $ 120.00
$ 210.00 I $ 210.00
Geology/Slope Stability $1,310.00
Ratas/Costa Hours/t.lni~ Total Costs
$ ~39.00 160 $ 6,240.00
$ 110.00 4
$ 80.00 4
$ 30.00 4
Compaction Testing
Rates/Cos~ Hours/Unll
$ 75.00 7
$ 65.00 1
$ 40.00 6
$ 95.00 2
$ 95.00 2
$ 125.00 1
$ 35.00 4
FinalReport
$ 440.00
$ 320.00
$ 120.00
Upon Request
$~12~00
Total Cos~
$ 525.0O
$ 65.00
$ 240.00
$ 190.00
$ 190.00
$ 125.00
$ 140.00
$1,475.00
For cost estimating purposes, the daily rate for one technician (based on an &O-hour day) will be $312.00.
Please note: The above costs are based on an assumed scope of work from the proposed project schedule submitted
herein and this ~rm's past experience on similar projects. Hours and tests may vary depending on the actual work
schedule, types of tests required, testing and observation frequency, contractors performance and unanticipated
geotechnical conditions. Geotechnicat Consulting and Testing Services will be performed as stated above and invoiced bi-
monthly on a time-and-materials basis. Additional work beyond that represented herein will not be conducted without pdor
authorization from the Client.
SOIL TECH, INC.
EXHIBIT "B"
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
r:\cip~projects%pw93\pw93-O9\soiltech.agr/ajp
II
II
I
I
I
II
I!1
Stilt_ ~
SCHEDULE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES
(JANUARY 1995)
LABORATORY TESTING FEES, (continued)
Direct Shear, in-situ sample, natural moisture, 3 points* .............................................................120.00
Direct Shear, imsitu sample, natural moisture, 3 points, residual' ..............................................360.00
Direct Shear, imsitu sample, saturated, 3 points' ........................................................................150.00
Direct Shear, imsitu sample, saturated, 3 points, residual' ..........................................................390.00
Hydrometer Analysis (minus No. 10 sieve material) ......................................................................65.00
Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content Relationships
a) ASTM 13-1557, (Method A) ..........................................................................................110.00
Check Point .....................................................................................................................50.00
b) ASTM 13-1557, (Method B, C) ......................................................................................130.00
Check Point .....................................................................................................................60.00 -'
c) ASTM 13-1557, (Method D) ........................................................~; ................................150.00
Check Point .....................................................................................................................80.00
d) California Impact (CALTRANS 216) .............................................................................120.00
Minimum Electrical Resistivity .......................................................................................................40.00
Moisture Content ....................; ........................................................................................................8.00
Organic Content ............................................................................................................................30.00
pH ...........................................................................................................................................10.00
Permeability .........................................................................................................................On Request
R-Value:
a) CALTRANS 301 ............................................................................................................210.00
b) With Cement, Lime or other additives .................................................................On Request
Sieve Analysis, without wash, 3/4" Max ........................................................................................55.00
Sieve Analysis, washed, 3/4" Max ...............................................................................................100.00
Sieve Analysis, ~200 wash ............................................................................................................55.00
Specific Gravity (+ No. 4 Sieve Material) ................................................................-.2 ....................70.00
Specific Gravity (- No. 4 Sieve Material) .......................................................................................80.00
Triaxial Compression Test ..............................................................................· ......................On Request ·
Unit Weight and Moisture Content (undisturbed ring samples) .....................................................15.00
Sample Pick Up and Delivery (per hour) .......................................................................................45.00
Special Tests and Sample Preparation (per hour) ...........................................................................45.00
· Add $20.00 per specimen for remolded tests
AGGREGATE TESTING
Cleanness Test (per coarse aggregate) ............................' ...........................................................$100.00
Clay Lumps and Friable Particles (per aggregate) ...........................................................................70.00
Crushed Particles (per coarse aggregate) ........................................................................................70.00
D u rability (per aggregate) ............................................................................................................125.00
LA Abrasion (Coarse aggregate 1.5" or less in size)
a) 100 Revolutions ...........................................................................................................110.00
b) 500 Revolutions ...........................................................................................................150.00
Light Weight Pieces (per aggregate) .....................................................~ .......................................150.00
Organic Impurities in Fine Aggregate ............................................................................................45.00
Sand Equivalent (average of 3 test points) ......................................................................................65.00
Scratch Hardness (per coarse-aggregate) ........................................................................; ...............65.00
Sieve Analysis, without wash (per aggregate) ................................................................................55.00
S~IL_ l=~r=M, ~m'=
SC:~- ~ ear,,
SCHEDULE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES
(]ANUARY 1995)
HOURLY PERSONNEL CHARGES
31
Principal ....................................................................................................................................$125.00
Registered Environmental Assessor (REA) .................................................7 ..................................100.00
Geotechnical Engineer, (GE) ............................; ...........................................................................110.00
Engineering Geologist, (REG) .......................................................................................................110.00
Project Engineer, (RCE) ..................................................................................................................95.00
Project Geologist, (RG) .................................................................................................: ................95.00
Staff Engineer .................................................................................................................................75.00
Staff Geologist ................................................................................................................................75.00
Manager of Operations ..............................................................................: ...................................65.00
Field Supervisor ........................................................................................: ....................................60.00
Laboratory Supervisor ....................................................................................................................60.00
Senior Technician (Lab. / Field) .....................................................................................................50.00
Technician, (Lab. / Field) ...............................................................................................................45.00
Drafti n g Services ............................................................................................................................45.00
Word Processing ............................................................................................................................45.00
Clerical Services .............................................................................................................................35.00
Deputy or Special Inspector .................................................................................................On Request
Court Appearance, Depositions, and/or
Governmental Representations, (Including Travel Time, Hourly Rate) ..........................$250.00
ADDITIONAL CHARGES
Vehicle Charge (Mileage Exceeding 50 miles round trip from office), per mile ............................$0.45
Nuclear Density Gauge, per day ...................................................................................................12.50
Manometer Equipment, per survey ..............................................................................................:. 20.00
Postage or special delivery services ....................................................................................Cost + 15%
Cost + 15%
Outside Services .................................................................................................................
Additional copies of reports, based on clerical time and materials, per hour ................................35.00
Per Diem, per day per person ....................................................................................$30.00 + Lodging
Note:
LABORATORY TESTING FEES
Laboratory testing fees are per test and do not reflect sample pick up and delivery charges or out of ordinary sample
preparation time. Fees for additional tests available upon requesL
SOIL TESTING
Atterberg Limits
a) Liquid Limit ..................................................................................................................$50.00
b) Plastic Limit ....................................................................................................................50.00
c) Plasticity Index ..............................................................................................................100.00
d) Shrinkage Limit ...............................................................................................................80.00
C.B.R. (3 points, excluding optimum moisture / max. density curve) ..........................................300.00
Chloride content ............................................................................................................................30.00
Consolidation, max. 5 points without rate data' ...........................................................................85.00
Consolidation, single point without rate data' .................................: ............................................55.00
Consolidation, per additional loading point ..................................................................................20.00
Consolidation, rate data per load increment ..................................................................................40.00
I
1
I
il
i
i
I
ili
sol_ -r'ec]-~ fie..
SCHEDULE OF PROFESSIONAL FEE
0ANUARY 1995)
LABORATORY TESTING FEES, (continued)
Compressire Strength, Brick, 5 required ...................................................................................45.00 ea
Other Specialty Testing (i.e., not frequently-conducted) ......................................................On Request
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE TESTING
Film Stripping (ASTM) ..................................................................................................................$80.00
Centrifuge Kerosene Equivalent, Coarse or Fine (each) ...............................................................125.00
Specific Gravity (Compacted Sample) ............................................................................................45.00
Stabilometer Test (Sample Mixing - set of 3) ...................................' ............................................270.00
Premixed Sample (Set of 3) ..............................................................................................170.00 '-
Extraction, % Bitumen & Sieve Analysis ......................................................' ................................150.00'
Marshall Test, per Core Specimen, (stability & flow) ..................................................................150.00
Marshall Test, Maximum Density Only .......................................................................................150.00
Marshall Test, (Sample Preparation - Set of 3) ..........~ ...................................................................275.00
Evaluation of On-Site Failures ..............................................................................................On Request
Other Specialty Testing (i.e., not frequently conducted) ......................................................On Request
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL TESTING
418.1/SM5520F ...........................................................................................................................$40.00
8015 ('I'PH), Gasoline ....................................................................................................................75.00
8015 (TPH), Diesel ..................................................................................: .....................................85.00
8015/8020 ...................................................................................................................................145.00
239.1/7420, Total Lead (Soil) .........................................................................................................10.00
239.1/7420, Total Lead (Water) ...............................................................................: .....................40.00
8010 ...........................................................................................................................................90.00
8020 (BTXE) .......................................................................................................: .........................;. 75.00
7000, 'I'FLC Metals ......................................................................................................................190.00'
Photo-Vac, (Per Day) ....................................................................................................................100.00
MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES
Coring Field Samples of Concrete, A.C., Masonry, etc ........................................................On Request
Reinforcing Steel, Structural Steel & High Strength Bolt Testing .........................................On Request
Por~tand or Aspbaltic Cements, Liquid Asphalts, Emulsions & Siurry Seals .........................On Request
Roofing Observations and Tes~ ...........................................................................................On Request
Densi~' of Sprayed Fireproofing .............................................................................................$55.00 ea
Asbestos P.L.M. Analysis ...........................................................................................................35.00 ea
il
m
ii
ii
L
S~L, Tee:H, lear_.
SCHEDULE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES
(JANUARY 1995)
LABORATORY TESTING FEES, (continued)
Sieve Analysis, with wash (per aggregate) ....................................................................................110.00
Sieve Analysis, -#200 material Coer aggregate) .............................................................................55.00
Soft Particle (per aggregate) ................................~ ...........................................................................65.00
Soundness, (5 cycle, sodium sulfate)
a) Fine Aggregate ..............................................................................................................225.00
b) Coarse Aggregate .........................................................................................................200.00
Specific Gravity and Absorption
a) Fine Aggregate ................................................................................................~ ...............60.00
b) Coarse Aggregate ...........................................................................................................55.00
Unit Weight (loose and compacted) ...........................................................~ ................................100.00
CONCRETE TESTING
Concrete Mix Design (review calculations only) .......................................................................$120.00
5plircing Tensile Test, 6"x6" beam .................................................................................................75.00
Flexural Strength, 6"x6" beam .......................................................................................................45.00
Beams Cured but not tested (less than 28 days old) .......................................................................25.00
Splitting Tensile Test, 6"xl 2" cylinder ...........................................................................................75.00
Compression Tests, Hold Samples, 6"xl 2" cylinder ......................................................................18.00
Cylinders Canceled, Not Tested (less than 28 days old) ................................................................10.00
Compression Tests (Gunite) ...........................................................................................................18.00
Density Tests on Concrete Cylinders (unit weight) ........................................................................50.00
Slump Cone Rental ..............................................................................................................On Request
Compression & Bond Strength of Joint Fillers ......................................................................On Request
Batch Plant Certification .......................................................................................................On Request
On Request
Trial Concrete Design Mix ..................................................................................................
Cement Content of Hardened Concrete .......................; ......................................................On Request
Shrinkage Testing (ASTM/State Methods) .............................................................................On Request
Other Specialty Testing (i.e., not frequently conducted) ......................................................On Request
MASONRY TESTING
Compression Test, Hold Samples, Mortar or Grout Cylinders ................................................$18.00 ea
Compression Test, Masonry Unit, 3 required
(Net area also requires absorption & unit weight tests) .................................................65.00 ea
Absorption Test, Masonry Unit, 3 required
(Net area also requires unit weight test) ..........................................................~ ..............45.00 ea
45.00 ea
Unit Weight, Masonry Unit, 3 required ....................................................................................
Moisture Content, Masonry Unit (as received), 3 required .......................................................45.00 ea
Lineal shrinkage, masonry unit, 3 required ...............................................................................85.00 ea
Tensile Test on Masonry Block ........................................................................:' .....................125.00 ea
85.00 ea
Shear Test on Masonry Core .....................................................................................................
Compression Test on Masonry Core ........................................................................................45.00 ea
Compression Test of Masonry Prisms 8"xl 6" (other sizes on request) ....................................125.00 ea
Diamond Sawing of Masonry Units, if required ......................................................................20.00/cut
Modulus of Rupture, Brick, 5 required .....................................................................................45.00 ea
SC31I_ Ter'l-!, INr__.
ITEM 16
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Manager/City Council
Genie Roberrs, Director of Finance
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works
August 22, 1995
Appropriation of Funds to General Fund Emergency Relief
Department Budget
PREPARED BY:
Allie Kuhns, Senior Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council appropriate an additional $100,895 to the
1994/95 General Fund Emergency Relief Department Budget for expenditures incurred for
disaster relief from floods occurring in March 1995.
DISCUSSION: As part of the mid-year budget review, Council approved a $200,000
appropriation to the General Fund Emergency Relief Department Budget to cover winter storm
damage identified by Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) Incident Number 1044.
These storms occurred in January 1995, and FEMA Incident Number 1044 is specific to these
storms. A total of $178,478 has expended to repair the storm damage sustained under
Incident Number 1044.
During the March storms, subsequent to FEMA Incident Number 1044, various areas of
Temecula incurred additional flood damage. FEMA again established a means of
reimbursement through FEMA Incident Number 1046, and a total of $122,366 has been
expended for repairs to storm damage conjunctive to this Incident Number.
After both phases of the winter storms of 1995, a total of twenty-four (24) projects were
identified, and Damage Survey Reports (DSR) were assigned by FEMA to allow for future
reimbursement. To date, a total of $290,024has 'been submitted to FEMA for reimbursement
to cover flood damage repairs. Thus, with the $200,000 original appropriation and total
identified costs of $300,895, an additional appropriation of $100,895 is necessary.
FISCAL IMPACT: The amount of $100,895 will be appropriated to the General Fund
Emergency Relief Department Budget to the specific funds designated in the attached
spreadsheet. This will provide a total of $300,895 in this fund for the purpose of repairing
damage incurred during the winter storms of 1995, designated by FEMA Incident Numbers
1044 and 1046. Approximately 93.75 percent of the total costs incurred should be
reimbursed by FEMA and the State of California Office of Emergency Services.
Attachment
Z
o ,,f ~
o.0 --- ,_
Bow
Z
I--
rr
r~
>.-
0
Z
nl
LLI I-
n Z
Z LI.I
U-Xu~
Z 0
won..
OF-O
< F--
).. --
~0~
L.I.I
I- I.u
n
×
I.IJ
ITEM 17
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Manager/City Council
Genie Roberrs, Finance Officer
August 22, 1995
Resolution to Establish Entertainment License Fees
PREPARED BY:
Allie Kuhns, Senior Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ESTABLISHING ENTERTAINMENT LICENSE FEES
FOR THOSE ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS COVERED IN
CHAPTER 9.10 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE
DISCUSSION: During the June 14, 1994 Council Meeting, the City Council adopted
Ordinance No. 94-16, adding Chapter 9.10, "Special Licenses - Bars, Night Clubs, Dance
Halls, Poolrooms, Etc.," to the Temecula Municipal Code. This ordinance has addressed
concerns expressed by the City Council regarding the need to enforce controls over certain
entertainment activities in the City by requiring these activities to apply for the license.
Through the application process, the Police Department becomes involved and conducts a
criminal background check to ensure that the following conditions exist:
Ae
The application fulfills the specific requirements for such license as set forth in
chapter 9.10 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
The applicant has not made any false or misleading statement in his/her
application.
The licensed business has not been operated in an illegal, improper, or
disorderly manner.
The licensed business has not been operated in a manner that is detrimental to
the public health, public morals, or public order.
In conjunction with the application process, applicants will be required to pay a fee of
$115.00. This fee covers the application investigation ($70.00), fingerprint fees ($42.00-
payable to the County of Riverside) and supplies ($3.00) which are used to complete the
background check, and will be paid to the Temecula Police Department.
Once established, the entertainment license application process will provide the only means
available for the Temecula Police Department to conduct a background check on businesses
prior to allowing them to operate. No other business license or permit application process
allows for investigations or background checks.
FISCAL IMPACT: The license fee collected will cover the cost of the Temecula Police
Department's background investigation.
]~E~OLUTION NO. 9.$-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ C1TY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA ESTABT,T~H1NG ENTERTAINMENT LICENSE FEES
FOR THOSE ENTERTAINMENT ESTABT-T,~IMENTS COVERlet}
IN CHAFrER 9.10 OF THE TEblECIJLA MUNICIPAL CODE
The City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and order as follows:
WHEREAS, City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94-16 requires the owners of certain
entertainment establishments to obtain a special license; and,
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the Temecula Police Department to conduct a criminal
background investigation in conjunction with the license application process; and,
WHEREAS, them is a need to reimburse the Temecula Police Department for the costs
incurred in conducting the background investigation,
NOW, TitE!!EFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Temecula orders as follows:
Section 1:
There is hereby established a Special License Fee in the amount of
$115.00.
Section 2:
The Temecula Police Department shall collect this fee in conjunction with
the Department's Special License application process.
Section 3:
The funds collected for this fee shall be deposited in the Receiving
Account of the General Fund on a weekly basis.
Section 4: The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 22nd day of August, 1995.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
ITEM 18
TO:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFIC ,.-~r~
CITY MANAGERE~'~.,~
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
FROM:
DATE:
City Manager/City Council
~,~Shawn D. Nelson, Director of Community Services
August 22, 1995
SUBJECT:
Unified Program Agency Designation for Hazardous Waste and Hazardous
Materials Management
PREPARED BY: Phyllis L. Ruse, Development Services Administrator
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a Resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DESIGNATING THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AS THE UNIFIED
PROGRAM AGENCY FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT
DISCUSSION: In 1993, Senate Bill 1082 (SB 1802) was passed in an effort to
consolidate duplicative regulatory programs. SB 1082 mandates that administration of six-
specified hazardous waste and hazardous materials regulatory programs be consolidated under
a Unified Program Agency, and that the Agency be certified by the Secretary of the California
Environmental Protection Agency. The six regulatory programs to be consolidated are:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Hazardous Waste Generators
Underground Storage Tank Operation
Hazardous Materials Inventories and Release Response Plans
Acutely Hazardous Materials Handling
Hazardous Materials Management Plans and Inventory
Aboveground Storage Tank Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure
Plans
The Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) currently administers a
consolidated regulatory program for hazardous waste/materials handling and related
emergency planning, including programs I through 5 above, for the City of Temecula. The
sixth program component, the Aboveground Storage Tank Spill Prevention Plan, is
administered by the three Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Santa Ana, Colorado and
San Diego). The DEH is working with these Boards to coordinate efforts and develop an
agreement for the Boards to continue the oversight of the program on behalf of the
unincorporated County and covered Cities, including Temecula.
Adoption of this Resolution is an administrative procedure allowing the DEH to complete the
required certification through the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency.
The DEH will continue to provide the same services to the City of Temecula as in the past with
no changes.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE C1TY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DESIGNATING THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,
DEPAR~ OF ENVIRO~AL HEALTH AS THE UNIFn~
PROGRAM AGENCY FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS MANAGEMENT
WIn~EAS, Chapter 6.11 of Division 20 of the California Health and Safety Code
(HSC) requires that ndministration of six specified hnTnrdous waste and hazardous materials
management regulatory programs must be consolidated as a Unified Program; and
WHEREAS, HSC Chapter 6. I 1 requires that an agency which administers any of the
specified unified program components must be certified under a Unified Program Agency by the
Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency; and
W~ERE&S, those Unified Program components specified in HSC Chapter 6.11 include
the requirements of HSC Chapter 6.5 (commencing with Section 25100) related to bnTnrdous
waste generators and on-site waste treatment; HSC Chapter 6.7 (commencing with Section
25280) related to construction, operation, and removal of underground storage tanks; Article 1
of HSC Chapter 6.95 related to bnTnrdous material release response plans and inventories;
Article 2 of HSC Chapter 6.95 related with the management of acutely hazardous materials;
HSC Section 25270.5 (c) related to aboveground storage tank spill prevention control and
countermeasure plans; and Uniform Fire Code (UFC) Section 80.103 (b) and (c) related to
hazardous materials management plans and inventories; and
WHEREAS, HSC Section 25509.2 eliminates duplicate reporting requirements by
deeming that reports fLIed under HSC Chapter 6.95, Articles 1 and 2, shall have met the:
requirements of UFC Section 80.103 (b) and (c); and
WHEREAS, the County of Riverside, Department of Environmental Health, curren~y
administers regulatory compliance for five of the six Unified Program components in the City
of Temecula; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environmental Health, serving as a Unified Program
Agency, will coordinate administration of the sixth Unified Program component, the
Aboveground Storage Tank Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans, with the San
Diego, Santa Ana and Colorado Regional Water Quality Control Boards.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the City of Temec~,!:~ designates the County of Riverside, Department
of Environmental Health as the Unified Program Agency for hazardous waste and hn~-~rdous
materials regulation in this jurisdiction.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of the Resolution.
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
ATrEST:
June S. Greek, CMC
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecuh, California, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 95- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the __ day of , 1995, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCH.A{EMBERS:
COUNCILMF~MBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, CMC
City Clerk
ITEM 19
ORDINANCE NO. 95-11
AN ORDINANCE OF THE C1TY COUNCIL OF THE C1TY
OF TEMECULA ADOFrING THE ChIP LAND USE
COORDINATION PROCESS
WHEREAS, state hw (specifically Government Code sections 65088 through 65089.9)
imparts on local agencies the responsibility to link land use decisions with transportation and air
quality goals; and
WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) has been
designated as the Congestion Management Agency in Riverside County and must biennially
prepare and adopt a Congestion Management Program (CMP) designed to direc~y link land use
planning with transportation and air quality management; and
WHEREAS, State law requires the Congestion Management Agency to monitor local
agency compliance with the CMP, including adoption and implementation of a two-phase
program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions on transportation (the *CMP Land Use
Coordination Program"); and
WHEREAS, Phase 1 of the CMP Land Use Coordination Program requires local
agencies to prepare a Traffic Impact Assessment CfIA), as specified in Chapter 5 of the CMP,
for development proposals that generate more than 200 peak hour trips and may impact the CMP
System; and
WHEREAS, each local agency must choose between two alternative approaches for
RCTC review of agency compliance with the Phase 1 requirements of the CMP Land Use
Coordination Program; these options being Approach A - Ongoing TIA Review Process and-'
Approach B - Annual TIA Review Process, descriptions of which are in Chapter 5 of the 1994
Riverside County CMP.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES I4F, R~BY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby adopt Riverside
County CMP Land Use Coordination Program and chooses Approach A for review of the City' s
compliance with the Phase I requirements.
Section 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk
of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be posted
in at least three public places in the City.
Ords\95-11 I
Section 3. T~lcing Effect. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its
adoption.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty 00) days after its
passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall
publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall
be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this
Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a
summary of this Ordinance, together with the name of the Councilmembers voting for-and
against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk.
PASSED, tIPROVED AND ADOPTEB, by the City Council of the City of Temecula
at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of August, 1995.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
June S. Greek, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
Orals\95-11 2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)
crrY OF TENm_L~LA)
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the forgoing
Ordinance No. 95-11 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting
of the City Council on the 8th day of August,. 1995, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly
adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 22nd day of August, 1995,
by the following vote, to wit:
CO~CILMEMBERS:
NOES:
CO~CILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
CO~CILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, CMC
City Clerk
Orals\95-11 I
ITEM 20
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORN
FINANCE OFFICE "~~
E
CITY MANAG R
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Director of Community Development
August 22, 1995
Planning Application No. PA95-0023, Development Agreement'for Van Daele
79 Venture, LTD.
Prepared By:
Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt the Negative Declaration for PA95-0023
2. Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 95-_
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT AND
RESTATEMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND VAN DAELE 79 VENTURE, LTD.
FOR FINAL TRACT MAPS N O. 22716-FINAL, 22716-2,22716-4
AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28122 WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN
NO. 199.
BACKGROUND:
On November 7, 1988, the County of Riverside approved Development Agreement No. 5 for
the Margarita Village Specific Plan (S.P. 199)which includes tracts 22716 and 28122. On
February 13, 1995, the City Council and the developer entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) that involved tracts 22716 and 28122. This MOU authorizes the
collection of a $3,200.00 per unit Interim Public Facility Fee when the owners obtain a
Certificate of Occupancy for the first production home built in the project. This commitment
set the foundation for the reducing the Development Agreement Fee for this project. The
proposed revisions would reduce the Development Agreement Fee from $5,271.00 per unit
to $3,200.00 per unit which is consistent with the recent reductions the City Council has
approved for other developers. On August 7, 1995 the Planning Commission recommended
approval of PA95-0023 with a 4-0 vote (Commissioner Steve Ford was absent).
R:LSTAFFRPT~ITPA94.CC 8/14/95 klb 1
FISCAL IMPACT
Development Agreement No. 5 Fee:
Interim Public Facilities Fee to be Collected:
81 Dwelling Units X $5,271 -- $426,951
81 Dwelling Units X $3,200 = $259,200
Attachments:
Ordinance No. 95- - Blue Page 3
Proposed Amendment and Restaement of Development Agreement Agreement No. 5 -
Blue Page 8
Planning Commission Staff Report, August 7, 1995 - Blue Page 9
R:\STAFFRFI~ITPA94.CC 8114195 klb 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
ORDINANCE NO. 95-,_
R:\STAFFRPT~ITPA~.CC 8/14/95 klb 3
ORDINANCE NO. 9.5- __
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF
T]~V/ECULA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT AND
RESTA~ OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 5 BETWF~
THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND VAN DAELE 79 VENTURE, LTD. FOR
FINAL TRACT MAPS NO. 22716.FINAL, 22716-2, 227164 AND
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28122 WITltlN SPF_ZIFIC PLAN NO. 199.
WHEREAS, Section 65864 et attl. of the Government Code of the State of California
and Temecula City Resolution No. 91-52 authorize the execution of agreements establishing and
maintaining requirements applicable to the development of real property; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedure specified in said Resolution, Van Daele
79 Venture, Ltd., a California Limited Partnership, hereinafter "Van Daele" has filed with the
City of Temecula an application for a Development Agreement which reflects an amendment and
restatement of existing County Development Agreement No. 5 (hereinafter "this Agreement"),
of a residential housing subdivision on its property for Planning Area 14 including at Tract
22716, Lots 1-11; Tract 22716-2, Lots 1-13, 17-31; Tract 22716-4, Lots 1-40; Parcel Map
28122, Lots 1, 2, 3 provided such Parcel Map is approved, hereinafter the "Subject Property"
which application has been reviewed and accepted for filing by the Planning Director; and,
WHEREAS, notice of the City's intention to consider adoption of this Agreement with
Van Daele, has been duly given in the form and manner required by law, and the Planning
Commission and City Council of said City have each conducted public hearings on August 7,
1995 (Planning Commission), and August 22, 1995 (City Council) at which time it heard and
considered all evidence relevant and material to said subject.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS-'
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. FINDINGS. The City Council hereby finds and determines, with respect
to this Agreement by and between the City of Temecula and Van Daele, that it:
A. Is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs
specified in the City of Temecula's General Plan in that this Agreement makes reasonable
provision for the use of certain real property for residential development consistent with the
General Plan's land use designation of low-medium density residential;
B. Is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the
land use district in which the Subject Property referred to herein is located as this Agreement
provides for residential development pursuant to a Specific Plan;
C. Is in conformity with the public convenience, general welfare, and good land use
practice because it makes reasonable provision for a balance of land uses compatible with the
remainder of the City;
R:XSTAFFRFB17PA94.CC 8/14/95 klb doe
D. Will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general walfam because it
provides adequate assurances for the protection thereof;
E. Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission was published in
a newspaper of general circulation at least ten (10) days before the Planning Commission public
hearing, and mailed or delivered at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing to the project
applicant and to each agency expected to provide wata, sewer, schools, police prot~don, and
fire protection, and to all property owners within six hundred feet (600') of the property as
shown on the latest equalized assessment roll;
F. Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission included the date,
time, and place of the public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, a general explanation of
the matter to be considered, a general description in text or diagram of the location of the real
properly that is the subject of the hearing, and of the need to exhaust administrative remedies;
G. Notice of the public hearing before the City Council was published in a newspaper
of general circulation at least ten (10) days prior to the City Council public hearing, mailed at
least ten (10) days prior to the hearing to the project applicant, to each agency expected to
provide water, sewer, schools, police protection, and fire promction, and to all property owners
within six hundred feet (600') of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll;
H. Notice of the City Council hearing included the date, the time, and place of the
public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, the general explanation of the matter to be
considered, a general description in text or by diagram of the location of the Property that is the
subject of the hearing, and the notice of the need to exhaust administrative remedies;
I. City Council approved this Agreement by Ordinance based upon evidence and
findings of the Planning Commission and new evidence presented at its hearing on this
Agreement, giving its reasons therefor and setting their relationship between 'this Agreement and
the General Plan;
K. The benefits that will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from this
legislation and this Agreement are as follows:
1. Generation of municipal revenue;
2. Construction of public infrastructure facilities;
3. Acceleration of both the timely development of subject property as well
as the payment of municipal revenue;
4. Enhancement of quality of life for surrounding residents with the timely
development through the elimination of dust and nuisance of partially improved lots;
5. Payment of Public Facility Fees (fire, library, traffic signal mitigation,
development and RSA); and,
R:~STAFFRPT~ITPA94.CC 8114195 klb 5
6. Help ensure solvency of Assessment District 159 and Community Facilities
District 884 as Van Daele has elected to use legislation to help offset burden to pay off each
of these districts for subject property in their entirety and these districts finance City and
regional improvements.
Section 2. APPROVAL. This Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference as Attachment '1' is hereby approved. The Mayor is authorized and directed
to evidence such approval by executing this Agreement for, and in the name of, the City of
Temecula; and the City Clerk is directed to attest thereto; provided, however, that this
Agreement shall not be executed by the City until this Ordinance .tak~ effect and the City has
received from the applicant two executed originals of said Agreement.
Section 3. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions
of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold-
any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect
the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.
Section 4. NOTICE OF ADOPTION. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption
of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall
publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall
be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this
Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a
summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and
against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk.
R:kqTAFFRP~ITPA~4.CC 8114/95 IrJb 6
Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ,1995.
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. __ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 199_, and that thereafter,
said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the
day of 199_, by the following vote, to wit:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
R:XSTAFFRPTX17PA94.CC 8114/95 lifo
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 5
R:',STAFFRPTXlTPA94.CC 8/14/95 k.lb 8
RECORDED AT THE REQUEST OF
City
City of Temecula
Widen RECORDED RETURN TO
City Cl~rk
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
(Space Above Line For Recorder's Us~)
AMF~NDMENT AND RF_,STATEMlq~ OF DEVI~IDPMENT AGI~F-lqMENT
SPEC]lh'IC PLAN NO. 199
PLANNING AREA 14
PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
'Margarita Village'
Van Daele 79 Venture Ltd.
31~-'3593.2
~lV~:~NT AND P, ESTATEIVIENT OF DEVI:H O~ AGIt~
B~
CITYOFT2~tECULA
and
VAN DAP:I .P 7~ VENTURE, LTD.
This Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement (" Amendment") is
entered into to be effective on the date set forth in Recital N. and Paragraph 1.7 by and
among the City of Temecula, a California Municipal Corporation ("City") and Van Daele 79
Venture, Ltd., a California Limited Pannership ("Owner"):
A. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65864, ct. Seq,
("Development Agreement Statutes"), Kaiser Development, a California Corporation and
others and the County of Riverside, California ("County") entered into Development
Agreement No. 5 recorded in the Official Records of Riverside County, California on
November 7, 1988, as Instrument No.325515 ("Development Agreement No. 5").
B. Development Agreement No. 5 encompasses a project formerly located within
County approval Specific Plan No. 199 known as "Margarita Village", a mixed use
subdivision, (the "Original Project") to be developed on property which came within the
municipal boundaries of the City when the City incorporated on December 1, 1989. This
Agreement encompasses only a portion of the. Original Project, located in Planning area 14 a
residential development (the "Project"). The balance of the Original Project covered by
Development Agreement No. 5 not included within Planning Area 14 is not amended or
impacted by this Agreement.
ORANGP'3593.2 ].
C. Pursuant to the provisions of the Development Agreement Statutes, the City
became the suecessor-in-interest to the County under Development Agreement No. 5 upon
incorporation of the City.
D. Pursuant to Section 65868 of the Development Agreement Statutes, the City
and Owner propose to restate and amend Development Agreement No. 5 to substitute this
Agreement for the portion of Development Agreement No. 5 pertaining to the Project.
E. Pursuant and subject to the Development Agreement Statutes, the City's police
powers and City Re,~lution No. 91-52, City is authorized to enter into binding agreements
with persons having legal or equitable interest in real property located within the City's
municipal boundaries or sphere of influence thereby establishing the conditions under which
such property may be developed in the City. :
F. By electing to enter into this Agreement, City shall bind future Members of
the City Council oi City by the obligations specified herein and further limit the future
exercise oi certain governmental and proprietary powen of Members of the City Council.
Likewise, Owner shall bind its successors in interest to the obligations specified in this
Agreement.
G. The terms and conditions of this Agreement have undergone extensive review.
by the staff of the City, the Planning Commission of the City, and the City Council of City
and have been found to be fair, just, and reasonable.
H. City finds and determines that it witl be in the best interest of its citizens and
the public health, safety and welfare will be served by entering into this Agreement.
I. All of the procedures and requirements of the Catifomia Environmental
{3E:3593.2 2
Quality Act have been met with ~ to this Agrcuncnt.
~. Riverside County Ordinance No. 659, as adopted by the City, establishes
public facilities impact fees for residential development within City ("RSA Fees"). City
requires these revenues to mitigate the impact of development. City requires RSA Fees from
development of the Propmy in order to ~omplete capital projects to mitigate the impact of
the development.
K. Development Agreement No. 5 provided for public facilities and services
impact fees (*County Impact Fees*) higher than the RSA Fees. These higher fees,
particularly during the present economic situation, unduly discourage and delay development
and thereby prevent City from ever receiving the County Impact Fees or RSA Fees.
Consequently, the City desires to reduce the County Impact Fees for residential development
in the Project to a level comparable to the RSA Fees.
L. City and Owner acknowledge that development of the Project will result in the
generation of municipal revenue, for public infrasU'ucture facilities and the enhancement of
the quality of life, including recreation facilities for present and future residents of the City.
The benefits to the City and Owner contemplated by development of the Project include:
(1) completion of vacant lots in Project;
(9_) payment of fire mitigation fees;
(3) participation in special assessment districts to finance City and regional
infra.~tructure improvements
M. The City and Owner acknowledge that due to the present economic situation,
none of these benefits to the City are possible unless the Project proceeds with development.
ORANGE:3593 ~2 3
N. City Council of City has approved this Agreemint by Ordinance No.
adopted on , and effective on (*Effective Date"). On the
Effective Date, Development Agreement No. 5 shall be t~rmit,~ted as to the Project only and
of no further force and effect with respect to the Project, having been replaced by this-
Agreement.
NOW, T~FRE~ORE in consideration of the above Recitals and of the mutual
covenants hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged and incorporated herein, the parties agree:
1. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires, the
following words and phrases shall have the meaning set forth below:
1.1 *City"is the City of Temecula.
1.2 "City PubLic Facility Fee" is an mount to be established by Ordinance
of c ty.
1.3 "County" is the County of Riverside.
1.4 "County Public Facilities and Services Fee" means the County
Development Agreement Fee as set forth in Section 4.2 of Development Agreement No. 5.
1.5 "Development Exaction" means any requirement of City in connection
with or pursuant to any Land Use Regulation or Existing Development Approval for the
dedication of land, the construction of improvements or public facilities, or the payment of
fees in order to lessen, offset, mitigate or compensate for the impacts of development on the
environment or other public interests.
1.6 "Development Plan" means the Existing Development Approvals
'0v-'3~93.2 4
defined in Section 1.8 below which are applicable to dcvclopmeat of the Projca.
1.7 'Effective Date' means the date upon which the Ordinance approving
_this Agreement becomes effective, which date is thirty (3~)) days following the date the CAW
Council adopted such Ordinance absent a referendum challenge.
1.8 'Existing Development Approval(s)' means those certain development
approvals in effect as of the effective date of this ~grccmcnt with respect to the Property,
including, without limiuition, the *Existing Development Approvals* listed in E~ghtit A,
atuichcd hcrcto and incorporated hcrcin by this reference, which were approved by the
County or the City.
1.9 'l=inancing District' means a Community l=acilities District formed
pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community t:acilities Act of 1982, (California Government Code
Section 53311 ~ as amended); an assessment district formed pursuant to the
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, (Califo~ Streets and Highways Code Section
22500 et see_. as amended); a special assessment district formed pursuant to the Improvement
Act of 1911, (California Streets and Highways Code Section 10102, as amended); or any
other special assessment district existing pursuant to SUite law formed for the purposes of
financing the cost of public improvements, facilities, services and/or public facilities fees
within a specific geographical area of the City.
1.10 'Interim Public l=acilities l=ee' means an amount of Three Thousand
Two Hundred Dollars ($3,200) per each residential unit developed in the Project.
1.11 'Land Use Regulations' means all ordinances, resolutions, codes,
rules, regulations, and official policies of City, governing the development and use of land
ORA~OE:3593.2 5
including without limitation, the permitted use of land; the dmsity or intensity of use;
subdivision requirements; the maximum height and size of proposed buildings; the provisions
for reservation or ~)edic~t~on of land for public purposes; and the design, improvement, and
construction standards and specifications applicable to the development of the P~olxa ty listed
on E~rhlhlt B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which are a matter
of public rec~nxt on the .Effective Date of this Agreement. "l ~_~1 Use Rekmlarions" does not
include any County or City ordinance, resohtion, code, rule, regulation, or official policy,
governing:
(a) The conduct of businesses, professions, and occupations;
Co) Taxes and a~se~ments;
(c) The control and abatement of nuisances'
(d) The granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of
rights and interests which provide for the use of or the entry upon public property;
(e) The exercise of the power of eminent domain.
1.12 *Owner' means the person having a legal or equitable interest in the
Project;
1.13 *Project* is the development of the Property in accordance with the
Development Plan.
1. 14 *Property* is the real property described in Exh'bit C, attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference.
1.15 *RSA Fee* means the fee established by County Ordinance No.
as adopted by City.
0E:3593.2 6
1.16 'Subsequent Development Approvals' means all development approvals
required subsequent to the Effective Date in connection with development of the Pff, pcx ty.
1.17 *Subsequent Land Use Regulation* means any Land Use Regulation
adopted and effective after the Effective Date of thi~ AgreemenL
2. Interest of Owner. Owner represenU that it has the fee title interest in the
Pr~ and that all other persons holding legal or equitable interests in the Property are to
be bound by this Agreement.
3. l~,xhibits. The following documents are referred to in this Agreement attached
hereto, incorporated herein, and made a pan hereof by this reference:
F. xhibit Designation
A
B
C
D
Description
Existing Development Approvals
Existing Land Use Regulations
Legal Description of the Property
Notice From Mortgagee
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and
shall extend for a period of ten (10) years thereafter, unless this Agreement is terminated,
modified or extended by circumstances set forth in this Agreement or by mutual consent of
the parties hereto.
4.2
occurrence of the entry of a final judgment or issuance of a final order after exhaustion of
any appeals directed against the City as a result of any lawsuit filed against the City to set
This Agreement shall terminate and be of no force and effect upon the
ORANOB:3593.2
aside, withdraw, or abmgam ~e ~ by the City Council of City of thi~ Agruma~t.
S. .A~onment.
S. 1 l~ht to Assign. Th~ Owner shall have the right to sell, trans~, or
assign the l~opa ty in whole or in ~ (provided ~ no such partial transfer shall violate the
Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Section 66410, ~t=1~1~, or Riveni~ County
Ordinance No. 460, as the same was incorporated by reference into the Temecula Municipal
Code by Ordinance No. ~)-04,) to any person, partnenhip, joint venture, firm, or
corporation at any time during the term of this Agreement; provided, however, that any such
sale, transfer, or assignment shall include the 8~ignment and assumption of the rights,
duties, and obligations arising under or from this Agreement and be made in strict
compliance with the following conditions precedent:
(a) No sale, transfer, or m.ignment of any fight or interest
under this Agreement shah be made unless made together with the sale,
transfer, or assignment of atl or a pa~t of the Prope~. Owner agrees to
provide specific notice of this Agreement, including the record or document
number, 'where a true and correct copy of this Agreement may be obtained
from the Riverside County Recorder, in any grant deed or other document
purporting to transfer the ti~e or an interest in the l~opc~ty during the term of
this Agreement or any extension thereof.
(b) Concurrent with any such sale, transfer, or assignment,
or within fifteen (15) business days therealter, the Owner shall notify City, in
writing, of such sale, transfer, or assignment and shall provide City with an
1GE:3593.2 8
executed agreement, in a form reasonably acceptable to the City Attorney, by
the purchaser, transferee, or assignee and providing therein that the purchaser,
transferee, or assignee expressly and unconditionally assumes all the dd~es and
obligations of the owner under this Agreement.
Any sale, transfer, or assignment not made in strict compliance with the foregoing conditions
shall constituted a default by the Owner under this Agreement. Notwithstanding the failure
of any purchaser, transferee, or assignee to execute the agreement required by Paragraph Co)
of this Subsection, the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon such purchaser,
transferee, or assignee, but the benefits of this Agreement shall not inure to such purchaser,
transferee, or assignee until and unless such agreement is executed.
5.2 Release of Transferrinl, Owner. Notwithstanding any sale, transfer, or
assignment, a transferring Owner shall continue to be obligated under this Agreement unless
such transferring Owner is given a release in writing by City, which release shall be
provided by City upon the full satisfaction by such transferring Owner of ALL of the
following conditions:
(a) The Owner no longer has a legal interest in all or any
part of the Property except as a beneficiary under a deed of trust.
Co) The Owner is not then in default under this Agreement.
(c) The Owner or purchaser has provided City with the notice and
executed agreement required under Paragraph Co) of Subsection 5.1 above.
(d) The purchaser, transferee, or assignee provides City with
security equivalent to any security previously provided by Owner to secure performance of
ORANGE:3593.2 9
its obligations hea~Amder.
(e) The Owner has x~imbursed Ci~ for any and all City costs
associated with Owner's transfer of all or a portion of the l~opc, ty.
5.3 Tern~in~on of Afreement with R, elgea to lndividnal I nts ~ Sale to
Public and Conlpl,',ion of Construction. The provisions of Subsection 5.1 shall not apply to
the sale or lease (for a period longer than one year) of any lot which has been finally
subdivided and is individually (and not in 'bulk") sold or leased to a member of the public or
other ultimate user. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, this Agreement
shall teminate with respect to any lot and such lot shall be released and no longer be subject
to this Agreement without the execution or recordation of any further document upon
satisfaction of both of the following conditions: --
(a) The lot has been finally subdivided and individually (and
not in 'bulk') sold or leased (for a period longer than one year) to a member
of the public or other ultimate user; and
Co) A Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for a
building on a lot, and the fees set forth in this Agreement have been paid.
5.4 Subsequent Assignment. Any subsequent sale, transfer, or assignment
after an initial sale, transfer, or assignment shall be made only in accordance with and
subject to the terms and conditions of this Section.
6. Mort~ee Protection. The parties hea-eto agree that this Agreement shall not
prevent or limit Owner, in any manner, at Owner's sole discretion, from encumbering the
Property or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust,
or other security device securing financing with respect to the Pxo/.a ty. City acknowledges
that the lenders providing such financing may require certain Agreement interpretations and
modifications and agrees upon request, from time to time, to meet with the Owner and
representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith any such request for interpretation
or modification. City will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested
interpretation or modification provided such interpretation or modification is consistent with
the intent and purposes of this Agreement. Owner shall reimburse City for any and all of
City's reasonable costs associated with said negotiations, interpretations, and modifications
and shall make reimbursement payments to City within thirty (30) days or receipt of an
invoice from City.
Any Mortgagee of the Property shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges:
(a) Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement
shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any mortgage on the Property
made in good faith and for value, unless otherwise required by law.
(b) The Mortgagee of any mortgage or deed of trust encumbering the
Property, or any pan thereof, which Mortgagee has submitted a request in writing, in the
form as attached hereto as Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, to the City in the manner specified herein for giving notices, shall be enti~ed to
receive written notification from City of any default by the Owner in the performance of the
Owner's obligations under this Agreement.
(c) If City timely receives a request from a Mortgagee, in the form set
forth on Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, requesting a
o~a~o~3~ .2 11
copy of any norice of default given to the Owner under the terms of this Agreement, City
shall endeavor to provide a copy of that notice of default to the Mortgagee within ten (10)
days of sending the notice of default to the Owner. The Mortgagee shall have the right, but
not the obligation, to cure the default during the rcrngining cure period allowed such party
under this AgrceanenL City shall have no liability for damages or otherwise to Owner,
Owner's successor, or to any Mortl~ce or successor thereof for the failure to provide such
norice.
(d)
thereof, pursuant to foreclosure. of the mortgage or deed of trust, or deed in lieu of such
foreclosure, shall tak~ the Property, or part thereof, subject to the terms of this Agreement.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, no Mongagce shall.
have an obligarion or duty under this Agreement to perform any of the Owner's obligarions
or other affirmarive covenants of the Owner hereunder, or to guarantee such performance,
provided however, that to the extent that any covenant to be performed by Owner is a
condirion precedent to the performance of a covenant by City, the performance thereof shall
continue to be a condirion precedent to City's performance hereunder, and further provided
that any sale, transfer, or assignment by any Mortgagee in possession shall be subject to the
provisions of Secrion 5. 1 of this Agreement. The term of the Agreement shall not be
extended based on the fact that a Mortgagee holds .rifle to the ~operty for all or any pan of
the term of this Agreement.
(e) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any
portion thereof, pursuant to subsection (d) above and who elects not to assume the
Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Prope4ty, or any part'
o~3~.2 12
obligations of the Owner set forth herein shall not be entitled to any rights to develop which
have or may have vested as a result of ~is Agreement.
7. Rinding F. ffect of Agreement. The burdens of this Agreement bind and the
benefits of the Agreement inure to the succes~'s-in-intaest to the parties to it in a~cordance
with the provisions of and subject to the limitations of this Agreement.
8. Pr~ect as a Private Undertakin~fRcla~onship of Parties. It is specifically'
understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the development of the Project
is a private development, that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect
hereunder, and that each party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms,
covenants, and conditions contained in this Agreement. No parmership, joint venture, or
other association of any kind is formed by this Agreement. The only relationship between
City and Owner is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property
and the owner of such property.
9. Chan[,es in PrOject. No change, modification, revision, or alteration of
Existing Development Approvals may be made without the prior approval by those agencies
of the City equivalent to the County agencies that approved the Existing Development
Approvals in the first instance (if the County had granted the approvals) or by the same City
agency that granted the Existing Development Approvals, (if the City granted the approval in
connection with the adoption of this Agreement). City may expand the permitted uses for the
Property without amending this Agreement so long as Owner or Owner's successor retains
his/her/their existing enti~ements.
10. Timing of T~evelopment. The parties acknowledge that Owner cannot at this
OUA~G~'3Sg~.2 13
time predict when, or at the rate at which the Pwpc, ty will be developed. Such deci-~ions
depend upon numerous iliaors which are not within the control of Owner, such as market
orientation and demand, inteiT, st rates, absorption, completion and other similar facton.
Since the California Supreme Court held in Psrdce Constrllc~on Co. v. City of C~m~ri]io, 37
Cal.3d 465 (1984), that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of
development resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of development
resulted in a hter adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over such
parties, it is the parties intent to cure that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that the
Owner shall have the right to develop the Property in such order, at such rate, and at such
times as the Owner deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business
judgment, subject only to any timing or phasing requirements set forth in the Development .-.
Plan.
11. Indernni~y ~nd Cost of l-itii, ation.
11.1 Hold Harmless. Owner agrees to and shall hold City, its officers,
employees, agents, and representatives harmless from liability for damage or claims for
damage for personal injury including death and claim for propa~ damage which may arise
from the direct or indirect operations of the Owner or those of its contractor, subcontractor,
employee, agents, or other person acting on its behalf which relate to the Project. Owner
agrees to and sh~ll indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City and its officers,
employees, agents, and representatives from actions for damages caused or alleged to have
been suffered by reason of the operations referred to in this paragraph, regardless of whether
or not City prepared, supplied, or appwved plans or specifications for the Project. This
~F~3~93.~ 14
indemnification requirement shall extend beyond the termination or expiration of this
Agreement.
11.2 County l .itigstion Concerning Agreement. In the event the County
seeks to challenge the right of City and Owner to enter into this Agreement or to terminto
Development Agreement No. 5, and institutes an action, suit, or proceeding to challenge this
Agreement or invalidate and/or enjoin the enforcement of this Agreement or the amendment
of Development Agreement No. 5, City and Owner agree to cooIgrm and participate in a
joint defense in any action against the parties, their officers, employees, and agents, from
and against any and all such obligations, liability, suit, claim, loss, judgment, or lien
resuiting from such action(s) brought by County, (but excluding actions to expunge any lis
pendens) and to share the costs associated with attorneys fees and costs that the parties may-.
incur as the re,suit of any such action or hwsuit to challenge City and/or Owner's legnl
authority to enter into this Agreement and/or terminate Development Agreement No. 5. ff
the County action is against Itll impacted developments for which the City has lowered the
othersvise applicable County fees, then Owner's defense costs herein shah be its pro rata
share among all impacted landowners based on a ratio of con~bution of the total units
owned by Owner which are subject to this Agreement compared to the total number of units
within the City in which City has lowered the County fees and which are included in such
legltl chalienge. If the County action is only against Owner with respect to this Agreement
or the amendment to County Development Agreement No. 5, then Owner's defense costs
shall be one-hundred percent (100%) of the attorneys fees and costs for defense of the
litigation. Damages (including the difference in the amount of any Interim Public Facilities
ov. Asa~3s~ .2 15
Fee and the amount of the County Development Agreement Fee paid by Owner to City
pursuant to the terms of this Agreement) shall be the responsibility of Owner. To the extent
Owner has paid Public Facilities Fees and/or County Development Agreement Fees to City
of which it is adjBdic~t~ are lawfully the fun& of County, City shall pay such sums to
County and Owner shall have such liability for the payment of the difference between such
fees reduced by the amount paid by the City. City and Owner shall mutually agree on legal
counsel to be retained to defend any such action(s) brought by the County as herein
provided. City and Owner each reserve the right to withdraw from-the defense of the
County litigation. in the event the County prevails at the trial level and there is an appeal. ff
either party withdraws after the trial and there is an appeal, the remaining party shall pay all
the costs and fees associated with said appeal.
11.3 Public Facilities Fees Shortfnll. In the event the County prevails in any
legal action or other proceeding to challenge, set aside, or enjoin the enforcement of this
Agreement and the amendment of Development Agreement No. 5, and a trial court
determines that the Owner and/or the City is liable to mak~ up any shortfall between the
amount of the Interim Public Facilities Fee or the City Public Facilities Fee, as the case may
be, and the County Development Agreement Fee which would otherwise have been imposed'
pursuant to Development Agreement No. ~5, then Owner shall be responsible for paying any
such shortfall subject to City's payment to County of any amounts collected and held by City
under the terms of Development Agreement No. 5 - in excess of that due City under
Development Agreement No. 5. Such payment by City and County shall reduce Owner's
liability to County for payment of such fees by a like amount paid by City.
T~3sgs.2 16
11.4 County Prevails in Toit~tion - ~ever~hillty. In the event the County
prevails at the trial court level against the City or the Owner as described in Section 11.2 of
_this Agreement, the mount of the Interim hbli~ Facilities Fee or the City Pubic Facilities
Fee, as the case my be, shall revert to the mount of the County Development Agreement
Fee in effect at the time of entry of the final judgment in favor of the County, or such lesser
mount as determined by the court. In the event this Agreement is held to be invalid or
unenforceable by a trial court of competent jurisdiction, the provisions set forth in Sections
12.2 and 12.3 of this Agreement shall no longer be enforceable and-from the date of said
final judgment or ruling of invalidity, Owner shall thereafter pay the County Development
Agreement Fee as provided in Section 4.2 of Development Agreement No. 5, or such lesser
mount as determined by the court. All other provisions of this Agreement shah remain
valid and enforceable notwithstanding said ruling of invalidity.
11.5 Third Party Litigation Concerning, Agreement. Owner shall indemnify;
protect; defend, at its expense - including attorney's fees; and hold harmless City, its
officers, employees, or agents against any loss, cost, expense, claim, or counter-claim,
complaint, or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Agreement
or the approval of any permit granted pursuant to this Agreement brought by a third party
other than the County. City shall promp~y notify Owner of any such claim, action, or
proceeding, and City shall cooperate in the defense. If City fails to promptly notify Owner
of any such claim, action, or proceeding, or if City fails to cooperate in the defense, Owner
shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless City. City may in
its discretion participate in the defense of any such claim, action, or proceeding.
o~,~0~3s~3.2 17
11.6 l~.nvironmcntal Assurances. Owner shall indemnify, lmaect, defend
with counsel approved by City, and hold harmless City, its officers, employees, agents,
assigns, and any successor or successors to City's interest from and against all claims, acthal
damages (including but not limited to special and consequential damages), natural resources
damages, punitive damages, injuries, costs, response reme(li~tion and removal corn, losses,
demands, debts, liens, liabilities, causes of action, suits, legal or administrative proceedings,
interest, fines, charges, penalties and expenses (including but not limited to attorneys' and
expert witness fees and costs incurred in connection wit defending against any of the
foregoing or in enforcing this indemnity) of any kind whatsoever paid, incurred, or suffered
by, or asserted against, City or its officers, employees, or agents arising from or attributable
to any repair, cleanup, or detoxification, or preparation and implementation of any removal,.
remedial, response, closure, or other plan (regardless of whether undertaken due to
governmental action) concerning any Hazardous Substance or hazardous wastes at any place
within the Property which is the subject of this Agreement. The foregoing indemnity extends
beyond the term of this Agreement and is intended to operate as an agreement pursuant to
Section 107(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act, *CERCLA,* 42 U.S.C. Section 9667(e), and California Health and Safety Code Section
2~364, and their successor statutes, to insure, protect, hold harmless, and indemnify City
from Liability.
11. ? Release. Except for nondamage remedies, including the remedy of
specific performance and judicial review as provided for in Sections 19, 20, and 21 hereof,
City, for itself, its successors and assignees, hereby releases the City, its officers, agents,
~593.2 18
and employees from any and all ciaims, demands, actions, or suits of any kind or nature
arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or future, including, but not limited
to, any claim or liability, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of the
California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United Sta~ Constitution, or any other
law or ordinance which seeks to impose any other liability or damage, whatsoever, upon the
City because it entered into this Agreement or because of the terms of this Agreement.
11.8 Reservation of Rights. With respect to Sections 11.1 to 11.7 herein,
City reserves the fight to either (1) approve the attorney(s) which Owner selects, hires, or
otherwise engages to defend City hereunder, which approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld, or (2) conduct its own defense, provided, however, that Owner shall reimburse
City forthwith for any and all reasonable expenses incurred for such defense, including
attorney's fees, upon billing and accounting therefor.
11.9 Survival. The provisions of this Section 11.1 to 11.9, inclusive, shall
survive the termination of this Agreement.
12. Public Benefits. Public Improvements and Facilities.
12.1 Intent. The parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement confers
private benefits on the Owner which should be balanced by commensurate public benefits.
Accordingly, the parties intend to provide cons'ffieration to the public to balance the private
benefits conferred on the Owner by providing more fully for the satisfaction of the public
needs resulting from development of the Project.
12.2 Public Facilities Fee (Residential).
(a) In Lieu of the County Development Agreement Fee, RSA Fee
ORAHC~3Sg~.~ 19
or City Public Facility Fee, for a period of five (5) years commencing on the Effective Date,
Owner shah pay an Interim Public Facilities Fee of Three-Thousand-Two-Hundred Dollars
($3,200.00) per dwelling unit. The Interim Pubtic Facilities Fee shall be paid as provided in
Section 12.5 below. At the conclusion of the.five (5) year period, Owner shall either.
continue to pay the Interim Pubtic Facilities Fee of Three-Thousand-Two-Hundred Dollars
($3,200.00) per dwelfing unit or such other pubtic facilities fee as the City has then enacted
and appfied to residential development projects in the City..Owner expressly acknowledges
the existence and holding in the case of Kaufman and Broad Central Valley, Inc. v. City of
Modesto, (1994), 25 Cal. App.4th 1577, as it appfies to later adopted fees. Owner hereby
waives for himself, and for any successor thereto, the right to challenge the validity or
amount of any such other public facilities fees which are enacted and appfied to residential -
development projects in the City. Such waiver applies to the Project after the first five (5)
years of this Agreement. Owner acknowledges and agrees that City would not have entered
into this Agreement if its application or operation would limit in any way the City's ability to
develop and apply a Comprehensive Public Facilities Fee Program to this Project following
the first five (5) years of the term of this Agreement. Owner further acknowledges and
agrees that the waiver provided herein applies not only to this Agreement, but to any rights
Owner may have under any vesting map filed and deemed complete under the vesting maps
statutes, Government Code Section 66498.1 ILl~. Finally, Owner agrees that the institution
of any legal action by Owner, or any successor thereof, to challenge the validity, amount, or
application of any public facilities fee after the first five (5) years of this Agreement,
including paying such fees "under protest" pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 et
'0E:3593.2 20
l~tl., shall constitute a material breach and default under this Agreement entitling the City to
summary termination thereof.
Co) Owner shall also pay all other customary and typical
development executions, for a Project of this size and nature, in existence as of the Effective
Date and throughout the ttrm of this Agreement, including but not limited to, Fire, Traffic
Signal Mitigation, and K-Rat Fees pursuant to the provisions of City ordinances and
resolutions in the existence when paid.
12.3 Timing. Collection of any and all Interim Public Facilities Fees and/or
City Public Facilities Fees, if any, required to be paid by Owner pursuant to this Agreement
shah be deferred until such time as a certificate of occupancy has been obtained for the fffst
production home built on the Property. The, the Interim Public Facilities Fees shall -
be paid at the time of issuance of building permits for each residential unit constructed on the
Property. Collection of any and all Interim Public Facilities Fees and/or City Public
Facilities Fees paid by the Owner for the model home units in surplus to those fees contained
herein shall be credited to Owner.
12.4 Other Applicable Fees. The parties hereto agree that to the extent the
fees set forth below have not ben paid prior to the execution of this Agreement by both
parties, the Stevens Kangaroo Rat, library, fire, drainage, and Urneric signal mitigation fees
remain applicable to the Project. In the event City establishes a permanent public facility fee
program which is specifically designed to include one or more of the fees listed above,
Owner, or Owner's successor, shall not be obligated to pay such fee or applicable pan
thereof more than once.
o~u~o~:~s~.2 21
12.5 Public World. If Owner is required by this Agr~ment, or any other
obligation, to consreset any publi~ works facilities which will be dedicated to City or any
other public agency upon ~ompletion, and if required by applicable laws to do so, Owner
shsll perform such work in the same manner and subject to the same requirements as would
be applicable to City or such other public agency should it have undertaken such
construction.
13. ~on of Authority.
13.1 I imitations. Reservations. and Exc~tions. Notwithslsnding any other
provision of this Agreement, the following Subsequent Land Use Regulations shall apply to
the development of the Property:
(a) Processing fees and charges imposed by City to cover the
estimated actual costs to City of processing applications for Subsequent D6velopment
Approvals.
(b) Procedural regulations relating to h~Lring bodies, petitions,
applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals, and
any other mater of procedure.
(c) Regulations imposing Development Exactions; provided,
however, that no such subsequenfiy adopSi! Development Exactions shall be applicable to
development of the Property unless such Development Exactions are applied uniformly to
development throughout the City.
(d) Regulations governing construction standa~s and specifications
including without limitation, the City's Building Cod~, Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code,
,c~3s.2 22
~cal Code, and Fire Code.
(e) Regulations which are in conflict with the Development Plan.
Any regulation, whether adopted by initiative or otis'wise, limitinS the rate or timing of
development of the t'fo~ ty shall be deemed to conflict with the Development Plan and shah
therefore not bc applicable to the development of the F~topctty.
(f) Regul~_~ons which are in conflict with the Development Plan
provided Owner has given written consent to the application of such regulations to
development of the Property.
13.2 Subsequent Development Al~rovals. This Agreement shall not prevent
City, in acting on Subsequent Development Approvals, from applying the Subsequent Land
Use Regulations which do not conflict with the Development Plan, nor shall this Agreement
prevent City from denying or conditionally approving any Subsequent Development Approval
on the basis of the Existing or Subsequent Land Use Regulations not in conflict with the
Development Plan.
13.3 Modification or Suspension by State or Federal Law. In the event that
State or Federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement
prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such
provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply
with such State or Federal laws or regulations, provided, however, that this Agreement shall
remain in fun force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or
regulations and to the extent such laws or regulations do not render such remaining
provisions impractical to enforce.
ORA~GE:SSgS .2 23
13.4 Rep,l~tion by Other Public Agencies. R is acknowledged by the
parties that other public agencies not within the control of City possess authority to regulate
aspects of the development of the Pxopc~ty separately from or joinfly with City and this
Agreement does not limit the authority of such other public agencies.
13.5 Tentative Tr~t Map ~xtension. Pursuant to the provisions of Section
66452.6 of the Government Cod~, the tentative subdivision map(s) or tentative parcel map(s)
(vested or regular) approved as a pan of iraplementing the Development Plan shall be
extended to expire at the end of the term of this Agreement.
13.6 Vesting Tentative Maps. If any tentative or final subdivision map, or
tentative or final parcel map, heretofore or hereaft' approved in connection with the
development of the Property, is a vesting map under the Subdivision Map Act (Government:
Code Section 66410, ~ and Riverside County Ordinance No. 460, as the same were
incorporated by reference into the Temecula Municipal code by Ordinance No. 90-04, and if
this Agreement is determined by a final judgment to be invalid or unenforceable insofar as it
grants a vested right to develop to the Owner, then and to that extent the rights, obligations,
and protections afforded the Owner and City respectively, under the laws and ordinances
applicable to vesting maps shall supersede provisions of this Agreement. Except as set forth
immediately above, development of the Property shall occur only as provided in this
Agreement, and the provisions in this Agreement shall be controlling over conflicting
provisions of law or ordinances concerning vesting maps.
TG*P'3593.2 24
nevel~pment of the PrQf/ctty- Vesting. Terminntlon of l'~-vel~!~ment
14.
Agreement No. 5.
14.1 IZights to DevelQp. Subject to the team of this Agreement, including
payment of the Interim Public Facilities Fee, the Owner shall have a vested fight to develop
the PmpetZy in accordance with, and to the extent of the Development Plan. The Project
shall remnin subject to all Subsequent Development Approvals required to complete the
Project as contemplated by the Development Plan. Except as otherwise provided in this
Agreement, the permitt~ uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, the
maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation and
dedication of land for public purlx>ses shall be those set forth in the Development Plan. In
exchange for the vested fight to develop pursuant to this Agreement, Owner expressly waives
for himself and for any successor thereto, the fight to challenge or contest the validity of any
condition of approval attached to any en~~ement which is a part of the Development Plan.
14.2 Effect of Agreement on Land Use Regulations. Except as otherwise
provided under the terms of this Agreement, including the payment of the Interim Public
Facilities Fee, the rules, regulations, and official policies governing permitted uses of the
Property, the density and intensity of use of the Property, the maximum height and size of
proposed buildings, and the design, improvement and construction standards and
specifications applicable to development of the Property shall be the Existing Land Use
Regulations. City shall exercise its lawful reasonable discretion in connection with
Subsequent Development Approvals in accordance with the Development Plan, and as
provided by this Agreement including, but not limited to, payment of the Interim PubLic
ORANGE:3593.2 25
Facilities Fee and/or the City Public Facilities Fee, as the case may be. City shall accept for
processing, review, and action all applications for Subsequent Development Apptovah, and
such applications shall be processed in the normal manner for proct~ing such matters. City
may, at the request of Owner, conurn for planning and engineering consultant services to
expedite the review and processing of Subsequent Development Approvals, the cost of which
shall be borne by Owner.
14.3 Changes and Amendments. The parties acknowledge that refinement
and further development of the Project will require Subsequent Development Approvals and
may demonstrate that changes are appropriate and mutually desirable in the Existing
Development Approvals. In the event the Owner finds that a change in the Existing
Development Approvals is necessary or appropriate, the Owner shall apply for a Subsequent.
Development Approval to effectuate such change. If approved, any such change in the
Existing Development Approvals shall be incorporated herein as addendure to this Agreement
and may be further changed from time to time as provided in this Section. Owner, shall,
within thirty (30) days of written demand by City, reimburse City for any and all reasonable
costs, associated with any amendment or change to this Agreement that is initiated by Owner
or Owner's successor - without regard to the outcome of the request for amendment or
change to this Agreement. Unless otherwise required by hw, as determined in City's
reasonable discretion, a change to the Existing Development Approvals shall be deemed
"minor' and not require an amendment to this Agreement provided such change does not:
(a) Alter the permitted uses of the Property as a whole, except as provided
in Section 9 hereof; or,
~o~:3s~ .2 26
Increase the density or intemity of use of the Prolx, aty as a whole; or,
Increase the maximum height and size of permitted buildings; or,
Delete a requirement for the reservation or dedication of land for public
purposes within the P/oix,~ty as a whole; or,
(e) Constitute a projea requiring a subsequent or a supplemental
Environmental Impact Report pursuant to Section 21166 of the Public Resources Cede.
14.4 Minimum Unit Size. Owner agrees that the units to be constructed on
the Property shall be a minimum of one thousand (1,000) square feet in size.
14.:5 Termination of Development A~'eement No. 5. Both City and Owner
agree that on the Effective Date of this Agreement, Development Agreement No. 5 shall be
terminated and of no further force or effect as to this Project only, having been replaced by.
this Agreement.
15. Periedic Review of Compliance with A~reement.
(a) Pursuant to City Resolution No. 91-52, as it may be subsequenfiy
amended, City shall review this Agreement at least once during every twelve 02) month
peried from the Effective Date of this Agreement. The Owner or successor shall reimburse
City for the reasonable and necessary costs of this review, within thirty (30) days of written
demand from City.
(b) During each periedic review by City, the Owner is required to
demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. The Owner agrees to
furnish such evidence of good faith compliance as City in the exercise of its discretion may
require.
OR~OE~3S93.2 27
16. Financing District. Upon the request of Owner, the parties shall ox~erate in
exploring the use of special ~essment districts and other ~ Financing Distri~ for the
financing of the construction, improvement, or ac~luisition of publi~ il~rastn~re, ~fies,
lands, and improvements to serve the Projea and its residents, whether located within or
outside the t~op~ ty. It is acknowledged that nothing contained in this Agreement shall be
construed as requiring City or City Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds.
17. Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. This Agreement may be amended
or canceled in whole or in pan only by mutual consent of the parties and in the manner
provided for in Government Code Sections 65868, 65867 and 65867.5. If an Amendment is
requested by the Owner or its successor, the Owner/successor agrees to pay City any
Development Agreement Amendment fee then in existence as established by City Council
Resolution, or if no such fee is established, to reimburse City for the actual and reasonably
necessary costs of reviewing and processing said Amendment within thirty (30) days of
written demand from City - without regard to City's action on such amendment.
18. Enforcement. Unless amended or canceled as herein provided, this Agreement
is enforceable by any party to it notwithstanding a change in the applicable general or
specific plan, zoning, subdivision, or building regulations adopted by the City which alter or'
amend the rules, regulations, or policies governing permitted uses of the land, density,
design, improvement, and construction standards and specifications.
19. P. vents of Default. Owner is in default under this Agreement upon the
happening of one or more of the following events or conditions:
(a) If a warranty, representation, or statement made or furnished by Owner to
,o~.2 28
City is false or proves to have been false in any material ~ when it wa~ wade;
(b) More than forty-five (45') days have passed since City's making of a
written request to Owner for payment or reimbursement for a fee or service authorized or
agreed to pursuant to this Agreement.
(c) A finding and determination by City that upon the basis of substantial
evidence the Owner has not complied in good faith with one or more of the terms or
conditions of this Agreement.
20. Procedure Upon Default.
(a) Upon the occurrence of an event of default, City may terminate or
modify this Agreement in accordance with the procedure adopted by the City.
(b) City does not waive any claim of defect in performance by Owner
implied if on periodic review the City does not propose to modify or terminate this
Agreement.
(c) Non-performance shall not be excused because of a failure of a third
(d) Non-performance shall be excused only when it is prevented or delayed
by acts of God or an emergency declared by Governor.
(e) All other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided
for in this Agreement or in City's regulations governing development agreements are
available to the parties to pursue in the event there is a breach.
21. Damages Upon Termination. It is acknowledged by the parties that City
would not have entered into this Agreement if it were to be liable in damages under or with
o~m.2 29
respea to ~ Agreement or the application thered. Owner, for himself or any successor
thereto, expressly waives the right to seek damages against the City or any officer,
employee, or agent thereof, for any default or breach of this Agreement.
In general, each of the parties hereto may pursue any remedy at hw or equity
available for the breach of any provision of this Agreement, except that City, and its
officers, employees and.agents, shall not be liable in damages to Owner or to any assignee,
transferee of Owner, or any other person, and Owner covenants not to sue for or claim any
damages for breach of that Agreement by City.
22. Attorney' s Fees and Costs. If legal action by either party is brought because
of breach of this Agreement or to enforce a provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party
is entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and court costs.
23. Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in
writing and delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid and presumed
delivered upon actual receipt by personal delivery or within three (3) days following deposit
thereof in United States Mail. Notice required to be given to City shall be addressed as
follows:
To City:
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Attn: City Clerk
With A copy to:
Peter M. Thorson, Esq.
City Attorney
Burke, Wiltjams & Sorensen
611 W. Sixth Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017
~o~ssgs.~ 30
Notices required to be given to Owner shall be addressed as follows:
To Owner:
Van Daele Venture 79, Ltd. Care of:
Van Daele Development Corporation
2900 Adams Street, Suite C-25
Riverside, CA 92504
Attention: Brice Kitfie
With A copy to:
A party may change the address by giving notice in writing to the other party and thereafter
notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address.
24. Cooperation. City agrees that it shall accept for processing and promptly take
action on all applications, provided they are in a proper from and acceptable for required
processing for discretionary permits, tract or parcel maps, or other land use entitlement for-
development of the Project in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. City shall
cooperate with Owner in providing expeditious review of any such applications, permits, or
land use entitlement and, upon request and payment of any costs and/or extra fees associated
therewith by Owner, City shall assign to the Project planner(s), building inspector(s), and/or
other staff personnel as required to insure the timely processing and completion of the
Project.
25. Rules of Construction and Miscellaneou~ Terms.
(a) The singular includes the plural; the masculine gender includes the
feminine; *shall* is mandatory, 'may* is permissive.
Co) If there is more than one signer of this Agreement their obligations are
joint and several.
oR~so~3s93.2 31
(c) The time limits set forth in this Agreement may be extended by mutual
written consent of the parties in aecardance with the procedures for adoption of the
Agreement.
(d) This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and
benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns. No other person, including but not
limited to third party beneficiaries, shah have any fight of action based upon any provision of
this Agreement.
2{5. Entire Aereement. This Agreement and the exhibits-hereto contain the
complete, final, entire, and exclusive expression of the agreement between the parties hereto,
and is intended by the parties to completely state the agreement in full. Any agreement or
representation respecting the matters dealt with herein or the duties of any party in relation.
thereto not expressly set forth in this Agreement shall be null and void.
27. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each
of which so fully executed counterpart shall be deemed an original. No counterpart shall be
deemed to be an original or presumed delivered unless and until the counterpart executed by
the other party to this Agreement is in the physical possession of the party seeking
enforcement thereof.
28. Authority to Execute. Each party hereto expressly warrants and represents
that he/she/they has/have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of his/her/their
corporation, partnership, business entity, or governmental entity and warrants and represents
that he/she/they has/have the authority to bind his/her/their entity to the performance of its
obligations hereunder.
qoE:3593.2 32
IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by the authorized
representatives of the parties hereto.
"city'
City of Temecula
Attest:
By:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
O~,~NO~3SS~.2 33
"Owner"
[Nosy Required]
By: ~~ ~
Patrick J. Van Daele
(t3~ t~lle) '
(rifle)
Patrick 3. Van Dae~e
(typed name)
Secre~ar~
(rifle)
ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLk'YM3MENT
State of California
COUnty Of Riverside
)
)
June 19 , 1995, before me, Barbara O. Koenig
PAtrick J. Van Daele
, pcnonauy
[1
personally known to me -OR-
pwved 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 capacitydes), and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on the instntment the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
Wimess my hand and official seal.
Commission Expires ~
CAPACITY CLAIMED
BY SIGNER
INDNmUAL(S)
OFF~CSX(S) CrrrLa[s]):
President and Secretary
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
PARTNER(S)
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTF, F{S)
SUBSCRIBING WITNESS
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTI-rF~R:
Chairperson
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
Name of person(s) or entity(ies):
p,l L-PURPOSE ACKNOV~J~-r~GMENT
State of California
County of
, 1995, before me,
[l
[l
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
[]
[]
n~DBrmUAL(S)
OFFtCER(S). CrrrLE[s]):
CAPACITY CLAIMF-f}
BY SIGNER
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
PARTNER(S)
ATtORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
SUBSCRIBING WITNESS
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHF-R:
Chairperson
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
Name of person(s) or entity(ies):
ov,~o~.ss~.2 36
EXHIRITA
EXISTING DEVELOPlV~NT APPROVALS
Geners! Plsn - Low-Medium Density Residential
Specific Plan - State Subdivision Map Act No. 460, Specific Plan
No. 199 (Margarita Village), Ordinance No. 348.
Devekll~ment Agreement - Development Agreement No. 5
I and Divisions - Tentative Tract 22716
Final Tract Map No. 22716, 22716-2, 22716-4
Proposed Parcel Map 28122
ORANGE:359'3.2
EXISTING LAND USE REGULATIONS
General Plan Land Use designation is Low-Medium Density Residential.
ORANGe:3593.2
I~.~IqTR1T C
LI~GAI., DESCRIPTION
Tract 22716, Lots 1-11
Tract 22716-2, Lots 1-13, 17-31
Tract 22716-4, Lots 1-40
Parcel Map 28122, Lots 1, 2, 3 provided such Pared Map is approved.
ORANGE:3593.2
~XI:!TR1T r}
REQUF_,~ FOR NOTICE OF DEFAULT UNDER DEVELOP~ AG~
rlevelitpment Agreement:
Amendment and Restatement
of r~evel~rn~nt Agreemant
Specific pls. No. 199. Mnll, arita Village
Planning A~lication No.
To: City Clerk and Planning Director, City of Temecula
Pursuant to Section 6Co) and (c) of the above-referenced Amendment and Restatement
of Development Agreement, request is hereby made by
as Mortgagee for the property (or portion thereof) to receive
copies of any Notice of Default issued by City against Owner in accordance with the terms
and conditions of such Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement. Copies of
any such Notices should be mailed to the following address: ·
(Mortgagee)
(PersovJDepar~ent)
(Address)
<city/sta /z p)
CI'elephone No.)
A copy of this Notice should be filed with the project file to insure proper and timely
notice is given. Under the terms of said Amendment and Restntement of Development
Agreement, as Mortgagee is entitled to receive copies of any Notice of
Default within ten (10) da},s of send|n~ any such Notice to Owner. Failure to send an~,
such Notice rnn~, have serious legal consequences for the Cit},.
This request is to remain in effect until revoked by as
Mortgagee or the Amendment and Restatement of DeYelopment Agreement is terminated.
The poEon executing this document on behalf of said Mortgagee warrants and
represents that the entity he/she represents is a bonafide Mortgagee of said property and is
entitled to receive copies of Notices of Default under said Amendment and Restatement of
Development Agreement.
vo.~ 40o~. 1
The undenigned declares the above information is true and correct under the penalty
of perjury under the hws of the State of California.
Dated: _, 1995.
MORTGAGI~
By:
(printed name)
(rifle)
[Notary ~qui~cd] .
This Norice is to be sent to both the City Clerk and Planning Director for the City of
Temecula at 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 or such other location as
Temecula City Hall may be located in the future.
ORANGE:4(X~.I -2-
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT, SEPTEMBER 19, 1994
R:~STAI~3~I'~I7PA94.CC $I14/95 klb 9
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 7, 1995
Planning Application No.: PA95-0023
Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 for
Tentative Parcel Map 28122
Prepared By: Stephen Brown, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for PA95-0023; and
e
ADOPT Resolution No. 95- recommending approval of
PA95-0023 by City Council, based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Van Daele 79 Venture, LTD.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Brice Kittie
PROPOSAL:
A Request for Approval of a Development Agreement for Final
Tract Maps No. 22716-Final, 22716-2, 22716-4 and Tentative
Parcel Map 28122.
LOCATION:
Located north of Rancho Vista Road, south of Rancho California
Road and west of Butterfield Stage Road.
EXISTING ZONING:
SP (Specific Plan)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
SP (Specific Plan)
SP (Specific Plan)
SP (Specific Plan)
SP (Specific Plan)
PROPOSED ZONING:
N/A
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Low Medium Density Residential (3 to 6 dwelling units per acre)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
R:~STAFFRPT'~PA95.PC 8/1/95 slb
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single Family Dwellings
Single Family Dwellings
Single Family Dwellings
Single Family Dwellings
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area:
Number of Lots:
Existing Development Agreement Fee:
Proposed Development Agreement Fee:
22.7 acres
81 (including P M 28122)
95, 183.00/Unit
93,200.00/Unit
BACKGROUND
On November 7, 1988 Development Agreement No. 5 was approved by the County of
Riverside for the Margarita Village Specific Plan (S.P. 199) which includes Tracts 22716-Final;
22716-2; and 22716-4. Recently the developer approached the City to execute Amendment
and Restatement of this Development Agreement in order to receive a reduction in the
Development Agreement fees. As a first step in the process, the City and the developer
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on February 13, 1995. This MOU
authorizes the collection of 93,200.00 per unit Interim Public Facility Fee when the owners
obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the first production home built in the project. This
commitment set the foundation for the revisions in the Development Agreement Fee for this
project. The proposed revisions would reduce the Development Agreement Fee from
$5,183.00 per unit to 93,200.00 per unit.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Development Agreement Fee includes only an Interim Public Facilities Fee and
has eliminated other fees associated with County approved Development Agreements such
as the Regional Parkland Fee, Habitat Conservation Fee and Public Services Offset Fee.
Interim Public Facilities Fee
The Amended and Re-stated Development Agreement is written to have a duration period of
ten (10) years and applies to the following Tracts: 22716-Final, lots 1-11; 22716-2, lots 1-13,
17-31; 22716-4, lots 1-40; and Parcel Map 28122 lots 1,2, 3 provided such Parcel Map is
approved. Parcel Map 28122 will divide the current parking lot for the model complex in Tract
22176-2 into three parcels. The three phases in question contain 79 existing single family
lots. With the parcel map approval a total of 81 lots will be covered by this proposed
Development Agreement. The Interim Public Facilities Fee will be 93,200.00 per unit and will
be paid for the first five (5) years of the term of the Agreement. After this period, the
developer will either continue to pay the Interim Public Facility Fee of 93,200.00or such other
Public Facilities Fee adopted by the City and applied to other residential projects.
R:~q"rAFFRIrr~.3PA95.PC 81119~ s~ 2
ANALYSIS
The existing approved Development Agreement No. 5 includes the following fees:
Public Facilities Fee
Regional Parkland Fee
Habitat Conservation Fee
Public Services Offset Fee
$2,331.00
$431.00
$320.00
$2,189.00
Total Development Agreement Fee $5,271.00
According to the County, all County approved Development Agreements have a section which
purports to require the split of certain fees between the County and a city should any portion
of the property covering the agreement become part of a city. That section provides that the
Regional Parkland Fee ($431.00), the Habitat Conservation and Open Space Land Fee
($320.00) would continue to be fully payable to the County. Additionally, two-thirds (2/3) of
the Public Services Offset Fee ($2,189.00)and 5.3% Public Facilities Fee ($2,331.00)would
be payable to the County. Therefore, according to the County, a total of $2,329.78 is payable
to the County from the $5,271.00 Development Agreement Fee, leaving $2,941.22 as the
City's portion of this fee. The proposed $3,200.00 Interim Public Facilities Fee is greater than
$2,941.22, City's portion of the existing Development Agreement Fee, should the County
interpretation of the fees be used.
However, the City Attorney contends that the County's interpretation of the Development
Agreement is not in accordance with State law which provides that the benefits of a
Development Agreement as well as its burdens transfer to a City upon incorporation. As the
property which is the subject of this Development Agreement is now within the City
boundaries. the County is no longer entitled to any fees under the Development Agreement.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
This project will be consistent with the General Plan since the General Plan currently
designates the site as Low Medium Density Residential and the approved development project
which is implemented by this Development Agreement is consistent with this designation.
This project is consistent with Specific Plan No. 199, since the development project which is
implemented by this Development Agreement meets all the requirements of this Specific Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
A Initial Study was prepared for this project and it revealed no significant impacts. Therefore,
Staff recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Since other projects have received reductions in Development Agreement fees, Staff supports
this project.
R:~STAFFRPT~.3PA95.PC 8/1/95 sib 3
FINDINGS
The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 is consistent with
the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the City of
Temecula's General Plan in that the Development Agreement makes reasonable
provision for the use of certain real property for residential development and is
consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Medium Density
Residential.
The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 is compatible with
the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use district in which
the Property subject to the Development Agreement is located as the Development
Agreement provides for single family homes. This Development 'Agreement is
consistent with good planning practices by providing for the opportunity to develop the
Property consistent with the General Plan.
The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 is in conformity
with the public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice because it
makes reasonable provision for a balance of housing opportunities compatible with the
remainder of the City.
The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 will not be
detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare because it provides adequate
assurances for the protection thereof.
Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission was published in a
newspaper of general circulation at least twenty (20) days before the Planning
commission public hearing, and mailed or delivered at least twenty (20) days prior to
the hearing to the project applicant and to each agency expected to provide water,
sewer, schools, police protection, and fire protection, and to all property owners within
six hundred feet (600') of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment
roll.
Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission included the date, time,
and place of the public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, a general explanation
of the matter to be considered, a general description and text or by diagram of the
location of the real property that is the subject of the hearing, and of the need to
exhaust administrative remedies.
The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 complies with the
goals and objectives of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The traffic impacts
of the development over the period of the Development Agreement will be substantially
mitigated by the mitigation measures and conditions of approval imposed.
The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 complies with
requirements of the zoning district in which the applicant proposes to develop in that
the Specific Plan zoning of Medium Density Residential is consistent with the Low
Medium Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation.
R:XSTAFFRFI'N23PA95.PC 8/1/95 slb 4
The benefits that will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from this legislation
and this Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 are as
follows:
City and Owner acknowledge that development of the Project will result in.'
a. Generation of municipal revenue;
b. Public infrastructure facilities;
c. Enhancement of the quality of life; including residential opportunities for present
and future residents of the City;
d. The opportunity for an adjacent residential-commercial project creating
significant job opportunities, sales tax and ad valorem tax revenues for the City; .-
e. Payment of Public Facilities Fees (fire and traffic signal mitigation); and,
f. Participation in special assessment districts to finance City and regional
infrastructure improvements.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
PC Resolution No. 95- - Blue Page 6
Ordinance No. 95- - Blue Page 10
Initial Study- Blue Page 15
February 13, 1995 Memorandum of Understanding - Blue Page 30
Proposed Development Agreement - Blue Page 31
Exhibits - Blue Page 32
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan
D. Tract Map 22716
R:~rAFFRPI'~3PA93.PC 8~1/93 db 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
R:\STAFFRPT~3PA95.PC 811/95 slb 6
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF AIVIENDlViENT AND RESTATEMENT OF DEVF. LOPMENT
AGI~EEMENT NO. 5, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199, PLANNING ALOE&
"MARGARffA VILL&GE," PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA95-0023
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula has received an
application for an Amendment and Res~tement of Development Agreement No. 5, Specific Plan
No. 199, "Margarita Village," Planning Area 14, Planning Application No. PA95-0023,
(hereinafter "Development Agreement"); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing on August 7, 1995,
on the issue of recommending approval or denial of the Development Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
EMECULA DOES FIND AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt and
approve the Ordinance approving the Development Agreement, Attachments "A" and "B",
respectively, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, subject to the Conditions
of Approval attached hereto as Attachment "C" and incorporated herein by this reference as set
forth in full herein.
Section 2. That in recommending the adoption by the City of the Ordinance approving.'
the Development Agreement, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings:
(a) The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies,
general land uses, and programs specified in the City of Temecula's General Plan in that the
Development Agreement makes reasonable provision for the use of certain real property for
residential development and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of low-
medium density residential; and,
(b) The project subject to the Development Agreement is compatible with the uses
authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the Specific Plan Zone district in which the
Property subject to the Development Agreement is located, and that this Development Agreement
is consistent with good planning practices by providing for the opportunity to develop the
Property consistent with the General Plan; and,
(c) The Development Agreement is in conformity with the public convenience,
general welfare, and good land use practice because it makes reasonable provision for a balance
of land uses compatible with the remainder of the City; and,
R:XSTAFFRPT~PA95.PC 811/95 slb 7
(d) The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety,
or general welfare because it provides adequate assurances for the protection thereof; and,
(e) Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission was
published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten (10) days before the Planning
Commission public hearing, and mailed or delivered at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing
to the project applicant and to each agency expected to pwvid¢ water, sewor, schools, police
protection, and fire pwtecfion, and to all property owners within three hundred feet (300') of
the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll; and,
(f) Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission included the
date, time, and phce of the public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, a general
explanation of the matter to be considered, a general description and text or diagram of the
location of the real property that is the subject of the hearing, and of the need to exhaust.
administrative remedies; and,
(g) The Development Agreement complies with the goals and objectives of the
Circulation Element of the General Plan and the traffic impacts of the development over the
period of the Development Agreement will be substantially mitigated by the mitigation measures
and conditions of approval imposed; and,
(h) The Development Agreement complies with requirements of the zoning
district in which the applicant proposes to develop in that the Medium Density Residential is
consistent with the Low Medium Residential General Plan Land Use Designation; and,
(i) The benefits that will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from
this legislation and this Development Agreement are as follows:
City and Owner acknowledge that development of the Project will result in the
Generation of municipal revenue;
2. Construction of public infrastructure facilities;
3. Acceleration of both the timely development of subject property as well
as the payment of municipal revenue;
4. Enhancement of quality of life for surrounding residents with the timely
development through the elimination of dust and nuisance of partially improved lots;
5. Payment of Public Facility Fees (fife, library, traffic signal mitigation,
development and RSA); and,
6. Help ensure solvency of Assessment District 159 and Community Facilities
District 88-3 as Van Daele has elected to use legislation to help offset burden to pay off each
of these districts for subject property in their entirety and these districts finance City and
regional improvements.
R:~f~PA95.PC 811195 slb 8
Section 3. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall cause this Resolution
to be transmitted to the City Council for further proceedings in accordance with State law.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVEr} AND ADOFrED this day of
STEVEN I. FORD
CHAIRMAN
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 __ day of
, 199_, by the following vote of the Commission: ...
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNHILL
SECRETARY
R:L~TAFFRIrI~PA95.PC 811/95 sib 9
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ORDINANCE NO. 95-
R:k%'TAFFRPT~23PA95.PC 811/95 sn, 10
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT AND
RESTATEMENT OF DEVEIJ3PMENT AGREEMENT NO. S BETWE~
THE CITY OF Ti~M~CULA AND VAN DAELE 79 VENTURE, LTD., FOR
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199, PLANNING ARE& 14, MARGARITA
VILLAGE, PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA9S-0023
Wi~'-RE&S, Section 6S864 et seo_. of the Government Code of the State of California
and Temecula City Resolution No. 91-S2 authorize the execution of agreements establishing and
maintaining requirements applicable to the development of real property; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedure specified in said Resolution, Van Daele
79 Venture, Ltd., a California Limited Partnership, hereinafter "Van Daele' has filed with the
City of Temecula an application for a Development Agreement which reflects an amendment and
restatement of existing County Development Agreement ~ (hereinafter 'this Agreement'), of
a residential housing subdivision on its property for Planning Area 14 including at Tract 22716,
Lots 1-11; Tract 22716-2, Lots 1-13, 17-31; Tract 227164, Lots 140; Parcel Map 28122, Lots
1, 2, 3 provided such Parcel Map is approved, hereinafter the 'Subject Property' which
application has been reviewed and accepted for filing by the Planning Director; and,
WHEREAS, notice of the City's intention to consider adoption of this Agreement with
Van Daele, has been duly given in the form and manner required by law, and the Planning
Commission and City Council of said City have each conducted public hearings on August 7,
1995 (Planning Commission), and _, 199_ (City Council) at which time it heard and
considered all evidence relevant and material to said subject.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS.-
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. FINDINGS. The City Council hereby finds and determines, with respect
to this Agreement by and between the City of Temecula and Van Daele, that it:
A. Is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs
specified in the City of Temecula's General Plan in that this Agreement makes reasonable
provision for the use of certain real property for residential development consistent with the
General Plan's land use designation of low-medium density residential;
B. Is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the
land use district in which the Subject Property referred to herein is located as this Agreement
provides for residential development pursuant to a Specific Plan;
C. Is in conformity with the public convenience, general welfare, and good land use
practice because it makes reasonable provision for a balance of land uses compatible with the
remainder of the City;
R:~STAFFRPT'~3PA95.PC 8/1/95 ,Ib '1 '[
D. Will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general weftare because it
provides adequate assurances for the protection thereof;
E. Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission was published in
a newspaper of general circulation at least ten (10) days before the Planning Commission public
hearing, and mailed or delivered at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing to the project
applicant and to each agency expected to provide water, sewer, schools, police protection, and
fire protection, and to all property owners within three hundred feet (300') of the property as
shown on the latest equalized assessment roll;
F. Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission included the date,
time, and place of the public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, a general explanation of
the matter to be considered, a general description in text or diagram of the location of the real
property that is the subject of the hearing, and of the need to exhaust administrative remedies;-
G. Notice of the public hearing before the City Council was published in a newspaper
of general circulation at least ten (10) days prior to the City Council public hearing, mailed at
least ten (10) days prior to the hearing to the project applicant, to each agency expected to
provide water, sewer, schools, police protection, and fire protection, and to all property owners
within three hundred feet (300') of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll;
H. Notice of the City Council hearing included the date, the time, and place of the
public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, the general explanation of the matter to be
considered, a general description in text or by diagram of the location of the Property that is the
subject of the hearing, and the notice of the need to exhaust administrative remedies;
I. City Council approved this Agreement by Ordinance based upon evidence and
findings of the Planning Commission and new evidence presented at its hearing on this
Agreement, giving its reasons therefor and setting their relationship between this Agreement and
the General Plan;
K. The benefits that will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from this
legislation and this Agreement are as follows:
1. Generation of municipal revenue;
2. Construction of public infrastructure facilities;
3. Acceleration of both the timely development of subject property as well
as the payment of municipal revenue;
4. Enhancement of quality of life for surrounding residents with the timely
development through the elimination of dust and nuisance of partially improved lots;
5. Payment of Public Facility Fees (fire, library, traffic signal mitigation,
development and RSA); and,
R:'kSTAFFRFIX23PA95.PC 8/1/95 slb '[ 2
6. Help ensure solvency of Assessment District 159 and Community Facilities
District 88-3 as Van Daele has elected to use legislation to help offset burden to pay off each
of these districts for subject property in their entirety and these districts finance City and
regional improvements.
Section 2. APPROVAL. This Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference as Attachment "1 * is hereby approved. The Mayor is authorized and directed
to evidence such approval by executing this Agreement for, and in the name of, the City of
Temecula; and the City Clerk is directed to attest thereto; provided, however, that this
Agreement shall not be executed by the City until this Ordinance takes effect and the City has
received from the applicant two executed originals of said Agreement.
Section 3. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby declares that the pwvisions
of this Ordinance are severable and ff for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold
any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect
the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.
Section 4. NOTICE OF ADOPTION. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption
of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by hw.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall
publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall
be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this
Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a
summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and
against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk.
R:XSTAFFRI'I~Z3PA95.PC 8/1/95
Section 6. PASSEll, APPROVED AND ADOPTEli this __ day of ,1995.
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. __ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the day of ,199_, and that thereafter,
said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the
day of 199_, by the following vote, to wit:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
R:\STAFFRFD.23PA95.PC 8/1/95 slb 14
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
INITIAL STUDY
R:~STAFFRP"I'~23PA95.PC 811195 db 15
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Initial Environmental Study
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. Name of Project:
Crown Collection
2. Case Numbers:
Planning Application No. PA95-0023 (Amendment and Restatement
of Development Agreement No. 5")
Location of Project:
Located north of Rancho Vista Road, south of Rancho California
Road, and west of Butterfield Stage Road
Description of Project:
A Request for Approval of Amendment and Restatement of
Development Agreement No. 5 for' Tentative Tract Map No.
22716-Final, 22716-2, 227164 and proposed Parcel Map 28122
5. Date of Environmental
Assessment: July 5, 1995
6. Name of Proponent:
Van Daele 79 Venture, LTD.
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
2900 Adams Street, Ste. C-25, Riverside CA. 92504
II.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations to all the answers are provided in Section HI)
Y~$
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes geologic substructures? __ __ X
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or over covering
X
of the soil? __ --
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? __ __ X
d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features? __ __ X
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on
X
or off the site? __ __
f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion? __ _ X
g. The modification of any wash, channel, creek, river or lake? __ __ X
Maybe No
R:~STAFFRFFX23PA95.PC 811195 slb ~ G
Yes Maybe N9
h. Exposure of people or property m geologic hazards such as
earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, liquefaction, ground
failure, or Similar hazards?
i. Any development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, temperature, or moisture
or any change in climnte, whether locally or regionally?
Water. WH1 the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and
mount of surface ranoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
d. . Change in the mount of surface water in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface
water quality, including but not limited to, temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the dire.~tion or rate of flow of Found waters?
g. Change in the quantity of Found waters, either through direct
additions, withdrawals, or through imerception of an aquifer
by cuts or excavations?
h. Reduction in the mount of water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such
as flooding?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:~STAFFRPT~23PA95.PC 8/1/95 slb '[ 7
Yes Maybe No
,
Plant
Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native
species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and
aquatic plants)? -- --
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangered species of plants? -- --
c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species? -- - --
d. Reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop? __ _
Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of
animals (animals includes all land animals, birds, reptiles, fish,
amphibians, shellfish, benthic organisms, and/or insects)? __ _
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangered species of animals? -- --
c. The introduction of new wildlife species into an area? __ __
d. A barrier to the migration or movement of animals? __ __
e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? __ __
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? __ --
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? __ __
c. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? __ __
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce or result in light or glare? __ __
Land Use. Will the proposal result in:
a. Alteration of the present land use of an area? __ --
b. Alteration to the future planned land use of an area as described
in a community or general plan? __ --
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:~STAFFRIrB23PA95.PC 811195
Yes Maybe No
Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
b. The depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource?
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in:
11.
12.
ae
A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances
in the event of an accident or upse~ conditions (hazardous
substances includes, but is not limited to, pes~cides, chemicals,
oil or radiation)?
bs
The use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic
materials (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals,
or radiation)?
C,
Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human population of an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand
for additional housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
14.
a. Generation of substantial additional vchictilar movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking?
C,
Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including
public transportation?
d,
Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f,
Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of
the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:XSTAFFRFIX23PA95.PC 811/95 slb ~ 9
Yes
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
f. Other governmental services:
15. Energy. Will the proposal result
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy,
or require the development of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to any of the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water systems?
d. Sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage systems?
f. Solid waste disposal systems?
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of
utility delivery system improvements for any of the above?
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. The creation of any health hazard or potemial health hazard?
b. The exposure of people to potential health hazards, including
the exposure of sensitive receptors (such as hospitals and
schools) to toxic pollutant emissions?
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public?
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view?
1Ma_vbe
No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:~STAFFRFI'X23PA95.PC 8/1/95 db 20
19.
20.
c. Detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or
quantity of existing recreational resources or opportnnities?
Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric,
archaeological or historic site?
b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure, or object?
c. Any potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes
Maybe
X
X
X
X
X
R:',STAFFRPT~PA95.PC 8/1/95 slb 22 1
HL DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC'I~
F--4trth
1 .a.d.
No. The project will not result in un-~Uible earth conditions or in changes in geologic
substructures, destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features
sin~ the 'project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the
impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for
Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202
prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan.
1.b.
No. The project will not cause disruptions, displacements, compaction, or overcovering of soil,
since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the
impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for
Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202
prepared for the Marrgarita Village Specific Plan.
1 .c.g.
No. The project will not result in change in topography or ground surface relief features, or
modification of any wash, channel, creek, river or lake since the project does not involve any
construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site
will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation
measures proposed for the Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village
Specific Plan.
1 .e.f.
No. The project will not result in an increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off '
the site and changes in siltation, deposition or erosion since the project does not involve any
construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site
will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation
measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village
Specific Plan.
1 .h.i.
Air
No. The project will not result in exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as.
earthquakes or liquefaction since the General Plan EIR and the Margarita Village Specific Plan'
EIR do not identify the site in being in any of these areas. No impacts are anticipated since all
the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval
for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202
prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan.
2.a.
No. The project will not result in the local deterioration of air quality since the project does not
involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction
of this site since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the
conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by
Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan.
2 .b.c.
No. The project will not create objectionable odors or cause alteration of air movement,
temperature or moisture or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally since the project
does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the
R:~STAFFRFrX23PA95.PC 8/1195 nlb 22
construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716
and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the
Margarita Village Specific Plan.
Water
3.a.c.d.
e.f.g.h.
i.
No. The project will not cause changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements,
in either marine or fresh waters, alterations to the course or flow of flood waters, change in the
amount of surface water in any waterbody, discharge into surface waters or in any alterations of
surface water quality, alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground watch, change in the
quantity of ground waters, reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water
supplies, or exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding since the
project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from.
the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No.'
22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for
the Margarita Village Specific Plan.
3.b.
No. This project will not cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are
anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the
conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by
Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan.
Plant Life
4.a.b.d.
No. This project will not change the diversity of species, or number of any native species of
plant, reduce the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants or
reduce the acreage of any agricultural crop since the project does not involve any construction.
No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this' Site will be mitigated
through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by -
Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan.
4.c.
No. This project will not introduce new species of plants since the project does not involve any
landscaping. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will
be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures
proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan.
Animal Life
5.a.
No. The project will not cause a change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of
animals since the project does not involve any land alteration. No impacts are anticipated since
all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of
approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact
Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan.
R:~STAFFRFI'~,3PA95.PC 811/95 slb 23
.b.c.
d.c.
No. The project will not cause a reduction in numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangered species of animals, introduction of new wildlife species into the area, a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals or deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat since the
project does not involve any land alteration. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from
the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No.
22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for
the Margarita Village Specific Plan.
NoiSe
6.a.
6.b.c.
Light and
7.
Land Use
8.a.
8.b.
No. The project will not increase the existing noise levels since the project does not involve any
construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construCtion of this site
will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation
measures proposed Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific
Plan.
No. The project will not expose people to severe noise or vibrations since the project does not
involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction
of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the
mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita
Village Specific Plan.
Glare
No. The project will not cause an increase in light and glare since the project does not involve
any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this
site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation
measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village
Specific Plan.
No. The project will not cause an alteration of the present land use of the area since the project
does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the
construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716
and the mitigation proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita
Village Specific Plan.
No. The proposed project will not cause alteration to the future planned land use of this area,
when ultimately developed, as described in the draft General Plan which designates the site as Low
Medium Density Residential since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are
anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the
conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by
Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan.
R:~FAFFRFI'~PA95.PC 8/1/95 mlb 2'4'
Natural Resources
9.a.b.
No. The project will not result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resources and
depletion of any nonrenewable natural resources when the site is ultimately developed since the
project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from
the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No.
22716 and the mitigation measures proposed Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the
Margarita Village Specific Plan.
Risk of Upset
10.a.b.
No. The project will not result in a risk of explosion and/or, the release of hazardous substances,
when the site is ultimately developed since all the impacts from the construction of this site will
be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures
proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan.
lO.c.
No. The project will not result in any interference with an emergency response plan when the site
is ultimately developed since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are
anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the
conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by
Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan.
Population
11.
No. This project will not make alterations to the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of
the human population of this area since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts
are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site since all the impacts from
the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No.
22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact 202 Report prepared for
the Margarita Village Specific Plan.
Housing
12.
No. The project will not affect existing housing and create a demand for new housing since the
project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from
the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No.
22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for
the Margarita Village Specific Plan.
Transportation/Circulation
13.a.f.
No. The project will not generate daily trips, increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists
or pedestrians since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated
since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of
approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact
Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan.
R:'tSTAFFRFI'~.3PA95.PC 811195 slb 25
13.b.c.d.
e.
No. The project will not ereate additional demand on parking, cause a substantial impact on
existing transportation systems, alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people
and/or goods and alteration to waterborne, rail or air traffic since the project does not involve any
construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site
will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation
measures proposed for the Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village
Specific Plan.
Public Services
14.a.b.c.
d.e.f.
No. The project will not have a substantial impact on fire protection, police proteaion, schools,
parks and other governmental services since the project does not involve any construction. No
impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated
through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by
Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan.
15.a.b.
No. The project will not result in substantial use of fuel or energy since the project does not
involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the construction
of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the
mitigation measures proposed for the Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita
Village Specific Plan.
Utilities
16.a.b.c.
d.e.f.g.
No. The project will not result in a need for new system or substantial alterations to any of the ·
following: power or natural gas, communication systems, water systems, sanitary sewer systems,'
storm water drainage systems, solid waste disposal systems and will not result in a disjointed or
inefficient pattern of utility delivery system improvements for any of the above since the project
does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts from the
construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716
and the mitigation proposed by Environmental Impact RepOrt 202 prepared for the Margarita
Village Specific Plan.
Human Health
17 .a.
No. The project will not create potential health hazards when the site is ultimately developed since
the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the impacts
from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract
No. 22716 and the mkigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared
for the Margarita Village Specific Plan.
R:~qTAFFRPT~PA95.PC 8/1/95 all> 26
17.b.
No. The project will not expose people to potential health hazards, including the exposure of
semmifive rec, eptors such as hospitals and schools to toxic poHutant emissions singe the project does
not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated singe all the impacts from the
construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716
and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the
Margarita Village Specific Plan.
Aesthetics
18.a.b.c.
No. The project will not result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public,
the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view, or in a detrimental visual impact
on the surrounding area since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are
anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the
conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by
Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan.
Recreation
19.
No. The project will not result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational
resources or opportunities since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are
anticipated since all the impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the
conditions of approval for Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by
Environmental Impact Report 202 prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan.
Cultural Resources
20.a.b.c.
d.
No. The project will not result in alteration Or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric,
archeological or historic site, adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehisWric or historic
building, structure or object, any potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values, or restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact.-
area since the project does not involve any construction. No impacts are anticipated since all the
impacts from the construction of this site will be mitigated through the conditions of approval for
Tract No. 22716 and the mitigation measures proposed by Environmental Impact Report 202
prepared for the Margarita Village Specific Plan.
R:~STAFFRPT~23PA95.PC 8/1/9~ .lb 27
IV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Does the project have the potential to either: degrade
the quality of the environme!R, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish, wildlife or bird species, cause a fish,
wildlife or bird population to drop below self sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant, bird or animal
species, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Yes
Maybe No
,
Does the project have the potential to achieve short
term, to the disadvantage of long term, environmental
goals? (A short term impact on the enviroment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long term impacts will endure well into the
future.)
X
Does the project have impacts which are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate resources may be
relatively small, but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment is significant.)
X
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
V. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINIMUS" IMPACT FINDINGS
Does the project have the potential to cause any adverse effect,
either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources?
Wildlife is defined as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish,
amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the
habitat upon which the wildlife depends on for it's cominued
viability" (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code).
Y~
X
R:~b~TAFFRPT~3pA95.PC 811195 slb 28
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed projea COULD NOT have a significant effea on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X
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 the Mitigation Measures described on the attached sheets and
in the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project will
mitigate any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Prepared by:
Stephen L. Brown. Project Planner
Name and Title
July 5. 1995
Date
R:~STAFFRPT0.3PA95.PC 7/31195 slb 29
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
FEBRUARY 13, 1995 - MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
R:~STAFFRPIX23PA95.PC 8/1/95 slb 30
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director ..
March 14, 1995
Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Specific Plan #199, Van
Daele Development Corporation
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Memorandum of Understanding
concerning Specific Plan No. 199 for Van Daele Development Corporation, authorizing the
payment of development fees at a specified level and directing the Mayor to execute the
Agreement on behalf of the City and the City Clerk to attest thereto.
BACKGROUND: The attached Memorandum of Understanding authorizes Van Daele
Development Corporation to pull building permits and occupancy permits for homes in their
development, without payment of the Public Facilities Fees, until such time as the first
production home obtains its Certificate of Occupancy. This provision is consistent with
previous approvals granted to similar projects in the City such as Cosrain Homes. The City
is currently negotiating a new Development Agreement between the City and Van Daele for
this project. Approval of this Agreement will not mandate that the City Council approve
the draft Development Agreement. In the event the City Council denies the draft
Development Agreement, the Memorandum of Understanding provides that Van Daele
Development Corporation will then pay the Public Facilities Fees as provided in the existing
Development Agreement No. 5.
This Memorandum of Understanding will allow the development of homes in the
Van Daele project to move forward in an expeditious fashion. Van Daele is agreeing to pay
an Interim Public Facility Fee in the amount of $3,200.00 per unit. As construction of the
model homes have already begun, there should be relatively little delay in the City's receipt
of the Interim Public Facilities Fee.
R:%~TAFFRY~VANDAII.MOU 716Y95 an
The indemnity provisions of this Memorandum of Understanding are the same as
the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Cosrain. The existing
Development Agreement (Riverside County Development Agreement No. 5) contains very
broad indemnity language sufficient to protect the City's interests. This Memorandum of
Understanding contains adequate language protecting the City against any challenges to
the fee issue.
The Planning Commission and City Council will be presented in the near future with
the draft Development Agreement. The terms of the draft Development Agreement will be
subject to extensive negotiations between the City and the developer.
FISCAL IMPACT: Slight delay in initial receipt of Interim Public Facilities Fees as they
are delayed until the first Certificate of Occupancy for the production units, but would be
paid in the event the City Council denies the draft Development Agreement within thirty
days of the City's demand.
ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum of Understanding.
R:L~FAFFP, PT~VANDALE.MOU 716/95 m -~-
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING
PLANNING AREA No. 14 OF SPECIFIC PLAN No. 199
This Memorandum of Understanding, (the "Memorandum") is made and
entered into as of February 13, 1995 by and between the City of Temecula (the
"City") and Van Daele 79 Venture, Ltd., a California limited Partnership
("Owner').
RECITALS
A. The City Council of the City of Temecula is reviewing and considering, as
provided by law, an Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement
between City and Owner, (the "Draft Agreement").
B. Owner is developing a residential project in what is know as Planning Area
No. 14 of Specific Plan No. 199, Tract No. 22716, 22716-2, 22716-4 and 28122
(the "Project"). The Project is currently subject to Development Agreement No. 5
between the County of Riverside (the "County") and Kaiser Development
Company, a California corporation; Mesa Homes, a California corporation;
Margarita Village Development Company, a California joint venture comprised of
Buie-Rancho California, Ltd., a California limited partnership and Nevada ltancho
California, Ltd., a California limited partnership; and Tayco, a California general
partnership comprised of Taylor Woodrow Homes, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
and others (the"Development Agreement No. 5"), which requires Owner to pay
certain development fees (the "Development Fee").
C. Riverside County Ordinance No. 659, as adopted by the City, establishes
public facilities and senAces impact fees for residential development with City
("RSA Fees"). City requires these revenues to mitigate the impact of development.
City requires RSA Fees from development of the Project in order to complete
capital projects to mitigate the impact of the development.
D. As the result of meetings between representatives of the City and
representatives of the Owner, the City has agreed that the Project would be eligible
for a Development Fee reduction due to: (i) the excessive level at which the
County originally calculated the Development Fee; (ii) the high level of
assessment district tax existing on the Project; and (iii) the entry level nature of the
homes to be built in the Project.
Memorandum of Understanding
Page 2 of 5
E. The Development Agreement No.5 provided for public facilities and
sentices impact fees ("County Impact Fees") higher than the RSA Fees. These
higher fees, particularly during the present recession, unduly discourage and delay
development and thereby prevent City from ever receiving the RSA Fees.
Consequently, the City desires to reduce the County Impact Fees for residential
development in the project to a level comparable to RSA Fees.
F. The Draft Agreement provides for Owner to pay the sum of Three
Thousand, Two Hundred Dollars ($3,200.00) for each residential trait as the
Interim Public Facilities Fee. The Draft Agreement provides for the collection of
any Interim Public Facilities Fee to be deferred until such time as Owner obtained
a certificate of occupancy for the first production home built in the Project.
G. Owner contemplates commencing conslzuction of the homes for the Project
(8 1 units) prior to acceptance by the City Council of City of the Draft Agreement.
H. City desires, as an accommodation to Owner, to permit Owner to pay the
Interim Public Facilities Fee contemplated in the Draft Agreement for all the
homes in the Project, despite the fact that the Draft Agreement providing for
payment of the Interim Public Facilities Fee has not yet been approved by City.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter
contained, City and Owner agree as follows:
i. In lieu of any fee required by Development Agreement No. 5, RSA Fee or
City Public Facilities Fee, Owner shall pay an Interim Public Facilities Fee in the
amount of Three Thousand, Two Hundred Dollars ($3,200.00) per dwelling unit.
If city fails to approve or adopt the Draft Agreement or if the Interim Public
Facilities Fee, as established by City, is some number other than Three Thousand,
Two Hundred ($3,200.00) per dwelling unit, then the fee paid by Owner to City
shall be adjusted accordingly. Owner shall pay any increase or City shall pay to
Owner any decrease within thirty (30) days from the effective date of City
Council' s action on the Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement.
Memorandum of Underst_anding
Page 3 of 5
2. The Interim Public Facilities Fee for all units shall be deferred until such
time as a cerfi'ficate of occupancy has been obtained for the first production home
built in the Project. Thereafter, the Interim Public Facilities fee shall be paid at the
time of issuance of building permits for each residential unit constructed in the
Project.
Indemnity and Cost of Litigation.
3.1 County Litigation Concerning Agreement. In the event the County
seeks to challenge the fight of City and Owner to enter into this Memorandum, and
institutes an action, suit or proceeding to challenge this Memorandum or invalidate
and/or enjoin the enforcement of this Memorandum, City and Owner agree to
cooperate and participate in a joint defense in any action against the paxties, their
officers, agents, and employees, from and against any and all such obligations,
liability, suit, claim, loss, judgment or lien, resulting from such action(s) brought
by County, (but excluding actions to expunge any lispendens) and to share the
costs associated with attorneys, fees and costs that the parties may incur as the
result of any such action or lawsuit to challenge City and/or Owaer's legal
authority to enter into this Memorandum. If the County action is against all
impacted developments for which the City has lowered the county fees, the
Owner' s defense costs herein shall be its pro rata share among all impacted
landowners based on a ratio of contribution of total units owned by Owner which
are subject to this Memorandum compared to the total number of units within the
City in which the City has lowered the County Fees. If the County action is only
against Owner with respect to this Memorandum, and not again-~t other impacted
landowners for which the City has lowered the County fees, then Owner' s defense
costs shall be 100% of the attorneys fees and costs for defense of the litigation.
Damages ( including the difference in the amount of any Interim Public Facilities
Fee and the amount of the County Development Agreement Fee paid by Owner to
City pursuant to the terms of this Memorandum) shall be the responsibility of
Owner. To the extend Owner has paid Interim Public Facilities Fees and/or County
Development Agreement Fees to City of which it is adjudicated are lawfully the
funds of County, City shall pay such sums to County and Owner shall have such
liability for the payment of the difference between such fees reduced by the
amount paid by the City. City and Owner shall mutually agree on legal counsel to
be retained to defend any such action(s) brought by the County as herein provided.
Memorandum of Understanding
Page 4 of 5
City and Owner each reserve the right to withdraw from the defense of the County
litigation in the event the County prevails at the trail level and there is an appeal. If
either party withdraws ax~er the trial and there is an appeal, the remaining party
shall pay all the costs and fees associated with said appeal.
3.2 Public Facilities Fees Shortfall. In the event the County prevails in.
any legal action or other proceeding to challenge, set aside, or enjoin the
enforcement of this Memorandum and a trial court determines the Owner and/or
the City is liable to make up any shortfall between the amount of the Interim
Public Facilities Fee or the City Public Facilities Fee, as the case may be, and the
County Development Agreement Fee which would otherwise have been imposed
pursuant to Development Agreement No.5, then Owner shall be responsible for
paying any such shortfall subject to City' s payment to County of any amounts
collected and held by City under the terms of Development Agreement No. 5.
Such payment by City to County shall reduce Owner's liability to County for
payment of such fees by a like amount paid by City.
3.3 County Prevails in Litigation - Severability. In the event the
County prevails at the trial court level against the City or the Owner as described
in Section 3.1 of this Memorandum, the amount of the Interim Public Facilities
Fee or the City Public Facilities Fee, as the case may be, shall revert to the amount
of the County Development Agreement Fee in effect at the time of entry of the
final judgment in favor of the County (or such lesser amount as determined by the
Court). In the event this Memorandum is held to be invalid or unenforceable by a
trial court of competent jurisdiction, Owner shall thereafter pay the County
Development Agreement Fee as provided in Section 4.2 of Development
Agreement No. 5 ( or such lesser amount as determined by the Court). All-other
provisions of this Memorandum or any subsequent agreements relating to the
Project shall remain valid and enforceable notwithstanding said ruling of
invalidity.
3.4 Third Party Litigation Concerning Agreement. Owner shall
defend, at its expense, including attorneys' fees, indemnify, and hold harmless
City, its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding
against City, its agents, Officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul
the approval of this Memorandum or the approval of any permit granted pursuant
to this Memorandum brought by a third party other than the County. City shall
Memorandum of Understanding
Page 5 of 5
promptly notify Owner of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and City shall
cooperate in the defense. If City fails to promptly notify Owner of any such claim,
action, or proceeding or if City fails to cooperate in the defense, Owner shall not
thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless City. City may in
its discretion participate in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding.
3.5 Termination of Memorandum of Understanding. If the Draft
Agreement is approved by the City Council, this Memorandum shall terminate
upon the effective date of the Draft Agreement. If the Draft Agreement is
disapproved by the City Council, then the obligations of Owner under this
Memorandum shall terminate and Owner thereafter shall be SUbject to the terms of
Development Agreement No. 5.
IN WITNESS WBERE OF, the parries executed this Memorandum as of this
13th day of February, 1995.
ATTEST:
Van Daele 79 Venture, Ltd.
a California Limited Partnership
APPROVED AS TO FROM
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
By:
By:
Its Gc....av4 l~..,t~,,,~,
, Its
A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 6
EXHIBITS
R:~TAFIrRIrI"~23PA95.PC: g/l/9S db ~2
contHsl
· TEMECUL,4 I
I v,4ut'Y
,s I
I
CITY OF TEMECULA
UNFIEL,O i
CHRISTIAN
HS
ect , ,- , ,~
-+-
I
I
I
\
\
%,
\
\
*%
I
I
~
CASE NO. - PA95-0023 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 22716
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 7, 1995
VICINITY MAP
R:X,.~TAFFR]rFa~PA95.ZS 7/27/95 db
b~
CITY OF TEMECULA
R2H,
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - SP {SPECIFIC PLAN)
I
LM "'/F LM
· I LM
, %.).
'X, LM p · '
P
· ~.,.~.. .t-,,,,,. OS LM
L,M
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (3 TO S DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE)
ASE NO. o PA95-0023 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 22716
r'LANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 7, 1995
m
--%,
R:~qT~lTPA94.l~ 7/27/~.~ tit
CITY OF TEMECULA
Vintage Hills
CASE NO. - PA95-0023 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 22716
EXHIBIT- D TRACT MAP 22716
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 7, 1995
R:LqT~PA95.IS 7/31/95
ITEM 21
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director~''~
August 22, 1995
Request to Designate Certain Private Property as "No
Rollerblading or Similar Activity Area."
Skateboarding,
PREPARED BY:
Stephen Brown, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DESIGNATING PRIVATE PROPERTY AT 42145
LYNDIE LANE AND 27555 YNEZ ROAD AS A "NO
SKATEBOARDING, ROLLERBLADING OR SIMILAR ACTIVITY
AREA" PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 10.36 OF THE TEMECULA
MUNICIPAL CODE.
BACKGROUND:
The City has received two requests to declare certain private properties as No Skateboarding,
Rollerblading or Similar Activity Area as permitted by Ordinance No. 94-18. This Ordinance
was recently adopted to prohibit skateboarding in certain areas of the City designated by the
City Council. Both applicants have made this request to have their private property designated
no skateboarding after experiencing incidental vandalism, noise and safety problems caused
by skateboarders enjoying their sport on the property owned by the applicants.
Ordinance 94-18 requires that two-thirds of the tenants occupying private property submit a
written application supporting the "no skateboarding" designation along with the concurrence
of the property owner. After the proper application is received and proper notice is given, the
City Council may, by resolution, designate the area in question as a "no skateboarding" area
and request that the area be posted as such. After the appropriate signs have been posted
designating the site as a "no skateboarding area", the police may cite the violators.
The two applications received by the Planning Department have the required number of
signatures along with the consent of the property owner. Site plans have also been submitted
by the applicants which illustrate the areas to be designated as "no skateboarding' as well as
the proposed location of the signs.
RSCAL IMPACT:
Potential positive fiscal impact to property owners due to decrease in vandalism.
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. 95- - Page 3
2. Applications from Linkletter Enterprises and Layton-Belling and Associates - Page 7
R:~STAFFRPT~CATF,.CC S/1~95 I~b ~
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
R:~TAFFRFI~KAT~CC 8/1/95 klb ~
ATFACHNfENT NO. 1
RE~OLUTION NO.
A RF.,~LUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY
OF TE~IECULA DESIGNATING PRIVATE PROPERTY AT
4210 LYNDIE LANE AND 27555 YNEZ ROAD AS A "NO
SKATEBOARDING, ROIJ-ERBLADING OR SIIVrrt-AR
ACTIVITY AREA* lrtJRSUANT TO CHAPTER 1036 OF
TVff- ~ MUNICIPAL CODE.
W!4~:uEAS, City Ordinance No. 94-18 eslablished Chapter 10.36 of the Temecula
Mtmicipal Code and adopted by oxdinance permits the City Council to prohibit .~knwhoarding, ~
rollerbiading or 8imHar activity ill certain desigtlated areas; and,
WHEREAS, the efforts of the property owners at 42145 Lyndie T~ne and 27555 Ynez
Road to control ska~g, rollerbl~ding 'and similnr activities have been u_n.~uccessful to
date; and,
~, private property at 42145 Lyndie Lane and 27555 Ynez Road has been
damaged in connection with skat~ooarding, rollBrblading and s'nnilar activities; and,
WltEREAS, the property owners and tenants of 42145 Lyndie Lane and 27555 Ynez
Road have requested the City to designate the property as a "No Skating, RoHerblading
or Similar Activity Axe"; and,
WItEREAS, the property owners have submitted a written apph'cation and required
exhibits in conformance with Chapter 10.36 of the Temecula Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on August 22, 1995, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to testify either support or in opposition; and,
WHEREAS, notice of proposed action was posted at City Hall, County Library, Rancho
C~lifornia Branch, the U.S. Post Office, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce.
NOW, T!~'~I~RE, ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA,
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOtJ~0WS:
Section 1.
findings:
Findings. That the Temecula City Council hereby m~lces the following
A. The City Council in approving this Resolution makes the following fitldlngs to wit:
1. Ordinance 94-18 was enacted by the City Council to maintain the safety of the
general public, as well as the right to enjoyment of private property within the City.
R:~TAFPaFI~TR. CC $/1/95 I~o 4
2. Cuntmtly the ~ use of private ~ for sh,~boatrling, rollexbhding
involves safety ri~ and property damage.
o
The action proposed is consistent with Chapter 10.36 of the Temecula Municipal
4. The action proposed complies with all other applicable requirements of state law
and local ordinances.
Section2. The City Council hereby authorizes the establishment of a *No
Skateboarding, Rollerbin_cling, or Similnr Activity Area" on the property located at 42145 Lyndie
T~ne and 27555 Ynez Road in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 10.36 of the Temecula
Municipal Code. Enforcement of the no skateboarding, rollerblading, or similar activity shnll-
not commence until app~ signage has been posted as required by Chapter 10.36 of the'
Temecula Municipal Code.
Section 3. The City Clerk shah Certify the adoption of thi.~ Resolution.
Sectlon4. PASSEI}, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ~ day of
, 199__.
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALr~ORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF 1EMECULA)
R:~T~TILCC ~/1/95 k~ 5
I HEnFRy CI~KTIrXr that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of
, 1~__ by the following vote of the Council:
C1TY COUNTERS:
NOF, S:
CrFY COUN~tJRS:
CITY COUNCILIVI]~.{~tEP-S:
June S. Greek, City Cleric
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
APPLICATIONS FROM LINKLETTER ENTERPRISES AND
LAYTON-BELLING AND ASSOCIATES
R:'~T~TLCC g/1/95 klb 7
February27,1995
LINKI ,ETTER
ENTERPRISES
RECEIVED
HAR 0 2 1995'
Mr. Craig Ruiz
City of Temecula Planning Dept.
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Re: Designation of 42155 Lyndie Lane as "No Skateboarding Area"
Dear Mr. Ruiz:
Enclosed you will fred a site plan which shows the location of two "No Skateboarding
Area" signs per city ordinance.
After five days the "skateboard vandals" have already stolen one $69.00 sign .... another
has been ordered.
Please forward our request to City Council to adopt a resolution declaring o~r private
property a "no skateboarding area."
Sincerely,
Linkletter R.C. Partners
Mike Linkletter
Property Manager
ML:rl
765 BAKER STREET COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 (71'1) 957 8101 F,'kX (714) 755 3166
2081 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 101 1RVINE, CALIFORNIA 92715 ~714,660-1190 FAX (714) 660-1196
LINKI,ETTER
i! N T F, R P R ! S E S
November 30, 1994
The I hmorable Mayor and Cily Council
Cilv of 'l'emecula
43 ! 74 Business Park Drive
'l'¢mecula. CA 92590
'!he signatures below represent the owner and lenahis of the Lvndie Of lice Building aT
,12145 l,yndie Lane, Temecula, California. This !e!ier is addressed Io Ihe Cily !o bring Io
il~ allenlion a mailer which puls at risk lhe safely oflhe general public, as well as !he
Tighl I~t quiet enjoyfnenl ofprivale pro~rly wilhin Ihe Cily.
Tim matter being addressed is the a!~parenl unresttitled use, by children and you,~g
adulls. of public and prival~ properly for roller skaling and skale boarding. We observe
lhi.~ Io' bc occurring in all parts of the Cily, but our spccific concern involvcs !hc safely
risks and properly damage |o lhe Lw~die Oilice lhfilding.
Wc have placed restrictive signs on our propcity which have been llanored. {Jur efforts Io
con[toni the of[enders leads, at best, lo a temporan.' ccssalion. There xvill ahnosl
certainly be serious injury to eill~er Ihe parlicipanls or aulhorized occupanls of Ihe
building if Ihis skating activity is allowed to conlinue.
wc undcr~an<i Iha! proposed Cily ordinances prosgully before ll~e C{m,cil wo,ld
signi~canlly iml,t~ve. local law enforcemenl's al~iiily i~ deal ~vilh Ibis !,roidcm. Wc
slrongly rage Ihe Council Io provide lhis much needed suppo~ Io give commercial
properly owners and aulhorized occupanls Ihe peacerid use of Iheir properly lo which
Ihev arc cnlitled.
Vcrv truly yours.
Linkletter R.C. Partners
7fl~l IIUSINIESSCF. NIER DIHVE, S 11'1'~ IOI IRVINI-Z.f)M.II:f}RNIAq/715 (71416fi0 1190 FAX {7l.llf, f,o IIQ6
I ~Vndie l,ane Office Buildi~ Tenant I ,ist
Company
Law Office of William Sweeney
Lawrence G. Feinstein, Ph.D.
Church of Religious Science
Horrigan-Cole Emerprises
Human Support. Services
Fred L. Stephenson & Co.
Stress Relief Center
Atias IZhiropractic Center
Mamette, Inc.
American Capital Enterprises Inc.
Suite #
100
102
112 & 114
122
126
128 & 124
130
132
200, 202 & 204
208, 210 & 212
Cily of Tcmecula
Nf,vcmhcr 31), 1994
l'agc Txv~ .
_,L 'L_..-
i2~:0fricc of William, weehey
Marnelle, Inc.
Cily oFTcmnccula
Nr~w,-,nd~e,.r 31~, 1 q94
Page Two .
American Capital Enterprises, inc.
City -f Tcmcculn
N'ovcm!~cr 30, ig94
l';sgc '['w. .
I S
{,.
I
I
I
!
I
/'7//:l
· ////
/ ...............
"7
,,,, ,v,/
.,.
.. . '> \
~. /
/
June 26,1995
Layton-Belling
& ASSOCIATES
RECEIVED
JUN 2 8 1995
CITY MANAGER
CiW Council ofTemecula
Mayor and Council Members
43174 Business Pa~ Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE:
Ordinance Number 94-18
Skateboarding and Rollerblading
Dear Sirs:
According to Ordinance Number 94-18, Section 10.36.0300 B and C, to designate a
propeW as "No Skateboarding, Rollerblading or Similar Activity Area" an
application of written consent by a designated representative of the property owner
must be made to the City Council. This letter shall serve as that application for the
following properties:
Tower Plaza Retail Center (Vons)
Corner of Rancho California and Ynez Roads
Tower Plaza Office Building, including the parking structure.
27555 Ynez Road
In addition to the requirement of the owner's application, an application containing 66%
of the tenants on the property must be submitted. Attached you will find the required
tenant applications for the above mentioned properties.
I understand that prior to your vote, the City Clerk shall need to cause notice of this
consideration in a publication ten (10) days prior to the consideration.
It is extremely important to our company and our tenants to designate these properties
for "No Skateboarding, Rollerblading or Similar Activity" and we respectfully ask
that you do so.
2'531 Ynez Road. Suite D7, Tetnecula, California 92591
(909) 693-1455 FAX: (909) 693-1456
LBA
Layton-Belling
& ASSOCIATES
Mayor and Council Members
June 26, 1995
Page 2
Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 909-693-1455.
Sincerely,
LAYTON-BELLING & ASSOCIATES
Andrea Passow
Assistant Property Manager
AP/jc
CC:
The City Clerk, City of Temecula
David Thomas, Layton-Belling & Associates
Attachments
2'531 Ynez Road, Suite D7, Temecula, California 92591
(909) 693-1455 FAX: (909) 693-1456
LBA
Layton-Belling
& ASSOCIATES
TOWER OFFICE BUILDING
In order to enforce the City of Temecula Ordinance #94-18 prohibiting skateboarding and
rollerblading, the owner, AEW/LBA Acquisition Co., LLC must submit a wdtten
application with 66% of the tenants within a property showing support of designating that
property as a 'NO SKATEBOARDING, ROLLERBLADING OR SIMILAR ACTIVITY
Please sign below if you favor designating Tower Plaza R~~-~tt, (Rancho Califomia
i r
and Ynez Roads) as a 'NO SKATEBOARDING, ROLLERBLADING OR SIMILAR
ACTIVITY AREA".
2,531
Ynez Road, Suite D7, Temecula, California 92591
(909) 693-1455 FAX: (909) 693-1456
LBA
Layton-Belling
& ASSOCIATES
In order to enforce the City of Temecula Ordinance #94-18 prohibiting skateboarding and
rollerblading, the owner, AEW/LBA Acquisition Co., LLC must submit a written
application with 66% of the tenants within a property showing support of designating that
property as a "NO SKATEBOARDING, ROLLERBLADING OR SIMI.LAR ACTIVITY
Please sigh below if you favor designating Tower Plaza Retail Center (Rancho Califomia
and Ynez Roads) as a "NO SKATEBOARDING, ROLLERBLADING OR SIMILAR
ACTIVITY AREA".
iBUSINESS !NAMEi:!:i ::::::!:i :::::
27531 Ynez Road, Suite D7, Temecula, California 92591
(909) 693-1't55 FAX: (909) 693-1456
CITY OF -TEMECULA
AGENDA I~]~ORT
FROM:
DATE:
City C, ouncil/City Manager .
Gazy Thornh~ll, ~~g ~/~
· ' ' as "No S~,
FREPAI~Ei~ BY: Stephen Brown, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION: It is requested that the City Council: Designate private property
located at 42145 Lyndie Lane and 27555 Ynez Road Crower
p!nT~ OfFice Building and Tower Plaza Retail Center) as *No ·
Skateboardlng, Rollerblndlng or Similar Activity/~_~.'a". / . .
BACKGROUND: ' ~C~/./../,,t-
Rollcrblnding or Similar Activity Are~ as permitted by Ordinance No. 94--18.'~ "'-
applicants have made this re~lucst after experiencing incidental vandalism, noise and safety
problems caused by enthusiasts ~njoying their sport on the property owned by the applicants.
Ordinance 94-18 requires that twOthirds the te..t~ occupying private propcxty submit a ~
written application supporting the~ no skateboaxdj~Tclesignation along with the concurrence of'
the property owner. After the proper application is r~iv.ed/(fnd proper notice is gtv..en, the /
City Council may, by resolution, designate the area in question as/t~ho skateboardi~g~/ax~
and reque~ ~ the area be posted as such. After the appropriate signs have been posted
designaling the site as ~x no skateboarding ~area, the police may cite the violamE.
The~a~plicalions received by the Phnning DeparUnent in the instant eas~ have-the required
number of signatures along with the consent of the proper~y owner. Si~ plans have also be~//n
submilled by the applicants which designate ~e areas to be designated as~ho sknw. bcm~ling
,~-and'the proposed location of the signs.
FISCAL IMPACT:
1. ,~4~pZicatio~ from t-an]cl~tter ~,uterprLses aucl Za~-]~elllng ~ud ,~socia~
ITEM 22
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY A'I'rORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning~9/
August 22, 1995
Old Town Specific Plan Amendments
Prepared By:
Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive Report and Provide Direction to Staff.
BACKGROUND
On February 9, 1994, the City Council adopted the Old Town Specific Plan (OTSP). The
stated purpose of the OTSP is to provide a master plan for the ultimate development of the
Old Town area· The document provides a comprehensive plan for land use, development
regulations, design guidelines, vehicular circulation, parking, development incentives and other
related actions aimed at implementing the goals and objectives set forth in the Specific Plan.
While the document has functioned well during the first year of implementation, members of
the public, the Old Town Local Review Board (OTLRB) and staff have noted some items within
the document that may be either unclear, too restrictive, or were not addressed in the OTSP.
As a result, staff has compiled a list of all the issues that have been raised to date.
Staff is bringing this item before the Council for two reasons. First, this item is to inform the
Council about issues or concerns that have been raised regarding the OTSP by various people
in the community. Second, staff is seeking direction as to whether the Council feels that the
issues raised to date require further study by staff, the OTLRB and the Planning Commission
to determine if the OTSP should be amended. If the analysis determines that an amendment
to the Plan is necessary, this proposed amendment would be sent to the Commission and be
back before the Council later this fall.
The following is a list of the issues that have been raised to date and a brief description of
each item:
Sian Reaulations - The OTLRB has recommended that sign materials, sign size and sign
types be reviewed. The Board feels that the current regulations are too restrictive.
Staff does not fully support Board's position but recommends that some adjustment
to regulations be made.
Boundary Modification - The Temecula Town Association and the OTLRB have both
recommended that the Specific Plan boundary be expanded along Pujol Street from
First Street to the end of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) property (See Exhibit
2A). Both bodies feel that this area is part of the Old Town Community.
R:\STAFFRFI'XOTSPAkII).CC 8/14/95 vgw
10.
11.
Staff agrees that development of this area will influence Old Town. However, staff
believes that an expansion of the Specific Plan may not be the best way to regulate
uses and development of this area. Rather, staff recommends combining the Pujol
corridor with the South From Street Corridor as an independent Specific Ran Area.
This would provide for appropriate use standards and regulations to support Old Town
but most likely would not have as strict architectural and site plan standards as the
OTSP.
R-O-W encroachments/Temoorarv Structures - The OTSP is unclear regarding what
constitutes a temporary structure and where they may be located. Staff recommends
adding language to clarify the definition and where structures may be located.
Buildina Materials - The OTSP, in some instances, does not provide clear direction as
to allowable building materials. Staff recommends that the lists of allowable materials
be reviewed to determine if the list should be amended or expanded.
Liaht Standards - The OTLRB has requested that the Specific Plan be amend to require
light standards in private parking be consistent with the design standards of the OTSP.
Staff recommends that language be added to this effect; However, staff believes that
the language should be flexible enough to encourge creativity and diversity.
Vendor Carts - The requirements for vender carts has caused some confusion regarding
the location of carts. Staff recommends that language be added to clarify the
permitted location of carts and to extend the approval period for carts from two years
to three years.
Use Matrix - The use matrix does not allow Educational & Tutoring uses in the Tourist
Retail Commercial zone. Staff recommends that this use be allowed on side streets
and non-ground floor spaces along Front and Main Streets. In addition, staff
recommends that the entire use matrix be reviewed to determine if other modifications
should be made.
List of Historical Structures - The list of historic structures omitted the Welty Building
on the corner of Front and Main Streets. Also, the list of historic structures should list
the Welty Hotel on Main Street as being constructed in 1891 and not 1901 as listed.
Staff recommends that both of these changes be made.
Development Incentive Bonuses - Currently, incentive bonuses may be granted at the
discretion of the Planning Commission or City Council. Staff recommends amending
this section to be consistent with the approval authority matrix. This will allow for
Planning Director approval of incentive bonuses, resulting in faster case processing.
Amend Section III and AoDendix I - Staff recommends that these sections be amended
to be consistent with the adopted Facade Improvement Program and Sign Rebate
Program. The adopted programs allow for low interest loans while the OTSP does not.
Add ADoendix IV - Information is available to add a section addressing the history of
all historic buildings within Old Town. This information could be added to the OTSP
as Appendix IV.
P,:~TAFFR.F~OTSPAIv[D.CC 8/14/95 vgw 2
FISCAL IMPACT
While there will be no direct expenditure of funds, there will be significant staff hours to
complete the necessary work· Staff anticipates approximately 60 hours of staff time should
the Council direct staff to review each of the above items. Should the Council elect to omit
Item No. 2 only (boundary modification), staff would expect to expend approximately 30 staff
hours.
Attachments:
Letter from the Old Town Local Review Board - Page 4
Exhibits - Page 5
a. Proposed Old Town Specific Plan Boundary Expansion
R:\STAFFRPT\OTSPAM]:).CC 8114195 vgw 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
LETTER FROM THE OLD TOWN LOCAL REVIEW BOARD
R:\STAFFRPT\OTSPAIViD.CC 8/10/95 vg.w 4
OLD TOWN TEMECULA REVIEW BOARD
August 8, 1994
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, Ca. 92590
Subject: Request for revisions to sign, color palette and boundary designation
elements of 01d Town Specific Plan Ordinance. Updates on trash -.
containers, temporary restrooms and parking plan for Sixth st. lot.
Code enforcement for sign ordinance affecting 01d Town.
Dear Gary:
We, as a board, as well as individual community members, believe that the Old
Town Specific Plan is a good or, e. As happens, however, with any new plan, there
are some corrections that must be made. At this time we have determined that
two elements need to be scrutinized and broadened to work effectively and fairly
for Old Town Businesses.
First is the sign element, which the Board feels, in its generality, becomes too
restrictive. In an effort to exclude certain unwanted signs and sign types, the
drafters of this element have caused several of the most appropriate signs in
town to be classified as non-conforming. The Board feels, also, that some
consideration should be giver, those developments which carried the Old Town
Banner during the years it took adopt the plan. The requirements should allow
for adaptation of sign installation/usage to fit the as-built designs of those
buildings.
We look forward to that correctional adaptation and the enforcement of the sign
element of the specific plan. It will greatly enhance the overall appearance
of 01d Town.
Second~ is the single manufacturer color palette does not allow a broad enough
selection f,-,r those owners/businesses who would like to improve the exterior
appearance of their buildings by redecoratir. g. Several other paint manufacturers
offer palettes that represent paint schemes of the period we are trying to re-
create.
The area along the proposed Western Bypass road will most probably be developed
as part of the Old Town Scene and, therefore, belongs in the Specific Plan. At
our June meeting we requested that it be incorporated. As development grows
closer, that plan change becomes ever more critical.
We have previously requested that the City take action on acquiring and
installing appropriate trash containers, temporary bathrooms and setting up the
Sixth Street lot for customer/tourist parking. We would like an update on these
improvements to the Old Town district.
With all these necessary changes pending, we would like to invite you and Dave
Hogan to our next meeting, September 12, 1994. We feel that our charge to advise
affected departments of the City of Temecula is currently styxled and that a
meeting with staff members responsible for implementation of the plan will help
us do the job for which we were appointed.
Sincerely,
b ~./~Y~Ma r k.~ Ch a i rm an '
q~: Mayor Ron Roberts and City Council, City Manager Ron Bradley, Chairman Steve
L~ord and Planning Commission Members, Review Board Members, Matthew Fagan, Dave
Hogan, file.
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:~STAFFRPT\OTSPAI~D.CC 8/10/95 vg'w ~
~g specific
Addition
//
f/
\~
ITEM 23
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council
City Manager
August 22, 1995
The Donation of a Commissioned Art Piece for the New City Hall
PREPARED BY: Grant M. Yates, Human Resources Administrator
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council accept the donation of a commissioned art piece from Mr. Preecha'
Nillpraphan and provide direction as to the content of this art piece·
BACKGROUND:
Mr. Preecha Nillpraphan is a local artist who has graciously offered to donate an original art
piece to become a permanent part of the new City Hall.
Preecha Nillpraphan graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree, major in commercial art,
from the University of Oklahoma. He has participated in solo art shows at the Embassy
Suites and Callaway Vineyard and Winery here in Temecula. His expertise with all the
various art forms, mediums and techniques has generated recognition and noteworthy
accomplishments throughout his career·
In order to assist the City Council in determining the content of this art piece, staff is
suggesting that the Council choose from one of the following alternatives:
2.
3.
4.
Historical Temecula setting, such as a stagecoach stop
City landmarks, such as the wineries or duck pond
Panoramic view of Temecula at night
Snow capped mountains and balloons flying in the background of the City
Temecula has many special events such as the Balloon and Wine Festival, Tractor Race
and Rod Run. However, because this is a donation to all the citizens of Temecula, staff
suggests that the City Council choose a theme from the above list rather than choosing
content based upon a Temecula special event.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
ITEM 24
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Manager/City Council
(~Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
August 22, 1995
Proposed Keep Temecula Clean "Adopt-A-Street",
Acknowledgement Sign Size
PREPARED BY: ~q/~Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council re-evaluate the Keep Temecula Clean "Adopt-A-Street"
acknowledgement sign size.
BACKGROUND:
At the City Council meeting of August 8, 1995 the City Council requested that the Public
Works Department bring back the different sizes of signs for re-evaluation.
At this time City staff has acquired two (2) proto type acknowledgement signs, 30" X 30" and
24" X 24" for Council's review and approval.
Upon approval, the acknowledgement signs will be installed at 15 locations already identified
in the program, when "adopted".
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funds are available in the Public Works Department Sign Maintenance Account 100-164-601-
5244.
r,\agdrpt%95\0822%ADOPTSTR.siglajp
ITEM 25
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY ~>~'~~~_,~
FINANCE OFFICE
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Community Development D'recto~~7:>'~'
August 22, 1995
Beer and Wine Licenses - Approval Authority
Prepared By: Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide direction to staff as to the Approval Authority for Beer
and Wine Licenses.
BACKGROUND
This item was first heard by the City Council at their meeting of July 25, 1995. At that
meeting, staff discussed recent changes in State legislation which created a moratorium for
new beer and wine licenses and defined undue concentration for existing licenses.
Council requested that staff respond to a number of questions regarding this issue. Following
are the Council's questions which were raised at the meeting:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
Prior to enactment of the new legislation, what was the approval process?
Under the new legislation, what is the new authority of the City to regulate the
licensing of beer and wine?
How does the City make the finding of "public convenience or necessity?"
Does the legislation apply to the transfer of a license?
How do the moratorium and undue concentration issues relate to each other?
How do the regulations affect the concurrent sale of beer and wine with
gasoline?
Does the new legislation require cities to perform background checks?
Do cities have the authority to revoke "badly licensed facilities?"
Existina Process
The City's existing process is to simply determine what the existing zoning requires for
individual uses. As an example, Ordinance 95-02 requires a Conditional Use Permit for uses
such as bars and nightclubs, teen clubs, and billlard halls. Should a use such as this come
into the City, a Conditional Use Permit would be required. If the use proposed is under
10,000 square feet, the application would be heard at a Planning Director's Hearing. If the
use proposed exceeds 10,000 square feet, the application would be heard by the Planning
Commission. The Council would only hear a Conditional Use Permit application on appeal.
R:~STAFI~,FI'~EERW]NE.CC 8111/95 vgw 1
New Authority to Reoulate the Licensing of Beer and Wine
Under the new legislation, the City must first determine if the license applied for is a new
license or a transfer license. If the license is new, it falls under the moratorium provisions of
the legislation which are in effect until January 1, 1996. New licenses must be denied by the
Council prior to January 1, 1996. After January 1, 1996, the City may make a finding of
"public convenience or necessity" and approve a new license in spite of the moratorium.
If the license is a transfer, it falls under the undue concentration issue. In this situation, the
City Council must also make a finding of "public convenience or necessity."
Findina of "Public Convenience or Necessity'
Public convenience or necessity is not defined in either the Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC)
Act provisions of the Business and Professions Code or in the Department of ABC"s.
implementing regulations. Further, there is little case law interpreting the provisions relating
to public convenience or necessity. It is clear from existing case law that public convenience
or necessity is something other than the number and location of beer and wine sales. Public
convenience or necessity may be found in a number of factors such as:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
The character of the premises;
The aesthetics and ambiance of the business;
The attractiveness of the business;
The manner in which the business is to be conducted (i.e. type of games, food,
or other service provided);
The types of guests who are likely patrons;
The predicted mode of operation;
The ability of the business to serve a nitch in the population not filled by other
licensees in the same area; or
Convenience of purchasing alcoholic beverages in conjunction with specialty
food sales or services.
Leqislation as it relates to New Licenses and Transferred Licenses
Reference information contained under Section titled "New Authorityto Regulate the Licensing
of Beer and Wine."
Moratorium and Undue Concentration Relationship
The moratorium and undue concentration provisions are designed to interact with each other.
For off-sale beer and wine, new licenses fall under the moratorium. Transferred licenses need
to be reviewed under the undue concentration factors. On-sale licenses also need to be
reviewed under the undue concentration factors. Should the Council or their delegated
authority choose to approve the application, findings of public convenience or necessity must
be made. The concurrent sale of gasoline with beer and wine, if a new license, falls under the
moratorium provisions discussed above. The concurrent sale of gasoline with beer and wine,
where the license is a transfer, falls under the undue concentration provision of the legislation.
R:%b'TAFFRPT~EER~.CC 8111195 v~w 2
Background Checks%Revocation of Existing Permits
The new legislation only applies to the initial establishment of a use selling beer and wine and
not to the ongoing operational aspects. Reviewing background of an individual selling alcohol
remains the responsibility of the ABC.
The City can deal with the revocation of existing licenses through existing City Ordinances
such as public nuisance or the Penal Code.
Aoolication Streamlining
It is the desire of the Planning Department to process applications in a timely manner. If it is
the Council's desire to hear all applications proposing to sell beer and wine, this will add
significant time and additional costs to applications. As an example, a gas station proposing
the concurrent sale of beer and wine currently is heard by the Planning Commission. Should
the Council wish to be the approval authority in this instance, an additional 30-60 days could
be added to the approval process. In addition, the applicant might need to provide more
property owner labels for an additional public notice.
The City is making every effort to streamline the development review process. The added
time needed for Council approval on all applications for beer and wine could impact this
process.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
Attachments:
Letter to Planning Commission dated May 16, 1995 - Page 4
Letter to City Council dated August 11,1995 - Page 5
R:\STAFFRPT~EERWINE.CC 8/16/95 vgw 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
LETTER TO PLANNING COMMISSION
R:\STAR~,PT~BEt~,TE.CC 8/16195 vF 4
LOS K, qGELES OFFICE
e11W~'TmXTHSTREET
LOS/kNOB.El. C/d. IFOIMiA 10017
1213) 236-0e00
LAW OFFICES
WILLIAM$ &: k~sORF.~ST, N
3200 PARK ~ S lr. H DRIVE
~14) ~669
7101 NORTH FRESNO STREET
IUITE401
(~011M1-Ol13
VENTURA COUNTY' OFFICE
2310 PONDEROSA DRIV~
C/14NItLLO, C/JJ~ 13010
(8061 187-3468
TEI I::CO PER: (71,1.t ~
Bf,.JRKL WIt. LIAM8. 801~NS841 & GAAA
LIGHTON PLAZA
7300 CCXLEGE BOULEVARD
SUITE2'20
OVEFILANO PARK. KANSAS 18210
ill3) 3394200
May 16, 1995
Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Re:
Approaches and Potential Findings for
Processing Applications Which Include
Alcoholic Beverage Control Licenses
Dear Chairman Ford and Members of the Commission:
In recent months, the Planning Commission has been faced
with several applications in which the sale or service of
alcoholic beverages has been a concern of the public and/or the
Planning Commission. I have provided you with legal advice which
indicates caution in denying alcohol uses based on the alcohol
issue because of the extensive preemption of the regulation of
alcohol sales and services by the State of California. However,
this letter will provide some insights to you and City staff on
areas the City can address when an alcohol use is proposed. The
following are some suggestions from recent statutory changes and
case law regarding findings which may support City decisions on
applications which also involve Alcoholic Beverage Control
("ABC") licenses.
BACKGROUND:
The California State Constitution, Article 20, Section 22,
preempts local regulation of alcoholic beverages. That Section
provides in relevant part:
"The State of California . . . shall have the
exclusive right and power to license and
regulate the manufacture, sale, purchase,
possession and transportation of alcoholic
beverages within the State ....
~,:2444.6
Honorable'Steve Ford, Chairman, and
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Temecula
May 16, 1995
Page 2
The Legislature may authorize, subject to
reasonable restrictions, the sale in retail.
stores of alcoholic beverages contained in
the original packages, where such alcoholic
beverages are not to be consumed on the
premises where Sold; and may provide for the
issuance of all types of licenses necessary
to carry on the activities referred to in the
first paragraph of this section, including,
but not limited to, licenses necessary for
the manufacture,' production, processing,
importation, exportation, transportation,
wholesaling, distribution, and sale of any
and all kinds of alcoholic beverages .... "
(Cal. Const. Art, XX, S'22 (emphasis added).)
While the State has preempted the field in terms of
regulating alcohol sales, the City is able to ban such sales in
zones where it is inappropriate to have'alcohol sales. Business
and Professions Code Section 237901 provides that:
"No retail license shall be issued for
any premises which are located in any
territory where the exercise of the rights
and privileges conferred by the license is
contrary to a valid zoning ordinance of any
county or city. Premises which had been used
in the exercise of those rights and
privileges at a time prior to the effective
date of the zoning ordinance may continue
operation under the following conditions:
(a) The premises retain the same type
of retail liquor license within a license
classification. ~
(b) The licensed premises are operated
continuously without substantial change in
1All subsequent references to the Business andProfessions Code
shall be referred to as "B&P Code Section .... "
]RANG~:2444.6
Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Temecula
May 16, 1995
Page 3
mode or character of operation.'"
Finally, B&P Code Section 23791 states that:
'Nothing in this division interferes
with the powers of cities conferred upon them
by Sections 65850 to 65861, inclusive~ of the
Government Code."
As a result of B&P Code Sections 23790 and 23791, the City is
entirely able to deny ABC license requests, for example, in a
residential zone.
In reviewing applications, please be aware of the special
requirements imposed by B&P Code Section 23790.5 relating to the
combined sale of alcohol and gasoline. These requirements are
set forth later in this letter.
POTENTIAL APPROACHES:
B&P Code Section 23958 was amended in September 1994 to.
reauire the denial of a license application on grounds that the
"issuance of that license would tend to create a law enforcement
problem, or if issuance would result in or add to an undue
concentration of licenses, except as provided in Section
23958.4.2'' The requirement that the applicant fail to show that
':2444.6
2B&P Code Section 23958.4, subdivision (b), allows the
Department to issue a license, notwithstanding the prohibition in
Section 23958, to the following:
"(1) With respect to a nonretail license, a retail on-
sale bona fide eating place license, a retail license
issued for a hotel, motel, or other lodging
establishment, a retail license issued in conjunction
with a beer manufacturer's license, or a winegrower,s
license, if the applicant shows that public convenience
or necessity would be served by the issuance.
(2) With respect to any other license, if the local
governing body of the area in which the applicant
Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Temecula
May 16, 1995
Page 4
public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance
was deleted from Section 23958.
The Legislature has also changed the definition of "undue
concentration." Newly-enacted B&P Code Section 23958.4 states:
"(a) For purposes of Section 23958, 'undue
concentration' means the applicant premises
for an original or premises-to-premises
transfer of any retail license are located in
an area where any of the following conditions
exist:
(1) The applicant premises are located in a
crime reporting district that has a 20
percent greater number of reported crimes, .
.: than the average number of reported
crimes as determined from all crime reporting
districts within the jurisdiction of the
local law enforcement agency.
(3) As to off-sale retail license
applications, the ratio of off-sale retail
licenses to population in the census tract or
census division in which the applicant
premises are located exceeds the ratio of
off-sale retail licenses to population in the
county in which the applicant premises are
located.,,3
premises are located determines that public convenience
or necessity would be served by the issuance." (Emphasis
added.)
~3ntilthis amendment, "undue concentration" was defined bythe
California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control ("Department")
in its regulations. Those regulations required that both the
number of reported crimes be 20 percent higher and the ratio of
OILi~,IG~2444.6 ~
Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Temecula
May 16, 1995
Page 5
In line with its expansion of the undue concentration
concept, the Legislature has added Section 23817.5 to the B&P
Code which further limits alcohol sales in ereas of over-
concentration. That Section now reads as follows:
"No application for an original retail off-
sale beer and wine license may be made-nor
any original retail off-sale beer and wine
license issued until January 1, 1998, for any
premises where any of the following
conditions exist at the time this section
takes effect:
(a) The applicant premises are located in an
incorporated city where the number of retail
off-sale beer and wine licenses issued
exceeds one license for each 2,500, or
fraction thereof, inhabitants of the
incorporated city.
(b) The applicant premises are located in a
county where the number of retail off-sale
beer and wine licenses issued exceeds one
license for each 2,500, or fraction thereof,
inhabitants of the county.
(c) The applicant premises are located in a
city and county where the total number of
retail off-sale beer and wine licenses and
off-sale general licenses issued exceeds one
license for each 1,250, or fraction thereof,
inhabitants of the city and county." (B&P
Code S 23817.5.)
In summary, there are five different "undue concentration"
tests which the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal can
off-sale retail licenses to population be higher before a finding
of "undue concentration" could be established. (4 CCRS 61.3(a).)
2444
Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Temecula
May 16, 1995
Page 6
use to deny an application4:
(1) the "20.percent greater number of reported crimes"'
test;
(2)
the erario of off-sale retail licenses to population"
test; ~
(3)
the "one license for each 2,500 inhabitants of a city"
test;
(4)
the "one .license for each 2,500 inhabitants of the
county" test; and
(5)
the "one license for each 1,250 inhabitants of the city
and county" test.
B&P Code Section 23958 also permits the denial of a license
if the issuance of the license would tend to create a law
enforcement problem. Such ground for denial is "quite separate
and distinct from that relating to 'undue concentration of
licenses.' [Citation.] That is to say, if a showing were made
that the individual licensee would create a law enforcement
problem, the plenitude or paucity of neighboring licenses would
be irrelevant." (Department of Alcoholic Bev. Control v.
Alcoholic Bev. etc. Appeals Bd. (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 814, 820,
184 Cal. Rptr. 367.) Recent rioting by college students in the
area of the proposed applicant premises supported the
Department's denial of a license based on the finding that the
issuance of the license would aggravate police problems due to
the relationship between crime and intoxication. (Kirby v.
Alcoholic Bey. etc. ADDealS Bd. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 433.)
Interesting comments were provided by an appellate court
when it noted that:
~he draft of the new Development Code requires that any
alcohol use also requires a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP"). As
such the reference to "application" here is to a CUP application
witha denial based upon the inability to qualifyunder statute or
regulation for an ABC license.
ORANGE:2444.6
Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Temecula
May 16, 1995
Page 7
w[W]hen in addition [to a concentration
of licenses in a given area] it is
established that the area in question is one
wherein there is an unusually high n~m~er of
crimes, and that the affected law enforcement
agencies object on this ground, it is not
necessary in every instance to introduce
specific evidence reestablishingthe very
fact that presumably led to the adoption of
[CCR] Section 61.3s in the first instance,'
i.e., that there is a symbiotic relationship
between crime and the increased consumption
of alcohol in a given locale that results
from an excessive number of competing sources
of distribution." (Department of Alcoholic
Bev. Control, 133 Cal.App.3d at 820, Emphasis
in Original.)
The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control also provides
another option when memorializing reasons for rejection of an
application. This option is proximity to residences. CCR
Section 61.4 provides that:
"No original issuance of a retail
license or premises-to-premises transfer of a
retail license shall be approved for premises
at which either of the following conditions
exist:
(a) The premises are located within 100
feet of a residence.
sCCR Section 61.3 is the regulation that defined undue
concentration before the enactment of B&P Code Section 23958.4.
While the definition has been changed to require a lesser showing
to meet the test, the substance of the "20 percent higher number of
reported crimes" requirement to which the court is referring has
not been changed.
~2444.6
Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Temecula
May 16, 1995
Page S
(b) The perking lot or perking area
which is maintained for the benefit of
patrons'of the premises, oroperated in
conjunction with the premises is located
within 100 feet of a residence. Where the
perking lot is maintained for the benefit of
patrons of multiple businesses in the-
vicinity of the premises, the perking area-
considered for'the purpose of this rule shall
be determined by the area necessary to comply
with the off-street parking requirements as
mandated by the local ordinance .... " (4
CCR S 61.4.)
A complete copy of Rule 61.4 is enclosed for your reference.
B&P Code Section 23789 provides grounds upon which a denial
of a license may be based when considered in light of the entire
record. This Section -- which allows denial of a license when in
close proximity to churches, hospitals, schools, and other
non-profit youth facilities -- is best viewed in the context of a
'*protection of the public welfare and morals" argument. In
relevant part, this B&P Code Section provides:
"(a) The department is specifically
authorized to refuse the issuance, other than
renewal or ownership transfer, of any retail
license for premises located within the
immediate vicinity of churches and hospitals.
(b) The department is specifically
authorized to refuse the issuance, other than
renewal or ownership transfer, of any retail
license for premises located within at least
600 feet of schools and public playgrounds or
nonprofit youth facilities, including, but
not limited to, facilities serving Girl
Scouts, Boy Scouts, or Campfire Girls . . .
The denial of an off-sale license located in close proximity
to a school was upheld in Donia v. Alcoholic Beveraae ADDealS
)RANGE:2444.6
Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Temecula
May 16, 1995
Page 9
Board (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 588, 213 Cal.Rptr. 447. In Donia,
the Court reviewed two cases previously decided to assist in
determining when issuing a license would be contrary to the
public welfare and morals. In that first case, Kirby v.
Alcoholic Beverage ADDealS Board (1968) 261 Cal. App.2d 119, 67
Cal. Rptr. 628, the Donia Court noted as sufficiently based the
decision that:
".. .[O]verruled the beerd's reversal
of the department's denial of an off-sale
license on the basis of the following
factors:
(1) the large enrollment of
students at a nearby school;
(2) the age of the students;
(3) that the surrounding area was
more residential than
commercial;
(4) the substantial number of
students walking past the
proposed premises;
(5) the extended use of the school
beyond normal school hours;
(6) the closeness of the proposed
premises to the school;
(7) the students' ability to view
the proposed premises readily
from the school;
(8) the ability to see inside the
proposed premises readily from
the outside;
(9) the sale of items attractive
to children near the entrance
to the proposed premises;
(10) the intent to have exterior
advertising of alcoholic
beverages;
(11) the number of students
patronizing the proposed
premises; and
(12) the presence of takeout food
S:2444.6
Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Temecula
May 16, 1995
Page 10
service close at hand.s
(Donia, at 595, citing Kirby.,
at 127-129.)
The Donna Court further noted that:
"In both cases, there was a history of
the littering of the school premises with
alcoholic beverage containers; both campuses
were closed, but that did not eliminate all
problems of control; and there were numerous
extant off-sale outlets relatively close to
the school (here, 20 within a general one-
half mile radius; in Kirby, 11 within a
general one mile radius). In our view, these
factors also favor denial of a license.
Further, there is evidence here of specific
alcohol-related problems on the school
grounds other than extensive littering.
Finally, there is considerable expert
evidence of the recognized effects of off-
sale outlets on public drinking, the
associated police problems and the
psychological effect of public drinking on
children." (Donia, at 596.)
In that second case, Reimel v. Alcoholic Beverage Appeals
Board (1967) 250 Cal. App.2d 673, 58 Cal. Rptr. 788, the Donia
Court noted that it had:
"[A]lso overruled the board's reversal
of a departmental denial, holding the
following to be substantial evidence in
support thereof:
(1)
(2)
(3)
the presence of takeout food
on the premises;
the presence of items very
attractive to children;
20 child patrons per day;
after-school recreation on the
school grounds;
9RANG~'2~4.6
Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Temecula
May 16, 1995
Page 11
(5) approximately 200.airline feet
distance from the proposed
premises to the school;
(6) students in grade K-6~ and
(7) the residential character of
the surrounding area.. ."
(Donia, at p. 597.)
Finally, the Court in Donia concluded that:
"It appears the board [in reversing the
department's denial of the license] gave
undue weight to the fact none of the school
children in the instant matter could pass as
old enough to purchase liquor. This assumes
the possible availability of liquor to
children is the only evil attending the
issuance of a license to an off-sale outlet.
Reason does not dictate that result; as
empirical evidence demonstrates, the
legitimization of public drinking in childish
eyes is itself an evil." (Id.)
An approach taken by the City and County of Los Angeles to
the "proliferation" issue is to diligently enforce the conditions
assigned to a Conditional Use Permit. "The [C]ity and [C]ounty
have determined that the liquor store environment, if left
uncontrolled, produces:
- littering
- loitering,
- drunken driving,
- interference with children on.the way to school,
- discouragement of legitimate businesses,
- encouragement of vice, and
- defacement of buildings.
Thus, the [C]ity and [C]ounty, by ordinance now regulate liquor
stores through monitoring such store's conformance to Conditional
Use Permits rather than older methods of fixed or exclusionary
zoning." (J. Longtin, Land Use S 3.35, p. 298 (1987).)
~2444.6
Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Temecula
May 16, 1995
Page 12
Used in combination with the other findings referenced above
and when appropriate to the circumstances and facts before you,
an off-sale license could be denied for a store in a center which
also has a take-out food restaurant. (See Donna, 167 Cal.App.3d
at 596; Reimel v. Alcoholic Bev. etc. Appeal Bd. (1967) 250
Cal.App.2d 673, 677-678.) The "finding" in this instance would
be that the combination of take-out foedandthe off-site sale ~f
alcoholic beverages would encourage and promote the public
consumption of alcohol, the consumption of alcohol in motor
vehicles, and the proliferation of open-container violations --
all violations of the law and against the "public welfare and
morals." Evidence of instances of such violations would greatly
aid in supporting this finding.
The use of CUP's to regulate off-site alcohol sales,
including applying the CUP requirement to existing businesses if
the business was destroyed and there was a substantial amount of
time before the business reopened, was recently upheld as valid
in Korean American Legal Advocacy Foundation v. City of Los
AnGeles (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 376. A CUP ordinance for off-site
alcohol sales was also upheld in Boccato v. City of Hermosa Beach
(1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1797, except in its application to existing
businesses. As a result of the above, I believe the requirements
in the City's draft Development Code which require a CUP for off-
site alcohol sales is a valid regulation.
The ABC Board staff stated that many cities routinely file
objections to licenses in their cities. This method would
provide an avenue for achieving the objective of reducing liquor
stores in certain locations, without the legal exposure of having
the City deny a permit. In fact, the Legislature has revised the
application procedure to make it more amenable to protests filed
by local agencies. Assembly Bill No. 2742 (Ch. 629 Stats. of
1993) amends various B&P Code Sections, including the following:
(1) Section 23987, which:
(a) requires the Department to
notify the city planning director,
in addition to the usual local
agencies, upon receipt of an
original application for any
ORANGE:2444.6
Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and
M-mhers of the Planning Commission
City of Temecula
May 16, 1995
Page 13
license; and
(b) allows the Department to extend
the 30-day waiting period for an
additional 20 days upon the written
request of any local law
enforcement agency.
(2) section 24013, which requires the
Department to notify the protesting public
agency or official of its determination to
recommend the issuance of a license and the
reasons therefor, and to provide a notice of
hearing to the protestant.
Such favorable changes to the protest procedure may appeal to the
Planning Commission as an alternative to flat-out denials.
Finally, another tact to take is to find neutral or non-
alcohol-related reasons to deny an application. Such reasons
could include health or safety issues, traffic flow or
congestion, parking, etc. As noted on page 6, one option is to
greatly increase off-street parking requirements.
The Combined Sale of Alcohol and Gasoline:
Finally, the special requirements of Section 23790.5 of the
B&P Code relating to the combined sale of alcohol and gasoline
should be noted. Essentially, this Section prohibits local
government from placing an all-out ban on the combined sale of
gasoline and alcohol. For purposes of B&P Code Section 23790.5,
"alcohol" is defined as the sale of beer and wine for off-
premises consumption.
This B&P Code Section prohibits local governments from
banning combined sales on or after January 1, 1988. For those
jurisdictions which adopted before August 1, 1985 prohibitions on
the sale of gasoline and other broad categories of items, which
might include alcohol, the Section allows for a continuation of
~:2444.6
Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Temecula
May 16, 1995
Page 14
this ban6. Finally, the B&P Code Section sets forth a mechanism
by which locaI governments can regulate these sales -- by using
the Conditional Use Permit process and makinglcertain findings.
The City to regulate such sales through the Conditional Use
Permit process must-enact or have an Ordinance that contains th~
following elements:
(1) A requirement for written findings.
(2)' A provision for an administrative appeal
if the governing body has delegated its
power to issue or deny a conditional use
permit.
(3) Procedures for notice of a hearing,
conduct of a hearing, and an opportunity
for all parties to present testimony.
(4) A requirement that the findings be based
on substantial evidence in view of the
whole record to justify the ultimate
decision.
As noted above, the City may not merely ban the combined sale of
alcohol and gasoline.
~qiththe consideration of the new Development Code, a separate
analysis on the impact of the Code's adoption on the authority to
recodify Riverside County's efforts in this respect will need tobe
made.
ORANGE:2444.6
· Honorable Steve Ford, Chairman, and
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Temecula
May 16, 1995
Page 15
I hope'this information is useful to you. Please feel free
to contact me should you have any further questions in this
regard.
Sincerely,
IAZ
ty Attorney
City of Temecula
GGD/apk
Enclosures
cc:
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
Peter M. Thorson, Esq., City Attorney
c :2444.6
' ' ~e 4 Department of Alcoholic Beverage Comrol § 6 L4
3. P, qealer dsubsection (5) filed 5-7-74; designated effective 6-10-74 (!~-
let 74, No. i 9).
§ rl, Ucense Umitntions.
C_,~-__ Referm~ Sectiota 23815, 23818 md 2395~, Businto mi Professiota
C_,~-_,_
1. Amendment d subsection (a) filed 12-6-68; d~ effective 1--8-69
2. Repealer dsulsection (b) filed 2..-&.-72; d=ignau~d effective 3-10=72 (Regis-
~er72, No. 7).
3-RepetlerofNOTEandnewNOTEfiled6--l-T7;effectivelhixli~hdaylhet~af-
4. Am,"nd,,~.~t f, Jed;; 78; effective thirtieth day Iheatl~z (Registff 78, No.
14).
§ O] ,1. Priority Drawlntis.
No~ Authority cited: Sectinto 23820 and25'/50, Business and Pmeessions C_,y~__
and Section 22 o~Azxide XX, Califm~ia~l~fetence:Section23815,
l. New secti0n fded2-4-69uan,~,.xapo.~effectiveuponfding(R~69,
ister 69, No. 16).
3. ~men,4n,,~t fLIed; ~ 78; effective d~rti~th day ~ (!~ 78, No.
14).
§ 6].2. Restrictions on Government-Owned Premises.
NoT~ Authority cited: ~_~-,_',om 23824 and 25750, B-,i,,,,~ md Professions
l-New sectjon t'ded4-=lS--62;designau;deffective3-21-62(Regiver62, No. 8).
For history of formet Section 61.2, see Register 61, No. 20.
2- Repealer~led6-4-84;effectivethixxiethday~z(i~.-gisterg4, No. 23).
§ 6].3. Undue Concentration.
(a) For the pun-pose of section 23958 of the Alcoholic Beventge Con-
trol Act, undue concentration includes, but is not llmltt. d to, c.o~tions
set forth below:
The applicant premises for an original or premisr~horemises trans-
fer of any retail license are located in a crime reporting district which has
a 20~ greater number of r~ported crin~s, as defined below, than the aver-
age number of reported crimes as determined from all crime reporting
cListricts within the jurisdiction of the local law enforeen~nt agency if the
following conditions exist:
( 1 ) As to on-sale retail license applications. the ratio of on-sale reJ4til
licenses to pop~!~tion in the census tract or census division in which the
applicant Froraises are located exceeds the ratio of on-sale x~zni] licenses
to population in the county in which the applicant Froraises are locatr. d.
(2) As to off-sale r~tail licenz applications, the ratio doff-ale retail
licenses to population in the census tract or census division in which the
applicant premises are loca~d exc_-eds the ratio of off-sale reoti] licenses
to popttlation in the county in which the applicant Fr~mises ar~ located.
Notwithstanding the above, the department may issue a license if the
applicant shows that public convenience or necessity would be served by
such issuance.
(b) Definition of Terms and Data SOurces. The following definitions
and dam sources shall govern the con.qruction and application of this
rule:
( 1 ) 'Reporting Dis~cts" mean geographical areas within the bound-
aries of a single governmental entity (city or the unincorporated area of
a county), which reporting districts are identified by the local law
forcement agency in the compilation and maintenance of statistical infor-
marion on reported crimes and arrests.
(2) "Reported Crimes" are the most recent yearly compilation by the
locaJ law enforcement agency of reported offenses of criminal homicide.
forcible rape. robbery., aggravated assault, burglary, larceny theft, motor
vehicle thdt, andsuch offense~sla!l be combined with allarmsts foroth-
er ~ feloni~ and mi,~-,w-,,,on, except traffic citations.
(3) ~ Within the Census Tr~X or Cmsus Division" means
tiz population u dee~mi~.d by tlz most mznt Unitr, d St-t~ cl~_-',,~ni,
orspecidcensna. Such population dotorminationshatl notopentte top
ventanaFpllcantf?ome~tabllahingthatanincm4seofmsidentpopulation
(4)'Pop,~,"ionintheCounty"shallbedetn,,,i-,xlbythaannualpopu_
lation _~_i,~w,_ for California counties published by the Population Re-
seaxch Unit, State Depmment of Finance.
(5) 'Retail Licenses" shah include the following:
(A) Off-sale Retail Ijcensev. Types 20 (off-sale beer and wine) and
21 (off-sale general).
(B) On-sa~R~tailLicenset Allretail on-sai¢licens~sexceptTypes
43(on-s~h~randwindortrain),44(on-salebe~randwineforfishin~
party boat), 45 (on-sale beer and wine for boat), 46 (on-sale bcer and
wine forairplane),53 (on-sak getsral fortrainandsleepingcar),54(on-
sabgenenlforboot),55(on-salegenenlforairplane),56(on-alegen-
eralforvesselofmorethanl,000tonsburdd:n),and62(on-salegeneal
bona fide public ~ating plaz intermittrot dockside license for vessels of
mog than 15,000 tons displacement).
(6) The ntmxber ofretail llcenses in th¢ county shall be detn-mined by
ltgtnostrecenty~arlyretaillicensecoontpublish¢clbythedetmtment
This role does not apply where the !n~mises have be~n licensed and
tion 22 of Article XX, California C,-,-~n-itm Rdetence: Sec6ea 23958, Busi-
1. New __-e~__'~n filed g-1-77; effective thirtieth day Iheru/t~r (Registat 77, No.
32)-Fxthistoryofform~section, se~Register61, No. 20.
4. Amendment t 6--29-79;, effective thiztieth day thereafuz (Regis~r 79, No.
26).
5. C~ange without mgulatoty effect amending section punuant to section 100,
t/de l, California Code of !~ filed 2-28-91 (Register 91, No. 13}.
§ 61.4. Proximity to Residences,
Nooriginalissuanceofaretaillicenseor~misestnns_
for of a retail license shah be approved for l-zmises at which ei thor of the
following conditions exist
(a) The Froraises a~ located within 100 feet of a residence.
(b) T!g parking lot or parking area which is maintained for the benefit
of patrons of the l~:mises, or opented in conjunction with the p~tn~es,
is locat~ within 100 feet of a residence. Whe~ the parking lot is main-
rained for the benefit of patrons of multiple businesses in the vicinity of
the Fremises, the parking area conside~cl for the purpose of this rule shall
be determined by ~e area necessary to ontnply with the off-street parking
requirements as mandated by the local ordinance, or if thv~ ar~ no local
requi~ments for off-street parkinE, ~ the area which would r~ason-
ably be necessary to nccommodat~ the anticipated paztcing needs of the
l~remises, taking into considenttion the type business and operation con-
ternplated.
Distances provided for in this rule shah be measured by airline from
the closest edge of any residential ~ to the clogst edge of ~
premises or the closrd edge of the parking lot orpm'icing area, as defined
heroin above, whicbevor distance is shorter.
This ntle does not apply where the Froraises have ~ licensed and
operated with the same type license within 90 days of ~¢ application.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this rule, the department may issue
where the applicant establishes that the operation of the business woul~
not interfere with the quiet enjoyment of the property by residents.
NoT~ Authority cited: Section 25750, Business and Professions Cod~ Section
23.. Article XX, California Constitution. Reference: Section Z3958, Business and
Professions Code.
Page
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL
P,:\STAFFR.FI~9E. ERWINE.CC 8/16/95 vgw 5
LOS MIGE~.E~ OFFICE
811 WEST IIXTH WT'REET
SUITE2600
LOS ANGB.E:S. CALIFORNIA 90017
(2131 23e4)4100
LAW OFFICES
BURKE, W~AM~ & ~OP~NS~n~
3200 PARK CENTER DRIVE
COSTA MESA, CALFORNIA ~2626
(714) 646-666~
FRESNO OFRCE
7108 NORTH FRESNO STREET
SUITE 401
~O, CAUr-ORNIA 13120-2138
(209) 261.~183
VENTLIRA COUNTY' OFRCE
2310 PONDI~.OSA DRIVE
NTE 1
WARILLO, C/~JFORNIA 13010
1106) fi7-3488
TELECOPER: 1714) 766-5648
BURKE, WIL.UAM$, SORENSEN & I
U{)HTOR PLAZA
7300 COLLEGE BOULEVARD
SUITE 220
OVEN.AND PARK, KANSAS 86210
(913) 336-6200
August 11, 1995
Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Re:
Additional Information Regarding Local Regulation of
Alcohol Beverage Licensing and Establishments Selling
or Serving Alcoholic Beverages
Dear Mayor Stone and Members of the City Council:
When the City Council considered whether or not to delegate
the authority for making the "public convenience or necessity"
determination for alcohol licensing under Business and
Professions Code Section 23958.4~, the City Council requested
additional information regarding the licensing process and the
new legislation in order to adequately make the delegation
determination. This letter is designed to provide that
information to you.
ISSUES
In making a request for additional information, the City
Council asked the following guestions:
Prior to the enactment of the new legislation on
alcoholic beverage licensing, what was the approval
process?
xUnless otherwise noted, all further "Section" references
will be to the California Business and Professions Code.
ORANGE:4525.2
Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Temecula
August 11, 1995
Page 2
Under the new legislation, what is the new authority of
City to regulate the licensing of establishments
selling or serving alcoholic beverages?
ae
Since some of the new authority granted to cities
is based upon the finding of "public convenience
or necessity," how does the City make that finding
or determination?
Does the new authority apply to transfer of a license
as opposed to the establishment or the.issuance of a
new license?
How does the new legislation, one which imposes a
moratorium and the other which makes an
overconcentration determination, interact with each
other and with other laws such as the concurrent sale
of gasoline with beer and wine?
Does this new authority for the cities mean that the
cities now have the responsibility for background
checks of license applicants or the authority to revoke
or punish "bad licensed facilities" such as a poorly
run bar?
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS
Prior to the new legislation, the City's role in
alcoholic beverage licensing was limited to determining
zoning compliance and filing protests to the issuance
of specific licenses.
Under the moratorium provisions, the City's role is to
determine if it applies. If so, the City could use the
moratorium as the basis to deny a Conditional Use
Permit. After January 1, 1996, the City Council could
override the moratorium by making a finding of "public
convenience or necessity" being served by the license.
Under the "undue concentration" provisions, the City's
role is to determine if it applies and if so to
determine if despite such "undue concentration," the
NOF~4525.2
Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Temecula
August 11, 1995
Page 3
"public convenience or necessity" would be served by
the issuance of the license.
The phrase "public convenience or necessity" is not
defined by statute, regulation, or court decisions.
Only a few factors set forth in this letter have been
analyzed by the courts to provide some insight and
guidance in this respect.
The moratorium provisions only apply to "original"
or new licenses.
The undue concentration provisions apply to both
new or "original" licenses and to premises to
premises transfers.
The City should review applications to determine first
if the moratorium applies to it and then if it does
not to see if the undue concentration provisions apply
to it. If either the moratorium or the undue
concentration provisions apply, the City could deny an
application for the concurrent sale of gasoline with
beer and wine.
The new legislation analyzed herein does not allow the
City to look at the applicant's background or fitness
to belicensed. These issues are within the purview of
the ABC. The City retains its existing authority to
prosecute problem alcoholic beverage outlets and their
owners or patrons.
ANALYSIS OF, ISSUES
Issue No. 12
Prior to the new legislation being adopted, the City's
authority to regulate the issuance of licenses to operate
establishments which sell or serve alcoholic beverages was
extremely limited. This is reflected first in the zoning
compliance stage and secondly in the protest stage. Under the
old law, which still applies in many instances, the Department of
ORANGE:4525.2
Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Temecula
August 11, 1995
Page 4
Alcoholic Beverage Control or "ABC" requires as part of the
license issuance or transfer, a form2 to be executed by the City
for each license indicating compliance with local zoning.
Section 23790 prohibits the ABC from issuing a retail license for
the sale or service of alcoholic beverages:
". . . for any premises which are located in
any territory where the exercise of their
rights and privileges conferred by the
license is contrary to the valid zoning
ordinance of any county or city .... "
Section 23791 also indicates that the authority of the State to
license alcoholic beverage sales and service outlets does not
interfere with the power of cities to plan and zone under the
appropriate provisions of the Government Code. Consequently, the
City would retain full power to prohibit the sale or service of
alcoholic beverages in, for example, a residential zone. The
"zoning affidavit" completed by the City for each applicant for
any ABC license would indicate if the sale or service of
alcoholic beverages was permitted at the particular site in which
it was proposed to operate, or in the instance where it may be
conditionally permitted if a Conditional Use Permit is obtained.
The only other area previously where cities.were involved in
the licensing or regulation of outlets selling or serving
alcoholic beverages was during the "protest" stage. In this
instance, if the City, City Council, Police Chief, or other
departments determine that the site was a potential problem
relative to the service of alcoholic beverages, the City could
protest the issuance of the license, state the grounds for the
protest, provide supporting evidence to that effect, and a
hearing would be held by the ABC to determine if, despite these
protests, the "public convenience or necessity" would be served
by the issuance of the license. Once a protest determination is
made, if it was favorable to the applicant, the City's only
remaining remedy at that point was to institute litigation.
~his form is called a "Zoning Affidavit."
'GE:4,52~ .2
Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Temecula
August 11, 1995
Page 5
Under both the older statutes and the new ones, the City
retains the authority to regulate the land use or problematic.'
issues pertaining to establishments selling or serving alcoholic
beverages. By this, I mean specifically that if the operation of
the enterprise was such that it constituted a disturbance to the
neighbors or public nuisance, the City is able to use its public-
nuisance ordinance or to criminally cite violators for such
things as service to minors, public drinking, noise disturbances,
or other violations of the State Penal Code or the City's
Municipal Code. This has not been changed in any way by the new
legislation.
Issue No. 2z
In 1994, the State Legislature enacted two different bills
which granted cities in certain circumstances additional
authority relative to outlets selling or serving alcoholic
beverages. These two bills enacted Section 23817.5, the
"moratorium" provision and Section 23985.4, the "undue
concentration" provision. Each provision will be discussed
separately below. In addition, this year, the State Legislature
enacted Section 23817.7 to allow additional flexibility to the
moratorium provision. However, this provision was not enacted as
an urgency measure, so it will not become effective until January.
1, 1996.
The Moratorium Provision
Section 23817.5 imposes a moratorium on the issuance of
original3 retail off-sale beer and wine licenses until January 1,
1998 if any of the following circumstances apply:
"(a) The applicant premises are located
in an incorporated city where the
number of retail off-sale beer and
wine licenses issued exceeds one
3The term "original" license means a new license and
excludes a premises to premises transfer of a license.
Consequently, the moratorium does not apply to license transfers.
ORANG~4]25.2 '
Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Temecula
August 11, 1995
Page 6
license for each 2,500, or fraction
thereof, inhabitants of the
incorporated City.
The applicant premises are located
in a county where the number of
retail off-sale beer and wine
licenses issued exceeds one license
for each 2,500, or fraction
thereof, inhabitants of the county.
(c) ·
The applicant premises are located
in a city and county where the
total number of retail off-sale
beer and wine licenses and off-sale
general licenses issued exceeds one
license for each 1,250 or fraction
thereof, inhabitants of the city
and county."
Under Section 23871.5, the moratorium prohibits ABC from
accepting or issuing a new or original license for off-sale beer
and wine if the moratorium's thresholds are met. There is
limited City involvement in the moratorium process other than to
determine if the moratorium applies when acting on the land use
application for a project. For example, a project proposing to
sell beer and wine in conjunction with motor vehicle fuel would
require a Conditional Use Permit. If the applicant will need a
new ABC license and the moratorium applies, the moratorium could
be the basis for denying the CUP. However, if the applicant has
an ABC license transferred, the moratorium would not apply and
the City would act on the CUP application as it would any other
CUP application.
After January 1, 1996, the provisions of Section 23817.7
become effective and allow the City Council to make a
determination of "public convenience or necessity" which when
IGE:4525.2
Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Temecula
August 11, 1995
Page 7
combined with several other factor~ would a11owABC to issue a
license despite the moratorium imposed by Section 23871.5. The
basis of the "public convenience or necessity" findingis
discussed in Analysis 2a below. Until January 1, 1996, the City
Council cannot override the moratorium provisions.
The Undue Concentration Provision
The "undue concentration" provision is found in Section
23958.4. If undue concentration of establishments selling or
serving alcoholic beverages is found, Section 23958 requires the
ABC to deny a license. Undue concentration applies to all types
of alcohol licenses, i.e., both on-site and off-site and includes
all alcoholic beverages and not just beer and wine. Undue
concentration occurs under Section 23958.4, when:
"(1) The applicant premises are located
in a crime reporting district that
has a 20 percent greater number of
reported crimess . . . than the
~hese other factors include:
The applicant premises are located in an area that
falls below the concentration level provided in
Section 23958.4(a)(1); and,
(2)
The applicant premises are located in an area that
falls below the concentration level provided in
Section 23958.4(a)(3).
Both factors (1) and (2) must occur as well as the City's
finding public convenience or necessity in order for the
moratorium not to apply to a particular license application.
s"Reported Crimes" include: Criminal homicide, forcible
rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny theft and
motor vehicle theft combined with all arrests for other crimes
(felony and misdemeanor), except traffic citations. "Reporting
Districts" is locally defined as that used for keeping
ORANGe:4525.2
Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Temecula
August 11, 1995
Page 8
average number of reported crimes
as determined from all crime
reporting districts within the
jurisdiction of the local law
enforcement agency.
(2)
As to on-sale retail license
applications, the ratio of on-sale
retail licenses to population in
the census tract or census division
in which the applicant premises are
located exceeds the ratio of on-
sale retail licenses to population
in the county in which the
applicant premises are located.
(3)
As to off-sale retail license
applications, the ratio of off-sale
retail licenses to population in
the census tract or census division
in which the applicant premises are
located exceeds the ratio of off-
sale retail licenses to population
in the county in which the
applicant premises are located.
!1
In determining the ratio of licenses to population, Section
23958.4 uses the most recent decennial census or special census
to obtain the "census tract" population and the annual State
Department of Finance estimate to obtain the County population.
In using the decennial census, Section 23958.4 does allow an
applicant to establish" . . . than an increase of resident
population has occurred within the census tract or census
division . . ." to rebut an "undue concentration" determination.
statistical records.
~GE:4525.2
Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Temecula
August 11, 1995
Page 9
Section 23958.4(b)(2) allows the ABC to issue a license
despite the "undue concentration" determination when the City~
Council, or the body to whom the City Council delegates that
decision, finds that the "public convenience or necessity" would
be served by issuance of a license. How the finding of "public
convenience or necessity" is made is addressed in the next
Section.
Issue 2 {a) ,*
While Section 23958.4 generally allows the City Council to
override the presumption of undue concentration created by the
application of the various formulas, i.e. population to alcohol
licenses or crimes per license in specific areas, this ..
determination is based on a finding of "public convenience or
necessity" being served by the issuance of a license. However,
the phrase "public convenience or necessity" is not defined in
either the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act provisions of the
Business and Professions Code or in the ABC's implementing
Regulations. There is scant case law interpreting the provisions
pertaining to "public convenience or necessity" to provide real
guidance in this respect. Contact with the ABC has further
indicated that they have few, if any, guidelines themselves which
they utilize in making determinations of public convenience or
necessity at the State level. In this respect, guidance can be
found only from the limited case law available.
One point that is instructive from the two cases discussing
public convenience or necessity in an alcoholic beverage
licensing context is that the State Legislature's use of this
phrase, separate and apart from the criteria applicable to the
determination of undue concentration allows an assumption that
the Legislature intended ". . . to invoke criteria different [in
finding public convenience or necessity] from those utilized in
determining 'undue concentration.'6" Therefore, "public
convenience or necessity" means something other than the number
and location of the licensed alcohol premises which is already
~epatis v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board, (1980)
110 Cal.App.3d 93 at 101.
ORANGE:4525.2
Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Temecula
August 11, 1995
Page 10
covered by the factors used to determine undue concentration.
Public convenience or necessity therefore may be found in a
number of factors, although the list is not all inclusive based
on the failure by the Legislature, the ABC, or the courts to
delineate these factors more clearly. Such factors may include:
1. The character of the particular premises.
2. The aesthetics and ambiance of the proposed business.
3. The attractiveness of the proposed business.
The manner in which the business is to be conducted,
i.e., special or unique features, such as the type of~
games, food, or other service provided.
5. The type of guests who are likely to be patrons.
6. The predicted mode of operation.
The ability of the proposed business to serve a niche
in the population not filled by other licensees in the
same area, such as, catering to a particular clientele,
economic or social grouping, or similar category under-
served or under-represented in the vicinity's existing
licensees and their patrons.
Convenience of purchasing alcoholic beverages in
conjunction with specialty food sales, or services.7
7Although this may not always be successful as the court
noted in the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v.
Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board, (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d
814 at 819 that:
"Jailthough applicant-premises sell a unique
variety and assortment of Cuban grocery
items, it was not established that public
convenience and necessity require the
issuance of a license to the applicant-
I~3E:4525.2
Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Temecula
Auglast 11, 1995
Page 11
Because the State legislation and the implementing regulations
provide virtually no guidance upon which the City is to base its
determination of public convenience or necessity, I believe that
a reviewing court would likely hold the City to the same type of
standard to which the court holds the State ABC in making this
same public convenience or necessity determination.
In this respect, the legal standard of re~iew that a court
would apply this decision is likely to be "abuse of discretion."
The standard looks to determine if there is substantial evidence
in the record to support the findings and conclusions of the
hearing body.. It does not review the evidence or the facts to
determine if the "right" conclusion was reached, but looks to see
if there was sufficient evidence upon which the findings made by
the hearing body could be made. If, and only if, the decision is
not supported by evidence in the record, will the decision likely
be overturned. It does not matter that there is conflicting
evidence in the record or that a reasonable person could reach
the opposite conclusion of the hearing officer so long as there
is sufficient evidence in the record to support the decision
reached by the hearing officer.
Issue No. 3=
The moratorium found in Section 23817.5 applies only to
"original" or new licenses and only to "off-sale beer and wine
licenses." Section 23817.5 provides in relevant part that:
"No application for an original retail off-
sale beer and wine license may be made.nor
premises, in that customers at the applicant-
premises may easily avail themselves of
alcoholic beverages from licensees in close
proximity to the applicant-premises."
The court in this case based their determination on the fact that
there were eight licensed premises within a 1,000 feet of the
applicant-premises including as close as within 300 feet where
there were two other small grocery establishments.
ORANGF;45?5.2
Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Temecula
August 11, 1995
Page 12
any original retail off-sale beer and wine
license issued . . ."
As such, the moratorium only applies to "original" or new
licenses.
The "undue concentration" provision found.in Section 23958.4
applies to both "original" or new licenses and'to "premises-to-
premises transfer" of licenses. Section 23958.4 applies to both
instances by defining "undue concentration" as including both
situations.
Issue No. 4=
The moratorium and undue concentration provisions are
designed to interact with each other. In reviewing an
application, if it involves off-sale of beer and wine, then it
should be determined if the application is for a new license or a
transfer. If it is a new license, the moratorium applies. If it
is for a transfer, the moratorium does not apply and the factors
defining "undue concentration" of licenses should be reviewed.
If the license application is for something other than off-
sale beer and wine or if the applicant has a transferred license,
then the undue concentration factors need to be reviewed. If
undue concentration is not found, the application is processed by
the City as it would be without an alcohol issue. If undue
concentration is found, then the City Council or the body to whom
the City Council delegates the authority needs to make a
determination on "public convenience or necessity" as outlined in
Section 2a. of this letter.
One area likely to arise is how the moratorium or the undue
concentration provisions relate to the provisions of State law
authorizing the concurrent sale of gasoline with beer and wine.
Section 23790.5 regulates the concurrent sale of gasoline with
beer and wine and contains no specific exemption-or exception
from the moratorium provisions found in Section 23817.5. As a
result, it is my conclusion that the moratorium provisions
operate to preclude the issuance of an original retail off-sale
beer and wine license when the moratorium applies until January
NGE:4525.2
Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Temecula
August 11, 1995
Page 13
1, 1998.s Further support for this conclusion is found in the
language of the concurrent sale of gasoline with beer and wine
provisions in Section 23790.5 itself..In particular, subsection
(a) provides in relevant part that:
".. . It is the intent of the Legislature to
prevent the legislative prohibition of the
concurrent retailing of beer and wine for
off-premises consumption and motor vehicle
fuel where the retailing of each is otherwise
allowable . . ." [Emphasis added.]
When the moratorium applies under Section 23817.5, the retailing
of beer and wine is not "otherwise allowable" until January 1,
1998. Therefore, if the retailing of beer and wine for off-
premises consumption is not otherwise allowable, then Section
23790.5 would not operate to defeat the moratorium.
Even if the moratorium under Section 23817.5 does not apply,
an application could be from an area having an undue
concentration of liquor establishments under Section 23958.4. If
this is the case, the same conclusion reached above will also
generally apply. The only caveat here is that the City Council
could find the "public convenience or necessity" would be served
by the issuance of the license. Therefore, if the City Council
does not find "public convenience or necessity," then retailing
of beer and wine for off-premises consumption is not "otherwise
authorized."
Issue No. 52
The new legislation outlined in this analysis only applies
to the initial set-up of an establishment selling or serving
alcoholic beverages, and not to the ongoing operational aspects.
In addition, reviewing the background and ability of individual
license applicants is a responsibility of the ABC.
sSubject to the potential to override the moratorium after
January 1, 1996 provided by SB403.
ORANGE:4525.2
Honorable Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Temecula
August 11, 1995
Page 14
As noted earlier, the City can deal with problem license-
holders or their patrons through existing City ordinances such as
public nuisance or through the Penal Code. Additional background
information on the City's authority relative to establishments
selling or serving alcohol is contained in my May 16, 1995 letter
to the Planning Commission which is attached for.your reference.
I hope the foregoing information is helpful to you. Should
you have any guestions regarding this matter or wish to discuss
it further, please feel free to contact City Attorney Peter
Thorson or myself.
Sincerely,
CITY OF TEMECULA
Enclosure
cc:
Ronald Bradley, City Manager
June Greek, City Clerk
Gary Thornhill, Director of Community Development
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
Peter M. Thorson, Esq., City Attorney
NGE:4525.2
DEPARTMENTA'L
'REPORTS
APPROVAL:
CITY A'i'FORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Anthony Elmo, Chief Building Official/~
August 22, 1995
Building and Safety July, 1995, Activity Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
DISCUSSION:
The following is a summary of activity for July, 1995.
Building Permits Issued ..................................... 194
Building Valuation ................................... $17,303,575
Revenue Collected .................................... ~ 106,329
Housing Starts ............................................. 79
New Commercial Starts ......................... 3 = 641,927 Sq. Ft.
Commercial Additions/Alterations .................. 14 = 22, 128 Sq. Ft.
Building Inspections ...................................... 1,787
Valuation FY Year-to-Date .............................. 17,303,575
V:\V%/P~%July'96,FIpt
Agenda Repo~
August 22, 1995
Page 2
Code Enforcement Actions ................................... 389
Active Cases Pending ......................... ' .............. 62
Closed Cases ............................................ - 17
Weed Abatement Followups .................................. 167
V:\VVT~A41enda%July°gK.P, pt
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director
August 22, 1995
Monthly Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Discussion:
Caseload Activity:
Receive and File
The following is a summary of the Planning Department's
caseload and project activity for the month of July 1995:
The Department received 13 applications for administrative cases and 4 applications for public
hearing cases for the month of July:
Minor Conditional Use PM
Plot Plan with CEQA
Revised Permit with hearing
Variance with concur permit
4
R:\MONYHLY.RFr\1995~JULY 8/15/95 vgw 1
Ongoing Projects:
· Old Town StreetscaPe Improvement Project: Staff is re-writing the scope of work to
reduce the program to design only.
Desion Guidelines: Consultant teams were interviewed on August 3rd. Staff is
finalizing the work program with the number one firm. City Council consideration of
a contract is scheduled for September 12, 1995.
Development Code: The Planning Commission is 90% complete with the public
hearing process.
Murdv Ranch Specific Plan and Environmental Imoact Reoort: The 'applicant has
requested additional time in order to make minor changes to the Specific Plan and file
for a Development Agreement application. After the new information update, the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is submitted and reviewed by staff. This item will
be scheduled for Planning Commission and City Council hearings.
Johnson Ranch SPecific Plan: The Planning Commission denied this project because
of the excessive number of units and density. It will be scheduled for City Council in
the next few months.
RoriDaugh Ranch SpeCific Plan: The Planning Commission held a public workshop on
May 1, 1995 and directed the applicant to reduce the density and the total number of
units as well as to be more sensitive to the surrounding land use by increasing the
buffer area and provide a transition of lot sizes. A second Planning Commission
workshop is scheduled for September 11, 1995.
Attachment:
1. Revenue and Status Report- Page 3
R:\IvlOF4'THLY.RPT~I995~.IULY 8/15/95 v~w 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
REVENUE STATUS REPORT
R:~IONTI-ILY.RPT~1995~/ULY 8/15/95 vp,, 3
REVPRIN2
08/07/95
001
161
ACCOUNT #
4101
4102
4103
4104
4105
4106
4107
4108
4109
4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
4140
4141
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
16:27:31
GENERAL FUND
PLANNING
DESCRIPTION
AMENDED FINAL NAP
APPEALS
CERT. OF LAND DIV. COMPLIANCE
EXTENSION OF TIME
SINGLE FAMILY TRACTS
MULTI-FAMILY TRACTS
PARCEL NAPS
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
MINOR CHANGE
PARCEL MERGER (2-4 LOTS)
RECORDABLE SUBDIVISION NAPS
REVERSION TO ACREAGE (5+LOTS)
SPECIAL SERVICE LETTER
SECOND UNIT PERMITS
CHANGE OF ZONE
COND]TIONAL USE PERMIT
CONSISTENCY CHECKS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
PLOT PLAN
PUBLIC USE PERMIT
REVISED PERMIT
SETBACK ADJUSTMENT
SPECIFIC PLAN
SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE
TEMORARY OUTDOOR EVENT
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT
VARIANCE
ZONING INFORMATION LETTER
CEQA CINITIAL STUDIES)
CEQA ENVIROMENT IMPACT REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
GEOLOGY CEQA
GEOLOGY ORD. 547 APZ
LAFCO
PARCEL MAP/WAIVER
MERGER
AMENDED FINAL TRACT/PAR. MAP
CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION
CONDO TRACT MAP
REVERSION TO ACREAGE
LOT REVISION AFTER CHECK
LOT LINE ADJUST. PLAN CHECK
CERT. OF CORRECT. PLAN CHECK
CERT. OF COMPLIANCE PLAN CHECK
COND. CERT. OF COMPL. PLN. CK.
CERT. OF PAR. MERGER PLAN CK
CITY OF TEMECULA
REVENUE STATUS REPORT
JULY 1995
ADJUSTED
ESTIMATE
.00
325.00
800.00
6,000.00
6,850.00
5,332.00
8,996.00
1,380.00
940.00
1,000.00
.00
392.00
.00
520.00
13,256.00
29,248.00
4,440.00
4,827.00
57,190.00
10,765.00
6,446.00
1,250.00
9,254.00
1,715.00
2,548.00
.00
1,142.00
.00
.00
6,202.00
4,000.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
784.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
JULY
REVENUE
.00
.00
200.00
704.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
-.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
590.00
.00
.00
4,167.00
.00
590.00
.00
.00
1,584.00
113.00
.00
571.00
.00
1,205.85
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.O0
.00
.00
.00
1995-96
REVENUE
.00
.00
200.00
704.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
590.00
.00
.00
4,167.00
.00
590.00
.00
.00
1,584.00
113.00
.00
571.00
.00
1,205.85
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
PAGE
BALANCE
.00
325.00
600,00
5,296.00
6,850.00
5,332.00
8,996.00
1,380.00
940.00
1,000.00
,00
392.00
.00
520.00
13,256.00
28,658.00
4,440.00
4,827.00
53,023.00
10,765.00
5,856.00
1,250.00
9,254.00
131.00
2,435.00
.00
571.00
.00
1,205.85-
6,202.00
4,000.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
784.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
COL
0.0
25.0
11.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
7.3
0.0
9.2
50.0
***
0.0
0.0
0.0
REVPRIN2
08/07/95
.ol
ACCOUNT #
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4169
4170
4175
4180
4200
4206
4226
4260
4261
4262
4Zu~g
16:27:31
GENERAL FUND
PLANNING
DESCRIPTION
VACATIONS PLAN CK
DOCUMENT PROCESSING
CONDEMNATION PLAN CHECK
REVERSION TO ACRE. PLAN CHECK
PARCEL MAP PLAN CHECK
TRACT NAP PLAN CHECK
AMENDED MAP PLAN CHECK
4TH & SUBS. SUBMITTALS
FEMA STUDY REVIEW
LONA REVIEW
DRAINAGE STUDY REVIEW
IMPROVE INSPECTION ON-SITE
K-RAT STUDY FEES
FAST TRACK PLANNING
FORMA FAST TRACK
iN HOUSE PLAN CHECKS
ANNEXATION FEES
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT
ACCESSORY WIND ENERGY
LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE
HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY
LAND DIV UNIT MAP
LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK
CITY OF TEMECULA
REVENUE STATUS REPORT
JULY 19~5
ADJUSTED
ESTIMATE
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1,480.00
.00
.00
10,045,00
710,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
748.00
.00
JULY
REVENUE
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
~00
,00
,00
,00
,00
790,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
187,00
1,550.00
1995-96
REVENUE
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
790.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
187.00
1,550.00
BALANCE
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1,480,00
,00
,00
9,255.00
710,00
,00
,00
,00
.00
561,00
1,550.00-
PAGE 2
COL
0.0
7.9
0.0
25,0
.***
PLANNING 198,585.00 12,251.85 12,251.85 186,333.15 6.2
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
August 22, 1995
Public Works Monthly Activity Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Attached for City Council's review and filing is the Department of Public Works' Monthly
Activity Reports for July, 1995.
r:~agdrptNmo~ctrpt/a.~p
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent
August 2, 1995
Monthly Activity Report - July 1995
The following activities were performed by Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division
in-house personnel for the month of July 1995:
I. SIGNS
II.
III.
IV.
VI.
A. Total signs replaced
B. Total signs installed
C. Total signs repaired
TREES
A. Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street
sweeping concerns
POTHOLES
A. Total square feet of potholes repaired
CATCH BASINS
A. Total catch basins cleaned
RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT
A. Total square footage for right-of-way abatement
GRAFFITI REMOVAL
A. Total locations
B. Total S.F.
STENCILING
A. 569 new and repainted legends
B. 565 L.F. of red curb new and repainted
C. 295 S.F. of sandblasting/grinding
VII.
17
.17
3
25
96
4
76,635
10
3,706
r:\roeds~actrpt\95%07 skg
MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT- July 1995
Page No. 2
Also, City Maintenance staff responded to 7 service order requests ranging from weed abatement,
tree trimming, sign repair, A.C. failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings.
This is compared to 21 service order requests for the month of June, 1995.
The Maintenance Crew has also put in 17 hours of overtime which includes standby' time, P.M.
surveillance (weekends only), and response to street emergencies.
I.P.S. STRIPING AND STENCILING COMPANY has comoleted the followinQ:
· 0 L.F. of new and repainted striping
· 0 L.F. of sand blasting
The total cost for I.P.S. striping services was $0.00 compared to ~0.00 for June, 1995.
PESTMASTER SERVICES has comoleted the following:
· 0 S.F. of right-of-way weed control, total cost $0.00 compared to $0.00 for June, 1995.
The total cost for Street Maintenance performed by Contractors for the month of July, 1995 was
$0.00 compared to $28,882.00 for the month of June, 1995.
Account No. 5402
Account No. 5401
$0.00
$0.00
CC:
Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects
Martin C. Lauber, Traffic Engineer
r:~roads~e~trpt\95~07 ekg
_1
m
=)
Q.
0
Z
U.I
C)
o .r
uj I-
I- z
~ 0
0 .;
0
0
0
.,
O n
ee ee
~ a ~ a~
~ W w~w
u ~ ~ u
0 mO w Z 0 ~WZ~
E oE = w ~
a ~ ~ z ; ; a _w¢~
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
07-03-95
07-03-95
07-05-95
07-13-95
07-27-95
07-27-95
07-27-95
WORK COMPLETED - JULY, 1995
SERVICE ORDER REQUEST LOG
Astroid ~ Cosmic
Sixth Street
Southern Cross and
Mira Loma Drive
41065 Avenida Verde
30511 Spica Court
28991 & 28999 Front
Rio Nido Way
Pothole
Sweeper concern
Catch Basin clogged
A.C. Repairs
Street Sinking
Sidewalk cracking
A.C. Repairs
07-05-95
07-05-95
07-05-95
07-13-95
07-28-95
07-28-95
07-28-95
TOTAL S.O.R.'S
7
pwO3Xroads~,wbmpltd\95\O7.svsrq 080795
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
GRAFFITI REMOVAL - JULY, 1995
07-03-95 Via Campanario W/O Via Rami Removed
07-03-95 Margarita S/O Rancho Vista Removed
07-05-95 N. Gen. Kearney ~ Nicholas Removed
07-05-95 Rancho California Road between Removed
Humber and Moraga Road
07-05-95 Mercedes @ Fifth Street Removed
07-06-95 Pechanga @ Channel Removed
07-12-95 Pujol @ 6th Street Removed
07-17-95 Via Rojas @ Corte Almeria Removed
07-27-95 28860 Front Street Removed
07-28-95 Via Lobo Channel Removed
WORK COMPLETED
20 S.F. of Graffiti
20 S.F. of Graffiti
14 S.Fo of Graffiti
3,000 S.F. of Graffiti
2 S.F. of Graffiti
534 S.F. of Graffiti
2 S.F. of Graffiti
60 S.F. of Graffiti
18 S.F. of Graffiti
36 S.F. of Graffiti
Total
Location
Total
S.F.
10
3,706
-1- pw03~'oads\wkcmplld\95\05.GrafSti 060195
DATE
07-03-95
07-03-95
07-06-95
07-11-95
07-11-95
07-14-95
07-14-95
07-14-95
07-17-95
07-17-95
07-18-95
07-18-95
07-19-95
07-20-95
07-20-95
07-20-95
07-25-95
07-25-95
07-25-95
07-26-95
07-27-95
07-27°95
07-28-95
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
LOCATION
Front Street @ Texaco
Ynez Road N/O Santiago
Santa Cecilia E/O Carino Place
Via Lobo @ Nicholas
Nicholas W/O Via Lobo
Ashmill @ Enfield
La Serena Way E/O
Calle Pina Colada
Front Street @ Moreno
Corte Alamar
Front Street N/O First Street
Front Street @ Moreno Road
Del Rey Road W/O
Ave. del Reposo
Camino Verde @ Via Puerta
La Serena @
Meadows Parkway
Mira Loma Drive S/O
Rancho Vista Road
Southern Cross @ Spica
Front Street S/O
Rancho California Road
Rancho Vista @
Meadows Parkway
Pauba E/O Corte Villosa
Southern Cross @
Rancho Vista Road
Wolf Valley @ Pala Road
Mira Loma Drive ~
Rancho Vista Road
28999 Front Street
ROADS DIVISION
JULY, 1995
SIGNS
I
Replaced
Repaired
· Installed
Replaced
Replaced
Repaired
Replaced
,
WORK COMPLETED "' ':-,~. "'
R-26 'Knock down'
R-26
W-63 and W-65
R-1 & Type "N" "Graffiti"
Carsonite
S.N.S. "Overlays"
Carsonite "Missing"
Replaced R-18 "T.C."
Installed 11 R-34A
Installed W:54A
Installed W-54A
Replaced W-9 "T.C."
Replaced R-1 "Faded"
Installed 2 "12 Month School"
Replaced W-41 "Faded"
Replaced
Replaced
W-53 "Faded"
NeighborrhWatch Sign
Replaced R-1 "Graffiti"
Replaced Carsosnite "Missing"
Repaired R-1
Replaced R-1 "Graffiti" -
Replaced R-1 "Graffiti" ~
Replaced R-28 "T.C.
PW03'~ROADS/W~CId~LTD\95\07.SIGN',tNSTAL.L.~IAINT 080795
SIGNS JULY, 1995
~_07-31-95 Astroid e
Rancho California Road
Replaced R-1 "Faded"
TOTAL SIGNS 17
REPLACED
TOTAL SIGNS
INSTALLED
17
TOTAL SIGNS
REPAIRED
PW03~ROADS/WKCMPLTD~95\07.SIGN~NSTALL~MA1NT 080795
DATE
07-06-95
07-06-95
07-07-95
07-07-95
07-10-95
07-11-95
07-12-95
07-12-95
07-13-95
07-18-95
07-19-95
LOCATION
Santa Cecilia @ Carino Place
Area #2
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
JULY, 1995
STENCILING
I
WORK COMPLETED
Calle Rio Vista
Area #2
Area #2
Area
Area #3
Area #3
Area #3
Area #2
School Zones
Painted 1 Legend "School"
Repainted 8 Legends/
Grind 60 S.F.
Repainted 220 L.F. "Red Curb"
Repainted 2 Legends
Repainted 60 Legends
Repainted 80 Legends
Repainted 16 Legends
Repainted 105 Legends of
Bull Noses
Repainted 26 Legends
Repainted 62 Legends/
Grind 235 S.F.
Repainted 23 Legends/
240 L.F.
Yellow curb
07-20-95
07-21-95
07-24-95
07-25-95
07-26-95
07-31-95
Area #4
Area #3
Area #2
Area # 1
Area #1
Area #1
Repainted 26 Legends
Repainted 38 Legends
Repainted 38 Legends
Repainted 48 Legends
Repainted 83 Legends
Repainted 58 Legends
STENCILING- JULY,
1995
TOTAL
NEW AND
REPAINTED
LEGENDS
TOTAL L.F.
OF RED CURB
NEW AND
REPAINTED
TOTAL S.F.
OF
SANDBLASTING/
GRINDING
569
565
295
DATE
07-06-95
07-06-95
07-06-95
07-06-95
07-07-95
07-11-95
07-25-95
07-25-95
07-27-95
07-31-95
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
LOCATION
Santa Cecilia @ Agena
Glen Eagle Court
Paseo Goleta @ Corte Sonora
Ave. de la Reina @ Rancho Vista
Solana Way W/O Skywood
Nicolas W/O Via Lobo
Front Street S/O
Rancho California Road
Area #2
Mira Loma Drive @ Rancho Vista
Calle Medusa @ Riverton
ROADS DIVISION
TREE TRIMMING
JULY, 1995
I
Trimmed
Trimmed
Trimmed
Trimmed
Trimmed
Trimmed
Trimmed
Trimmed
Trimmed
Trimmed
WORK COMPLETED
I Tree
4 Trees
3 Trees
I Tree
4 Trees
2 Trees
2 · Trees
5 Trees
2 Trees
2 Trees
TOTAL
TREES
TRIMMED
25
-].- pw03~oads\wbmpltd\95\07.Treos 080395
I ~.~,
07-03-95
07-03-95
07-03-95
07-03-95
07-06-95
07-06-95
07-10-95
07-11-95
.~7-11-95
07-12-95
07-12-95
07-14-95
07-14-95
07-18-95
07-19-95
07-24-95
07-24-95
LOCATION
Sixth Street @ Front Street
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
JULY, 1995
R.O.W. WEED ABATEMENT
I
WORK COMPLETED
Abated 600
Abated 4,000
Abated 400
Abated 10
Abated 1,500
Abated 500
Abated 4,750
Abated 6,500
Abated 3,900
Abated 2,500
Abated 15,000
Abated 1,000
Abated 15,000
Abated 5,000
Abated 1,000
Abated 5,400
Abated 175
Sport's Park
Margarita S/O Pauba
Rancho Vista W/O
Ynez Road
Margarita S/O Winchester
La Serena W/O
Calle Medusa
Via Lobo Channel
Via Lobo Channel
Nicholas W/O Via Lobo
Nicholas N/O Roripaugh
Rancho California Road
W/O Business Park Drive
La Serena Way E/O
Calle Pina Colada
Rancho California E/O
City Limit
Rancho California E/O
City Lilmit
Margarita N/O
Rancho California Road
"C" Street @ Santiago
Nicholas Road W/O Joseph
Road
S.F. of R.O.W.
Weeds
S.F. of R.O.W.
Weeds
SoF. of' R.O.W.
Weeds
S.F. of R.O.W.
Weeds
S.F. of R.O.W.
Weeds
S.F. of RoO.W.
Weeds
S.F. of R.OoW.
Weeds "
S.F. of R.O.W.
Weeds
S.F. of R.O.W.
Weeds
S.F. of R.O.W.
Weeds
S.F. of R.O.W.
Weeds
S.F. of R.O.W.
Weeds
S.Fo of R.O.W.
Weeds
S.F. of R.O.W.
Weeds
S.F. of R.O.W.
Weeds
S.F. of R.O.W.
Weeds
S.F. of R.O.W.
Weeds
-].- pwO3~roads\wkcmpltd\95~O7.Wecds 080795
WEED ABATEM*ENT- JULY, 1995
07-26-95
07-27-95
07-27-95
07-27-95
07-31-95
Agena W/O Southern Cross
Wolf Valley @ Pala Road
Loma Portola ~
Camino del Sol
Mira Loma Drive @
Rancho Vista Road
Butterfield Stage @
Rancho California
Abated
Abated
Abated
Abated
Abated
3,600 S.F. of R.O.W.
Weeds
3,000 S.F. of R.O.W.
Weeds
1,500 S.F. of R.O.W.
Weeds
800 S.F. of R.O.W.
Weeds
500 S.F. of R.O.W.
Weeds;
TOTAL S.F. OF
R.O.W. WEED
ABATEMENT
76.635
-2- pwO3~x~ads\wkcmpltd\95\07.Wccds 080795
NOTE:
TRAFFIC DIVISION
Monthly Activity Report
For July, 1995
Submitted by: Joseph Kica~~'L-
Prepared by: Marty Lauber ,e/~
Date: August 10, 1995
TRAFFIC REQUESTS end PLAN CHECKS
TRAFFIC REQUESTS: May June
Received 13 12
Completed 5 6
Active 15 25
Scheduled for Traffic Commission 4 2
WORK 'ORDERS ISSUED:'.:!':'::.:.:.:.:· ':' ~.:":'::::'.'i~".'6 7
STmPING PLAN 'RsviswsD: '= ..........i i....=.I1
:.::..:r=::... ::.:..:.'.
TRAFFIC CONTROL:PLAN REVIEWED": :::. 4 5
· :'::.'E'14'...:..
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES REVIEWED I
I 4
Have reviewed traffic signal modification plans for Rancho California Road at Town
Center related to the adjacent church Improvements.
II. DIVISION PROJECTS:
Traffic signal plans have been submitted to Caltrans for the Intersections of State
Route 79(S) with Pala Road, La Paz Road, and Margarita Road. Once comments are
received, all consultants will complete plans and finalize the design portion for the
projects.
We have received seven technical
Inventory. We will be evaluating
recommendation to City Council.
proposals for our Citywide Traffic Device
and ranking all firms in preparation for
We received and supplied comments for the Draft NON-MOTORIZED
TRANSPORTATION PLAN for the Western Riverside County Region. This completed
Phase 1, needs assessment, with a proposed subregional transportation network,
policies, programs, funding guidelines and implementation measure to the included
in Phase 2.
LAND DEVELOPMENT
Monthly Activity Report
Special Projects
July, 1995
Submitted by: Joseph Kicak ~
Date: August 11, 1995
FEMA/OES REIMBURSEMENT:
Staff is continuing to coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the
State Office of Emergency Services (OES) representatives in seeking reimbursement for costs
incurred by the City due to the January 1993 floods and ensuing disaster declaration. OES has
reimbursed the City a total of $952,832 to date. The total cumulative reimbursable amount is
$1,080,996.
Staff has also been coordinating with FEMA and OES in seeking reimbursement for costs incurred
by the City due to the recent floods of January - March 1995. The total reimbursable amount being
supported by the FEMA/OES field team is $175,863.59 for the Phase I disaster. Staff has also
applied for over $122,275 in funding associated with the Phase II disaster.
PARKVIEW SITE (PROJECT NO. PW93-09):
The project went out to bid and Staff received nineteen (19) bids. Upon review of the submitted
bids, Staff will recommend City Council approval for award of construction contract at the Augu-~*
8th City Council meeting. Rough grading construction is anticipated to begin in August 1995 a
be completed in mid-October.
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 159 (AD 159):
The AD 159 improvements, as listed, are at the following stages of construction:
Temecula Creek is complete.
Approval of Highway 79 South plans from Caltrans is expected in mid-June. Phase I
construction (from Butterfield Stage Road to Avenida de Missions) is scheduled to begin on
December 1995.
The selection process for Pala Road's Request For Proposal for environmental consulting is
complete.
Butterfield Stage Road/Nighthawk Pass is nearly complete.
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1 61 (AD 1 61 ):
Winchester Road (Area II) - estimated completion date is January 1996
Murrieta Hot Springs Road (West) - estimated completion date is mid-August 1995.
r:lmoacupt/dev1951July
OLD TOWN ENTERTAINMENT PROJECT:
The following engineering design/study projects associated with the Old Town Redevelopment
Project are currently underway.
RFP#27 - Phase I Western Bypass Corridor. The final design of Phase I of the Western
Bypass Corridor is underway. This section is from the intersection of Interstate 15/Front
Street/Western Bypass Corridor to the intersection of Western Bypass Corridor/Vincent
Moraga Drive and the extension of Vincent Moraga Drive from its existing terminus to the
intersection of Western Bypass CorridorNincent Moraga Drive. The alternatives for the
extension of Western Bypass Corridor from the intersection of Western Bypass
Corridor/Vincent Moraga Drive to Rancho California Road are currently being analyzed.
RFP#28 - First Street Extension. Staff is in the process of complying with the comments
received from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District upon their
review of our submittal.
RFP#32 - Western Bypass Corridor Assessment District. The scope of the assessment
district is defined and a consultant is selected upon City Council's approval.
r:lmoaclrps/d~v/95/July
~ 0
, Z .-, w Z 0
Z n (J ¢,) ,J ~ I,U n- _1 --
w 0 ~- I-- =- w,', _1
LU 0 :c a 0 z 0 mj 0 E
~' LU e Z · Z F- (-) o
~: > Z w C) ~ m: :::) "'
c. IAI ,( Q. ,,~ ;C ,,( CJ a UJ '
~' ,,Z, Z
~ 0 w ~ oooo
w ; ~ ~ uuuu
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Monthly Activity Report
AUGUST, 1995
Submitted by: Joseph Kicak
Prepared by: Don Spag~;if~
Date: August 11, I
I. WORK UNDER CONSTRUCTION:
1. Pala Community Park:
Construction has been completed and the maintenance period will be completed on
August 24, 1995. Dedication ceremonies for opening the park to the Public are set
for August 24, 1995.
2. Mora~Ja Road Street WidenincJ:
The contractor is currently grading the downstream portion of the channel. Widening
of the west side of Moraga Road will begin next week. The construction is expected
to be completed by the end of September.
3. Sports Park ParkincJ and Skate Board Park:
The Contractor has completed construction of the reinforcing cap over the MWD
water line and has started the grading for the roller hockey rink, the skateboard park
and the parking lots. The contractor will start underground utilities by the end of
August and will start construction of the rest room buildings at the beginning of
September. The project is expected to be completed by February, 1996.
4. Solana Way/I-15 Sewer (CFD88-12/EMWD):
The sewer main has been installed. The contractor is back filling and is cleaning the
construction areas. The project is expected to be completed in two weeks.
5. Temecula Middle School LicjhtincJ Project:
The bids were opened on June 29, 1995 and the contract has been awarded to
Building Energy Consultants. Construction is expected to start by August 14, 1995.
Long lead items have been ordered and a pre-construction meeting has been held to
coordinate school operations and utility installations. The contractor will start
trenching and locating conduits on August 14. Construction is anticipated to be
complete by September 15, 1995.
6. Rancho Vista Road and Mira Loma Drive Sidewalk Improvements:
A pre-construction meeting is expected to be conducted once the contractor submits
his bonds and insurance. The contract time for this project is 30 working days.
pw04\moactrpt\cip~95\aug.mer 08/14~95
Monthly Activity Report
August 11, 1995
Page 2
7. Access Ramps:
A pre-construction meeting is expected to be conducted once the contractor submits
his bonds and insurance. The contract time for this project is 25 working days.
II. OUT TO BID
1. Sam Hicks Monument Park Improvement Project:
Construction bids were opened on July 20, 1995. Staff will recommend the award
of contract at the August 22, 1995 City Council meeting. The project is funded from
Community Development Block Grant funds, Redevelopment Agency and Development
Impact fees.
2. Walcott Corridor:
The bid opening for this project will be on August 17, 1995. The project will provide
for the realignment of an underground waterline and a paved road surface on Nicolas
Road, Calle Giraslo, Calle Chapos, Walcott Lane and La Serena Way. This project
should start by mid-September and be completed by June, 1996.
3. Solana Way Storm Drain Improvements:
The bid opening for this project will be on August 17, 1995. This project will
eliminate surface storm water by connecting the storm drain pipes on the south side
of Solana Way from Acacia Park Resort Apartments to Ynez Road. The project should
start by mid-September and be completed by the end of November.
II1. WORK IN DESIGN
1. I-15/Winchester Road Interchange Modifications:
The plans and specifications have been approved by Caltrans and the project is ready
for construction bids as soon as the additional right-of-way has been acquired. Two
(2) sections of property must be acquired for construction of the north bound exit
ramp and loop on-ramp. The Resolution of Necessity authorizing the commencement
of the eminent domain processes was approved at the June 27, 1995 City Council
Meeting. Once the process is complete, authorization will be given by Caltrans to bid
the project.
pwO4\moactrpt~cip~95\aug.mar O8114/95
Monthly Activity Report
August 11, 1995
Page 3
4. I-15/Rancho California Road Interchange Modifications:
The Project Report as well as the plans and specification were submitted to Caltrans
on June 16, 1995. Caltrans is in the process of reviewing these items and staff is
expecting comments to be returned to the City by the end of August, 1995. This
project provides for the widening of the Rancho California Road bridge over the I-15
freeway and construction of a north bound loop on-ramp.
5. I-15/Overland Drive Overcrossing Improvements:
The plans and specifications were submitted to Caltrans for final review at the end of
July 1995. Caltrans is requesting additional soils investigation for design of the piles
supporting the bridge. The consultant is in the process of determining the extent of
the additional work and the associated costs. Legal plats and descriptions will also
need to be prepared for those properties that need to be acquired for construction of
the project.
6. Emergency Generator:
The project includes installing an emergency generator at the Community Recreation
Center to provide power for emergency operations. The engineer has returned the
plans and specifications to the City for second plan check. Staff is expecting to
request authorization from the City Council to solicit public construction bids in
September.
7. Fire Station #84:
The final submittal for construction of the Fire Station is expected by the middle of
August and will be reviewed by all departments. We are planning to bid the project
by the end of August, 1995 with bids to be opened September 21, 1995. The project
will include grading, sewer, road improvements in Pauba Road between the new
church site and Margarita Road, construction of a new fire station and landscaping.
Construction should start by the first part of November and be completed by the end
of August.
8. Traffic Signal (~ Route 79S and Margarita/Redhawk
The first plan check from Caltrans was returned on August 8, 1995. This project will
be installing a complete 4-way traffic signal and removing the median island on the
south leg of the intersection to provide for a dual north bound left turn pocket. Staff
has submitted an agreement to the County of Riverside for the City to pay 75% and
the County to pay 25% of the design and construction costs since the southeast
corner of the intersection is in the County. Once the County executes their portion
of the agreement, staff will bring to the City Council a recommendation for the
approval of the agreement. The plan check is expected to be returned to Caltrans for
their review within two weeks.
pwO4%moactrpt\cip\95~aug.mar 08114/95
Monthly Activity Report
August 11, 1995
Page 4
9. Interim Traffic Sic]nal (6) Route 79S and La Paza
The first plan check has been submitted to Caltrans for there review. This project will
be installing a 4-way interim traffic signal at the intersection of Route 79S and La Paz
St. The ultimate improvements will be constructed when the highway is widened.
10. Interim Traffic Sic)nal (6) Route 79S .and Pala
The first plan check has been submitted to Caltrans for there review. This project' will
be installing a 3-way interim traffic signal at Route 79S and Pala Road. The ultimate
improvements will be constructed when the Pala Road Bridge is redesigned and the
highway is widened.
pwO4%rnoactrpt\cip\95%aug.mar 08114/95
TEMECULA COMMUNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT
ITEM 1
APPROV~T.
CITY ATTORNEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
AGENDA REPORT
General Manager/Board of Directors
Genie Roberts, Director of Finance
August 22, 1995
Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1995 and the Statement of Revenues,
Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
1995
PREPARED BY:
Tim McDermott, Assistant Finance Director
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors:
Receive and file the Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1995 and the Statement
of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Fiscal Year Ended
June 30, 1995.
Approve an appropriation of $11,237to Service Level A account #191-180-999-5319
"Street Lighting".
Approve an appropriation of $35,471 to Service Level B account #192-180-999-5319
"Street Lighting".
DISCUSSION:
The attached financial statements reflect the unaudited activity of the Community
Services District for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1995. These statements may not
reflect all year end closing entries. Please see the attached financial statements for
analytical review of financial activity.
e
An appropriation of $11,237 is needed in the Service Level A budget to cover street
lighting costs for 1994-95 in excess of the budgeted amount. The increase is due to
additional street lights added to the city-wide street lighting system.
An appropriation of $35,471 is needed in the Service Level B budget to cover street
lighting costs for 1994-95 in excess of the budgeted amount· The increase is due to
additional street lights added to the residential street lighting system·
FISCAL IMPACT: As is presented in the attached financial statements, the fund balances
in Service Levels A and B are sufficient to cover the appropriation requests.
ATTACHMENTS:
Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1995
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund
Balance for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995
t"'
t-'
u, ll--
~ 0
t--
rr
0
t"-
t-
0
o~
ITEM 2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE DIREC~
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
Community Services Board of Directors
Ronald E. Bradley, General Manager
August 22, 1995
Reject All Bids and Re-advertise for the Construction of Sam Hicks
Monument, Project No. PW94-15CSD
PREPARED BY: ~Shawn D. Nelson, Director of Community Services
~ Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects
Edward Stone, Assistant Engineer - Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors:
1. Reject all bids and authorize staff to re-advertise for construction of Sam Hicks
Monument Park improvements and:
2. Authorize the City Clerk to return bid bonds to all bidders.
BACKGROUND:
On April 5, 1994, the Board of Directors approved the preparation of construction documents
and release of a formal public bid for the project. The design of the project includes upgrading
the tot lot to ADA standards, construction of a gazebo/bandstand facility, installation of a
formal rose garden, courtyard, circulation paths, picnic facilities, improvements to the
monument, a restroom/snackbar, security lighting., a parking lot, landscaping and irrigation.
The estimated construction cost for this project was $445,000.00.
BID RESULTS
1. BK Construction .................... $496,972.00
2. Marina Landscape ................... $531,000.00
3. Micon Engineering ................... $538,595.00
-1- r:%agdrpt~95\O~22~W94-15 .csd
4. Young Contractors ................... $553,000.00
5. Sean Malek Eng. & Const ............... $560,000.00
6. Inland Asphalt & Coating ............... $606,514.00
7. W.B. Construction .................... $610,000.00
8. Lasater Construction .................. $618,308.00
9. Wakeham-Baker ..................... $633,633.00
Staff reviewed the bid proposal from the lowest bidder and found that he had written in "no
bid" on two of the four alternate bid items and had not enclosed the two addenda as required.
After reviewing the bids, it has been recommended by the City Attorney that all bids be-
rejected and that staff be authorized to re-advertise for bids for construction.
A copy of the bid summary is available for review in the City Engineer's office.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact at this time. The Sam Hicks Monument Park Improvement Project
is being funded through Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), the Redevelopment
Agency, and Development Impact Fees.
-2- r:.~agdtpt\95~Og22~x~4-15.csd
ITEM 3
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORN:.CREY~
FINANCE OFFIC
CITY MANAGE
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
Board of Directors
Ronald E. Bradley, City Manager
August 22, 1995
Amendments to TCSD Landscape Maintenance Contracts
PREPARED BY: ~ Bruce A. Hartley, Maintenance Superintendent ~
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors:
Approve contract amendment of $46,945with California Landscape, Inc. to provide landscape
maintenance services for three (3) new park facilities.
BACKGROUND: The Community Services Department will be adding three (3) new park
facilities to the landscape maintenance contract with California Landscape, Inc. These include
the Duck Pond, Pala Community Park, and Nicolas Road Park.
The cost associated with each site is as follows:
Duck Pond
Pala Community Park
Nicolas Road Park
$14,450 (10 months at $1445 per month)
$23,360 (10 months at $2336 per month)
$9,135 (9 months at $1015 per month)
These park sites have been inspected by the City's Maintenance Superintendent and have
been approved for dedication.
FISCAL IMPACT: The cost associated with the additions to the contract with California
Landscape, Inc., is $46,945. These costs have already been included in the Community
Services Department Budget for FY 1995-96.
AMENDMENT TO AGI~F:EM~-NT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CALDDRNIA LANDSCAPE. INC.
AUGUST 22. 1995
The Agreement dated May 11, 1993, between the City of Temecula, and California Landscape,
Inc., (hcrcinaf~ referred to as *Agrecmcnt*) is hereby amended as follows:
P~: Landscape Maintenance Services
Section 1
Term of the Agreement is extended through lune 30, 1996.
Section 2
The Scope of Work is hereby amended by adding the following:
Landscape Maintenance services per City Specifications for the following sites:
Duck Pond
Pala Community Park
Nicolas Road Park
These sites shall be added to the existing Agreement beginning September 1, 1995.
Section 3
Compensation for services shall be total compensation of all services described in the
Amendment and shall be payable monthly as follows, not to exceed $46,945 annually:
Duck Pond
Pala Community Park
Nicolas Road Park
$14,450 (10 months at $1445 per month)
$23,360 (10 months at $2336 per month)
$ 9,135 (9 months at $1015 per month)
Section 4
All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain the same.
The parlies hereto have executed this Agreement on the dam and year above written.
CONSULTANT CITY OF ~A
By:
California Landscape, Inc.
By:
Ronald Robens, President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter Thorson, City Attorney
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
ITEM 4
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNER~
FINANCE OFFIC
CITY MANAGE
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Board of Directors
FROM:
Ronald E. Bradley, General Manager
DATE:
August 22, 1995
SUBJECT:
Design Services Contract - Duck Pond Project
PREPARED BY: (~r,~j, Phyllis L. Ruse, Development Services Administrator
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors award a design services contract of
$23,150 to The Alhambra Group for the preparation of the schematic design drawings,
construction documents, and project administration for the Duck Pond Project.
BACKGROUND: On June 27, 1995,the Board of Directors approved an agreement
with KRDC, Inc. for the acquisition of the Duck Pond property located at the intersection of
Rancho California and Ynez Roads. Escrow closed on July 28, 1995, and the property is now
owned by the City of Temecula.
Staff has already begun some immediate rehabilitation work necessary to maintain the overall
health of the site. Some of the renovations include tree trimming, irrigation repairs, and
aeration retrofit. The rehabilitation cost estimate is approximately $50,000. It is also
anticipated that improvements to the park site will include landscaping, fencing, picnicking
facilities, and a parking lot to be located on the unimproved portion of the property. The.
current construction budget for the Phase I improvements is $125,000.
The City has also solicited a proposal from the Alhambra Group, a local landscape architectural
firm, for the design and construction documents for capital improvements to the site. The
Alhambra Group participated in an in-depth consultant qualification process for the City within
the past twelve months and was ranked as the highest firm during that process. Furthermore,
The Alhambra Group has successfully completed several similar projects for the City over the
past three years. Therefore, staff is recommending that The Alhambra Group be awarded the
design services contract for the Duck Pond Project.
FISCAL IMPACT: Cost of this Design Services Contract is $23,150. This project
is budgeted and approved in the City's Capital Improvement Program for FY 1995-96.
AGREEMENT
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of ,
19 , between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"City" and Alhambra Group Landscape Architecture, a Corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"Consultant,"
The parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto.
PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the best
of his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein.
PAYMENT. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, at the hourly rates set forth
in Exhibit "B" attached her.to, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks.
This amount will not exceed $23,150 (Twenty Three Thousand One Hundred Fifty
Dollars and No Cents) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment
is approved by the City Council.
Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices
shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for services
provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of
receipt of each invoice.
SUSPENSION, TERMINATION OR ABANDONMENT OF AGREEMENT. The City may,
at any time, suspend, terminate or abandon 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. Within thirty-five (35) days after .'
receiving an invoice from the Consultant, the City shall pay Consultant for work
done through the date that work is to be ceased pursuant to this section.
If the City suspends, terminates or abandons a portion of this Agreement such
suspension, termination or abandonment shall not make void or invalidate the
remainder of this Agreement.
e
BREACH OF CONTRACT. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under
the terms of this Agreement, the City shall have no obligation or duty to continue
compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Default
shall include not performing the tasks described herein to the reasonable satisfaction
of the City Manager of the City. Failure by the Consultant to make progress in the
performance of work hereunder, if such failure arises out of causes beyond his
control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, shall not be considered
a default.
If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant defaults 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 ten (10)
r.*VumePti)ondllh-~g'
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.
TERM. This Agreement shall commence on the first date stated above and shall
remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no
event later than December 31, 1996.
Any disputes regarding performance, default or other matters in dispute between
the City and the Consultant arising out of this Agreement or breech thereof, shall
be resolved by arbitration. The arbitrator's decision shall be final.
Consultant shall select an arbitrator from a list provided .by the City of three retired
judges of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. The arbitration
hearing shall be conducted according to California Code of Civil Procedure Section
1280, etseo. City and Consultant shall share the cost of the arbitration equally.
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. Upon satisfactory completion of, or in the event of
termination, suspension or abandonment of this Agreement, all original documents,
designs, drawings and notes 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.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The Consultant is and shall at all times remain as
to the City a wholly independent contractor. Neither the City nor any of its officers,
employees or agents shall have control over the conduct of the Consultant or any
of the Consultant's officers, employees or agents, except as herein set forth. The
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.
No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the
performance of this Agreement. Except 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.
LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of State and
Federal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in
any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The
Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations.
The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity
occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section.
10.
NOTICE. Whenever it shall be necessary for either party to serve notice on the
other respecting this Agreement, such notice shall be served by certified mail,
l114/Ii
11.
12.
postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the City Manager of the City
of Temecula, located at 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590,
and the Consultant at 27412 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, California, 92590,
unless and until different addresses may be furnished in writing by either party to
the other. Notice shall be deemed to have been served seventy-two (72) hours
after the same has been deposited in the United States Postal Services. This shall
be valid and sufficient service of notice for all purposes.
ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement,
nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without the prior written
consent of the City.
Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be the
value to the City of the services rendered.
LIABILITY INSURANCE. The Consultant shall maintain insurance acceptable to the
City in full force and effect throughout the term of this contract, 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, his agents,
representatives, employees or subcontractors. Insurance is to be placed with
insurer with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VII. The costs of such insurance shall
be included in the Contractor's bid. The Consultant shall provide the following
scope and limits of insurance:
A. Minimum Scooe of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
Insurance Services Office Form No. GL-0002 (Ed. 1/73) covering
Comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office Form No.
GL-0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability; or
Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage
("occurrence" Form No. CG-0001 ).
Insurance Services Office Form No. CA-0001 (Ed. 1/78) covering
Automobile Liability, Code I "any auto" and Endorsement CA-0025.
Workers' Compensation insurance as required by Labor Code of the
State of California and Employers' Liability insurance·
4. Errors and Omissions insurance.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits of insurance no
less than:
General Liability: $1,000,000combined single limit per occurrence for
bodily injury and property damage.
Automobile Liability: $1,000,000combined single limit per accident for
bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability: Workers'
r:%rueep~aonddh.e~. 8114/9S
Compensation as required by the Labor Code of the State of California
and Employers' Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident.
4. Errors and Omissions Insurance: $500,000 per occurrence.
Deductibles end Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductible in excess of $1,000
must be declared to and approved by the City.
Other Insurance Provisions. Insurance policies required by this contract shall
contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions:
All Policies. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be
endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided,
canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after
thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City via United States First-
Class Mail.
General Liability and Automobile Liability coveraaes. The City, its
officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as
insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on
behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the
Consultam; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultam, or
automobiles owned, lease, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The
coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection
afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
With regard to claims arising from the Consultant's performance of the
work described in this contract, the Consultant's insurance coverage
shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials,
employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-inSurance maintained
by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall apply in
excess of, and not contribute with, the Consultant's insurance.
Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies shall
not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers officials, employees
or volunteers.
The Consultant'$ 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.
Worker's Compensation and Employers' Liability Coveraae. The insurer
shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its
officers, officials, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work
performed by the Consultant for the City.
Verification of Coveraqe. Contractor shall furnish the City with
certificates of insurance effecting coverage required by this clause. The
certificates for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person
authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The
certificates are to be on forms provided by the City and are to be
r:Vummp~mddh.~er
received and approved by the City before work commences. The City
reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required
insurance policies, at any time.
13.
Consultam shall include all subconsultants as insureds under its policies
or shall furnish separate certificates for each subcontractor. All
coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements
stated herein.
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and
approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall
reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as
respects the City, its officers, officials and employees; or' the Consultant
shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related
investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
LICENSES. The Consultant and subconsultant shall obtain all necessary licenses,
including but not limited to City Business License.
14.
INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultam agrees to indemnify and save harmless the
City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all
claims, demands, losses, defense cost, 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 performance under the terms of this Agreement,
excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City.
15.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement and any documents or instrument attached
hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions mentioned herein or
incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect to the
subject matter hereof.
In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of this
Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this Agreement
shall prevail.
EFFECTIVE DATE AND EXECUTION: This Agreement shall be effective from and
after the date it is signed by the representatives of the City. This Agreement may be executed
in counterparts.
r:%tueep%pondelh.egr 8114/~6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first above written.
CONSULTANT
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
Vince DiDonato
President
By
Ron Roberrs, President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter Thorsen, City Attorney
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
8114/96
r:~,ulep~oondelh,ege
1.00
E X H I B I T "A"
ALHAMBRA GROUP
Lendm~epe Ar~hite=ture
THE DUCK POND SITE
SCOPE OF WORK
AUGUST 9, 1995
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
The Alhambra Group (Landscape Architects)
Ii~. #BOLT
shall provide
the following Landscape Architectural, Engineering,
and associated research and analysis required
for the development of the The Duck Pond site in Temecula,
California described herein:
2.00
2.01
2.02
SCOPE OF WORK
Development Plans for area shown on exhibit provided by the
City of Temecula.
Research & Measurement
a. Engineering studies (Drainage & Grading)
b. Site visits
c. Utility studies
d. Obtain all available documentation
e. Preliminary soils report'
Schematic Plans/Master plan
a. Site schematic design concepts
b. Prepare base sheets @ 1"=40'-0" scale.
c. Grading concepts
d. Prepare final schematic plan incorporating all studies.
e. Prepare color Master plan rendering of schematic plan.
f. Meetings with staff as required.
g. Presentation to Community Services Commission.
h. Presentation to City Council.
the park design to the completion o
j. Preliminary Budget Estimate
28441 Rancho California Road, Suite ~ Temecu~ CA 92590 (909) 676-0226 Fax (909) 694-1587
2.03
Construction Documents
a. Prepare base sheets @ scale required
b. Horizontal control plan with coordinates and
dimensioned locations of parking area.
c. Construction Details:
Walkwa s, drinking fountain parking improvements, park
sign, Kardscape surfaces & ~ences-
d. Grading Plans (parking and surrounding area) 1. Prepare final earthwork calculations
2. Prepare final hydrology studies
3. Provide grading specifications & notes.
4. Provide cost estimate and quantity takeoffs
5 Pre are re ulato permit a plications & documents.
(NpEES/SWP~P/BMP~ocuments ~ applicati n )
' os
e. Lighting & Electrical Plans (Partial Site)
1. Pre are plans & specifications for the parking areas &
wal~ays with associated cost estimates.
f. Irrigation Plans (parking & surrounding area)
g. Planting Plans (parking & surrounding area)
h. Planting & Irrigation Details
i. Planting & Irrigation Specifications
j. Budget estimates
k. Revise city boilerplate bid specifications,
1. Bidding Assistance
m. Coordination with City Staff as required.
2.04
Contract Administration
a. Bid review
b. Pre job meeting
c. Submittal review & verification
d. Site meetings/field observation
e. Provide drawing clarifications
f. Final field observation
FEE COMPENSATION
for
THE DUCK POND SITE
COMPENSATION FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL BE $23,150.00 (TWENTY THREE THOUSAND
ONE HUNDRED FIFTY DOt~,ARS) AS DIVIDED BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING PHASES:
Research, Analysis & Master Plan ........................ $ 4,520.00
Construction Plans & Specifications ................... $ 12,780.00
(Parking and surrounding area)
Contract Administration ................................ $ 1,200.00
SUBTOTAL ...... $ 18,500.00
Reproduction & Reimbursibles (Bid sets by City) .........
Preliminary Soils Repor~ ...............................
NPDES/SWPPP/BMP documents & applications ................
aTOTALNOT TO EXCEED.
$ 550.00
$3,200.00
$ 900.00
..... $ 23,150.00
E X H I B I T "B'
~Ra GROUP
CURRENT BILLIN~ SCHEDXYLE
January l, 1995
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
Principal
Project Manager
protect Designer
Sen~or Draftsperson
Draftsperson
$95
$50
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Administrative Assistant
Word Processing Operator
$45
$40
MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES AND EXPENSES
Mileage
Subsistence
Outside Services
Materials & Other Expenses
0.35/mile
Cost
Cost plus 10%
Cost plus 20%
CONSULTANTS FOR DUCK POND SITE
RBF ENGINEERS (MR. MIKE TYLMAN)
GRADING, HYDROLOGY AND KEGULATORY APPLICATIONS & DOCUMENTS
URBAN LOGIC CONSULTANTS (MR. DEEPAK MOORJANI)
PRELIMINARY SOILS REPORT
DEPARTMENTAL
'REPORT
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO;
Board of Directors
FROM:
Ronald E. Bradley, General Manager
DATE:
August 22, 1995
SUBJECT: Departmental Report
PREPARED BY: ~ Shawn D. Nelson, Director of Community Services
Final submittal of construction drawings for Phase I of Parkview Site Project are due
August 24, 1995. 'Staff anticipates letting the bid for the project shortly thereafter.
Anticipate construction to begin in October, 1995.
Phase II of the Parkview Site Project provides for slope stabilization and re-vegetation
improvements within the creek at the Rancho California Sports Park. The funding for this
project includes $100,000 from State Grants and $200,000 from Development Impact
Fees. An agenda item was approved by the Board on June 27, 1995 to modify the scope
of work for this project. The consultants are currently preparing recommendations for
channel rehabilitation and will begin the preparation of construction drawings.
The Margarita Park Site Project Committee has approved the final design for the park. The
Master Plan will be presented to the Community Services Commission at the October
meeting, and to the City Council at their last meeting in October. Upon final approval by
both, the consultant will begin the construction drawings.
Temecula Middle School Lighting Project ground breaking was set for Monday, August 14,
1995. Anticipate fields will be ready for use by mid-October, 1995.
Pala Community Park construction is completed and is currently in the final days of the
ninety (90) day maintenance period. Staff is planning a park dedication ceremony on
Thursday, August 24, 1995, at 9:00 A.M. The park improvements include a
restroom/snack bar, parking, tennis courts, basketball courts, soccer field, landscaping,
and irrigation.
The Rancho California Sports Park Improvement Project is currently under construction and
on schedule. Development of the 10 acre site will complete the improvements to the
northeast corner of the park at Rancho Vista and Margarita Roads. The improvements will
include parking, picnic facilities, a roller hockey rink, a skateboard facility,
restroom/concession building, landscaping and irrigation system.
Sam Hicks Monument Park Project bid opening was held on Thursday, July 20, 1995.
Staff reviewed the bid proposal from the lowest bidder and found that he had written in
"no bid" on two of the four alternate bid items, and had not enclosed the two addenda as
required. After reviewing the bids, it has been recommended by the City Attorney that all
bids be rejected and that staff be authorized to re-advertise a bid for construction.
Escrow has opened for the new City Hall. The consultant, Tsutsumida and Associates, for
the City Hall Project is working with the City Council and staff to determine the design of
the ultimate tenant improvements for the new facility. Inspections of the building took
place on Friday, August 11, 1995.
Proposals for the new City Maintenance Facility are due from the architects on August 16,
1995. Staff will review the proposals and anticipates awarding a design contract on
September 12, 1995.
The Duck Pond Property closed escrow on July 28, 1995. Staff has prepared a design
services contract for City Council approval. A local biologist is studying the site and will
access water and soil quality. These recommendations will be incorporated in the overall
design and operation of the duck pond property.
The Old Town Restroom and Parking Facility RFP's for design services have been received
by public works. That department is currently reviewing the proposals. Once a scope of
work has been negotiated, staff anticipates bringing a contract forward for City Council
approval.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ITEM 1
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA REPORT
Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Members
Genie Roberts, Director of Finance
August 22, 1995
Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1995 and the Statement of Revenues,'
Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
1995
PREPARED BY: Tim McDermott, Assistant Finance Director
RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency Members receive and file the Combining Balance
Sheet as of June 30, 1995 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in
Fund Balance for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995.
DISCUSSION: The attached financial statements reflect the unaudited activity of the
Redevelopment Agency for the fiscal year ended ;June 30, 1995. These statements may not
reflect all year end closing entries. Please see the attached financial statements for analytical
review of financial activity.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
ATTACHMENTS:
Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1995
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund
Balance for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995
>,,
Li.I
C:,,.-O,,)
×r'""'}
LLI I"-
r- ~,.
'E rr"
(,~ o
r"'
ITEM 2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFIC~R,~
CITY MANAGE
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
August 22, 1995
Authorization to Extend Agreement for RDA Consulting Services
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Redevelopment Agency approve an extension of the agreement for consulting
services with PMW Associates and authorize the Chairperson to execute an amendment
extending the agreement, subject to the approval of the Executive Director and the General
Council.
DISCUSSION:
The scope and complexity of redevelopment and housing activities within the City of Temecula
require the assistance of an experienced redevelopment practioner. Therefore, on April 5,
1994 the RDA entered into a contract for RDA consulting services with Marilyn Whisenand
of PMW Associates. Ms. Whisenand has extensive experience directing redevelopment
agencies including San Diego, Escondido, and Costa Mesa and now provides services to a
number of redevelopment agencies on a consulting basis.
The scope of work for the PMW contract includes:
Administer redevelopment and housing program activities within the City of Temecula;
provide advice, assistance and technical support as necessary to meet the goals and
objectives of the City and Redevelopment Agency.
Represent the City of Temecula and its Redevelopment Agency in negotiations with
prospective developers, including TZBG, Inc. who have proposed an entertainment
center for Temecula's Old Town.
Develop and manage the administration of affordable housing programs for the
expenditure of the RDA affordable housing "set-aside" funds.
Provide instruction and training to existing staff with respect to the administration of
redevelopment and housing programs.
AGENDA REPORT: RDA Consulting Services
PAGE 2
Administer land acquisition and relocation procedures for the City and RDA in keeping
with State and Federal regulations.
Compensation shall remain at the level originally approved of $95.00 per hour up to 30 hours
per week. Time over 30 hours shall be compensated at $120.000 per hour. Staff estimates
a $95,000 expenditure for this contract for Fiscal Year 1995-1996.
This consultant contract has proven extremely cost effective as compared to the cost of salary
and benefits for full time redevelopment and housing staff.
FISCAL IMPACT:
A total of $120,000was budgeted for consulting services in the FY 95-96 RDA budget. One-
half of this budget is allocated to low-moderate income housing activities and one-half to
general RDA operations.
Attachments:
PMW Associates Biography - Marilyn Whisenand
Consultant Services Agreement
P M W Assodates
232 West Avenida Gaviota, San Ciemente, California 92672 (714) 498-7085 FAX (714) 498-8262
BIOGRAPHY
MARILYN WHISENAND-
Ms. Whisenand, Executive Vice President and co-
owner of PMW Associates, iS an independent consult-
ant under contract to a number of public and private
sector clients involved in the planning and implemen-
tation of redevelopmeat, economic development and
housing activities.
A specialist in public/private partnerships,
Whisenand has had over 20 years of experience in.
negotiating and administering development agree-
ments for major retail, commercial and residential
projects, She has served as Executive Director of
Redevelopment Agencies in Costa Mesa and Escon-
dido, California and Assistant Vice President of the
Centre City Development Corporation, San Diego,
California.
Ms. Whisenand holds a degree in Business Adminis=
tration from the University of Redlands and a
Certificate in Real Estate. A licensed California
Real Estate Broker, she received a fellowship from
the National Endowment for Humanities for in=
residence postgraduate work in economics at Prince-
ton University in 1977. Ms. Whisenand is a full
member of the Urban Land Institute, the California
Association for Local Economic Development and the
Community Redevelopmeat Agencies' Association.
Awards received for projects completed under the
direction of Ms. Whisenand include, the. Department
of Housing and Urban Development 'Certificate of
National Recognition' for annoystire use of
public/private partnership for the Lincoln Park
Mesa multi-family residential project in Costs Mesa,
California; the American Planning Association
"Meritorious Program Award', the Urban Land Insti-
tute 'Award of Excellence', and the Pacific Coast
Builders' Conference 'Golden Nugget Award' for the
Costa Mess Courtyards, a mixed-use retail/commer-
cial development in downtown Costa Mesa; and the
Urban Land Institute "Award of Excellence' for the
Escortdido Civic and' Cultural Center, I 116 million
dollar Civic and Cultural complex in downtown
Escortdido, California.
P M W Associates
232 West Avenida Gaviota, San C!emente, California 92672 (714) 498-7085 FAX (714) 498-8262
CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made at Temec~la, California as of ~1ay 5, , 1994 by
and between THE CITY OF TEMECULA ("CITY"), AND PMW ASSOCIATES, INC.
("CONSULTANT*), who agree as follows:
Services: Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Consult-
ant shall provide City with the services described in Exhibit "A."
Payment: City shall pay Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this
Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth in Exhibit "B.* The payments
specified in Exhibit "B" shall be the only payments to be made to Consultant for
services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall submit all billings
for said services to City in the manner specified in Exhibit "B."
Staff Assistance and Information: City shall, at its sole cost and expense, furnish
all staff assistance and information which may be required for furnishing services'
pursuant to this Agreement as defined in Exhibit "Aft
e
General Provisions: The general provisions set forth in Exhibit "C* arc part of this
Agreement. In the event of any inconsistency between said general provisions and
any other terms or conditions of this Agreement, the other terms or conditions
shall control only insof at as they are inconsistent with the general provisions.
Exhibits: All exhibits referred to herein are attached hereto and are by this refer-
ence incorporated herein.
EXECUTED as of the day stated above.
CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
PMW ASSOCIATES
By:
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Marilyn Whiscnand, through PMW Associates, will act as interim staff to the City of
Temecula, responsible for the planning and implementation of all redcvelopmcnt and
housing programs. The specific scope of services is summarized as follows:
Review the status of rcdcvclopmcnt and housing program activities within
the City of Temecula; provide advice, assistance and technical support as
necessary to meet the goals and objectives of the City and Redevelopment
Agency.
With the assistance of existing staff, prepare the implementation plan and
housing compliance plan which are required to be adopted prior to Decem-
ber 31, 1994 in accordance with new legislation {ABI290).
Calculate the Redevelopment Agency's *excess surplus* housing funds
(required by ABI290) and develop an excess surplus expenditure plan. The
plan will meet all legal requirements and will provide a framework for
future policy decisions with respect to the use of housing funds.
Represent the City of Temecula and its Rcdevclopment Agency in negotia-
tions with prospective developers, including TZBG, Inc. who have proposed
an entertainment center for Tcmccula Old Town.
Provide instruction and training to existing staff with respect to the admin-
istration of redevelopment and housing programs including new require-
ments resulting from the passage of ABI290.
METHOD AND TIME OF PERFORMANCE
Consultant shall perform the various services described her,in only as and when requested
by the City and within a time schedule as mutually agreed upon by the parties to this
Agreement.
EXHIBIT 'B'
COMPENSATION
Hourly Rate:
PMW will provide the services of Marilyn Whisenand for 30 hours per week during the
contract period at the rate of $95.00 per hour. S~rvicas p~rformed above 30 hours each
week will be billed at $120 per hour.
Direct Expense:
Directly related expenses will be billed at their actual cost; mileage will be billed at $.26
per mile.
Word processing and/or administrative support, if any, provided by P1MW Associates will
be billed at the rate of $25.00 per hour.
METHOD OF PAYMENT
Consultant shall submit requisitions to City for the services completed.
City shall pay Consultant within thirty (30) days in accordance of such requisitions.
EXHIBIT'C'
Independent Contractor. At all times durinB the term of this Agreement,
Consultant shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of the
City. City shall have the right to control Consultant only insofar as the results of
Consultant's scrvices rendered pursuant to this Agreement; howcver, City shall not
have the right to control the means by which Consultant accomplishes services
rendered pursuant to this Agreement.
Time. Consultant shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant
to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary for satisfactory performance of
Consultant's obligations pursuant to this Agreement.
Consultant Not A~ent. Except as City may specify in writing, Consultant shall
have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity
whatsoever as an agent. Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied,
pursuant to this Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever.
Assignment Prohibited. No party to this Agreement may assign any right or
obligation pursuant to this Agreement. Any attempted or purported assignment of
any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement shall be void and of no effect.
Chan~es. The City may, from time to time, request changes in the Scope of
Services of the Agreement to be performed hereunder. Such changes, including
any increase or decrease in the amount of Consultant's compensation, which are
mutually agreed upon by and between the City and the Consultant, shall be
incorporated in written amendments to this Agreement.
Notice of Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by the either party
upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other. The effective date of cancella-
tion being the 30th day of said written notice with no further action by either
party.
Termination. Upon termination of this Agreement by City, and written notifica-
tion to the Consultant, Consultant shall be entitled to the compensation earned by
it prior to the date of termination, computed pro rata up to and including the date
of termination.
Disclosure. Consultant's Principal, Marilyn Whisenand, is a licensed California
Real Estate Broiler. However, in performing services under this contract,
consultant's assigned staff are not acting in the capacity of a real estate broker nor
will they act as broiler or receive commission as broker for any other party in
connection with this assignment.
Indemnification. City agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Consultant
from and against any and all claims, demands, damages of any l~ind or nature,
including attorney's fees, resulting from Consultant's work performed on behalf of
City under the terms of this agreement, excepting any claims due to the willful
negligence of Consultant.
I0.
Notice. All notices and other communications from either party to the other under
this agreement shall be in writing and addressed to such party at its address set
forth below. Either party may, by notice in writing to the other, change its ado
dress for receipt of notices and other communications. Any notice or other
communications scat by mail, tclcx, telegraph, mailgram or fax shall be deemed to
have bccn given on the day such notice or communication was seal
Consultant:.
IVfarilyn Whisthand
Executive Vice-President
Plq~dW Associates
232 West Avertida Gaviota
San Clemente, CA 92672
Foundation:
Ron Bradley
City Manager
City of Tcmecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Tcmecula, CA 92590
11.
Consultant's Assistant(s). Consultant may from time to time employ the services of
employees or agents to assist the Consultant in the performance of Consultant's
duties hereunder; provided, however, that the Consultant shall be solely responsible
for any such agents or employees, including their performance, direction, control,
supervision and compensation.
12.
Attorncv's Fees. If any action or suit in law or equity is instituted by or against
City or Consultant for breach, enforcement or interpretation of or otherwise in-
volving this agreement, the party prevailing in such action or suit shall be entitled
to the award of reasonable attorneys' fees in addition to whatever other relief such
party may be entitled to.
13.
Return of Materials at Termination. In the event of any termination of Consult-
ant's appointment, with or without cause, Consultant will promptly deliver to City
all materials, property, documents, data, and other information belonging to City.
Consultant shall not take any materials, property, documents or other information,
or any reproduction or excerpt thereof, belonging to City.
14.
Ownershiv of Work Product. Any and all of the work product performed and/or
developed by Contractor pursuant to this Agreement shall be the sole property of
City. City shall become and be the sole owner thereof and Consultant shall retain
no ownership, interest or rights therein.
15.
Scvcrabilitv. If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be void, contrary to existing laws or regulations or otherwise in-
valid, or unforesecable, the remaining provisions hereof shall not be affected
thereby and shall remain in full force and effect.
16.
Entire Aircement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the
parties hcrcto with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any prior or
contemporaneous oral or written agreements, understandings, promises and rcprc*
senrations made by either party to the other concerning the subject matter hereof.
This agreement cannot bc changed or terminated orally and may only bc changed
on behalf of either party in writing.
ITEM 3
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PREPARED BY:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTOR~ECREZ~
FINANCE OFFIC
CITY MANAG
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
Board of Directors
Ronald E. Bradley, City Manager
August 22, 1995
Amendments to TCSD Landscape Maintenance Contracts
Bruce A. Hartley, Maintenance Superintendent ~
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors:
Approve contract amendment of $46,945with California Landscape, Inc. to provide landscape
maintenance services for three (3) new park facilities.
BACKGROUND: The Community Services Department will be adding three (3) new park
facilities to the landscape maintenance contract with California Landscape, Inc. These include
the Duck Pond, Pala Community Park, and Nicolas Road Park.
The cost associated with each site is as follows:
Duck Pond
Pala Community Park
Nicolas Road Park
$14,450 (10 months at $1445 per month)
$23,360 (10 months at $2336 per month)
$9,135 (9 months at $1015 per month)
These park sites have been inspected by the City's Maintenance Superintendent and have
been approved for dedication.
FISCAL IMPACT: The cost associated with the additions to the contract with California
Landscape, Inc., is $46,945. These costs have already been included in the Community
Services Department Budget for FY 1995-96.
AMR'NDM'AN'T TO AGR~'?HMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CAL1FORMA LANDSCAPE. INC.
AUGUST 22. 1995
The Agreement dated May 11, 1993, between the City of Temecula, and California Landscape,
Inc., (hereinaft~ referred to as "Agreement") is hereby mended as follows:
RE: Landscape Maintenance Services
Section 1
Term of the Agreement is extended through June 30, 1996.
Section 2
The Scope of Work is hereby amended by adding the following:
Landscape Maintenance services per City Specifications for the following sites:
Duck Pond
Pala Community Park
Nicolas Road Park
These sites shall be added to the existing Agreement beginning September 1, 1995.
Section 3
Compensation for services shall be total compensation of all services described in the
Amendment and shall be payable monthly as follows, not to exceed $46,945 annually:
Duck Pond
Pala Community Park
Nicolas Road Park
$14,450 (10 months at $1445 per month)
$23,360 (10 months at $2336 per month)
$ 9,135 (9 months at $1015 per month)
Section 4
All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain the same.
The paxties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above written.
CONSULTANT CITY OF TEViECULA
By:
California Landscape, Inc.
By:
Ronald Robens, President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter Thorson, City Attorney
ATTST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
ITEM 4
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNERYE~~.
FINANCE OFFIC
CITY MANAGE
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Board of Directors
FROM:
Ronald E. Bradley, General Manager
DATE:
August 22, 1995
SUBJECT:
Design Services Contract - Duck Pond Project
PREPARED BY: (~r~(_/ Phyllis L. Ruse, Development Services Administrator
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors award a design services contract of
$23,150 to The Alhambra Group for the preparation of the schematic design drawings,
construction documents, and project administration for the Duck Pond Project.
BACKGROUND: On June 27, 1995, the Board of Directors approved an agreement
with KRDC, Inc. for the acquisition of the Duck Pond property located at the intersection of
Rancho California and Ynez Roads. Escrow closed on July 28, 1995, and the property is now
owned by the City of Temecula.
Staff has already begun some immediate rehabilitation work necessary to maintain the overall
health of the site. Some of the renovations include tree trimming, irrigation repairs, and
aeration retrofit. The rehabilitation cost estimate is approximately $50,000. It is also
anticipated that improvements to the park site will include landscaping, fencing, picnicking
facilities, and a parking lot to be located on the unimproved portion of the property. The
current construction budget for the Phase I improvements is $125,000.
The City has also solicited a proposal from the Alhambra Group, a local landscape architectural
firm, for the design and construction documents for capital improvements to the site. The
Alhambra Group participated in an in-depth consultant qualification process for the City within
the past twelve months and was ranked as the highest firm during that process. Furthermore,
The Alhambra Group has successfully completed several similar projects for the City over the
past three years. Therefore, staff is recommending that The Alhambra Group be awarded the
design services contract for the Duck Pond Project.
FISCAL IMPACT: Cost of this Design Services Contract is $23,150. This project
is budgeted and approved in the City's Capital Improvement Program for FY 1995-96.
AGREEMENT
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of ,
19 , between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"City" and Alhambra Group Landscape Architecture, a Corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"Consultant."
The parties her.to mutually agree as follows:
SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
her.to.
PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the best
of his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein.
PAYMENT. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, at the hourly rates set forth
in Exhibit "B" attached her.to, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks.
This amount will not exceed $23,150 (Twenty Three Thousand One Hundred Fifty
Dollars and No Cents) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment
is approved by the City Council.
Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices
shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for services
provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of
receipt of each invoice.
SUSPENSION. TERMINATION OR ABANDONMENT OF AGREEMENT. The City may,
at any time, suspend, terminate or abandon 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. Within thirty-five (35) days after .'
receiving an invoice from the Consultant, the City shall pay Consultant for work
done through the date that work is to be ceased pursuant to this section.
If the City suspends, terminates or abandons a portion of this Agreement such
suspension, termination or abandonment shall not make void or invalidate the
remainder of this Agreement.
BREACH OF CONTRACT. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under
the terms of this Agreement, the City shall have no obligation or duty to continue
compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Default
shall include not performing the tasks described herein to the reasonable satisfaction
of the City Manager of the City. Failure by the Consultant to make progress in the
performance of work hereunder, if such failure arises out of causes beyond his
control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, shall not be considered
a default.
If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant defaults 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 ten (10)
r:Vueela~mielh.egt 8114/~6
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 fight, 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.
TERM. This Agreement shall commence on the first date stated above and shall
remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no
event later than December 31, 1996.
Any disputes regarding performance, default or other matters in dispute between
the City and the Consultant arising out of this Agreement or breech thereof, shall
be resolved by arbitration. The arbitrator's decision shall be final.
Consultant shall select an arbitrator from a list provided .by the City of three retired
judges of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. The arbitration
hearing shall be conducted according to California Code of Civil Procedure Section
1280, et sea. City and Consultant shall share the cost of the arbitration equally.
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. Upon satisfactory completion of, or in the event of
termination, suspension or abandonment of this Agreement, all original documents,
designs, drawings and notes 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.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The Consultant is and shall at all times remain as
to the City a wholly independent contractor. Neither the City nor any of its officers,
employees or agents shall have control over the conduct of the Consultant or any
of the Consultant's officers, employees or agents, except as herein set forth. The
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.
No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the
performance of this Agreement. Except 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.
LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of State and
Federal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in
any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The
Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations.
The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity
occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section.
10.
NOTICE. Whenever it shall be necessary for either party to serve notice on the
other respecting this Agreement, such notice shall be served by certified mail,
r:Vue~ddh.~ 8114/1~i.
11.
12.
postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the City Manager of the City
of Temecula, located at 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590,
and the Consultant at 27412 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, California, 92590,
unless and until different addresses may be furnished in writing by either party to
the other. Notice shall be deemed to have been served seventy-two (72) hours
after the same has been deposited in the United States Postal Services. This shall
be valid and sufficient service of notice for all purposes.
ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement,
nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without the prior written
consent of the City.
Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be the
value to the City of the services rendered.
LIABILITY INSURANCE. The Consultant shall maintain insurance acceptable to the
City in full force and effect throughout the term of this contract, 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, his agents,
representatives, employees or subcontractors. Insurance is to be placed with
insurer with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VII. The costs of such insurance shall
be included in the Contractor's bid. The Consultant shall provide the following
scope and limits of insurance:
A. Minimum Scooe of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
Insurance Services Office Form No. GL-0002 (Ed. 1/73) covering
Comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office Form No.
GL-0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability; or
Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage
("occurrence" Form No. CG-0001 ).
Insurance Services Office Form No. CA-0001 (Ed. 1/78) covering
Automobile Liability, Code I "any auto" and Endorsement CA-0025.
Workers' Compensation insurance as required by Labor Code of the
State of California and Employers' Liability insurance.
4. Errors and Omissions insurance·
r:~'u~ep~oonddh.eer
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits of insurance no
less than:
1. General Liability: $1,000,000combined single limit per occurrence for
bodily injury and property damage·
2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000combined single limit per accident for
bodily injury and property damage·
3. Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability: Workers'
1114/i6
Compensation as required by the Labor Code of the State of California
and Employers' Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident.
4. Errors and Omissions Insurance: $500,000 per occurrence.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductible in excess of $1,000
must be declared to and approved by the City.
Other Insurance Provisions. Insurance policies required by this contract shall
contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions:
All Policies. 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 to the City via United States First
Class Mail.
General Liability and Automobile Liability coverages. 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, lease, 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.
With regard to claims arising from the Consultant's performance of the
work described in this contract, the Consultant's insurance coverage
shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials,
employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained
by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall apply in
excess of, and not contribute with, the Consultant's insurance.
Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies 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.
Worker's Comoensation and Emolovers' Liability Coveraee. The insurer
shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its
officers, officials, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work
performed by the Consultant for the City.
Verification of Coveraae. Contractor shall furnish the City with
certificates of insurance effecting coverage required by this clause. The
certificates for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person
authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The
certificates are to be on forms provided by the City and are to be
received and approved by the City before work commences. The City
reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required
insurance policies, at any time.
Consultant shall include all subconsultants as insureds under its policies
or shall furnish separate certificates for each subcontractor. All
coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements
stated herein.
13.
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and
approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer-shall
reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as
respects the City, its officers, officials and employees; or' the Consultant
shall procure a bond guaranteeing-payment of losses and related
investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
LICENSES. The Consultant and subconsultant shall obtain all necessary licenses,
including but not limited to City Business License.
14.
INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless the
City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all
claims, demands, losses, defense cost, 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 performance under the terms of this Agreement,
excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City.
15.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement and any documents or instrument attached
hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions mentioned herein or
incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect to the
subject matter hereof.
In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of this
Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this Agreement
shall prevail.
EFFECTIVE DATE AND EXECUTION: This Agreement shall be effective from and
after the date it is signed by the representatives of the City. This Agreement may be executed
in counterparts.
r:Vuee;l~oondeih.egf 1114/96
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first above written.
CONSULTANT
CITY OF TEMECULA
By: By
Vince DiDonato
President
Ron Roberrs, President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter Thorsen, City Attorney
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
r:Vueep~N~tdelh.mgr 8114/~1B
1.00
E X H I B I T "A"
ALHAMBRA
I, endm~Bpe Ar=hiteoture
lID. #BOLT
THE DUCK POND SITE SCOPE OF WORK
AUGUST 9, 1995
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
The Alhambra Group (Landscape Architects) shall provide
the following Landscape Architectural, Engineering,
and associated research and analysis required
for the development of the The Duck Pond site in Temecula,
California described herein=
2.00
2.01
2.02
SCOPE OF WORK
Development Plans for area shown on exhibit provided by the
City of Temecula.
Research & Measurement
a. Engineering studies (Drainage & Grading)
b. Site visits
c. Utility studies
d. Obtain all available documentation
e. Preliminary soils report'
Schematic Plans/Master plan
a. Site schematic design concepts
b. Prepare base sheets @ 1"=40'-0.. scale.
Grading concepts
Prepare final schematic plan incorporating all studies.
Prepare color Master plan rendering of schematic plan.
Meetings with staff as required.
Presentation to Community Services Commission.
Presentation to City Council.
Preparation of a timetable for the im lementation of
the park design to the completion of Ehe project,
Preliminary Budget Estimate
28441 Rancho California Roa( Suite ~ Temecul~ CA 92590 (909) 676-0226 Fax (909) 694-1587
2.03 Construction Documents
a. Prepare base sheets @ scale required
b. Horizontal control plan with coordinates and
dimensioned locations of parking area.
c. Construction Details:
Walkwa s, drinking fountain parking improvements, park
sign, Kardscape surfaces & ~ences.
d. Grading Plans (parking and surrounding area)
1. Prepare final earthwork calculations
2. Prepare final hydrology studies
3. Provide grading specifications & notes.
4. Provide cost estimate and quantity takeoffs
5. Pre are re lato permit a plications & documents.
e. Lighting & Electrical Plans (Partial Site)
2.04
1. Pre are plans & specifications for the parking areas &
walBays with associated cost estimates.
f. Irrigation Plans (parking & surrounding area)
g. Planting Plans (parking & surrounding area)
h. Planting & Irrigation Details
i. Planting & Irrigation Specifications
j. Budget estimates
k. Revise city boilerplate bid specifications.
1. Bidding Assistance
m. Coordination with City Staff as required.
Contract Administration
a. Bid review
b. Pre job meeting
c. Submittal review & verification
d. Site meetings/field observation
e. Provide drawing clarifications
f. Final field observation
FEE COMPENSATION
for
THE DUCK POND SITE
COMPENSATION FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL BE $23,150.00 (TWENTY THREE THOUSAND
ONE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS) AS DIVIDED BETWEEN THE FeTe.OWING PHASES:
Research, Analysis & Master Plan ........................ $ 4,520.00
Construction Plans & Specifications ................... $ 12,780.00
(Parking and surrounding area)
Contract Administration ................................ $ 1,200.00
SUBTOTAL ...... $ 18,500.00
Reproduction & Reimbursibles (Bid sets by City) .........
Preliminary Soils Report ...............................
NPDES/SWPPP/BMP documents & applications ................
$ 550.00
$3,200.00
$ 900.00
JTOTALNOT TO EXCEED ...... $ 23,150.00
EXHIBIT "B"
JxT.-xLMBIUL GROUP
CURRENT BILLING SCHEDULE
Januarlr l, 1995
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
Principal
Project Manager
ProTect Designer
Senior Draftsperson
Draftsperson
$95
$80
$60
$50
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Administrative Assistant
Word Processing Operator
$45
$40
MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES AND EXPENSES
Mileage
Subsistence
Outside Services
Materials & Other Expenses
0.35/mile
Cost
Cost plus 10%
Cost plus 20%
CONSULTANTS FOR DUCK POND SITE
RBF ENGINEERS (MR. MIKE TYLMAN)
GRADING, HYDROLOGY AND REGULATORY APPLICATIONS & DOCUMENTS
URBAN LOGIC CONSULTANTS (MR. DEEPAK MOORJANI)
PRELIMINARY SOILS REPORT
DEPARTMENTAL
'REPORT
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Board of Directors
FROM:
Ronald E. Bradley, General Manager
DATE:
August 22, 1995
SUBJECT: Departmental Report
PREPARED BY: ~ Shawn D. Nelson, Director of Community Services
Final submittal of construction drawings for Phase I of Parkview Site Project are due
August 24, 1995. 'Staff anticipates letting the bid for the project shortly thereafter.
Anticipate construction to begin in October, 1995.
Phase II of the Parkview Site Project provides for slope stabilization and re-vegetation
improvements within the creek at the Rancho California Sports Park. The funding for this
project includes $100,000 from State Grants and $200,000 from Development Impact
Fees. An agenda item was approved by the Board on June 27, 1995 to modify the scope
of work for this project. The consultants are currently preparing recommendations for
channel rehabilitation and will begin the preparation of construction drawings.
The Margarita Park Site Project Committee has approved the final design for the park. The
Master Plan will be presented to the Community Services Commission at the October
meeting, and to the City Council at their last meeting in October. Upon final approval by
both, the consultant will begin the construction drawings.
Temecula Middle School Lighting Project ground breaking was set for Monday, August 14,
1995. Anticipate fields will be ready for use by mid-October, 1995.
Pala Community Park construction is completed and is currently in the final days of the
ninety (90) day maintenance period. Staff is planning a park dedication ceremony on
Thursday, August 24, 1995, at 9:00 A.M. The park improvements include a
restroom/snack bar, parking, tennis courts, basketball courts, soccer field, landscaping,
and irrigation.
The Rancho California Sports Park Improvement Project is currently under construction and
on schedule. Development of the 10 acre site will complete the improvements to the
northeast corner of the park at Rancho Vista and Margarita Roads. The improvements will
include parking, picnic facilities, a roller hockey rink, a skateboard facility,
restroom/concession building, landscaping and irrigation system.
Sam Hicks Monument Park Project bid opening was held on Thursday, July 20, 1995.
Staff reviewed the bid proposal from the lowest bidder and found that he had written in
"no bid" on two of the four alternate bid items, and had not enclosed the two addenda as
required. After reviewing the bids, it has been recommended by the City Attorney that all
bids be rejected and that staff be authorized to re-advertise a bid for construction.
Escrow has opened for the new City Hall, The consultant, Tsutsumida and Associates, for
the City Hall Project is working with the City Council and staff to determine the design of
the ultimate tenant improvements for the new facility. Inspections of the building took
place on Friday, August 11, 1995.
Proposals for the new City Maintenance Facility are due from the architects on August 16,
1995. Staff will review the proposals and anticipates awarding a design contract on
September 12, 1995.
The Duck Pond Property closed escrow on July 28, 1995. Staff has prepared a design
services contract for City Council approval. A local biologist is studying the site and will
access water and soil quality. These recommendations will be incorporated in the overall
design and operation of the duck pond property,
The Old Town Restroom and Parking Facility RFP's for design services have been received
by public works. That department is currently reviewing the proposals. Once a scope of
work has been negotiated, staff anticipates bringing a contract forward for City Council
approval.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ITEM 1
APPROV~T.
CITY ATTORNEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA REPORT
Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Members
Genie Roberts, Director of Finance
August 22, 1995
Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1995 and the Statement of Revenues,'
Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
1995
PREPARED BY:
Tim McDermott, Assistant Finance Director
RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency Members receive and file the Combining Balance
Sheet as of June 30, 1995 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in
Fund Balance for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995.
DISCUSSION: The attached financial statements reflect the unaudited activity of the
Redevelopment Agency for the fiscal year ended ~June 30, 1995. These statements may not
reflect all year end closing entries. Please see the attached financial statements for analytical
review of financial activity.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
ATTACHMENTS:
Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1995
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund
Balance for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995
>.
ITEM 2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
August 22, 1995
Authorization to Extend Agreement for RDA Consulting Services
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Redevelopment Agency approve an extension of the agreement for consulting
services with PMW Associates and authorize the Chairperson to execute an amendment
extending the agreement, subject to the approval of the Executive Director and the General
Council.
DISCUSSION:
The scope and complexity of redevelopment and housing activities within the City of Temecula
require the assistance of an experienced redevelopment practioner. Therefore, on April 5,
1994 the RDA entered into a contract for RDA consulting services with Marilyn Whisenand
of PMW Associates. Ms. Whisenand has extensive experience directing redevelopment
agencies including San Diego, Escondido, and Costa Mesa and now provides services to a
number of redevelopment agencies on a consulting basis.
The scope of work for the PMW contract includes:
Administer redevelopment and housing program activities within the City of Temecula;
provide advice, assistance and technical support as necessary to meet the goals and
objectives of the City and Redevelopment Agency.
Represent the City of Temecula and its Redevelopment Agency in negotiations with
prospective developers, including TZBG, Inc. who have proposed an entertainment
center for Temecula's Old Town.
Develop and manage the administration of affordable housing programs for the
expenditure of the RDA affordable housing "set-aside" funds.
Provide instruction and training to existing staff with respect to the administration of
redevelopment and housing programs.
AGENDA REPORT: RDA Consulting Services
PAGE 2
Administer land acquisition and relocation procedures for the City and RDA in keeping
with State and Federal regulations.
Compensation shall remain at the level originally approved of $95.00 per hour up to 30 hours
per week. Time over 30 hours shall be compensated at ~120.000 per hour. Staff estimates
a $95,000 expenditure for this contract for Fiscal Year 1995-1996.
This consultant contract has proven extremely cost effective as compared to the cost of salary
and benefits for full time redevelopment and housing staff.
FISCAL IMPACT:
A total of $120,000was budgeted for consulting services in the FY 95-96 RDA budget. One-
half of this budget is allocated to low-moderate income housing activities and one-half to
general RDA operations.
Attachments:
PMW Associates Biography - Marilyn Whisenand
Consultant Services Agreement
P M W Associates
232 West Avenida Gaviota, San Clemente. California 92672 (714) 498-7085 FAX (714) 498-8262
BIOGRAPHY
MARILYN WHISENAND-
Ms. Whisenand, Executive Vice President and co-
owner of PMW Associates, iS an independent consult-
ant under contract to a number of public and private
sector clients involved in the planning and lmplemen-
tation of redevelopment, economic development and
housing activities.
A specialist in public/private partnerships,
Whisenand has had over 20 years of experience in
negotiating and administering development agree-
ments for major retail, commercial and residential
projects. She has served as Executive Director of
Redevelop,eat Agencies in Costa Mesa and Escon-
dido, California and Assistant Vice President of the
Centre City Development Corporation, San Diego,
California.
Ms. Whisenand holds a degree in Business Adminis-
tration from the University of Redlands and a
Certificate in Real Estate. A licensed California
Real Estate Broker, she received a fellowship from
the National Endowment for Humanities for in-
residence postgraduate work in economics at Prince-
ton University in 15}77. Ms. Whisenand is a full
member of the Urban Land Institute, the California
Association for Local Economic Development and the
Community Redevelopment Agencies' Association.
Awards received for projects completed under the
direction of Ms. Whisenand include, the Department
of Housing and Urban Development *Certificate of
National Recognition* for innovative use of
public/private partnership for the Lincoln Park
Mesa multi-family residential project in Costa Mesa,
California; the American Planning Association
"]~feritorious Program Award*, the Urban Land Insti-
tute *Award of Excellence", and the Pacific Coast
Builders' Conference *Golden Nugget Award* for the
Costa Mesa Courtyards, a mixed-use retail/commer-
cial development in downtown Costa Mesa; and the
Urban Land Institute "Award of Excellence" for the
Escondido Civic and' Cultural Center, a 116 million
dollar Civic and Cultural complex in downtown
Escondido, California.
P M W Associates
232 West Avenida Gaviota, San Clemente, California 92672 (714) 498-7085 FAX (714) 498-8262
CONRULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made at TcmccUla, California as of rmy 5, , 1994 by
and between THE CITY OF TEMECULA (*CITY*), AND PMW ASSOCIATES, INC.
(*CONSULTANT*), who agree as follows:
Services: Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Consult-
ant shall provide City with the services described in Exhibit *A.*
Payment: City shall pay Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this
Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth in Exhibit "B.* The payments
specified in Exhibit *B* shall be the only payments to be made to Consultant for
services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall submit all billings
for said services to City in the manner specified in Exhibit "B.*
Staff Assistance and Information: City shall, at its sole cost and expense, furnish
all staff assistance and information which may bc rccluircd for furnishing services'
pursuant to this Agreement as daftned in Exhibit *A.*
General Provisions: The general provisions set forth in Exhibit "C* arc part of this
Agreement. In the event of any inconsistency between said general provisions and
any other terms or conditions of this Agreement, the other terms or conditions
shall control only insofar as they arc inconsistent with the general provisions.
Exhibits: All exhibits referred to hcrein arc attached hcrcto and arc by this refer-
ence incorporated heroin.
EXECUTED as of the day stated above.
CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
PMW ASSOCIATES
By:
EXHIBIT 'A'
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Marilyn Whisenand, through PMW Associates, will act as interim staff to the City of
Temecula, responsible for the planning and implementation of all redevelopment and
housing programs. The specific scope of services is summarized as follows:
Review the status of redevelopment and housing program activities within
the City of Temecula; provide advice, assistance and technical support as
necessary to meet the goals and objectives of the City and Redevelopment
Agency.
With the assistance of existing staff, prepare the implementation plan and
housing compliance plan which are required to be adopted prior to Decem-
ber 31, 1994 in accordance with new legislation {ABI290).
Calculate the Redevelopment Agency's "excess surplus' housing funds
(required by AB1290) and develop an excess surplus expenditure plan. The
plan will meet all legal requirements and will provide a framework for
future policy decisions with respect to the use of housing funds.
Represent the City of Temecula and its Redevelopment Agency in negotia-
tions with prospective developers, including TZBG, Inc. who have proposed
an entertainment center for Temecula Old Town.
Provide instruction and training to existing staff with respect to the admin-
istration of redevelopment and housing programs including new require-
ments resulting from the passage of ABI290.
METHOD AND TIME OF PERFORMANCE
Consultant shall perform the various services described herein only as and when requested
by the City and within a time schedule as mutually agreed upon by the parties to this
Agreement.
EXHIBIT 'B'
COMPENSATION
Hourly Rate:
PMW will provide the services of Marilyn Whlsenand for 30 hours per week during the
contract period at the rate of $95.00 per hour. Services performed above 30 hours each
week will be billed at $120 per hour.
Direct Expense:
Directly related expenses will be billed at their actual cost; mileage will be billed at $.26
per mile.
Word processing and/or administrative support, if any, provided by PMW Associates will
be billed at the rate of $25.00 per hour.
METHOD OF PAYMENT
Consultant shall submit requisitions to City for the services completed.
City shall pay Consultant within thirty (30) days in accordance of such requisitions.
EXHIBIT
Indenendent Contractor. At all times during the term of this Agreement,
Consultant shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of the
City. City shall have the right to control Consultant only insof at as the results of
Consultant's services rendered pursuant to this Agreement; however, City shall not
have the right to control the means by which Consultant accomplishes services
rendered pursuant to this Agreement
Time. Consultant shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant
to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary for satisfactory performance of
Consultant's obligations pursuant to this Agreement.
Consultant Not Agent. Except as City may specify in writing, Consultant shall
have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity
whatsoever as an agent. Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied,
pursuant to this Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever.
Assi~znmcnt Prohibited. No party to this Agreement may assign any right or
obligation pursuant to this Agreement. Any attempted or purported assignment of
any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement shall be void and of no effect.
-.
Chanmes. The City may, from time to time, request changes in the Scope of
Services of the Agreement to be performed hereunder. Such changes, including
any increase or decrease in the amount of Consultant's compensation, which are
mutually agreed upon by and between the City and the Consultant, shall be
incorporated in written amendments to this Agreement.
Notice of Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by the either party
upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other. The effective date of cancella-
tion being the 30th day of said written notice with no further action by either
party.
Termination. Upon termination of this Agreement by City, and written notifica-
tion to the Consultant, Consultant shall be entitled to the compensation earned by
it prior to the date of termination, computed pro rata up to and including the date
of termination.
Disclosure. Consultant's Principal, Marilyn Whisenand, is a licensed California
Real Estate Broker. However, in performing services under this contract,
consultant's assigned staff are not acting in the capacity of a real estate broker nor
will they act as broker or receive commission as broker for any other party in
connection with this assignment.
Indemnification. City agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Consultant
from and against any and all claims, demands, damages of any kind or nature,
including attorney's fees, resulting from Consultant's work performed on behalf of
City under the terms of this agreement, excepting any claims due to the willful
negligence of Consultant.
10.
Notice. All notices and other communications from either party to the other under
this agreement shall bc in writing and addressed to such party at its address set
forth below. Either party may, by notice in writing to the other, change its ad*
dress for receipt of notices and other communications. Any notice or other
communications sent by mail, tclex, telegraph, mailgram or fax shall be deemed to
have been given on the day such notice or communication was sent.
Consultant:
Marilyn Whiscnand
Executive Vice-President
PMW Associates
232 West Avenida Gaviota
San Clementc, CA 92672
Foundation:
Ron Bradley
City Manager
City of Tcmccula
43174 Business Park Drive
Tcmccula, CA 92590
11.
Consultant's Assistantis). Consultant may from time to time employ the services of
employees or agents to assist the Consultant in the performance of Consultant's
duties hcrcundcr; provided, however, that the Consultant shall bc solely responsible
for any such agents or employees, including their performance, direction, control,
supervision and compensation.
12.
Attorncv's Fees. If any action or suit in law or equity is instituted by or against
City or Consultant for breach, enforcement or interpretation of or otherwise in-
volving this agreement, the party prevailing in such action or suit shall be entitled
to the award of reasonable attorneys' fees in addition to whatever other relief such
party may bc entitled to.
13.
Return of Materials at Termination. In the event of any termination of Consult-
ant's appointment, with or without cause, Consultant will promptly deliver to City
all materials, property, documents, data, and other information belonging to City.
Consultant shall not take any materials, property, documents or other information,
or any reproduction or excerpt thereof, belonging to City.
14.
Ownership of Work Product. Any and all of the work product performed and/or
developed by Contractor pursuant to this Agreement shall be the sole property of
City. City shall become and bc the sole owner thereof and Consultant shall retain
no ownership, interest or rights therein.
15.
Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be void, contrary to existing laws or regulations or otherwise in-
valid, or unforeseeable, the remaining provisions hereof shall not be affected
thereby and shall remain in full force and effect.
16.
Entire Aircement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the
parties hcreto with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any prior or
contemporaneous oral or written agreements, understandings, promises and rcprc*
scntations made by either party to the other concerning the subject matter hereof.
This agreement cannot bc changed or terminated orally and may only bc changed
on behalf of either party in writing.